General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[000063]

Why is this picture a mirror image of the picture at the charmingcars.com link you posted, SnakeTongue?

He's still on about that? Even after I pointed out that the car clearly had a modified exhaust pipe?

I'm betting that he hasn't provided any post-war cars of a comparable make with the canted exhaust either, or bothered to address the provenance of the tape.

...
I have no reason to doubt that your weeks-after-the-fact "document comparison" is your own work. That's why it was weeks late, based on a scattershot and random selection of documents that can't seriously be used as the basis for a legitimate comparison, and was reliant on your complete lack of understanding of how the institutional symbols and filing codes on RSHA documentation actually worked.

Funny. That's pretty much what I said about his "statistical analysis" explaining why Eichmann's testimony should be dismissed. Of course, said analysis had basically nothing to do with his original claim, I had to ask him about a dozen times, and he still refuses to answer the clarified question in #677.

...What he said in the post is equivalent to saying that the well-formed formula that you see above is not a theorem. And guess what, it isn't.

Yep. It's cute how he avoids proving his claim, preferring instead to strawman my point.

Of course, there's something...special about claiming that the people couldn't have been gassed to death just because the video doesn't show them in a gas chamber.

 

[000063]

If any of what you just wrote explains why 000063's belief in the historical value of that video clip is anything more than nonsense borne of extreme gullibility, please say it again in English. Nobody here understands what ∀p∀a(∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x)∧L(p,x,t))) ∧ ∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y)) ⇒ ¬∃t.H(p,a,t)) means.

(BTW, if anybody wants to pretend they do understand, feel free to explain it in your own words.)

So you don't understand, and you assume no one else does, yet you have no problem with Snakey "refuting" me using similar terms.

Do you have anything to refute the video other than nitpicking over exhaust pipe styles and declaring that the people in the video who aren't in the gas chamber on-screen therefore weren't gassed? Anything besides incredulity? How about questioning its provenance? I'm not sure why (even if video was shot of the actual entering of the chamber and gassing) one would expect it to be shown in a public museum. It's disturbing enough just to look at that skeletal figure, much less to watch him die. Heck, there might be children watching.

And about that; people in that state tend to die. At the very least, they end up with serious health problems. Yet all you lot seem to care about is whether they were gassed to death.

The fact that Snakey "refuted" a plain English sentence in needlessly complex terms is indicative of him trying to look smarter than he is. Which is strange, because I deliberately used the sort of language I might use to explain the idea to a fourth-grader, just to be as clear as possible, and he felt it needed to be more complicated. Yet you have no problem with him making up Latin phrases instead of explaining it in plain English.

But hey, keep scoffing at a concept you admit you don't understand. That's logically consistent.

EDIT: Not to mention using the exact same "we" that Snakey keeps nitpicking when debunkers use it.

 

[Rincewind]

Hey Snaketongue,

Did you ever find out who Himmler was?

 

[000063]

Good point. That would be like wanting to discuss American Government from 2000-2008 and going "Who Cheney?" I can't even remember what excuses he made for not knowing one of the most basic facts of the subject under discussion.

EDIT Actually, he's been proceeding exactly like many CTs; demand evidence from your opponents, question every detail, never admit its valid, and never even look up any evidence contrary to your case that you can't quote-mine. Which is why the debunkers here often seem to be more knowledgeable about denier arguments than the deniers themselves.

Oh, and keep changing your standards of acceptable evidence. If they provide books, whine about having to buy them without actually checking to see if you do, then ignore when its pointed out several of those books are freely available. If they provide links among other sources, complain that the source is tainted or try to find "anomalies". When they literally cut-and-paste the exact information to prove their point, nitpick and never admit you're wrong. And above all, never admit to not knowing anything.

 

[Marras]

If any of what you just wrote explains why 000063's belief in the historical value of that video clip is anything more than nonsense borne of extreme gullibility, please say it again in English.

What prompted my post was the observation that SnakeTongue wrote a string of gibberish using mathematical symbols and pretended that it represented 000063's argument.

It didn't. It was a string of nonsense that didn't have anything to do with either symbolic logic or the argument.

Nobody here understands what ∀p∀a(∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x)∧L(p,x,t))) ∧ ∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y)) ⇒ ¬∃t.H(p,a,t)) means.

