ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags general discussion , holocaust , holocaust denial

Closed Thread
Old 21st April 2012, 06:49 AM   #881
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post

Adolf Hitler had more skills than you are going to achieve in your whole life...
Oh dear, very funny. The only skills he had were hate and malice. Now, are you a troll or a real Hitler hugger?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 06:55 AM   #882
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Moss View Post
This is still the same mistaken assumption you have been told about before CM: Nazi policies against the Jews were not always the same at each moment and every place. Like most things in life and history it is normally more complicated than that.
Quote:
Shouldn't those guards be aware that they allegedly gassed and killed millions of Jewish children, women, and men. Did they think or did the High Command think that they had gotten away with murdering 6/4.5 million Jewish children, women, and men. Yet they trudged around with group after group evacuating noncombatants from camp after camp.

Although nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:05 AM   #883
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,664
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
That explanation is just so much clap trap.
That explanation summarises a 9-volume encyclopedia of the concentration camp system and hundreds of separate studies which have fed into the encyclopedia, not to mention separate studies of the evacuations of the camps and the death marches.

Quote:
After three years of allegedly murdering millions of noncombatants the guards who oversaw the alleged gassing are galavanting around Europe with exhausted women hardly able to keep up.
Wrong. Gross Rosen didn't have gas chambers, it was a work camp complex. And yes, the exhausted women were hardly able to keep up, which is why the guards on many evacuation marches, whether or not they knew about gassing, shot thousands of men and women who couldn't keep up.

Quote:
So these soldiers require 6 weeks of supplies for themselves and hundreds of women?
except the hundreds of women didn't always get much in the way of supplies, which is why they became exhausted in many such marches.

Quote:
And, AND these women are not the only camp evacuations in progress.
So? The Soviets evacuated at least 17 million people in the summer of 1941, using a much less efficient transportation system and while the frontlines were being breached to far deeper operational distances than in Germany during 1945.

Quote:
Shouldn't those guards be aware that they allegedly gassed and killed millions of Jewish children, women, and men.
Whether or not they were aware is irrelevant. The Final Solution was over by the time the evacuation took place. They had been told to guard Jewish women for months beforehand, in order to make these Jewish women work. Then they were told to evacuate the women. So they did. What is so hard to understand here?

Quote:
Did they think or did the High Command think that they had gotten away with murdering 6/4.5 million Jewish children, women, and men.
Irrelevant. If these guards knew about the Final Solution, they also knew that it had stopped since there were no more gassings at Birkenau. Since so many prisoners and guards were transferred from Auschwitz to Gross-Rosen they probably did know about the Final Solution. But whether or not they knew is irrelevant, since their orders were different.

These guards may not even have been full-time SS men since many camp guards were transferred from the Army and Luftwaffe in 1944. These guards may not have been especially brutal. They may not have wanted to risk being prosecuted after the war. We don't know. That doesn't mean you can make any old crap up.

One should expect human behaviour to vary in such situations. Some hardened SS men would be more brutal, some would realise the Third Reich was a sinking ship, some would be deluded into thinking not all was lost - why on earth would you expect everyone to react in the same way? Human psychology and group behaviour simply isn't like that.

Quote:
Yet they trudged around with group after group evacuating noncombatants from camp after camp.
No. There were 700,000 prisoners in the camp system in January 1945, of whom about 300,000 were Jews and the rest non-Jews.

In January 1945, three big camp complexes, Auschwitz, Gross-Rosen and Stutthof, were evacuated or began to be evacuated because they were the easternmost camps left and threatened with being overrun by the Soviets. So this displaced 150,000+ prisoners, not all Jews. Many of the evacuations were conducted by rail, only some on foot. Some of the foot marches reached railheads fairly quickly, after a few days or a week. A six week march is exceptional. There were not many like that.

You are talking about several hundred different evacuations from separate sub-camps like Schleiersee. Some of the sub-camps could be evacuated into the main camp and from there, sent westwards by rail. Some were too far away from the main camp to do this. Like, apparently, Schleiersee.

And yes, in some cases later on, the SS guards shot prisoners rather than evacuate them. Point being the responses varied. Expecting there to be a uniform policy in a system of 700 sub-camps is completely batty.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:31 AM   #884
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Who is "we"?
Pretty much everyone in this thread who is not a denier.

Quote:
You are not in position to demand anything from me.
Yes I am. Just as you're in a position to quote-mine and ignore me.

Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
That's nice. We were not discussing the statistical data, but the witnesses' testimony in general. Since you have admitted to "refuting" only the statistical date when you know we were discussing the testimony in general, you just admitted to using a straw man argument.

And, of course, your laughable reason for contesting the statistical data has nothing to do with whether the Eichmann is kidnapped or not.

Ah, there we go. There, ST, you're wrong.
The statistical accuracy of the data provided has nothing to do with whether Eichmann was kidnapped or not. Your claim regarded Eichmann being kidnapped as a reason to dismiss his claims, you lying SnakeTongue.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:34 AM   #885
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,959
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
So now team Holocaust says the non-working children/women were not killed because the alleged gas chambers were no longer being used? So why were they being marched around for almost a year?
Gotta keep your workers healthy.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:42 AM   #886
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
 
Bluespaceoddity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I am amazed!

I did not know that in 1943's Dutch newspaper published cross words, chess boards and ads!

Your document gave me an very good visual insight about the Dutch media from the 40's.

Just what exactly means?
Geen Straf
bij tijdige aanwijzing van verborgen joden en joodsche vermogenswaarden.
Google Translate is producing a very dubious translation.
Not all papers published those so, please, share what you find amazing about the Dutch newspaper "Nieuwsblad van het Noorden", published the same day in a different region of the Netherlands.
http://resources2.kb.nl/010410000/pdf/DDD_010414078.pdf

Besides the same "Geen Straf - bij tijdige aanwijzing van verborgen joden en joodse vermogenswaarden" published in the Dordrechtsche Courant linked in the previous comment, this paper also has a "Beschikking
van den Commisaris-Generaal voor den Openbare Veiligheid betreffende het verblijf van joden in de provincies"

My translation.
"Ordinance
from the Commissaris-Generaal for Public Safety regarding the stay of Jews in the provinces"

You think there might be a connection? ... and what could the following mean? "Article 5. jood in den zin van deze beschikking is hij die ingevolge Artikel 4 van de verordening 189/40 betr. de aanmelding van ondernemingen jood is of als jood wordt aangemerkt"

Commissaris-Generaal voor den Openbare Veiligheid was a certain Rauter. Wasn't his name mentioned in this thread recently? On some list of sources from before 1950 that a different poster had requested for some reason he never explained?

Last edited by Bluespaceoddity; 21st April 2012 at 07:44 AM.
Bluespaceoddity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:42 AM   #887
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You think that picture proves that Bin Laden had the intention to murder Americans?
No, I think it proves that one cannot claim that bin Laden never plotted to murder Americans based on a single photo.

Quote:
In case your perception did not notice, Bin Laden is a fictional character created by the international media.

If you think not, prove me wrong, find Bin Laden body laying on the bottom of the ocean and I will recognize that Bin Laden was a real person.
What would stop you claiming that he wasn't someone altered to look like bin Laden? Why is only his dead body acceptable as evidence?

Also, there's the little fact of bin Laden being the scion of a wealthy and prominent Saudi family, with records and evidence and testimony of his life and activities going back longer than you've probably been alive. Like SpringHallConvert, you'd have to prove that every single one of those pieces of evidence is faked, instead of dismissing it out of hand.

Quote:
So?
I'd like to think you're incapable of getting my point, rather than unwilling.

Quote:
Where is the evidence which proves Adolf Hitler had kill anyone but the soldiers he fought in the First World War?
In thousands of museums, libraries, and history books. Oh, and there are a few Jewish survivors around who would like a few words with you. Be sure to tell them how they didn't watch people be murdered on an industrial scale, how the numbers tattooed on their arms are all fabrications.

Quote:
Your flawed logic is not acceptable as reference.
I was pointing out your flawed logic; just because Hitler is not ordering the death of Jews at the time the picture was taken is not evidence that he did not ever do so. If you take a picture of me right now, I am not pooping. Yet it would be fallacious to claim, based on that hypothetical photo, that I have never pooped.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:45 AM   #888
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Adolf Hitler did not have any "day off". He had millions of volks to look after.

You just cannot understand that role.

Adolf Hitler had more skills than you are going to achieve in your whole life...
Given that those skills included murder, backstabbing, bigotry, conquering, and racism, I certainly hope so.

Every once in a while, you let your "patient debater" mask--which was never very good--slip, and we see your true colors.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
...Argument:

P ∈ X || A ∼ (Y ∉ X) ≠ A ∃ H ˆ (+ ∃ Nv = ∃)

Completely illogical.

Try again.
...
oh my god what the :

That's it. Welcome to ignore.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:47 AM   #889
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The problem with this type of comment/response/rational is that the 3,000,000 number of alleged Jewish gassing victims eliminates any possibility of an entire camp population being NOT aware of the alleged gassing activity.
Who is making this claim?

Quote:
That knowledge would preclude any tricking gassing victims into a gas chamber. That said, chaos would be rampant because a looming gas chamber threat.
If only they had men with guns to force people into th--oh, wait, they did. Well, it's not like the prisoners had the idea of resistance systematically beaten out of them--oh, wait, they did.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:54 AM   #890
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Although nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.
Why not? They probably expected to win the war. I doubt that the guards at Guantanamo Bay thought they'd be exposed and hung out to dry, yet they abused prisoners. According to the testimony of the Nazi guards, they were "just following orders". There are numerous studies showing that people follow authority and crowds even when its against their own ethics, most prominently the Milgram experiments. Con men exploit this tendency on a regular basis. There is an extended list on this page, near the bottom, in the "Real Life" folder.

Now that I look back, I realize that a life predicated on being obedient and taking orders is a very comfortable life indeed. Living in such a way reduces to a minimum one's own need to think.
—Adolph Eichmann

Last edited by 000063; 21st April 2012 at 08:19 AM.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 08:13 AM   #891
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Although nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.
To add to Dr. Terry's reply: they may also have thought that every kilometer that brought them more westward diminished the chance of falling into the hands of the Soviets, and thus increased their chance of survival and being treated civilly. The Nazis had every reason to fear the treatment they'd get as POW in hands of the Red Army, even if only for the brutal treatment of Soviet POWs by the Nazis and the atrocities committed by the Nazis in the occupied parts of the USSR.

And as a matter of fact, the low-level henchmen did largely get away with it: the (Western) denazification targeted the upper echelons of the Nazi machinery and didn't go after the grunts. Demjanjuk is the exception, not the rule.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 08:41 AM   #892
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post

Google Translate is producing a very dubious translation.
Really? You don't say...
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 09:09 AM   #893
TSR
Do you know what this notorious criminal did?
 
TSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,788
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
I'm sure no Germans who oversaw or performed the alleged gassing of millions of Jewish children, women, and men expected that they would get away with it.
And you base this "certainty" on .... what?

Your visceral need that it be so, else your denial comes crashing down around your ears?
__________________
My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is.
.
"My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape
TSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 09:09 AM   #894
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,582
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I appreciated the URLs. I could grasp a basic idea about the questions I made.

My native tongue is Brazilian Portuguese.
There are no good books on the Holocaust, or WW2 in (Brazilian) Portuguese?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Your citation of NLG was insightful.
That's the only thing you learnt from those quotes?


Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I did not know that in 1943's Dutch newspaper published cross words, chess boards and ads!

Your document gave me an very good visual insight about the Dutch media from the 40's.
Not really different from newspapers in other parts of the world, you mean? Except, of course, that the news was censored by the Nazi authorities.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 10:02 AM   #895
Bluespaceoddity
Critical Thinker
 
Bluespaceoddity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 433
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I appreciated the URLs. I could grasp a basic idea about the questions I made.

My native tongue is Brazilian Portuguese.

I learned English when living in UK.

Your citation of NLG was insightful.
The Dutch guilder (Dutch: gulden, IPA: [ˈɣʏldə(n)]; Frisian: gûne, IPA: [ˈɡuːnə]; sign: ƒ or fl.) was the currency of the Netherlands from the 17th century until 2002, when it was replaced by the euro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_guilder
Fascinating topic, isn't it? Currency. The people listed below equalled NLG 37.50 at the exchange rate applicable on 6 April 1943.
Quote:
Willem Doof A'dam 25.4.84 Majubastraat 1 II
Levie Snoek A'dam 28.10.1904 President Brandstraat 44 II
Mietje Spier-de Metz A'dam 20.2.1882 Transvaalplein 10 huis
Salomon Spier Leeuwarden 7.1.1875 Transvaalplein 10 huis
Isaac Serlui A'dam 28.8.1858 Transvaalplein 23 boven Amsterdam
According to the "Empfangsbescheinigung" made up on that day, signed by the person who received that amount in payment for delivering these people to the Zentralstelle für jüdische Auswanderung in Amsterdam on April 5, 1943. "Vorschussweise aus Judenvermögen bezahlt."

According to the links below, Levie Snoek lived until May 28 1943. The others died on April 16 1943. 3 days after the receipt was stamped "Sachlich richtig"
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/511731
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/501409
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488929
http://www.joodsmonument.nl/person/488878
In Memoriam

Is your grasp on the basic idea of your participation in this topic getting better?

Last edited by Bluespaceoddity; 21st April 2012 at 10:11 AM.
Bluespaceoddity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 12:02 PM   #896
Dogzilla
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by Nick Terry View Post
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.
If he doesn't believe it is evidence for gas chambers then perhaps he should stop asking me for my analysis of it.
Dogzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 12:43 PM   #897
Nick Terry
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,664
Originally Posted by Dogzilla View Post
If he doesn't believe it is evidence for gas chambers then perhaps he should stop asking me for my analysis of it.
Or perhaps you should stop lying and claiming it is only about fighting partisans.
__________________
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard. A Critique of the Falsehoods of Mattogno, Graf and Kues.
(biggest ever skeptical debunking of conspiracy theorists; PDF available)

Everytime one asks you holocaust deniers for positive evidence you just put your finger in the ears, dance around and sing lalala - Kevin Silbstedt
Nick Terry is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 02:01 PM   #898
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
...

oh my god what the :

That's it. Welcome to ignore.
For the record, this was the point where I realized that Snakey was either being deliberately obtuse (trolling/lying) or accidentally so. In either case, the chances of making headway were almost nonexistent, and the only effects on my end would be raised blood pressure.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 02:22 PM   #899
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by TSR View Post
My apologies, you didn't -- *this* time.

You haven't supported "3900 leftover bodies" yet.

You use a single reference of "up to" 6k Jews as the normal death rate.
That is not enough for you? How many Jews gassed per day is necessary to you understand the mathematical demonstration?

Originally Posted by TSR View Post
You then mindlessly parrot a snippet apparently from CODOH about the total capacity, not even looking at your own "citation" which does not have the quotes to which you repeat the attribution. You obviously don't read German, or at the least did not follow the link you got from Library Boi and company, or you would have noticed this.
The URL leads to the book which printed the transcript of the document addressed by the quote.

It is a reference to the secondary evidence which propose the numbers I used.

Originally Posted by TSR View Post
You also neglect the fact that more than one body was cremated at a time.
How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 02:43 PM   #900
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
You can bet your sweet bippy Team Holocaust is blissfully unaware that they are on one big sock it to me roll.

They tricked millions into the gas chambers.
They forced millions into the gas chambers.

Gas chambers which at first were cottages.

Quote:
The problem with this type of comment/response/rational is that the 3,000,000 number of alleged Jewish gassing victims eliminates any possibility of an entire camp population being NOT aware of the alleged gassing activity.

That knowledge would preclude any tricking gassing victims into a gas chamber. That said, chaos would be rampant because a looming gas chamber threat.
Clayton Moore is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 02:45 PM   #901
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.
I thought you said you read Pressac, SnakeTongue.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 02:50 PM   #902
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
No, what you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Alvarez's arguments from told you. You refer to this number as a "serial number" because that's how Alvarez referred to it in his remarks about the March 26, 1942 letter - "d) The letter's serial no. '167/42g' is handwritten, not typed."

(...)

Your complete misunderstanding of what that number actually means and description of it as a "serial identification" for documents is also how I know you didn't get your list of criticisms directly from Alvarez' book, but instead from someone else who reproduced Alvarez' list (I'd bet good money on this CODOH forum thread being your actual source for your "analysis").
I wonder how you would react if I started to use your argument against yourself by claiming "you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Yaacov Lozowick's arguments from told you"...

You must had spent a good time in the CODOH and other forums looking for the comparison I produced.
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 03:05 PM   #903
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I wonder how you would react if I started to use your argument against yourself by claiming "you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Yaacov Lozowick's arguments from told you"...
I'd wonder why you thought that was a legitimate comparison, because for one thing I've actually read Lozowick's (and Alvarez's, for that matter) books, unlike you. And for another thing, Lozowick is an actual scholar and former director of the Yad Vashem archives who has referred exhaustively to original documentation and testimony when doing his own work, while Alvarez as far as I can tell is just some guy who co-authors books that merely repeat the claims of other deniers, without showing the slightest indication he even understands what he's writing about.

That's why Lozowick's book gets reviewed favorably by the Times Literary Supplement, while no one takes Alvarez's book seriously.

[EDIT: Plus, your "analysis" (with the exception of the foolishness about Google Translate) was pretty much 100% copied from Alvarez. Whereas the only thing I referred to Lozowick for was to provide you with a good description of how RSHA documents were formatted, coded, and filed, since you were basing your follow-up arguments entirely on your misunderstanding of how the process worked.]

Quote:
You must had spent a good time in the CODOH and other forums looking for the comparison I produced.
Not really. Though it wasn't exactly difficult to find, since I remembered Alvarez' nonsense about Pradel's rank and recognized it immediately when you said the same thing. A quick check in Alvarez' book confirmed that you were simply cutting and pasting his arguments.

A simple 3-second Google search using the terms "santiago alvarez rauff" turned up the CODOH thread as the fourth result.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins

Last edited by A'isha; 21st April 2012 at 03:29 PM. Reason: reworded a bit, added a section
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 04:04 PM   #904
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post



How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.
About this many?




http://www.thesundayindian.com/en/st...ims/254/32750/

Last edited by dafydd; 21st April 2012 at 04:05 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:03 PM   #905
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Not one of the cars you post images of are the same model as the one used in the video, and the 1951 Mercedes has the exhaust on the right hand side.

This website:

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...s_mogilev.html

Identifies one of the vehicles in the video as a 1939 Adler.
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_chambe...s_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) - 1937-1940
Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940


http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepa...cial_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_chambe...s_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.





Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
Here's a better view of it:

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambe...gmogilev01.jpg

here is a 1939 Adler:

http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/aa/3...t_VGrabarj.jpg

and yes, I can tell it's not the same model.

Here is another picture of an Adler from the wartime era:

http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/a/adlerSF1_Baydeww2.jpg
Wrong model.

Originally Posted by threadworm View Post
So we can demonstrate that the Adler model was around during the war, was used by the military, and that it produced models with a right hand exhaust.
Who is "we"?
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:06 PM   #906
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
I thought you said you read Pressac, SnakeTongue.
I read about the delousing gas chambers. I was not interested in the crematoriums.
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:16 PM   #907
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Why is this picture a mirror image of the picture at the charmingcars.com link you posted, SnakeTongue?
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:24 PM   #908
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
I'd wonder why you thought that was a legitimate comparison, because for one thing I've actually read Lozowick's (and Alvarez's, for that matter) books, unlike you.
If you know I did not read the book, why you keep bringing into the debate as evidence to prove my analysis is not "legitimate"?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
That's why Lozowick's book gets reviewed favorably by the Times Literary Supplement, while no one takes Alvarez's book seriously.

[EDIT: Plus, your "analysis" (with the exception of the foolishness about Google Translate) was pretty much 100% copied from Alvarez. Whereas the only thing I referred to Lozowick for was to provide you with a good description of how RSHA documents were formatted, coded, and filed, since you were basing your follow-up arguments entirely on your misunderstanding of how the process worked.
Appeal to Authority.

Did you find any document comparison like I did in Alvarez or other sources you know?

No.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your absurd insistence.
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:25 PM   #909
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by ANTPogo View Post
Why is this picture a mirror image of the picture at the charmingcars.com link you posted, SnakeTongue?
For easy visual comparison.
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:32 PM   #910
SnakeTongue
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,090
Originally Posted by Dogzilla View Post
So you see, the Einsatzgruppen were not formed to carry out the mission of exterminating the Jews. Jews were killed but that's inevitable when your task is neutralizing the Judeo-Bolshevik elements that were perceived as a threat to the occupation. If you want to condemn the Nazis for the concept of Judeo-bolshevism, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for overreacting when meting out punishment, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for excessive paranoia and seeing threats where none existed, you may do so. But if you want to condemn them for setting up special units to scour the countryside and shoot all Jews willy nilly, you'll need to explain away all the evidence of the Einsatzgruppen engaged in activities other than killing the Jews. And if you want to say the Jagger report proves there were gas chambers you'll need to at least try.
Well done! Your review is much better than the one made by Lemmycaution. No dramatization and no bloated numbers.
__________________
"It's possible, within text, to frame a question or undo assertions made in the text, by means of elements which are in the text, which frequently would be precisely structures that play off the rhetorical against grammatical elements." (de Man, in Moynihan 1986, at 156.)
SnakeTongue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:36 PM   #911
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 13,143
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
If you know I did not read the book, why you keep bringing into the debate as evidence to prove my analysis is not "legitimate"?
Because your "analysis" was copied from Alvarez' book. Whether you did the initial copying or whether you merely copied from someone else who did the initial copying is irrelevant. The analysis is not yours, instead being something you cut and pasted from elsewhere without even verifying whether any of the claims in it were true or not. That's why it took you weeks to even answer my simple question about the "office code" nonsense.

The fact that you got it from someone else who got it from Alvarez' book, rather than from Alvarez' book directly, shows how little you know or care to educate yourself on the topic. Your intellectually lazy refusal to just read some damn books about the Holocaust stretches to a refusal to even read denier books, even though you're apparently perfectly happy to cut and paste their arguments virtually verbatim as long as someone else has read the book and reposted those arguments for you to copy.

Quote:
Appeal to Authority.
Which isn't a fallacy when the person in question actually is an authority. Especially when you don't have anything to stand against it save for your own ignorance.

Quote:
Did you find any document comparison like I did in Alvarez or other sources you know?
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.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

Currently Reading: The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia, by David Commins

Last edited by A'isha; 21st April 2012 at 05:42 PM.
A'isha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 05:40 PM   #912
LemmyCaution
Graduate Poster
 
LemmyCaution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,987
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Well done! Your review is much better than the one made by Lemmycaution. No dramatization and no bloated numbers.
So, for starters, along with this mutual stroking and given the the failure of Dogzilla's lying, are you going to explain what Jaeger meant when he wrote for his superior that his EK’s operations supported “the goal of making Lithuania free of Jews” and explained that with the actions he described, “the goal of solving the Jewish problem for Lithuania has been achieved by Einsatzkommando 3"? And when Jaeger provided detailed support for his having achieved this goal in the form of a “Complete list of executions carried out in the EK 3 area up to 1 December 1941." That is, not population removals, as one liar used to claim; not anti-partisan warfare, as the same liar used to claim; not a rogue operation, as this liar used to claim; and certainly not excessive paranoia, as this liar now tries claiming, not an action against Judeo-Bolshevism, as the liar is now trying to make out. No, a clearly stated goal - making Lithuania free of Jews - and a specific way of doing so - executions of Jews, listed in detail.
__________________
. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft

Last edited by LemmyCaution; 21st April 2012 at 06:12 PM.
LemmyCaution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 06:09 PM   #913
TSR
Do you know what this notorious criminal did?
 
TSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,788
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
That is not enough for you? How many Jews gassed per day is necessary to you understand the mathematical demonstration?
I *do* understand it.

You're pulling numbers out of ... thin air.
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
The URL leads to the book which printed the transcript of the document addressed by the quote.
Not that one can tell from the snippet of the book found by following that URL.
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
It is a reference to the secondary evidence which propose the numbers I used.
No, it isn't -- and knowing the book, no, it doesn't.
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
How many bodies a muffle could burn at the same time? Present your numbers.
Depends on a number of factors you ignore -- such as the size of those bodies.

Show numbers you haven't cribbed from someone else who made them up.

*You're* the one making the claim that the capacity wasn't sufficient.
__________________
My apologies once again for not being allowed to use the obvious shorthand term for a person who knowingly posts untruths. Apparently someone finds that term uncivil, demonstrated and deserved as it is.
.
"My family is not my weakness, Max. It's my strength." Vince Faraday aka The Cape

Last edited by TSR; 21st April 2012 at 06:12 PM.
TSR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 06:45 PM   #914
Wahrheitseeker
New Blood
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogzilla
So you see, the Einsatzgruppen were not formed to carry out the mission of exterminating the Jews. Jews were killed but that's inevitable when your task is neutralizing the Judeo-Bolshevik elements that were perceived as a threat to the occupation. If you want to condemn the Nazis for the concept of Judeo-bolshevism, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for overreacting when meting out punishment, you may do so. If you want to condemn them for excessive paranoia and seeing threats where none existed, you may do so. But if you want to condemn them for setting up special units to scour the countryside and shoot all Jews willy nilly, you'll need to explain away all the evidence of the Einsatzgruppen engaged in activities other than killing the Jews. And if you want to say the Jagger report proves there were gas chambers you'll need to at least try.
Well done! Your review is much better than the one made by Lemmycaution. No dramatization and no bloated numbers.
Nothing like supporting a worthless commentary that fails to even spell Jaeger correctly, despite the fact that his report was the central document under discussion.

Yeah, in addition to SnakeTongue's refusal to be bothered with reading crucial aspects of Pressac's work regarding exterminations at Auschwitz, that pretty much sums up the denier scene here.

Last edited by Wahrheitseeker; 21st April 2012 at 06:46 PM.
Wahrheitseeker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 07:58 PM   #915
LemmyCaution
Graduate Poster
 
LemmyCaution's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,987
True, I was beginning to think that Mick and the boys were somehow involved.
__________________
. . . all this would be absurd if it weren't happening, now let's go and eat.
- Jose Saramago, The Stone Raft
LemmyCaution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st April 2012, 11:19 PM   #916
threadworm
Muse
 
threadworm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 843
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
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_chambe...s_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) - 1937-1940
Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940


http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepa...cial_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_chambe...s_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.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3...iterspictu.jpg



Wrong model.
Where did I claim it is the right model? I posted evidence showiing that the car manufacturer concerned was producing vehicles at the time and did produce cars with exhausts on the correct side. You seemed to have a problem with these two facts. Thankfully, you now realise that you were wrong.

The model you have posted has a different wheel arch construction (it is not as rounded), which is one of the reasons I did not post a picture of it in the first place (it's easy to find on google). The model you posted has the exhaust on the right side, so thanks for that.

Quote:
Who is "we"?
The same 'we' as most normal people use when they are writing about a shared belief. My academic training also discourages the use of the personal pronoun singular.

If you are trying to have some grand 'a-haa' moment that proves the people who disagree with you are somehow acting in concert or on behalf of some organisation, then you are hopelessly wrong.

Last edited by threadworm; 21st April 2012 at 11:20 PM. Reason: typo
threadworm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2012, 12:19 AM   #917
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,959
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
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_chambe...s_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) - 1937-1940
Adler 2 Liter - 1938-1940


http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepa...cial_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_chambe...s_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.

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/9991/novo5u.jpg

http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/3...iterspictu.jpg



Wrong model.



Who is "we"?

Wrong model car disproves the holocaust.


.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2012, 12:57 AM   #918
Marras
Scholar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Argument:

P ∈ X || A ∼ (Y ∉ X) ≠ A ∃ H ˆ (+ ∃ Nv = ∃)

Completely illogical.
This is a post that I simply can't understand. Why did you post a string of random mathematical symbols and called it 'Argument'?

I can see that you are presenting a strawman version of 000063's argument, that's obvious, but did you really think that well-formed formulas of logic are created just by replacing random words of a natural language sentence with some symbol whose shorthand name is kind of close to the word that you want to replace? Or did you think that no one reading this thread knew logic well-enough to realize that your formula is gibberish? In that one line you demonstrated that you don't know anything about symbolic logic, the same way that your 98%-Eichmann post showed that you don't know anything about statistics.

I could parse what you believed you said with the first five symbols of the sentence but after that it got even more confused and I didn't feel it necessary to try to take the effort to degibberish it. However, if you ever actually try to study logic, you'll quickly find out that your way to use the symbols and connectives is highly unorthodox, to put it mildly. For example, by the time you encounter a logic where '||' means 'at the same time', you will know that 'P ∈ X' isn't used for 'P is in place X' but instead it's 'P is an element of the set X' (by the way, and you really should have learned that in high school or whatever the equivalent is in your country). Another revealing mistake is that your existential quantifications don't quantify over anything at all - a mistake impossible to make if you had even a passing familiarity of the syntax of predicate logic.

If I had to express 000063's sentence that you pretended to formalize in symbolic logic, it would look something like this:

∀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))

where the variables are quantified over suitable domains (p over persons; x and y over places; a over actions; and t over times), and where H denotes the 'happens' relation ('a happens to p at time t), L the location relation ('p is in place x at time t') , and C the 'can-happen' relation ('event a can happen in place x').

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.
Marras is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2012, 01:22 AM   #919
FluffyPersian
Critical Thinker
 
FluffyPersian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 258
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I wonder how you would react if I started to use your argument against yourself by claiming "you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Yaacov Lozowick's arguments from told you"...
And another key difference besides the ones Antpogo pointed out:

Antpogo cited Lozowick, as scholars and ethical writers of all kinds do when they reference another person's work. Whereas SnakeTongue tried to pass off his document comparison as his own. When asked about it, he sputtered off something like "But you can't prove it!"
FluffyPersian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2012, 02:45 AM   #920
Dogzilla
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,667
Originally Posted by Marras View Post
This is a post that I simply can't understand. Why did you post a string of random mathematical symbols and called it 'Argument'?

I can see that you are presenting a strawman version of 000063's argument, that's obvious, but did you really think that well-formed formulas of logic are created just by replacing random words of a natural language sentence with some symbol whose shorthand name is kind of close to the word that you want to replace? Or did you think that no one reading this thread knew logic well-enough to realize that your formula is gibberish? In that one line you demonstrated that you don't know anything about symbolic logic, the same way that your 98%-Eichmann post showed that you don't know anything about statistics.

I could parse what you believed you said with the first five symbols of the sentence but after that it got even more confused and I didn't feel it necessary to try to take the effort to degibberish it. However, if you ever actually try to study logic, you'll quickly find out that your way to use the symbols and connectives is highly unorthodox, to put it mildly. For example, by the time you encounter a logic where '||' means 'at the same time', you will know that 'P ∈ X' isn't used for 'P is in place X' but instead it's 'P is an element of the set X' (by the way, and you really should have learned that in high school or whatever the equivalent is in your country). Another revealing mistake is that your existential quantifications don't quantify over anything at all - a mistake impossible to make if you had even a passing familiarity of the syntax of predicate logic.

If I had to express 000063's sentence that you pretended to formalize in symbolic logic, it would look something like this:

∀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))

where the variables are quantified over suitable domains (p over persons; x and y over places; a over actions; and t over times), and where H denotes the 'happens' relation ('a happens to p at time t), L the location relation ('p is in place x at time t') , and C the 'can-happen' relation ('event a can happen in place x').

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.
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.)
Dogzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.