Proposal: Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

[James R]

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.

....

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.

These are all matters for the Debate itself (if it happens). They are inappropriate for the Proposal thread.

These "gas claims" you intend to dispute are not clear, anyway. But that can also be dealt with in the Debate context.

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.

All we're doing here is determining (a) whether anybody will agree to debate your topic; and (b) if so, what the rules of the Debate will be.

Nobody will attempt to establish anything here on the topic itself.

You still seem to be confused about how this subforum operates. The rules are in a sticky thread on the forum topic list. Go and read them.

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'll get to that if the debate ever gets off the ground.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: 2 posts have been deleted for attempting to debate the topic in the Proposal thread.

---

If you people really can't restrain yourselves, why not open a separate thread in the History forum and post links to evidences for the Holocaust (or gassing at Auschwitz or whatver)?

 

[steampunk]

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

James R. defined that for me by threatening to ban me. But, he said I must back up my position and perhaps I could get some help understaing where I have gone wrong.

My original comment, I know was sloppy, but paraphrased was 'Auschwitz stuff is bullshit'. I was asked to back that up. I have clarified it. I have not changed the intial meaning of that comment, only spiffed it up from it's ruggedness.
I have stated that I am scientific thinker. We won't claim things are true unless we have the evidence.
So, here I am. Where is the evidence? Why can't you provide it? You act like the Christians who think the onus is on the Atheists that we must disprove God exists. I know that argument,and if that is all you want to make this, you only mean to troll and you are refusing to help anyone understand the initial scientific argument used to determine the gassing occurred at Auschwitz.

I have made several claims here which helps define my position, here are a few:

- The Auschwitz gas claims are not scientifically supported.
- No one can provide a link to the authoritative scientific source to these claims.
- No one has provided a link quoting the scientific argument on the Auschwitz gas killings.


I have provided some evidence to use to argue my position.
- Chemical testing links.
- Nuremburg Trials


I have to agreed to admitting:
- American film of the Nazi Camps containing prisoners

I have disagreed with using the Rudolf autobiography on grounds that no proof has yet been provided that it is authentic. I open to accepting it with a convincing authenticity proof.
I am not accept Lleuchter's finding, because it's not officially accepted by the scientific community.

I am open to accept evidence that would support a scientific claim that Auschwitz gas killings really did occur, so you might as well stop your shitty attitude with me.

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?

I never said I wouldn't except this sort of evidence.

 

[steampunk]

If anyone is ready to argue accepts my rules. Please say so. I want to get this over with.

I need an opponent, and my opponent and I need a judge. Remember, my rule that the judge can have statements restricted from the argument if they are not empirically supported. I will not allow court decisions to replace scientific proofs either.

 

[pjdude1219]

It's a book. With words. Anyone can write words. Apparently there is a journal it is based on. This man claims he gassed people in Auschwitz. In order to accept as evidence a process proving the journal is not a fraud would have to be established.

We need a link to the scientific process involved proving the physical journals exists. We need proof of the identity of the said writer of the journal. And, the connection must be proved between the two. Do you have a link to this proof?

I'm willing to consider any evidence, but won't agree to accept all evidence until it's fully established as authentic and relevant to the debate.

what about the information witold pelicki brought out of the camp?

 

[AlexG]

This is just ridiculous.

 

[Balerion]

How about you two just debate, and a moderator decides if the evidence/arguments are valid as you go along? You're never going to agree on it otherwise. Just go in guns blazing and let a moderator sort it out as you go.

Or, you know, you could do what should have been done days ago, and ban steampunk for hate speech.

 

[Trippy]

James R. defined that for me by threatening to ban me. But, he said I must back up my position and perhaps I could get some help understaing where I have gone wrong.

I've given you some indications, but either you've glossed over it, or ignored it completely.

My original comment, I know was sloppy, but paraphrased was 'Auschwitz stuff is bullshit'.

I'm aware of that. Although I haven't commented until recently, I've been following this thread since you first posted it, but therein lies the problem, at least from my perspective anyway.

Do you not believe that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been?
Do you not believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there?
Do you not believe that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners?

All I have asked you is what precisely it is about the Auschwitz claims that you don't believe. In my opinion, that point needs to be clarified before any reasonable debate can occur.

I was asked to back that up.

Of course you have, you have made what, on the face of it, is an extraordinary claim and provided precidely zero evidence to support it.

I have clarified it. I have not changed the intial meaning of that comment, only spiffed it up from it's ruggedness.

I don't think you have clarified it sufficiently, James on the other hand seems willing to accept:
"The claim that Auschwitz was used by Nazis as a gassing facility to systematically kill Jews does not hold up under scientific scrutiny."
Personally, I think that's too broad a topic to be able to be debated effectively.

I have stated that I am scientific thinker. We won't claim things are true unless we have the evidence.

That's nice. Do you see my tagline? Under my username? Do you know what that means?

So, here I am. Where is the evidence? Why can't you provide it?

This is a logical fallacy, the specific name escapes me, for the moment. But this is directly analagous to asking for a definitive text proving modern tectonic theory or evolution, and then claiming victory when none is forthcoming. This is precisely the tactic that creationists use, including your unwilling to read through texts containing evidence, and your insistence on being spoonfed soundbytes.

I have made several claims here which helps define my position, here are a few:

- The Auschwitz gas claims are not scientifically supported.

Which gas claims?

- No one can provide a link to the authoritative scientific source to these claims.
- No one has provided a link quoting the scientific argument on the Auschwitz gas killings.

See above.

I have disagreed with using the Rudolf autobiography on grounds that no proof has yet been provided that it is authentic. I open to accepting it with a convincing authenticity proof.

Right, and given that he is dead, what standard of proof do you require as to its authenticity that might be able to be met here at sciforums.

I am not accept Lleuchter's finding, because it's not officially accepted by the scientific community.

It's not that it's not 'officially accepted by the scientific community', it's more like that his hypothesis has been tested by the scientific community and rejected as being false (IE his work has been effectively debunked).

I am open to accept evidence that would support a scientific claim that Auschwitz gas killings really did occur, so you might as well stop your shitty attitude with me.

I've tried to offer you advice, and so far all you have done is dismiss it as a shitty attitude.

Maybe you should re-examine yours?

 

[Trippy]

You're never going to agree on it otherwise. Just go in guns blazing and let a moderator sort it out as you go.

I'm not even willing to entertain the though if he can't put forward a cogent topic or question for debate.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

If anyone is ready to argue accepts my rules. Please say so. I want to get this over with. I need an opponent, and my opponent and I need a judge. Remember, my rule that the judge can have statements restricted from the argument if they are not empirically supported. I will not allow court decisions to replace scientific proofs either.

Some things are so vile and repulsive that no one wants to get too close to them.

It's utterly unbelievable that an educated human being from a Western country, living in a time when Auschwitz survivors are still alive, many years after the post-Perestroika governments of the former Soviet bloc (including, specifically, Poland) have opened up the records of their countries' WWII Nazi-occupied governments to scholars from all over the world, can make such a patently ignorant assertion and pretend to be serious about it.

In other words, no one really believes that you are serious about this. It simply has to be a very tasteless attempt at humor, or a childish prank. If you were serious, no one would want to get too close to you for fear of being associated with you. And no one would want to read this tripe because it would be literally nauseating.

If you want to be a pariah, write back in a few years and tell us how it's working out. You're clearly not going to find anyone who wants to play along and pretend that this is a serious debate.

 

[steampunk]

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.

Oh, and with that standard, I guess I wouldn't have an argument would I because you'd have that ability too? Your strategy is transparent to me. You want weak standards because you have weak evidence. You will be protecting an argument that never had to endure scientific scrutiny.

The only way stop the nonsense created from historical lies written by the winners is to rigorously let science determine the facts.

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?

I will except only if it pertains to gassing or is relevant to gassing at Auschwitz. I will except under the condition that it may or may not be fact. If I challenge it, and it cannot be empirically proven, it has no place in this argument.

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?

It is not my problem if you cannot substantiate your claims. Don't ask me to have faith in anything you have to say. I will not ask this of you.

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

I will provisionally accept evidence from anyone, provided it's relevant to the matter. But that won't stop me from challenging it.

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?

I will accept any analysis provisionally. If it cannot be supported empirically, I will challenge for it's removal.

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

If you can support your claims empirically and those accounts are relevant, yes.

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?

Yes. I'm very suspicious of you even mentioning this. I'm warning you, that your whole argument must be this way. And If I find that A is not supported, you can't use B, C or X until you make an acceptable A. I'm not allowing any room for missteps in your arguments. In our PMs, you were having some trouble with that. Remember I asked for evidence and you equated that with racism and anti-Semitism? That doesn't follow. I plan on having this kind of abject reasoning banned from this debate.

