• 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.
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.

I disagree.

Dresden historical commission publishes final report

The »Historical Commission on the Aerial Bombing of Dresden between 13th and 15th February 1945« brought its investigations on behalf of the City of Dresden to a close on 17th March 2010 with the publishing of a final report. Following the presentation to Mayor Helma Orosz, the report was on the same day made available to the general public both in book form and via the city's website.

(...)

It was not a feasible objective of the investigations to determine each individual person killed in Dresden in February 1945 with any degree of certainty. It was rather the intention to establish the order of the total figure, in other words to determine the number of deaths within a significantly narrower range than that to be derived from the current debate. This was accomplished successfully by the Commission. Essential characteristics of the research work were both the extraordinarily broad interdisciplinary approach and intensive use of the possibilities offered by electronic information processing.
(...)

Over the course of intensive research in archives, the records of cemeteries both in and outside Dresden and the files of the register offices and local courts, almost 60,000 data records were acquired in an electronic database. In the majority of cases, several records referred to one and the same person. The data gathered related to both identified persons and unidentified remains. It was subsequently possible, on the basis of this data, to essentially reconstruct the processes of recovery, registration and burial after the bombing. (...)

The plausibility of the newly determined figure was tested in several further phases of study. Neither the documentary records, nor the numerous contentions and narratives to be found in literature and the media revealed sustainable arguments which placed the result in doubt.

(...)

The Commission gave consideration to the number of refugees killed in Dresden from several perspectives; their number is frequently assumed to be very high. The analysis of individual records, however, revealed clearly that the proportion of refugees among those killed during the aerial bombing of Dresden was actually only small. This conclusion was also confirmed by a statistical evaluation of the records of nationally active tracing services.
(...)

Through its intensive treatment of the memories of eyewitnesses, the Commission was once more able to reconstruct the human dimension of the Dresden catastrophe of February 1945 in particularly vivid form. The personally specific records in the electronic database, too, permit a view beyond bare figures and bring to light the individual suffering of those affected. The Commission understands its work as a contribution to a scientific portrayal of historical events and to responsible remembrance of the fate of those who lost their lives in Dresden.


http://www.dresden.de/en/02/07/03/historical_commission.php
 
I said I never denied mass shootings by the Einsatzgruppen. I deny Einsatzgruppen activity is evidence of an extermination policy and gas chambers. Lemmycaution continues spamming me to explain the Jagger report. I've done that. It's evidence of Einsatzgruppen activity. If he wants me to explain why it isn't evidence of gas chambers, he'll need to explain why it is first. And I mean something more definitive than saying that people who shoot women and children could easily build gas chambers or that there's nothing in the Jagger report that says there aren't gas chambers.
This is completely disingenuous. You claimed, let's see, that the Jeager report was not evidence of a mass execution of Jews but of German anti-partisan actions, ethnic cleansing (non-lethal), or a rogue operation. That was the basis for a protracted discussion, after your attempt to move goalposts and throw in gas chambers at the outset. You are so dishonest you're not worth having a discussion with.
 
Using this post as a microcosm for the scientific and moral standing of deniers in general, we can say that they deliberately provide false information and denigrate the victims of the Holocaust for no reason whatsoever.

What do you find false?
 
I disagree.

There is no indication this was done either by an international commission or that 'mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians' were involved. So your original objection is still gibberish and bogus.

The Dresden commission worked no differently to the Statistisches Bundesamt project using computer databases to calculate the number of German Jews who perished in the Holocaust, or indeed the much earlier Dutch Red Cross project identifying Dutch Holocaust victims, or several other similar projects for the Holocaust, many of which use computer databases, and which are no different to many other historical statistical projects using databases.

You also seem to forget that you started up with this statistics nonsense when asking about entirely different numbers.

The Dresden commission could not tell you how many of the survivors of Dresden hid in cellars versus how many in air raid shelters to the same standard of precision as it can calculate the number of the dead. But historians can come up with some estimates for such a fact without requiring computer databases, and come up with provisional answers.
 
Lots of social scientists can do statistical analysis especially with WYSISYG statistical software. That doesn't require a statistician or a mathematician.
 
I disagree.

Dresden historical commission publishes final report


The Dresden commission consisted of the following scholars and assistants

Wissenschaftliche Leitung

Prof. Dr. phil. Rolf-Dieter Müller
Wissenschaftlicher Direktor, Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt der Bundeswehr, Potsdam

Kommissionsmitglieder

Götz Bergander
Journalist, Publizist, Berlin
Dr. phil. Horst Boog
Leitender Wissenschaftlicher Direktor a.D., Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt der Bundeswehr, Stegen
Wolfgang Fleischer
Militärhistoriker, Wissenschaftlicher Oberrat im Militärhistorischen Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden, Dresden
Thomas Kübler
Amtsleiter des Stadtarchivs Dresden, Dresden
Dipl.-Ing. Matthias Neutzner
Historiker, Publizist, IG "13. Februar 1945" e. V., Dresden
Dr. rer. pol. et phil. Rüdiger Overmans
ehemals Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt der Bundeswehr, Freiburg
Dr. phil. Alexander von Plato
ehemaliger Direktor des Institutes für Geschichte und Biographie, Stade
Friedrich Reichert
Dipl.-Historiker, Stadtmuseum Dresden, Dresden
Nicole Schönherr M.A.
Historikerin, Dresden
Dr. phil. Helmut Schnatz
Studiendirektor a. D., Koblenz
Dr. phil. Thomas Westphalen
Abteilungsleiter im Landesamt für Archäologie, Dresden
Dr. phil. Thomas Widera
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter, Hannah-Arendt-Institut für Totalitarismusforschung e.V. an der Technischen Universität Dresden, Dresden

Koordination der Kommissionsarbeit

Peter Teichmann
Landeshauptstadt Dresden, Dresden (bis September 2008)
Thomas Kübler
Amtsleiter des Stadtarchivs Dresden, Dresden (ab Oktober 2008);
Nicole Schönherr
Historikerin, Dresden (ab Oktober 2008)

Not a 'mathematician, computer analyst or librarian' among them, unless you count one (1) archivist as a "librarian".

Of these scholars, the person with the most experience working with statistical analyses is Ruediger Overmans, who is still 'just' a historian, but did very important work on Wehrmacht casualties (I alluded to him earlier in the thread).
 
No.You seen to be. No URLs yet.

Evidence

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=202147&page=37



Often as possible.

Think about what you just typed:


Minimum security level.



They proved the quickest gassing method and were chosen as the means of mass murder at Auschwitz. . . .

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220
Thank you for this post, SnakeTongue. In it, you demonstrate that you will continue to lie about what I claimed. You even highlighted Clayton's words and mine as though they both express my views.

You also show that, in the posts of mine you quote, I didn't claim that Jews killed Jews. You show that I was specific about the repugnant tasks which the Nazis forced some Jewish camp inmates to do. And that specifically Jews weren't forced to kill other Jews.

Your claim was a lie, and you proved your lying in your post.

My question for you is rather simple: Why do you feel the need to lie about what I have said in this forum?
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

Dresden historical commission publishes final report


I keep coming back to this because it keeps getting worse for you

p.67 of the Abschlussbericht comes to the conclusion

Im Ergebnis der von der Kommission vorgenommenen Untersuchungen wird festgestellt: Bei den Luftangriffen auf Dresden vom 13. bis 15. Februar 1945 wird bis zu 25.000 Menschen getoetet.

So the scientific conclusion of the commission was simply that 'up to' 25,000 were killed, just as was reported in the media.
 
Thank you for this post, SnakeTongue. In it, you demonstrate that you will continue to lie about what I claimed. You even highlighted Clayton's words and mine as though they both express my views.

You also show that, in the posts of mine you quote, I didn't claim that Jews killed Jews. You show that I was specific about the repugnant tasks which the Nazis forced some Jewish camp inmates to do. And that specifically Jews weren't forced to kill other Jews.

Your claim was a lie, and you proved your lying in your post.

My question for you is rather simple: Why do you feel the need to lie about what I have said in this forum?

So now the German guards performed all the labor?
 
This is completely disingenuous. You claimed, let's see, that the Jeager report was not evidence of a mass execution of Jews but of German anti-partisan actions, ethnic cleansing (non-lethal), or a rogue operation. That was the basis for a protracted discussion, after your attempt to move goalposts and throw in gas chambers at the outset. You are so dishonest you're not worth having a discussion with.

What are you saying here? That I moved goalposts and threw in gas chambers at the outset? That's called establishing what we're talking about. I'm sorry if your attempt at derailing the conversation by spinning it off into irrelevancy isn't working out for you. What you call dishonesty is merely maintaining focus.
 
So now the German guards performed all the labor?

How about, you read just one book about Auschwitz, and you might find that a third of your posts here become unnecessary, with the added benefit of making you seem much smarter instead of further cementing your already woeful reputation for wilful ignorance?
 
What are you saying here? That I moved goalposts and threw in gas chambers at the outset? That's called establishing what we're talking about. I'm sorry if your attempt at derailing the conversation by spinning it off into irrelevancy isn't working out for you. What you call dishonesty is merely maintaining focus.

It's dishonesty no matter how you try to slice it.

LemmyCaution very clearly explained on the previous thread, and has done so again, that he does not consider the Jaeger report evidence for gas chambers, so quit putting words into his mouth. You may also find that you don't get any response from Lemmy for a while as he has informed me he is beyond disgusted with your mendacity, as am I.
 
So now the German guards performed all the labor?
LOL, that is so silly it's almost a joke, go back and read what I posted http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8217505&postcount=803 (where SnakeTongue has quoted from some old posts of mine, in a strange and self-imploding post of his own): I was specific about the labor performed by Jews - and you tried to twist what I wrote, and got some of SnakeTongue's Sonderhiliting for your dishonesty.
 
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.

If you know the numerical sources are not precise, why do you use them? For dramatization?

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.

EVIDENCE, not sources. You missed the word...

It's OK. Since you posted 'Statistics for Dummies', you have basically lost all intellectual credibility.

Blame Pythagoras, not me!

Except you keep trying to dismiss scholarly works with ridiculous arguments. So yes you are here to "discuss academic credibility". The only problem is you haven't shown that you are capable of assessing this. Indeed it is fairly obvious you aren't capable.

"Discuss academic credibility":

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
Now I don't know about you, but most of us are quite capable of reasoning from the general (extermination) to the particular (gassing) and are not literalist retards.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7002515&postcount=661

Dogzilla and Saggy will no doubt be shocked to hear that I have never read Elie Wiesel's Night. I have, however, read more than 100 other published memoirs of Auschwitz and more than 2,000 unpublished testimonies, the latter mostly from 1945-46 immediately after the war.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7091518&postcount=1009

fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
Just admit your gross ignorance of the subject and move on. Or go away and read a book, then come back and debate the subject properly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6996995&postcount=627

Evidently, the powers that be in the revisionist scene, most especially Bradley Smith who runs CODOH, don't care that by rigging their forum in this manner, they make a mockery of the Open Debate part of the CODOH name and also demonstrate that revisionists are incapable of joined-up thinking

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6999108&postcount=636

fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
Our knowledge of the Peloponnesian War is almost entirely derived from a single source, Thucydides. Archaeology cannot corroborate most of the events described in his account, and there are really few other written sources to do the same thing. (...) Indeed, there is more written evidence available for the Holocaust than we are ever likely to see regarding many other mass exterminations in modern history, since the genocidal regimes in question destroyed many of their records, too.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6999211&postcount=638

Baby-tearing, however, was not among the major methods used, and so cannot define the Holocaust as you seem to think it does.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7081338&postcount=869

recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.

That's making the assumption that I am somehow incapable of changing my style depending on the venue. While it might be true for you, it's not true for me.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7001668&postcount=652

My psychology ought to be very simple to grasp. It is the same underlying psychology as drives anyone who is interested in learning about something.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7091671&postcount=1016
 
LOL, that is so silly it's almost a joke, go back and read what I posted http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8217505&postcount=803 (where SnakeTongue has quoted from some old posts of mine, in a strange and self-imploding post of his own): I was specific about the labor performed by Jews - and you tried to twist what I wrote, and got some of SnakeTongue's Sonderhiliting for your dishonesty.

So the guards didn't do it. The Jewish labor can't be blamed. The Jewish people weren't registered. I'm beginning to think somebody made all this stuff up.
 
So the guards didn't do it.
Didn't do what?
The Jewish labor can't be blamed.
Blamed for what?
The Jewish people weren't registered.
Many -- the majority -- weren't
I'm beginning to think somebody made all this stuff up.
No, you began with that as an article of faith, and are desperately trying to make the facts fit that belief.

While the rest of us look at the facts *first*, and say "where does this point us?"

One process is recognized worldwide as a valid academic endeavour, the other as a farce.

You're on the wrong side of that fence.

And you know it, too, or you wouldn't keep lying and then running from those lies.
 
Not in a single photographic moment in the course of events which took place over a matter of years.

I also do not see, in that supposed (probably forged) photograph Hitler eating, taking a crap, or committing suicide -- I suppose he never did any of those things, either...

So much "forged" as the pictures you use in your avatar profile...

The topic here is not "fictional deaths". It is you denial of the reality, illuminated by literally mountains of evidence of all sorts, of the attempt to remove an entire people from the face of the Earth.

No, the topic is not my denial of reality but the denial of the holocaust concept. There are no lights showing any attempts of mass extermination. The holocaust is a dark paradox and it serve as the utmost proof for the scientific awareness.

As are we all.

Yes, we are eternally doomed to repeat the cycle. The law of death is unchangeable. Not even science can infringe this law.

Care to stop waving your hands for a bit -- it apparently makes it impossible for you to make coherent, factual and on-topic posts.

I am not waving hands, but using them to type keys.
 
Originally Posted by Nick Terry
Dogzilla and Saggy will no doubt be shocked to hear that I have never read Elie Wiesel's Night. I have, however, read more than 100 other published memoirs of Auschwitz and more than 2,000 unpublished testimonies, the latter mostly from 1945-46 immediately after the war.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...postcount=1009

So Nick Terry, did you read "Night" yet?

Did you see The Last Days and The Last Days of the Big Lie?

The Last Days (Steven Speilberg,Shoah,1998)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UlBo3GFgWY

The Last Days of the Big Lie

Take your pick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7tHB8tD34s

http://archive.org/details/Holocaust-TheLastDaysOfTheBigLie

How about The Fifth Diamond? Did you read that Nick Terry?

Same questions for
LemmyCaution? abaddon? LSSBB? Worclaw? ANTPogo? Moss? TSR? 000063? MG1962?? carlitos? Tomtomkent? Bluespaceoddity? dafydd? OCaptain? Spui? KDLarsen? dudalb? Mudcat? uke2se? BaaBaa? BazBear? tsig?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom