Proposal: Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by steampunk, Jun 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Are trying to force me into a false dichotomy? Don't limit yourself. There are multitudes of ways to do things.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    It appears we have some evidence from Nuremberg trial. This establishes his identity.

    I don't know how we jump to book from there.

    It quite interesting what he said to prosecutor at the tail of the trial. He claimed he had no idea the horror was going on, but demanded to the prosecutor that he was responsible for everything because of his position. He took the blame like a good man. I actually believe he was telling the truth. I think the claims of the gassing horrors were false and that's he didn't know about the horrors. In his diaries, he hated to see the prisoners treated badly. Some people rise to ranks in positions in order to protect the weak, where that position could be taken by someone who would be worse toward the people. I think he was this kind of person.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,290
    Fair enough.

    Wait--what?! Why do you need a translation?

    And presumably you are conversant in the science of graphology?

    And presumably you are fluent in relevant methodologies? I'm requesting some credentials, by the way--and pdfs are not satisfactory: I will need original copies of ALL diplomas or notarized copies. (I'll forward you a mailing address.)

    Ditto.

    Ditto.

    Will such "evidence" be adequate? I'm sure his remains can be excavated at your behest.

    Umm... LOL?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152

    You've forced yourself into a more overtly false position by pretending that court proceedings are not subject to scientific review of a crime.
     
  8. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Aqueous, I only wanted to use Discovery as way to help describe introducing evidence here that may be used. I didn't mean to say let's bring in all the general rules of a standard courtroom. I'm just thinking, why don't we lay on the table what each other has, when we agree with that, make our best arguments about what it means. Best argument wins. I'm already saying I'm arguing the negative of the popular that people were systematically murdered with gas at Auschwitz. If the evidence I seek to see shows up, I'll drop this debate and concede I'm proven wrong. It's not here yet. I also need a challenger or I may be put on the SciPogrom list. The PsuedenReign. The Trail of Tears. All because I asked for evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  9. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Discovery is a legal term. It includes what the law calls "production of documents". Among the best authenticated of documents are the ones that have already been reviewed i court and found to be authentic. Your prior statement was a blanket denial of Xotica's court proceedings on grounds that it's not "scientific". This paints you into a corner, one of equivocation.

    Maybe that's seriously flawed thinking. Courts use rules of evidence. Documents have to proven genuine for example. That work has been done. Xotica generously went to the trouble to lead us to it. Why balk at it? You require us to presume that your few unauthenticated sources outweigh the volumes already propounded in the courts, already established as authentic.

    There's more to be learned from legal procedure than you allude to. The law books are full of guidance about how standards of proof arise, how and when facts distinguish from law, what to do when facts are controverted, when the criteria for deciding the truth of a controverted fact engages, and how to apply the criteria - for example, by application of the reasonableness test. Resonableness generally means "when a reasonable jurist would come to the same conclusion".
    You argued against the court proceedings Xotica brought in. I responded as I did because, under the reasonableness test, any fair minded jurist would want to know what those records contain. Furthermore, I were sitting on a jury and I believed that one side was withholding facts from me that I considered relevant, I would become suspicious enough of the proceedings to lock the jury if necessary, if that's what I thought it took to preserve justice.

    If your motive is only to discover the truth yourself, then you are free to read the transcripts and come to your own conclusion. I don't need to, because I had a friend who escaped Auschwitz as a child with the few surviving members of his family. His memories are so vivid, so detailed, and the survivors were so traumatized, that the full scope of that kind of evidence completely corroborates the accounts seen in the military film footage and the huge body of evidence such as this particular proceeding Xotica is talking about.

    Of course in a court room setting I could not appear as a witness because I would only be producing hearsay. However, that's valid here because hearsay - like the materials you want to use - are about as far as one can conveniently reach to lay one's hands on some kind of facts. But what Xotica offers, which surpasses that, is evidence which has already been purged of hearsay. That's another reason why it's so valuable and you shouldn't be trying to dismiss it. Not if you're intent is honesty.
     
  10. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    I did not read the court transcript, however....

    Scientific evidence is largely if not wholely a matter of observation and experience.

    Court decissions are largely based on testimony, which is based on observation and experience.., usually limited to first person accounts.

    About the only real difference is that in science the subject being examined is usually something that can be experimentally reproduced. Observed at different times by different individuals, under controlled conditions... While a legal decission, very often involves conditions or events that, if recreated would likely result in a second legal proceeding.