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?

This seems to be your way of saying that you don't want to be put in check and have your statements restricted when you can't provide empirical evidence. I know there is a risk for a bad judge, but I'd rather take that risk, then just let you run your mouth. You want weak standards for evidence and you don't want a judge. You are building your credibility here you realise that? You sound like you are ready to just burst forth with a pack of lies.

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

I suggest that the judge deny anything that is not empirically represented, with the exception that an explanation can be made for things of the subjective nature. A canister of gas, would require a photograph or else you cannot ever use the phrase 'a canister of gas'. Subjective evidence would be something like introducing a logical fallacy and requiring that an opponent rephrase their argument so it's not in the form of a fallacy.

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

We don't need to time travel or perform experiments. We are here to argue with any evidence that has been established and can be linked to on the Internet.

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?

James I plan on using things that all have empirical basis. I am baffled to think I could provide you a method to prove the truth a fraud. As books go, subjective things are fine if they fit rational argument, but statement of objective objects must have some empirical correlation to evidence offered. Use any source you want, but I will be there to ask for empirical support.

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

I very good at detecting bullshit. I'm good at extracting evidence. And when you don't have it, I can make that obvious. My authority is natural law.

 

[Balerion]

I'm not even willing to entertain the though if he can't put forward a cogent topic or question for debate.

I was talking from an evidence standpoint. There's no way he's going to allow any evidence that goes against his argument if he's given veto power, and the debate simply won't happen.

 

[steampunk]

Do you not believe that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been?
Do you not believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there?
Do you not believe that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners?

All I have asked you is what precisely it is about the Auschwitz claims that you don't believe. In my opinion, that point needs to be clarified before any reasonable debate can occur.

Trippy, you surprise me. This helps. You are the first one to at least establish statements that imply these things occurred.

Now let me tell you how my mind works. Notice how you used the word believe up there? I'm one of those people that don't believe. I'm not fucking joking about this either.

Ok. We have to go to the next step to understand my mind a little further. I separate knowledge from belief. Things I know are things I've experienced through my human senses.

I also gain knowledge through inductive observations. This requires extrapolation. This is where probability comes in for me. Things are for me are probable about the past and future. I may come to know things about the past or future, if they are inductively strong arguments. If something is for the most part true, it's knowledge. If it's not for the most part true and a person thinks it's true, that's what I call belief. Again, I can't do that.

This is where I am with this gassing claim. I haven't the evidence that forms an empirically strong argument that makes me know it's true. Since my mind won't believe things anymore, you probably think I am a bad person. I have to understand it, know it, to say it's true. I can't believe it and say it's true.

So, those questions up there you have asked don't make any sense to me. I have to see the scientific argument to begin to tell you that knowledge of this event is being received in my mind. As I receive facts, it is possible I will know it to be true, if it's inductively strong.

I'm having trouble finding this evidence to your statement above, can you help me see it?

If you can do that, you have to point to the scientific argument made for each one of you statements up there. I don't know where that is at. Why would you just want me to just believe. I don't know how to do that anymore! Belief is for children to me. Santa Clause, Jesus Miracles and UFO's.

When I say these claims are unsubstantiated, this is true from my mind. People are angry because they think I'm actually saying this about reality. Then they call me racist. Then, they refuse to point to science regarding the statements and this indeed is cure to ignorance! So they insult me, threaten to oust me, and associate hatred with me. They are really confused people feeling lot of inner hate at someone who is curious to know the truth that sometimes has a smart mouth, but always a open mind.

Oh, and I think I know something, I get a new piece of information or new insight that make what I knew inductively weak, I realise I was suffering from belief and I was wrong to say that it was true. I admit I have been wrong.

 

[Trippy]

Can't recall the name of that one...

I remember now.
plurium interrogationum
The 'Many questions/complex question' fallacy.
I think.

He keeps bringing up this "appeal to authority" nonsense...

Appeal to authority is only really fallicious if the person being appealed to can not reasonably be considered an authority.

The way it gets bandied about by some posters around here the statement "Newtons laws of motion predict that when you hit a brick wall at 100 mph while not wearing a seatbelt, you are likely to wind up a thin layer spread accross the length and breadth of said wall" is an appeal to authority.

IOW there is not one single person who does not accept many things AS FACT every single freakin' day of their lives "ON AUTHORITY."

So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor.​

Tim Minchin - Storm

 

[Trippy]

Trippy, you surprise me. This helps. You are the first one to at least establish statements that imply these things occurred.

Then you haven't been paying attention, have you. Because I said much the same thing back here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2946373&postcount=58
And instead of responding to it reasonably, you went off on a tirade about my shitty attitude.

Now let me tell you how my mind works. Notice how you used the word believe up there? I'm one of those people that don't believe. I'm not fucking joking about this either.

Ok. We have to go to the next step to understand my mind a little further. I separate knowledge from belief. Things I know are things I've experienced through my human senses.

be·lief noun \bə-ˈlēf\
a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

On the basis of the emperical evidence freely available to myself, and anyone else who should care to look, I find myself of a state of mind in which I am willing to put trust in certain people, based on what they have said or written, and accept their conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented.

In otherwords (for example):
believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Zyklon-B was used in the capacity it is claimed to have been.
believe [on the basis of the evidence available] believe that 1.2 million people (According to Hoess anyway) were killed there.
believe [on the basis of the evidence available] that Auschwitz was capable of processing that many prisoners.

Don't try and make my words about something they are not. I'm not talking about having faith, I'm talking about putting trust in specialists in their fields to do their jobs properly, and in their peers to scruitinize their work. Because, as someone who does science for a living, as well as a hobby, I understand that science builds upon previous work. If you want to advance science, you don't neccessarily start with reinventing the wheel.

So, those questions up there you have asked don't make any sense to me. I have to see the scientific argument to begin to tell you that knowledge of this event is being received in my mind. As I receive facts, it is possible I will know it to be true, if it's inductively strong.

Only because you appear to have twisted them to suit whatever purpose your serving.

I'm having trouble finding this evidence to your statement above, can you help me see it?

If you can do that, you have to point to the scientific argument made for each one of you statements up there. I don't know where that is at. Why would you just want me to just believe. I don't know how to do that anymore! Belief is for children to me. Santa Clause, Jesus Miracles and UFO's.

The figure of 1.2 million people came from Hoess at Neuremburg (IIRC).
The evidence for the use of Zyklon B comes from a variety of sources, including analyses performed as recently as the '90s.
The statement regarding the capacity of Auschwitz is based on math, eyewitness testimony, and peer reviewed & published work.

If you want any further depth then that, that would have to wait until any debate proper began, or you got around to opening the discussion thread.

The proposal thread is not the appropriate venue for that discussion.

The proposal thread is for establishing the participants, rules, and topic of the debate.

 

[steampunk]

On the basis of the emperical evidence freely available to myself, and anyone else who should care to look, I find myself of a state of mind in which I am willing to put trust in certain people, based on what they have said or written, and accept their conclusions on the basis of the evidence presented.

And that means you don't know shit, because you believe. You see, me and you are different, I'll take the time and heat to understand. You bow down and kiss ass. You are the type that will march and perform a holocaust or atrocity. I know your type you hypocrite.

Go fuck yourself, I hate ass-kissers.

 

[Believe]

And that means you don't know shit, because you believe. You see, me and you are different, I'll take the time and heat to understand. You bow down and kiss ass. You are the type that will march and perform a holocaust or atrocity. I know your type you hypocrite.

Go fuck yourself, I hate ass-kissers.

How are you any better trying to argue such a horrible subject just for the sake of arguement?

 

[Syzygys]

What surprises me is why would trippy engage with him in any type of intelligent debate??

Thousands of pictures, skulls and eyewitness accounts are obviously not scientific evidence for him, so why take him seriously???

Was this photoshoped or would this count as scientific evidence?:

This is the last Jew of Vinnitsa, being killed, before him there were 28 000 others....

Case, thread closed, idiot banned...

 

[James R]

steampunk:

We're not making useful progress here. So...

I will debate you on this topic, but I will not accept any of your additional "rules" as suggested in this thread. I propose that we debate according to the Standard Rules for one-on-one debates set out in the sticky thread in this subforum.

The issue of what counts as evidence can be part of the debate, if that's what you want to argue. We'll have it out there, rather than here.

I have one additional request. Because I am very busy at present, I will not be able to meet the posting time limits set out in the standard rules. I will require at most 1 week between posts, with the time actually likely to be shorter than that (i.e. one week from the time of your latest post until my next post is due, unless otherwise agreed between us during the debate).

Do you accept?

 

[James R]

Moderator note: We'll be dealing with the "go fuck yourself" statement shortly. This is a breach of the site rules.