• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Computer program judges “Elie Wiesel in Buchenwald” to be 30-36 years of age

A Swedish reader has informed this website of a new computer program that gives the approximate age of a person by scanning their photograph. Scroll down the linked page to see six examples.

Our reader took advantage of the website’s free demonstration offer and tested two faces from the famous Buchenwald liberation photo taken on April 16, 1945. Nikolaus Grüner is in the lower left of the FBLPhoto, and in the background is the round-headed man who is claimed to be Elie Wiesel. These are the results the computer program gave him.
Click to expand...

http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/com...iesel-in-buchenwald-to-be-30-36-years-of-age/

Another lie? Surprise! Surprise!
 
Wroclaw said:
Why not? Please present an argument against using such evidence that would stand up to logical analysis.
Click to expand...


You ask:

Why not "data from a witness which was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel is not statically acceptable."?​

It is 1 sample for N witness.

Margin of error = 98%

Adolf Eichmann provide numerical data with 98% of error.

By witness I mean only the persecutors which have direct access to numerical data during the period of the supposedly mass extermination plan.

If N is 1000, would be necessary 278 samples for 5% of margin of error.

How many of such witness have been already interviewed under appropriate circumstances to provide numerical data?

N = ?

Reference for calculations:

Statistics For Dummies
 
000063 said:
Yet you have somehow managed not to reply to #600 and #677, and decided to work through your backlog right after Wroclaw asked you to prove your claim in #600, before which you were responding mostly to current questions.

Okay. Are you ever going to respond to post #600 or #677?





I used one million bodies. 1,000,000 dead/3,900 per day(which is your number, not mine)=257 days. So the Nazis, by your numbers, were perfectly able to burn millions of bodies over the course of the war.

Of course, Clayton did not specify over what length of time the alleged bodies were not-burned. And he assumes that all the bodies were burned, which I don't believe is the case.



I'm not sure if you ever responded to that post either. In fact, that was on the same page as #600.
Click to expand...

That image has less than 100 bodies? really? You expect people to believe that?
 
BaaBaa said:
He provided sources. Would you prefer Power Point presentations or cartoons or something else as easy to digest?

"Scientifically disgusting", indeed.
Click to expand...

No, I would prefer a source from an commission of mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians which had collect enough data from several sources to present numbers with an low margin of error.

Note: the commissioners must come from diverse nationalities with not ties to religious organizations or financial business.
 
uke2se said:
The holocaust is a historical event. It's already in the history books. It seems you don't know the difference between history and religion. It's not really surprising given how dumb your posts have been in this thread.
Click to expand...

Some people thinks the bible is a historical book and the old testament is a reliable source to know precisely how many were exterminated by the Hebrews.

uke2se said:
Why do you hate Jews?
Click to expand...

I do not.
 
SnakeTongue said:
You ask:

Why not "data from a witness which was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel is not statically acceptable."?​

It is 1 sample for N witness.

Margin of error = 98%

Adolf Eichmann provide numerical data with 98% of error.

By witness I mean only the persecutors which have direct access to numerical data during the period of the supposedly mass extermination plan.

If N is 1000, would be necessary 278 samples for 5% of margin of error.

How many of such witness have been already interviewed under appropriate circumstances to provide numerical data?

N = ?

Reference for calculations:

Statistics For Dummies
Click to expand...

This is nonsense. You have totally forgotten the original context in which the EICHMANN TRIAL was mentioned as a source, which you confused with Eichmann himself. You were then asked what logical argument there was against using Eichmann's testimony - meaning in general - and now you have confused this with Eichmann offering numbers, which he hardly ever did, so your claim in the post is completely irrelevant.

You also assert that 'Adolf Eichmann provided numerical data with 98% of error' and don't explain what data or how you know there was 98% of error.

Statistics for dummies, indeed....
 
SnakeTongue said:
Some people thinks the bible is a historical book and the old testament is a reliable source to know precisely how many were exterminated by the Hebrews.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

It also doesn't in any way, shape, or form resemble how we know the Holocaust happened, so I have no idea why you brought it up.
 
ANTPogo said:
Dismissing Eichmann as "a witness [who] was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel" is one of the most stupidly desperate things I've ever seen. And that's saying quite a bit, considering this thread.

Eichmann was a direct and active participant in the events of the Holocaust. We know the Holocaust happened because he's one of the people who made it happen, and he meticulously documented every step of his involvement, and discussed those documents in rather exhaustive detail at his trial.
Click to expand...

You got wrong in your "stupidly desperate" observation.

I did not dismiss the witness for the historical account, I typed that was not acceptable as reference for statistical data.

I know you have a wit mind to understand the difference.
 
SnakeTongue said:
No, I would prefer a source from an commission of mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians which had collect enough data from several sources to present numbers with an low margin of error.

Note: the commissioners must come from diverse nationalities with not ties to religious organizations or financial business.
Click to expand...

You are truly barking mad. Mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians are not trained to read historical sources and unless they are Polish, wouldn't be able to read the sources in the first place. There is no known example of a commission of 'mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians' producing a single calculation about a historical statistic, ever, much less an international commission.
 