    First person accounts of events, cannot be dismissed when dealing with subject matter that one cannot or would not recreate.

    It seems to me that the whole proposal is one that cannot be the subject of a strict scientific examination. No one is going to recreate the conditions that existed.

    While there may be a debate somewhere in here, there seems no reasonable expectation that any "scientifically" based debate can be made... Except perhaps a debate arguing that a scientific debate cannot be made...

    I am not interested in debating the issue and already regret having even read this far through the thread.., and then posting even this...
     
  11. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    You and Xotica are trying to trap with a well known logical fallacy that is Argument From Authority. In science, it is fair game to demand the reasoning process and evidence one uses come to their conclusion.

    In order to be taken serious by the scientific community you must be open with your testing method and the evidence used in your testing method. In order to move beyond mere theory and come to fact, your evidence and testing must be done by others and the same results must be produced.

    In order to do that in this specific case, we need very little info. We will need links to the information asked for in the questions below. With this small amount of info we can test the validity of the claims involving supposed gassing at Auschwitz.

    Now if you refuse to provide that small amount of data so we could repeat the testing and come to identical finding, you have stepped out of the realm of science.
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Steampunk, are you planning on relying on Leuchter at all?
     
  13. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    How many people does you hearing claim to be gassed in Auschwitz?
    How many people maximum fit in the gas chamber?
    How long does it take to gas those people?
    How long does it take to clear out the gas chamber before workers can enter?
    How long does it take to drag the bodies to the ovens?
    How many bodies can fit in the ovens?
    How long does it take to cremate those bodies now in the ovens?


    In the list above you have already overstepped the boundaries of your own proposal...which deals strictly with mass murder by poison gas, not with cremation.

    If you had read the PDF link I posted of Rudolf Hoss's autobiography he specifically notes that most bodies were either buried in mass graves or burned in open pits. He describes multiple gassing chambers, how living prisoners were used to drag out and dispose of the dead, and many other details of how people died from many other causes.
     
  14. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Leuchter's financial supporters led the way. No one had attempted to test claims using a scientific method.. Unfortunately Leuchter did not follow a strict enough scientific protocol. I will not suggest using his direct evidence. But his methods and reasoning are certainly close to the methods that one must use to make the proof that the gassing claims are true. He has been very useful to those who demand that science be used to test the claims.

    There was an attempt to do chemical tests in the proper way that would be acceptable by the scientific community. I provided that link. But the test itself of chemicals does not create a empirically strong argument, which is needed to establish the claims of the gassing at Auschwitz.

    We will be needing the physical evidence used and the method used to interpret that evidence used to come to an authoritative number of gas victims. Xotica and AuquiusID are balking at providing this information regarding their so-all judicial authoritative source. I'm guessing it doesn't exist, because they are asking me to have a faith-based reasoning attitude instead. This is not ChristForums, it's SciForums.
     
  15. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    I have not accepted this autobiography as evidence, because it cannot be taken serious as fact. You have not proven that the statements used in the book are connected to his identify and what he actually said.. You are taking this book as Gospel and Gospel is not for scientists, it is for the religious. Anyone can put words in his mouth by writing a word on page. I can believe something in there, but I won't use with much confidence here or claim it has much strength.

    On the other hand, we do have Nuremberg. It was filmed. Do you have evidence of him making these claims in the hearing?
     
  16. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Another thing, no one has provided the authoritative link to the specifics on the gas facts and scientific reasoning used to come to a conclusion. Right now, The best attempts have been to things that cover a multitude of off-topic claims or textual argument only, not science based arguments.

    What are your authoritative claims about Auschwitz gassings? Who made them? Exactly what are their quoted findings? And where is the evidence they used? And where is the empirical argument representing their stating authoritative conclusion. Please point this out specifically, and quit stalling.

    I'm guessing you guys don't have this. I'm left with a google search that just haphazard bunch of unreliable leads.

    In order to have proper discovery, we need this evidence clearly identified. Clear identification is not a several hundred page book or link to text of 100000 words to sift through. Point out exactly! Why is it taking you so long? I'm impatient and I'm ready to dismiss this pursuit because this evidence is not being produced, which means there is no argument to challenge.
     
  17. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    First off, this is not the actual debate, but only the proposal thread. Review the rules if necessary, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74142

    You and a challenger are to use this thread to set the terms for the actual debate thread.

