Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Nick noted quite correctly on rodoh that many denier arguments are based on the absence of evidence:
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
the main revisionist lines of attack of the past 18 years have generally been based on absence of evidence. Thusly:
1. 'No Holes, No Holocaust'
'no holes are visible in the ruins of Kremas II and III, therefore there never were any holes, therefore there were no gassings'.
So this is very much argumentum ad ignorantium. Pelt correctly pointed out in his Irving trial report that just because the holes could not - at that time, to him - been seen today, did that mean they never existed? The ruins were rubble. Soon after, of course, holes were identified which corresponded to the locations indicated by other sources.
2. Prussian Blue
supposedly the absence of PB stains in the ruins of crematoria is decisive. But this marker is unreliable, because of the entirely different situations prevailing inside a delousing chamber versus the gas chambers as described by the witnesses and as can be reconstructed from documents. Not only that, but advocates of PB staining as a marker never falsified their argument by advancing a large enough comparison base to prove that the repeated use of HCN for fumigation would necessarily lead to the formation of PB. In fact, there seem to be several other delousing chambers, including some at Auschwitz I main camp, where no PB formation took place.
So, 'no PB, no Holocaust' is also argumentum ad ignorantium.
3. Where are the Bodies?
This too is easily rebutted by stating that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
More to the point, there is plenty of circumstantial forensic evidence to support the conclusions now accepted by the sane part of the world. Circumstantial does not mean weak, it means indirect. Gallstones found in Haigh's acid bath would be circumstantial evidence.
All the investigations of sites where there once were mass graves but where the Germans are witnessed to have dug them up and incinerated the corpses, indicate the existence of mass graves of a size compatible with the other sources, and the presence of human remains.
All arguments such as 'where are the teeth' etc are all argumentam ad ignorantium.
As Pelt correctly observed in his book on the Irving trial, once upon a time deniers relied on trying to discredit Hoess et al. Then they brought in the supposed chemistry trump card. When that failed, they started arguing 'no Holes, no Holocaust'. Rudolf said as much in the course of trying to rebut Richard Green. When the no Holes malarkey was discredited, now they try and emphasise the absence of bodies.Revisionism has been using argumentum ad ignorantium since at the very latest 1988. Before then, other fallacies were involved.
"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
the main revisionist lines of attack of the past 18 years have generally been based on absence of evidence. Thusly:
1. 'No Holes, No Holocaust'
'no holes are visible in the ruins of Kremas II and III, therefore there never were any holes, therefore there were no gassings'.
So this is very much argumentum ad ignorantium. Pelt correctly pointed out in his Irving trial report that just because the holes could not - at that time, to him - been seen today, did that mean they never existed? The ruins were rubble. Soon after, of course, holes were identified which corresponded to the locations indicated by other sources.
2. Prussian Blue
supposedly the absence of PB stains in the ruins of crematoria is decisive. But this marker is unreliable, because of the entirely different situations prevailing inside a delousing chamber versus the gas chambers as described by the witnesses and as can be reconstructed from documents. Not only that, but advocates of PB staining as a marker never falsified their argument by advancing a large enough comparison base to prove that the repeated use of HCN for fumigation would necessarily lead to the formation of PB. In fact, there seem to be several other delousing chambers, including some at Auschwitz I main camp, where no PB formation took place.
So, 'no PB, no Holocaust' is also argumentum ad ignorantium.
3. Where are the Bodies?
This too is easily rebutted by stating that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
More to the point, there is plenty of circumstantial forensic evidence to support the conclusions now accepted by the sane part of the world. Circumstantial does not mean weak, it means indirect. Gallstones found in Haigh's acid bath would be circumstantial evidence.
All the investigations of sites where there once were mass graves but where the Germans are witnessed to have dug them up and incinerated the corpses, indicate the existence of mass graves of a size compatible with the other sources, and the presence of human remains.
All arguments such as 'where are the teeth' etc are all argumentam ad ignorantium.
As Pelt correctly observed in his book on the Irving trial, once upon a time deniers relied on trying to discredit Hoess et al. Then they brought in the supposed chemistry trump card. When that failed, they started arguing 'no Holes, no Holocaust'. Rudolf said as much in the course of trying to rebut Richard Green. When the no Holes malarkey was discredited, now they try and emphasise the absence of bodies.Revisionism has been using argumentum ad ignorantium since at the very latest 1988. Before then, other fallacies were involved.
posted by 104839sobe104839 at 10:38 PM
5 Comments:
How about the fact in modern crematorium it takes three hours to burn a body and then you still have to crush the remain. Do the math it really is simple. Then check out ground sensing radar that shows no mass graves. Then take into account the population of Jews went up during the period not down. Then you can finally stop living this lie. The only reason to make something illegal to investigate is because you are covering up a lie. There are more then enough factual videos just on youtube to discredit anything you might fell like printing.
Hi,
"How about the fact in modern crematorium it takes three hours to burn a body and then you still have to crush the remain."
There are many erroneous assumptions in this. Let's see:
1)Modern crematoriums are not like the Topf und Sohns ovens installed in Auschwitz.
2)In modern crematoriums, the cremators wait for the body to be fully cremated. This is not the case in Auschwitz.
3)There was a special system for burning corpses in Auschwitz. About 3 corpses would be put in one muffle. Fat corpses accelerated combustion.
4)The crematoriums of Auschwitz-Birkenau used the energy and heat produced by the burning of the last corpse to cremate the next corpse. Coke would be needed to light up the ovens only in the beginning thanks to this technical achievement.
"Then check out ground sensing radar that shows no mass graves."
Feel free to cite any ground penetrating radar studies or whatever that supports your thesis.
"Then take into account the population of Jews went up during the period not down."
Feel free to quote from any population statistics that support your thesis. Your say-so won't make it true.
"There are more then enough factual videos just on youtube to discredit anything you might fell like printing."
I'm "sobe104839" on youtube. There's videos on youtube, you say, that discredit my arguments? Well then, bring them here so I can have a good ol laughter!
"4)The crematoriums of Auschwitz-Birkenau used the energy and heat produced by the burning of the last corpse to cremate the next corpse. Coke would be needed to light up the ovens only in the beginning thanks to this technical achievement."
That is a claim but basically poorly supported by the engineering documents, even assuming they are genuine which I rather doubt.
If they are genuine, they speak of 5 pulsed air blowers located at the side of each furnace for Krema II and III.
These were 2.2 kW
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0374.htm
Having this amount of cold air constantly been blown through the furnace would require the constant burning of additional fuel to keep the temperature of the furnace hot enough for the corpse to ignite.
This is in response to deniers claiming that no traces of Prussic Acid have been found on the remains of the Auschwitz Crematoria. After the war, hair found at factories which had come from Auschwitz was analysed and found positive for traces of prussic acid...this info. can be found in "Auschwitz: Anatomy of a Death Camp".
Sarah R: Thanks. You mean the book "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp"?
Rodohcodohwatch:
"Having this amount of cold air constantly been blown through the furnace would require the constant burning of additional fuel to keep the temperature of the furnace hot enough for the corpse to ignite."
Your claim is taken note of, now give some evidence to back it up.
"even assuming they are genuine which I rather doubt."
You doubt anything that's inconvenient to your religion. How about p-r-o-o-f that the documents were forged?
Also, can I find you on any other forum to debate you? Who were you on rodoh?
Post a Comment
<< Home