SnakeTongue said:
You got wrong in your "stupidly desperate" observation.

I did not dismiss the witness for the historical account, I typed that was not acceptable as reference for statistical data.

I know you have a wit mind to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

Since Eichmann wasn't mentioned as a source for statistical data, your objection is irrelevant.
 
SnakeTongue said:
You ask:

Why not "data from a witness which was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel is not statically acceptable."?​

It is 1 sample for N witness.

Margin of error = 98%

Adolf Eichmann provide numerical data with 98% of error.

By witness I mean only the persecutors which have direct access to numerical data during the period of the supposedly mass extermination plan.

If N is 1000, would be necessary 278 samples for 5% of margin of error.

How many of such witness have been already interviewed under appropriate circumstances to provide numerical data?

N = ?

Reference for calculations:

Statistics For Dummies
Click to expand...

For Christ's sake, you don't do statistics like that.

Margins of error and power calculations are performed on the data being studied, not on the analyzer of the data — unless you're doing a meta-analysis, in which case you'd better be aware of Höfle and Korherr, whose numbers are identical to Eichmann's, providing a P value of something like .00000000001.

Got it?

I'll tell you one thing: You got the right book.
 
dafydd said:
We all know that the Holocaust happened, and that Eichmann was responsible for shipping the Jews to the death camps. Not much data needed there. The scumbag got all he deserved. It's all just statistics to you, isn't it? Human suffering means not a jot to you, all you care about are your heroes, the Nazis. You believe in a WWII that does not exist.
Click to expand...

You got very right!

Thanks for keep me aware.
 
SnakeTongue said:
I know you have a wit mind to understand the difference.
Click to expand...

What "statistical data" or "numerical data" did Eichmann provide, and how has it been utilized in the context of "how the SS personnel of the Third Reich used to recognize the Jews when they were required to captured them", which was your original question?
 
TSR said:
1) how were they "really" treated?
Click to expand...

If you actually read Dr. Terry's or Lemmycaution's usually tedious and tangential to the discussion iambic pentameter you would know that Nazi policy toward the Jews was not uniform. How they were "really" treated differed from place to place and changed over time. It's safe to say that they were all treated rather poorly, some more so than others.

2) got any of that, you know, evidence thingy to support your fantasy from 1)?
Click to expand...

Nuremberg Laws? Deportations? Do you know anything about the history you are so willing to embrace?
 
ANTPogo said:
What "statistical data" or "numerical data" did Eichmann provide, and how has it been utilized in the context of "how the SS personnel of the Third Reich used to recognize the Jews when they were required to captured them", which was your original question?
Click to expand...

It also need to be restated that I originally mentioned the Eichmann Trial because it was readily available online and contained a large amount of primary sources. SnakeTongue has misunderstood this doubly, while also shifting the goalposts to discuss an issue that wasn't on the table at the start of this...well, derail.
 
Dogzilla said:
If you actually read Dr. Terry's or Lemmycaution's usually tedious and tangential to the discussion iambic pentameter you would know that Nazi policy toward the Jews was not uniform. How they were "really" treated differed from place to place and changed over time. It's safe to say that they were all treated rather poorly, some more so than others.

Nuremberg Laws? Deportations? Do you know anything about the history you are so willing to embrace?
Click to expand...

I think TSR's challenge is for you to use your own words to sum up the treatment, not to make handwaving remarks as usual. 'Treated rather poorly' is awfully vague.

Since SnakeTongue apparently wants us to go over to a primary-source-only discussion, you might as well also set a good example and use only primary sources....
 
SnakeTongue said:
You ask:

Why not "data from a witness which was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel is not statically acceptable."?​

It is 1 sample for N witness.

Margin of error = 98%

Adolf Eichmann provide numerical data with 98% of error.

By witness I mean only the persecutors which have direct access to numerical data during the period of the supposedly mass extermination plan.

If N is 1000, would be necessary 278 samples for 5% of margin of error.

How many of such witness have been already interviewed under appropriate circumstances to provide numerical data?

N = ?

Reference for calculations:

Statistics For Dummies
Click to expand...

Oh finally.

Ahem;

You pulled that margin of error out of your rear, given the usual level of understanding you display. Not to mention that by your logic, almost every witness in every single court case would be inadmissible unless corroborated by a ridiculously large number of other witnesses.
It's cute to see that you've switched to statistics hoping you will save you. I'm just waiting for the point when someone who knows about such things better than I do comes along and inevitably proves you wrong.

SnakeTongue said:
No, I would prefer a source from an commission of mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians which had collect enough data from several sources to present numbers with an low margin of error.

Note: the commissioners must come from diverse nationalities with not ties to religious organizations or financial business.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there are literally thousands of books, papers, and testimony on many aspects of the Holocaust? This is not a statistical analysis, this is a historiographical one.

SnakeTongue said:
Some people thinks the bible is a historical book and the old testament is a reliable source to know precisely how many were exterminated by the Hebrews. ....
Click to expand...
Which is strange, because it doesn't say precisely how many were killed by the Hebrews.

Thanks for proving uke2se's point; you don't know the difference between history and religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom