Proposal: Auschwitz Holocaust Claims Are Unsubstantiated

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by steampunk, Jun 9, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    That's pretty much the MO of all conspiracy theorists. Ignore the evidence that disproves your crazy theory, and only accept that which possibly might support your insane ramblings.
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    It's a book. With words. Anyone can write words. Apparently there is a journal it is based on. This man claims he gassed people in Auschwitz. In order to accept as evidence a process proving the journal is not a fraud would have to be established.

    We need a link to the scientific process involved proving the physical journals exists. We need proof of the identity of the said writer of the journal. And, the connection must be proved between the two. Do you have a link to this proof?

    I'm willing to consider any evidence, but won't agree to accept all evidence until it's fully established as authentic and relevant to the debate.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Does this mean you want to see the original manuscript written in a Polish prison? Or hold it in your hands? Or see film footage of Rudolf Hoss actually writing it?

    He was hanged for his crimes in 1947 so you wont be able to speak to him personally.

    What evidence will you accept that anyone during WWII actually existed?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    You are arguing the Holocaust revisionism of Zundel, Faurisson, Leuchter, Irving, et. al. Your proposed arguments have already been heard, adjudicated, and dismissed in a high court of law.

    The High Court Of Justice - Queen’s Bench Division - London
    David Irving vs Penguin Books Ltd and Deborah E. Lipstadt (2000)

    The entire judgement (333 pages) of High Court Judge Charles Gray can be accessed here: Decisions: EWHC QB 115 (11th April, 2000)

    Section VII pertains to Auschwitz. Section XIII denotes the Court Findings On Justifications.

    Section XIII conclusion of the Court regarding the gassing of Jews at Auschwitz:

  8. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    What I would like to see this:

    - each original page in a pdf
    - English translation respectively
    - expert analysis of the physical journal, hand writing analysis, scientific dating, fingerprint analyses, dna if possible, etc.
    - I want some physical evidence that this man actually existed, dna from his grave, photos in uniform, his name attached, authentic tests of photos, etc.
    - I want some physical proof that connects the journal to him.

    I may even ask for more later if I have left some gaps. You know Hitler's Diary was bullshit. That's why I am suspicious of book like this.
  9. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Your link is not scientific, it is judicial. There is a difference. This is not LawForums, it is SciForums.

    There is no science, only text and authority. I'm only interested in scientific proofs, not legal authority.

    I'm interested in what it would mean to be proven wrong scientifically on this issue. Do you have links that provide arguments and are backed up with evidence, where that evidence is photographs, film, chemical testing, etc, ?
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  10. Chipz Banned Banned

    You cheeky bastard, you don't care about the truth. Go to Auchwitz and read their own writings! But stop polluting the internet with your bull shit anti-semitism.
  11. Believe Happy medium Valued Senior Member

    Seriously how is this tread not cesspooled mods?

    The logic goes like this

    1. People can lie.
    2. I wasn't there.
    3. Almost everyone who was there is now dead so they can't defend themselves.
    3. It sounds too horrible for me to believe with my cushy present day life, therefore,
    4. It didn't happen!
  12. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    I am asking for scientific evidence. How is that anti-Semitic? So, every young person who is born in this world, who is interested in learning about the claims of Auschwitz and asks for scientific evidence is now is a Jew hater? How this connection? I scream evidence, you scream Jew Hater.

    Chips Special Person Dictionary
    Evidence n. Something that a Jew Hater asks for.


    You are also Trolling the thread. I have reported you.
  13. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    I would like to turn this portion of the Proposal into what the courts would call Discovery if that is possible. We have already begun such a discussion. I think this will help decide what evidence both parties will be using to prove or not prove Auschwitz was used for gassing it's prisoners.

    So anyone who thinks they have evidence let's gather it and use it for the actual debate. For those of you who have the official people behind this gassing claim at Auschwitz please provide their scientific argument with their evidence links. I don't know who these people are. I just see the message coming from all directions on the Internet. Who is the established scientific authority on Auschwitz gassing? Is there one?