That's the main reason why I made the post: there was the possibility - slight as it was - that someone who doesn't know symbolic logic might have mistook SnakeTongue's post as containing logic. I wanted to point out that it wasn't the case. I included that symbolic formulation mostly to demonstrate that - in this specific case - I know what I'm writing about. It's not a shame to not know symbolic logic, most people don't and there's nothing wrong in that. However, it's a pretty strange idea to try to use it to win an internet argument when you don't even understand the syntax enough to realize that you are writing that a group of people is an inherent part of a place.

As I wrote in the post, the sentence in itself is a symbolic version of 000063's sentence. Nothing more. Breaking it in smaller pieces the left hand side of the top-level implication (that's the rightmost '⇒', by the way) has two parts. The first is:

∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x) ∧ L(p,x,t)))

that reads in English: "if an event 'a' happens to people 'p' at the time 't', then there exists a place 'x' such that 'a' can happen at 'x' and the people 'p' are at 'x' at the time 't'". Or informally, "if a thing happens to some people, then they have to be in a place where it can happen at the time that it happens".

The second part there is:

∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y))

that reads informally: "the people 'p' were sometime at a place where 'a' can't happen"

The right hand side of the implication is:

¬∃t.H(p,a,t)

which means informally: "the event 'a' never happened to people 'p'".

Putting these together the whole sentence reads (very informally): "If a thing happens to some people, they have to be a place where it can happen when it happens. Those people were at some time in a place where it can't happen. Thus, the thing never happened." I hope you can agree that this reasoning is false (as the time when those people were at the other place may well be different from the time the event happened, I can write this down with symbols if you really want to see it). That is what 000063 was saying even though he used slightly different words ('does not mean never happened') as what he said is formalized the way I did it.

But anyway, the sentence is not a logical proof that the gassing happened. Obviously. Instead, it's a demonstration that SnakeTongue's claim that 000063's argument is illogical fails in two completely different ways: (1) SnakeTongue formalized the argument in a completely bogus way that had no relation to the argument and (2) when the argument is formalized correctly, it turns out to be valid. If we formalized his original argument that started this subthread, it too would turn out to be valid. It wouldn't prove that the gassing happened but it would show that SnakeTongue's argument against it happening is bogus.

(For a slight tangent, I'm not a fan of trying to use symbolic logic for proving things about the Real World™. It's too clunky for that and there are too many places where you need to use subjective judgement to abstract away details that you can't model exactly, but this is not a thread about the limitations of logic so I don't go further in that direction.)

 

[000063]

In short, all Snakey was doing was making a straw man, but he was trying to cloak it in such smoke and mirrors that no one could understand him, and he could claim victory by saying something no one could refute.

While you, by contrast, clearly thought their was a reasonable chance SnakeTongue would be able to understand your symbolic logic, and took the time to explain it in detail to Doggie.

Hm.

 

[TSR]

(BTW, if anybody wants to pretend they do understand, feel free to explain it in your own words.)

I'd prefer if you explained why you told so many lies in your description of what happened to Anne Frank.

 

[dafydd]

I'd prefer if you explained why you told so many lies in your description of what happened to Anne Frank.

That's easy. He's a denier. They have no real evidence that the Holocaust did not take place so they have to lie about it.

 

[Dogzilla]

What prompted my post was the observation that SnakeTongue wrote a string of gibberish using mathematical symbols and pretended that it represented 000063's argument.

It didn't. It was a string of nonsense that didn't have anything to do with either symbolic logic or the argument.



That's the main reason why I made the post: there was the possibility - slight as it was - that someone who doesn't know symbolic logic might have mistook SnakeTongue's post as containing logic. I wanted to point out that it wasn't the case. I included that symbolic formulation mostly to demonstrate that - in this specific case - I know what I'm writing about. It's not a shame to not know symbolic logic, most people don't and there's nothing wrong in that. However, it's a pretty strange idea to try to use it to win an internet argument when you don't even understand the syntax enough to realize that you are writing that a group of people is an inherent part of a place.

As I wrote in the post, the sentence in itself is a symbolic version of 000063's sentence. Nothing more. Breaking it in smaller pieces the left hand side of the top-level implication (that's the rightmost '⇒', by the way) has two parts. The first is:

∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x) ∧ L(p,x,t)))

that reads in English: "if an event 'a' happens to people 'p' at the time 't', then there exists a place 'x' such that 'a' can happen at 'x' and the people 'p' are at 'x' at the time 't'". Or informally, "if a thing happens to some people, then they have to be in a place where it can happen at the time that it happens".