    I think the only member interested in engaging you in this debate (at least formally) is James R. So you ought to concentrate on settling the terms with him. I think so far your conditions are wildly unreasonable, but that's for him to decide.
     
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  18. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    So by your standards, unequivocaly demonstrating the presence of cyanide residues both in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums, does not constitute strong emperical evidence of the gassing a that location?

    Which leads us to this next bit:
    You've discussed disclosure, but I'm left wondering what "Specifics on the gas facts" do you want? What reasoning do you want to see? What conclusions are you questioning?

    To be frank, so far all I've seen from you is a bunch of equivocation and obfuscation. That and you ruling out certain lines of evidence as 'inadmissable' when it seems to be inconvenient for you.

    You go on about specific claims and the lack there of, yet you yourself have made none.

    This is the proposal thread. It is for clarifying what it is you're proposing. If you want to discuss anything else, than I suggest you create the discussion thread.
     
  19. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    I proposed preliminary fact finding period for this aspect of the proposal thread, I think I have excellent grounding for doing so:
    - Allows the community to be involved in fact gathering, which is better than just limiting it to two people during the debate.
    - Our arguments will have more maturity later using preliminary fact finding period vs. trying a cheap surprise with the opponent.
    - It is also possible to weed out a debate that should never happen because one party has no knowledge of a fact that creates an imminent defeat (It is being suggested by Xotica now that this true, but Xotica has yet to quote or directly reference the specific scientific substation of the Auschwitz gas claims in this so-called authoritative hearing.)
     
  20. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    I am accepting it as evidence. I will argue it's not enough to prove the Auschwitz gas claims. That's all my opponent needs to know at this point. If my opponent thinks they can defeat such an argument, then they should feel comfortable with me agreeing to allow that evidence. If they don't want this evidence, I would consider removing it, but probably won't agree with that without a damn good reason.

    How about the official scientific reasoning and the evidence used to come to that conclusion. Does that even exist? I think obfuscation is on the part of those who believe the Auschwitz claims are scientifically based, but won't provide direct quotes and scientific argument from the people making these so called authoritative claims.

    At this point:
    - No one has established the authority on Auschwitz gas claims.
    - No one has provided the direct evidence used and scientific argument for Auschwitz gassing claims that circulate the Internet and are spattered about historical texts.

    Perhaps you have the links to the official authority on the issue and the specific scientific argument they make? If so, offer it as evidence by quoting the scientific argument and providing a link. Please do not say, it's here and expect me to read 1 million words until I get to some point that the text doesn't' even have what they assume is scientific proof. That' what people have been doing. Wasting my time. I'm not reading anything, I will follow quotes with a link provided. i will not follow links that have irrelevant quotes. I am sick of the Trolling references.

    Your argument that I am disallowing things on the basis of "Inconvenience reasoning". I never stipulated 'inconvenience reasoning', then went on to deny using said reasoning. I used authentication reasoning. The item I'm refusing at this point is Rudolf Hoess autobiography. My grounding is that I want proof that it is his actual book.

    So far there is no link to the science behind this authentication proof. Only authoritative claims. I'm not a Believer, I'm a Knower. Knower's need verifiable facts. I am accepting film testimony of Rudolf at Nuremberg, not scribblings on a page stamped with the Authority across the page. I've defined some ways to prove this book really could be his autobiography, but I am open to any other claims that would identify it as really his. Until then, it will be an inconvenience to push such things without proper grounding.

    My claim is the scientific evidence is lacking to support the claim. So, burden of proof is on the believers here. The ones who believe it exist, but can't point it out. James offered me a chance to be educated on the issue instead banning outright. Here I am everyone. Where is the scientific argument on Auschwitz gassing in quotes? Who is this authority. Educate me.

    We are gathering evidence. You are breaking the rules at this time by saying all that you have said, yet you want me to follow them? I gave up on the fact that people were going to follow the rules by book in this thread. when the first comment was out of line and not removed when I reported it. That was Xotica. Because Xotica wanted to participate I thought providing evidence for the debate was fair way to included people's comments. I don't think that is out line at all. I think it's a fair compromise.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012
  21. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    If you truely intend to pursue the idea of 'discovery', then the onus is on you to divulge your evidence, especially given that you appear to expect others to do the same.

    So you're agreeing to allow the evidence that cyanide gas residues were present both in the gas chambers and in the crematoriums?

    What conclusion?

    Every debate I have ever heard (outside of politics) has a single clear, concise point, with one person arguing for that statement and another arguing against it.

    Examples relevant to this 'discussion' might be:
    "Zyklon-B was not used in the death chambers for homocide."
    Or:
    "The Cyanide residues present in the 'death chambers' are the result of delousing operations."

    Or something similar. So far, you have provided with nothing upon which a coherent discussion can be founded.

    You have yet to provide a coherent basis upon which to found a discusssion.

    I have done some reading on the matter.

    You want to be spoonfed?

    Many members of this community are sick of your trolling.

    Pohtatoe - Pohtahto.

    So, for example, photographs of signed copies of orders, and disused Zyklon-B canisters would be unacceptable to you as evidence, because you, personally, have no means to examine their veracity?

    You're the one making what, on the face of it, is an extraordinary claim QED the burden of proof is actually on you.

    I'm not breaking any rules here.

    My first post was to ask you to clarify a point relevant to the topic, under the conditions you yourself have set. My subsequent post was to ask you to clarify certain points in your response, and pointed out some of the shortcomings in your responses thus far.

    Until you clarify which claims it is you want addressed, you make it effectively impossible for anybody to engage you in a reaosnable and structured discussion.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    steampunk:

    I am provisionally willing to debate you on this specific topic, provided that we can agree as to the rules and other matters surrounding the debate format.

    From your posts in this thread, it seems to me that your main line of argument will be to demand impossibly high standards of "scientific evidence", such as to permit you to ignore all evidence that speaks against your side of the argument.

    So, I need to ask you a few questions regarding "scientific scrutiny".

    1. Will you agree to accept as persuasive evidence of historians who have relied on primary sources such as Nazi documents, statements on the record made by Nazi officers and other officials, statements made by prisoners at Auschwitz, and the like?

    2. Will you demand the production of primary sources, and if so what evidence will you require to establish the authenticity of a primary source used in argument?

    3. Will you only accept evidence from qualified "scientists" (e.g. in terms of those primary sources)?

    4. Do you intend to rely on scientific analyses carried out long after the events in question? If so, what kinds of credentials do you consider qualifies a scientist or other person (e.g. historian) to give a reliable account of Auschwitz, possibly decades after 1945?

    5. Will you accept any eyewitness accounts as appropriate evidence in this debate?

    6. Will you allow arguments on the basis of an accumulation of evidence? i.e. facts A, B and C together to point to conclusion X, even though A, B or C alone may be insufficient to establish X?

    ---
    As to your earlier comments:



    This goes to the question of what will be accepted as "supporting evidence". In that regard, I direct you to the questions above.

    You seem to be proposing that an independent referee or arbiter be appointed for this debate. Is that necessary? The ultimate judge of whether a debater has a good point or not is the audience, is it not?

    And if there is a judge, who will write the strict rules that he must follow to decide what constitutes "evidence"?

    Possibly this is an issue we can deal with once we're past some of the more fundamental matters I have raised, so we can come back to it later if you like.

    How can you do an experiment on the Auschwitz of the 1940s now?

    And the books that you cite by David Irving and others will also be books with words. In order to accept those, by your own standards some proof that there is no fraud will be required. How are you going to establish your side of the argument?

    You'll never get that on a discussion forum. What you seem to want is actual physical access to primary sources. Apparently, nothing less is good enough for you.

    You need to contact the institutions who hold the journals if you want to go down this path.

    The Hitler diaries were very quickly confirmed as a fraud, and were suspected from the start. I don't think you're very good at sorting reliable evidence from unreliable evidence, despite all your bluff and bluster about having high scientific standards etc. You're not really a scientific thinker at all; you're just a guy with a bad case of confirmation bias.

    Courts of law (as in this case) call expert witnesses all the time. A legal judgment summarises the evidence that has been put to the court and then decides the legal issue at hand on the basis of all the available evidence, scientific and otherwise.

    You must have such an authority in mind, or else you won't be able to establish your own side of the argument.

    Recall that this was the very first question I asked you: tell me what sources you will rely on. And so far, there's been almost nothing from you - I count two links.

    Anyway, I'll wait for your response to the questions above.
     
  23. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    Proposal: I would like to argue that Sciforums doesn't exist, and it is just a figment of my imagination. If it existed, surely there wasn't even serious consideration of debating such a stupid topic.

    #2 rule of the internet: Don't feed the troll!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page