Appellare ad Prophetia.
If you know that would happen, why did you bother to take part into?
What fool you are...
Hardly, since you have been shown up quite badly over the last few pages of this thread. Irrational ad hominem dismissals of evidence don't make you look very bright.
That is a job for the mathematicians and computer analysts in case you do not know.
No, it's not. Historians deal with historical sources and are accordingly the ones who analyse historical sources, sometimes using computers and sometimes using complex statistical models, especially if they do econometric history.
But most historians don't need to use computers because there is no expectation that the sources will allow them to produce a precise result, so they cannot even try.
I noticed you cannot explain to Clayton Moore which unit measure you utilized in your book...
You rhetoric speak all.
Wouldn't is different to cannot. Clayton Moore refused to even read a section of the book, he is a waste of time.
I do not even know you are typing about...
You are hallucinating.
It's funny, there is a poster at Skeptics Society Forum named 'Bob' who has a very similar writing style to you, also obsesses over 'primary sources', also dismisses scholarly literature with ad hominems, and has many other similarities. Many people here think you are the same person. You also remind people of 'Skcz' at CODOH forum. One of these matches is quite likely to be accurate, since there are only so many half-literate non-native English speaking Holocaust deniers on the internet.
You could present 6,000,000 documents to Eichmann!
Missing the point. The Eichmann Trial was recommended along with the Nuremberg Trials as a place to find primary sources in general, since you had asked for primary sources. At the time when you asked for primary sources, you were only asking about how the SS identified Jews. Now you've moved the goalposts onto some other nonsense.
Unless there are more witness which have confirmed the same documents and provided numerical data,
Margin of error = 98%
Several other posters have pointed out the flaws in this assertion. It is not difficult to demonstrate that it is fundamentally wrong, because in a great many situations in human history, we simply have no other data but eyewitness accounts and their estimates of numbers
It is easily seen that all reports of political demonstrations will be accompanied by estimates of the size of the demonstration. Sometimes the police offer an estimate of the size of the crowd, sometimes the organisers claim that a certain number attended, and sometimes the media will offer an estimate. All these figures are essentially 'eyewitness' level sources. And none will ever be precise.
There is in fact no way of knowing a precise number for how many attended a mass demonstration. So in such cases, we are entirely stuck with the estimates of the police, organisers, or media, or maybe some other eyewitness who took part and wrote about it in a diary. They are all the same 'quality' of source, and there is essentially no point trying to apply statistics to these numbers.
So we are forever stuck with the estimates for
the protests before the Iraq War in 2003. You may say that we have TV footage of the demonstrations and can get some better gauge from this source, but nobody is going to be able to do more than establish a ballpark figure.
It would be even more complicated to arrive at a precise number of
the 1848 Chartist petition protest march, since there were no TV cameras then.
Therefore, and this is the important bit, one cannot apply statistical exactitude to numbers that will not allow for it, which means that all talk of 'margins of error' is basically irrelevant.
The most one can do is take all estimates and average them, which is exactly what historians do when all they have are estimates. They say the estimates range between 3,000 and 6,000 people who were doing x.
Oh, the Wansee Nazy Conspirancy Protocol of the Aryan Race!
No accurate statistical data there...
Actually, the Wannsee Protocol contains several figures which are highly accurate, mixed in with numbers that are demonstrably wrong. This is hardly unusual for historical sources. The numbers of German and Austrian Jews given in the WP match monthly reports compiled by the statistical bureaux of the Jewish councils in Berlin and Vienna, which had to submit monthly reports to the Gestapo so they could monitor the number of emigrants, deaths, births and deportations. The same series of reports were then used by Korherr, the SS statistican, who compiled a report which synthesised numbers from various agencies, who informed him to the best of their ability, and in some cases clearly gave simple estimates because they sent in rounded numbers.
This is a good example of the problems faced when encountering statistics in historical documents. The statistics will only ever be as good as the bureaucracies which collect the figures, and there are many, many examples where government agencies lost track of things.
The Wehrmacht was
undercounting the number of German war dead systematically by 1943, and even more so in 1944 and 1945, because of poor statistical systems.
I am also not interested in religious studies.
That's nice, but your attempt to dismiss the existing scholarship with a handwave doesn't absolve you of the requirement of knowing just a little bit about it, before anyone need take you seriously when you comment on these issues.
It is interesting to read many posts by you and observe that you spell full zero digit numbers and percentages at will, without any care to accuracy. But when I ask for statistical reference, you disguise your inability to present me the original data with huge paragraphs of words.
Frankly, you have been so cryptic I haven't even seen where you have asked any clear questions about numbers.
You tried to dismiss Paulsson without considering whether it would be possible to arrive at an exact number of Jews in hiding. I argued that it was not possible, so expecting an absolutely precise number is irrational. This is also no different to billions of other historical figures which will never, ever be known with absolute precision, no matter what the topic.
Perhaps you should state your point more clearly. What numbers are you actually talking about?