The second part there is:

∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y))

that reads informally: "the people 'p' were sometime at a place where 'a' can't happen"

The right hand side of the implication is:

¬∃t.H(p,a,t)

which means informally: "the event 'a' never happened to people 'p'".

Putting these together the whole sentence reads (very informally): "If a thing happens to some people, they have to be a place where it can happen when it happens. Those people were at some time in a place where it can't happen. Thus, the thing never happened." I hope you can agree that this reasoning is false (as the time when those people were at the other place may well be different from the time the event happened, I can write this down with symbols if you really want to see it). That is what 000063 was saying even though he used slightly different words ('does not mean never happened') as what he said is formalized the way I did it.

But anyway, the sentence is not a logical proof that the gassing happened. Obviously. Instead, it's a demonstration that SnakeTongue's claim that 000063's argument is illogical fails in two completely different ways: (1) SnakeTongue formalized the argument in a completely bogus way that had no relation to the argument and (2) when the argument is formalized correctly, it turns out to be valid. If we formalized his original argument that started this subthread, it too would turn out to be valid. It wouldn't prove that the gassing happened but it would show that SnakeTongue's argument against it happening is bogus.

(For a slight tangent, I'm not a fan of trying to use symbolic logic for proving things about the Real World™. It's too clunky for that and there are too many places where you need to use subjective judgement to abstract away details that you can't model exactly, but this is not a thread about the limitations of logic so I don't go further in that direction.)

Thank you. That was helpful. I agree on the limits of symbolic logic in this sort of discussion. It can be useful to have a common language but logic argument is only useful when the assumptions are accurate. In this instance, 000063's argument fails because the assumptions cannot be validated.

 

[Dogzilla]

I'd prefer if you explained why you told so many lies in your description of what happened to Anne Frank.

I didn't think you had any idea what they were talking about.

 

[Dogzilla]

That's easy. He's a denier. They have no real evidence that the Holocaust did not take place so they have to lie about it.

I knew you wouldn't understand either. But you get bonus lack of understanding points by criticizing deniers for not having proof that something didn't happen.

 

[Nick Terry]

Oh dear God. The three remaining deniers are truly a sorry spectacle of inarticulacy. One is Brazilian, one is a laconic cowboy, and the other one posts nonsense so cryptic it might as well come from a Brazilian cowboy.

It's high time to remind them of the following wise words from Horatius, written to denier guru denierbud/budly back in 2009:

You know, I think your inability to understand history is matched only by your inability to understand what it is you're doing here at JREF. Do you know what that is?


You're advertising.

You're trying to promote your beliefs (Holocaust denial) in the marketplace of ideas. We here are the potential consumers of those ideas, whom you wish to attract to your product.

Now, we skeptics here at JREF are a desirable consumer base in the marketplace of ideas. We are well-known for being smart shoppers, not easily swayed by the nonsense of the day. As such, purveyors of ideas come to us from all over, knowing that if they can convince us, they can convince almost anyone to believe as they do. Thus, we have people who believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, God, Angels, homeopathy, 9/11 Truth, and a thousand other ideas vying for our attention.

Now remember, you came to us. We did not go looking for your favourite forum to start a discussion of your videos, you came to our forum. If you want to compete against those others for our attention, you must give us something more than they do. I can go to any forum on this site, and find some earnest idea-pusher eager to engage me, and convince me to join them in their beliefs. Why should I engage with you, rather than any one of them?

Your posts here are your advertisements, and they are all you have to draw us in. Despite that, though, right from the very start, you have consistently refused to give us the information that we, as smart shoppers, have learned is needed to make any engagement with you worthwhile. We've shown you reports on your beliefs that indicate they are seriously flawed, which you have made no effort to rebut. It's as if a car salesman we to simply wave away a Consumers Report article that indicated the car he was selling was a fire hazard. Rejecting such a report out of hand may be easy, but it won't sell a car, will it?

You're competing in the marketplace of ideas. If you're incapable of expressing those ideas in a form that attracts our attention, then you'll surely lose

and remind them of the staggering success of their brand as measured by the fact that no fewer than 133 people on this forum have voted to express their opinion that Holocaust denial is wrong, of whom 111 don't post on this thread and clearly have little intention of posting on this thread. So that's 111 people who have been alienated from your ideas, minimum.

 

[tsig]

What prompted my post was the observation that SnakeTongue wrote a string of gibberish using mathematical symbols and pretended that it represented 000063's argument.

It didn't. It was a string of nonsense that didn't have anything to do with either symbolic logic or the argument.



That's the main reason why I made the post: there was the possibility - slight as it was - that someone who doesn't know symbolic logic might have mistook SnakeTongue's post as containing logic. I wanted to point out that it wasn't the case. I included that symbolic formulation mostly to demonstrate that - in this specific case - I know what I'm writing about. It's not a shame to not know symbolic logic, most people don't and there's nothing wrong in that. However, it's a pretty strange idea to try to use it to win an internet argument when you don't even understand the syntax enough to realize that you are writing that a group of people is an inherent part of a place.

As I wrote in the post, the sentence in itself is a symbolic version of 000063's sentence. Nothing more. Breaking it in smaller pieces the left hand side of the top-level implication (that's the rightmost '⇒', by the way) has two parts. The first is:

∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x) ∧ L(p,x,t)))

that reads in English: "if an event 'a' happens to people 'p' at the time 't', then there exists a place 'x' such that 'a' can happen at 'x' and the people 'p' are at 'x' at the time 't'". Or informally, "if a thing happens to some people, then they have to be in a place where it can happen at the time that it happens".

The second part there is:

∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y))

that reads informally: "the people 'p' were sometime at a place where 'a' can't happen"

The right hand side of the implication is:

¬∃t.H(p,a,t)

which means informally: "the event 'a' never happened to people 'p'".

Putting these together the whole sentence reads (very informally): "If a thing happens to some people, they have to be a place where it can happen when it happens. Those people were at some time in a place where it can't happen. Thus, the thing never happened." I hope you can agree that this reasoning is false (as the time when those people were at the other place may well be different from the time the event happened, I can write this down with symbols if you really want to see it). That is what 000063 was saying even though he used slightly different words ('does not mean never happened') as what he said is formalized the way I did it.

But anyway, the sentence is not a logical proof that the gassing happened. Obviously. Instead, it's a demonstration that SnakeTongue's claim that 000063's argument is illogical fails in two completely different ways: (1) SnakeTongue formalized the argument in a completely bogus way that had no relation to the argument and (2) when the argument is formalized correctly, it turns out to be valid. If we formalized his original argument that started this subthread, it too would turn out to be valid. It wouldn't prove that the gassing happened but it would show that SnakeTongue's argument against it happening is bogus.

(For a slight tangent, I'm not a fan of trying to use symbolic logic for proving things about the Real World™. It's too clunky for that and there are too many places where you need to use subjective judgement to abstract away details that you can't model exactly, but this is not a thread about the limitations of logic so I don't go further in that direction.)

Thank you. That was helpful. I agree on the limits of symbolic logic in this sort of discussion. It can be useful to have a common language but logic argument is only useful when the assumptions are accurate. In this instance, 000063's argument fails because the assumptions cannot be validated.

I didn't think you had any idea what they were talking about.

I knew you wouldn't understand either. But you get bonus lack of understanding points by criticizing deniers for not having proof that something didn't happen.

Clueless.

 

[abaddon]

What prompted my post was the observation that SnakeTongue wrote a string of gibberish using mathematical symbols and pretended that it represented 000063's argument.

It didn't. It was a string of nonsense that didn't have anything to do with either symbolic logic or the argument.



That's the main reason why I made the post: there was the possibility - slight as it was - that someone who doesn't know symbolic logic might have mistook SnakeTongue's post as containing logic. I wanted to point out that it wasn't the case. I included that symbolic formulation mostly to demonstrate that - in this specific case - I know what I'm writing about. It's not a shame to not know symbolic logic, most people don't and there's nothing wrong in that. However, it's a pretty strange idea to try to use it to win an internet argument when you don't even understand the syntax enough to realize that you are writing that a group of people is an inherent part of a place.

As I wrote in the post, the sentence in itself is a symbolic version of 000063's sentence. Nothing more. Breaking it in smaller pieces the left hand side of the top-level implication (that's the rightmost '⇒', by the way) has two parts. The first is:

∀t.(H(p,a,t) ⇒ ∃x.(C(a,x) ∧ L(p,x,t)))

that reads in English: "if an event 'a' happens to people 'p' at the time 't', then there exists a place 'x' such that 'a' can happen at 'x' and the people 'p' are at 'x' at the time 't'". Or informally, "if a thing happens to some people, then they have to be in a place where it can happen at the time that it happens".

The second part there is:

∃y∃t.(L(p,y,t) ∧ ¬C(a,y))

that reads informally: "the people 'p' were sometime at a place where 'a' can't happen"

The right hand side of the implication is:

¬∃t.H(p,a,t)

which means informally: "the event 'a' never happened to people 'p'".

Putting these together the whole sentence reads (very informally): "If a thing happens to some people, they have to be a place where it can happen when it happens. Those people were at some time in a place where it can't happen. Thus, the thing never happened." I hope you can agree that this reasoning is false (as the time when those people were at the other place may well be different from the time the event happened, I can write this down with symbols if you really want to see it). That is what 000063 was saying even though he used slightly different words ('does not mean never happened') as what he said is formalized the way I did it.

But anyway, the sentence is not a logical proof that the gassing happened. Obviously. Instead, it's a demonstration that SnakeTongue's claim that 000063's argument is illogical fails in two completely different ways: (1) SnakeTongue formalized the argument in a completely bogus way that had no relation to the argument and (2) when the argument is formalized correctly, it turns out to be valid. If we formalized his original argument that started this subthread, it too would turn out to be valid. It wouldn't prove that the gassing happened but it would show that SnakeTongue's argument against it happening is bogus.

(For a slight tangent, I'm not a fan of trying to use symbolic logic for proving things about the Real World™. It's too clunky for that and there are too many places where you need to use subjective judgement to abstract away details that you can't model exactly, but this is not a thread about the limitations of logic so I don't go further in that direction.)

Nicely done.

And welcome to the board.

 

[abaddon]

The wrong model:

A car (Adler 1939 limousine or convertible, 2 litres, registration number "Pol 28545") was parked outside and one of the pipes connected to the car’s exhaust.

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

The right model:

Adler Standard 6 - 1927-1934
Adler Standard 8 - 1928-1934
Adler Favorit - 1929-1934
Adler Primus - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf - 1932-1936
Adler Trumpf Junior - 1934-1941
Adler Diplomat - 1934-1938
Adler Trumpf - 1936-1938
Adler Primus - 1937-1938
Adler 2,5 Liter (Type 10) - 1937-1940Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homep...ger_cars/Commercial_cars/commercial_cars.html

The Adler eagle 2.5 liters is a passenger car, which the eagle works in 1937 brought out as a “Type 10″. He was the successor to the model diplomatthought. The streamlined body was a work of chief designer Karl Jenschke (1899-1969), who until November 1935 senior engineer at Steyr-Daimler-Puch AG was.

http://www.charmingcars.com/the-adler-eagle-2-5-liters/​

“During the afternoon Nebe had the window bricked in, leaving two openings for the gas hose… When we arrived, one of the hoses that I had brought was connected. It was fixed onto the exhaust of a touring car… Pieces of piping stuck out of holes made in the wall, onto which the hose could easily be fitted… After five minutes Nebe came out and said that nothing appeared to have happened. After eight minutes he had been unable to detect any result and asked what should be done next. Nebe and I came to the conclusion that the car was not powerful enough. So Nebe had the second hose fitted onto a transport vehicle which belonged to the regular police. It then took only another few minutes before the people were unconscious. Both vehicles were left running for about another ten minutes.”

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_mogilev.html​

There is no exhaust pipe as claimed by Dr Albert Widmann and the hoses in the forged video are obviously made of metal.

[qimg]http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3718/adlereagle25literspictu.jpg[/qimg]



Wrong model.



Who is "we"?

Got yourself the wrong model there, bub.

First you flipped the image, dishonestly IMHO.

Then you forgot the detail. (highlighted in green, there may be more)

So what are we to make of this discrepancy, coupled with dishonest image manipulation?

ETA: Forgot to mention. You are comparing the RHS of the car in the WW2 pic, with the LHS of the car in your pic because you flipped the image. Please explain.

Furthermore, that completely sinks your attempted point without trace.

 

[SnakeTongue]

I realize that a few people have already answered this but this is just too much:

Snake, can you explain to me what a margin of error is?

Buy the book and learn from it (as recommended by many in this forum thread).

However, I will give you a hint: it is the amount of error tolerated to determine the precision of the data analysed.

Hint 1: It's determined by the researcher in advance, as is clearly written on the "cheat sheet" you linked to.

I propose N = 1000.

Did you noticed?

Hint 2: You confused the margin of error with the standard deviation and f-----d up the entire calculation. That's despite the fact that a sample of one, as Eichmann's data would be, has a (trivial) standard deviation of 0.

No, I did not confused margin of error with standard deviation. You confused the formula I used to determine the margin of error.

Hint 3: Until you learn statistics, you might want to avoid making yourself look like an idiot by posting things like the above.

Answer the bellow enquire "to avoid making yourself look like an idiot by posting things like the above":

Yes, several times. For reference, HC Blog's Roberto Muehlenkamp has written extensively on the topic of pyres.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogs...r-treblinka-holocaust.html#uds-search-results

Cattle:
"Another way to estimate the burning time of a pyre is to look at the times required for mass burning of carcasses when more or less competently handled. (p.494)"
In a variety of file formats here:
http://archive.org/details/BelzecSobiborTreblinka.HolocaustDenialAndOperationReinhard.ACritique

On page 498 In table 8.31 I see 789,000 corpses and a total weight of 14,951,550. I see a number 18.95. It seems that the average corpse weight is 18.95 as

18.95 X 789,000 = 14,951,550

So what is the unit of measure of the 18.95?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8209600&postcount=569

 

[abaddon]

I just saw a new dawn.

Question for ST.

Do you think flipping the image shows the other side of the car?

Please answer.

 

[FluffyPersian]

SnakeTongue was apparently hoping to play the dispassionate statistician to cover up his ignorance about the Holocaust. Unfortunately, he has no idea what those terms he found on Google mean.

Buy the book and learn from it (as recommended by many in this forum thread).

Not only have I "bought book," I teach the class and do the research. (I can't wait for Snaketongue's illiterate-sounding insult about this one.)

However, I will give you a hint: it is the amount of error tolerated to determine the precision of the data analysed.

Great, you were able to type in a definition you found somewhere. That's a start. Now tell us where you got 98% for Eichmann and how a sample of 1 can have a margin of error.

I propose N = 1000. Did you noticed?

N=1000 has nothing to do with the definition above. That's the sample size, not the MOE.

No, I did not confused margin of error with standard deviation. You confused the formula I used to determine the margin of error.

Really, what formula is that? Statisticians would be surprised to find that you can determine the MOE used without the sample size and standard deviation--and you don't have the standard deviation.

 

[Bluespaceoddity]

On page 498 In table 8.31 I see 789,000 corpses and a total weight of 14,951,550. I see a number 18.95. It seems that the average corpse weight is 18.95 as

18.95 X 789,000 = 14,951,550


So what is the unit of measure of the 18.95?

Are you sure Table 8.31 is on page 498? I see it on page 497.

 

[SnakeTongue]

(...) 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.

(...)

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).

You ignore the fact that the commissioners were not the only ones to work with the data.

Probably every project have specific professionals (including mathematicians, computer analysts and librarians) working under the instructions of the directors.

Structure of the organization work

The Commission held its investigations into four sub-projects, each of which was determined by a methodological approach to research.

Project 1: "Statistical-geographical analysis of the recovery, registration and burial of war dead air" (Director: Matthias Neutzner)

http://www.dresden.de/de/02/110/03/historikerkommission/01_mitglieder.php​

He grew up in Dresden where he attended Kreuzschule, one of the city’s most famous high schools and from there went on to study aeronautics and computer science. As a young engineer he worked mainly on software development. Later he began a series of interdisciplinary projects focusing on communication at the interface of technology and society.

http://2005to2007.fabrica.it/winners/artists/matthias_neutzner.html​

Project 2: "Statistical surveys in comparison" (Director: Rüdiger Overmans)​

1982 - 1986 Ph.D. in Business. economics, University of Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
1974 - 1977 Studies of Economics, University of the Bundeswehr Munich, diploma thesis in economic history

http://www.ruediger-overmans.de/​

Project 3 "investigation of the documentary tradition of narrative and images" (Director: Rolf-Dieter Muller)​

(...) Müller studied history, political science and education in Braunschweig and Mainz. After graduation, he was a research assistant at the time in Freiburg based MGFA. (...)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf-Dieter_Müller​

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

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

p.67 of the Abschlussbericht comes to the conclusion

So the scientific conclusion of the commission was simply that 'up to' 25,000 were killed, just as was reported in the media.

So?

That number is more precise than the numbers provided by your "courtesy".