    It's harder for me, because I'm supposed to prove that something is not true. It so much like the "I can prove God doesn't exist." dilemma, but not that really.

    NO LEGAL CLAIMS that are mere text! That is not science. That is fallacious reasoning, it's called Argument From Authority.

    I'm waiting for the one science claim that convinces me.

    At this point, I'm tracking down a few of my own links I've found in the past. Not so easy to find for me.
  14. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    My claim is that the gassing at Auschwitz is not supported. I didn't say it didn't happen. Those are two different statements.

    There is plenty of evidence available. You should not be concerned with that. It's that scientific arguments are scant for the officially accepted version. Lets gather what we can and look it over.
  15. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    Last edited: Jun 10, 2012
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    * * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

    He's hardly getting an arm around the shoulder. But in the USA Holocaust denialism and Nazi sympathizing are not illegal, as they are in many European countries. We take the wise counsel of Justice Brandeis: The best disinfectant is sunshine.

    Or as I rephrase it: Let the cockroaches walk on top of the linoleum, where we can keep an eye on them.

    American cities grant parade permits to Nazi organizations. The streets are lined with citizens who shout insults and throw rotten fruit at them. Isn't this better than forcing them to meet secretly in basements? This way they can't delude themselves into believing that they have lots of sympathizers who are merely being persecuted by the government.

    My quintessential example of why Europe is wrong about this: When the creeps finally got organized enough to hold a Holocaust Denial Festival, they had to hold it in fucking Tehran, where the government supports their delusion for political reasons. This allowed them to feel like there's overwhelming support for their lunacy, but it can't be openly expressed in Europe.

    Wouldn't it have been so much better to allow this event to take place in Vienna, Budapest, Paris, Copenhagen, Prague, Amsterdam, Warszaw, Rome, etc.? Every time they walked out of the conference hall to get a drink or use the restroom, they would have had to walk past a group of tattooed concentration camp survivors, scowling at them.
    * * * * NOTE FROM A MODERATOR * * * *

    You can't be serious. SciForums is not a place of primary or secondary scholarship. Really good evidence here consists of a link to the footnotes in a Wikipedia article. When it comes to the hard sciences, we actually do have a few professional scientists like James R and Hercules, who can sort the science from the crap. But since this is SciForums, we don't have anyone of that stature to moderate an argument about history or economics.

    Just be grateful that the stench of your bullshit is being tolerated here. But don't expect anyone to go to the trouble of traveling to Poland to provide the documentation you're demanding.
    Re-read my quote from Justice Brandeis. Aren't you glad this fellow has identified himself? If he shows up at your door wanting to date your daughter, you'll be ready for him.

    This is like so-called "creation science." I'm utterly horrified to learn that so many people I once regarded as sensible fellow citizens have fallen for this crap. But I'm sure glad I know they're out there.
  17. Balerion Banned Banned

    * * * * NOTE FROM A...NOT...A...MODERATOR(?) * * * *

    If we're talking about his right to get on his soapbox in the park and spout his ignorant bullshit, I'd defend him to the last. Not because I think it's great that people get to annoy me and others with their stupidity, but because the protection of free speech is important. But it's not important just so we can say we have more freedoms than Iran, it's important because what the lack of such freedom implies, and what it inevitably leads to. Our speech is free for our own protection, not for some esoteric ideal. So no, it wouldn't be better for tattooed concentration camp survivors to have to mingle with a new generation of Nazi scumbags as they celebrate their brutal ideology. There's no poetic justice there, only bad memories for those poor people.

    The more salient point, though, is that this isn't some free space. This isn't the walkway through the park. This is a social club, one that bans members for being dishonest, crude, foul-mouthed, or bigoted, among other things. And Holocaust denial is a particularly heinous insult, with clear antisemitic implications. I mean, yeah, he's also a Truther, which means it could all just be that he's not so bright, or just attracted to conspiracy theories, but the act itself is enough to warrant a timeout.

    Keeping the cockroaches on the linoleum is a great idea if you don't have anything to kill them with. Thankfully, we have a wonderful tool for the cockroaches here. It's called the Banhammer.
  18. Xotica Everyday I’m Shufflin Registered Senior Member

    Your malodorous OP premise was fully argued in a high court of law.

    It was thoroughly debunked by experts and formally discredited.

    I applaud the good people here at SciForums who have discerned your agenda and recognize this charade for what it is.

    In closing... the prescient post-trial warning of Professor Lipstadt:

  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Moderator note: 29 off-topic posts have been deleted, along with a few posts that have attempted to argue to the proposed topic. Members are advised to read the rules of the Formal Debates subforum before posting here. This subforum is strictly moderated.



    1. steampunk has suggested a debate into a topic surrounding 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, he has stated that he will not debate that matter until after the current matter is settled. So, his Proposal thread on that topic has been put on hold for now. It will be reopened once the current matter is dealt with. This is what steampunk wants.

    2. The matter of what will be accepted by steampunk as "scientific evidence" would seem to be a major issue of contention if the current debate gets past the Proposal stage. Therefore, questions probing the suggested "rules" and standards of acceptable evidence have not been deleted, even where people have pointed to specific examples.

    It could, of course, be argued that the standard of evidence should form a part of any Debate itself - i.e. since it is likely to be a point of disagreement that may prevent participants from agreeing to debate at all, it should simply be absorbed into the Debate as an issue to be debated. But this is a question for potential participants to settle in this thread.
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    You are right to emphasize this. steampunk's theory that there is any debate at all turns on a premise that best evidence can be selectively dismissed. In particular he wants the opponent to set aside the legal record, claiming:
    Wrong. Forensics includes studying best evidence from legal transcripts.

    This, steampunk, is your achilles heel. You are pretending that the rules of evidence for a scientist are something less exhaustive than the rules used in court. The opposite is true. Science never ignores best evidence, whereas legal procedure allows that evidence sometimes be overruled under particular constraints of expediency - for example, the expiration of a deadline for filing can bar evidence from court. Obviously that has no bearing here.

    Compare what you say above to your claim at post 21
    You can't have it both ways. You can't, on the one hand, claim that rules of court be applied, and then, on the other, complain that this is not a legal forum therefore the records of legal proceedings are barred.

    Further, in post 21 you said
    Proceedings of a legal tribunal are empirical. They are just as authentic as the proceedings of any scientific society, and the empirical evidence they contain speaks for itself. That evidence doesn't need you at all.

    Furthermore, in post 21 you say
    This was probably an attempt to suggest that your definition of "empirical evidence" is as broad as the legal definition of "best evidence". But you got called to the carpet on that. Xotica pointed out that, among best evidence available for discovering the facts at issue are transcripts of legal proceedings. Fearing the evidence you just got though advocating above, you said (of this evidence):

    This is backpedaling from your pretense of defining evidence as courts do.

    It's a fundamental fallacy to claim that science operates under anything other than best evidence. And since, in the case of crimes more than 60 years old, the best evidence available today includes the evidence authenticated in court, under rules designed to reject any evidence which might be tainted, no honest scientist would ever contemplate throwing any of it out.

    Therein lies the rub. You can't pretend to appeal to science by rejecting best evidence. And the evidence you expect to admit into debate has not even been subjected to verification and authentication already done by the courts. So why should anyone cater to you, just to give you a handicap, so you can trot out an argument for Holocaust denial that simply ignores best evidence?

    There's no credibility, no merit whatsoever to this pretense of proof. It's frivolous, manipulative and dishonest. Until you can man up to the hard cold facts as we best know them to be true, you're just playing on shock appeal and a false sense of authority.

    The standard of proof, is best evidence, period, no matter what pretense you are operating under.
  21. steampunk Registered Senior Member

    You see my claim can't be debunked, because it inherently demands the claim that gas was used to systematically kill prisoners in Auschwitz. You are confused. I am seeking answers, I haven't posited anything in the affirmative. You see, the burden is on the believers here, it's yet to be scientifically satisfied at this point with a science link.

    I'm willing to except evidence from this so-called high court of law of yours, only when it's scientific.

    The problem is that the link you gave is only text, which will not qualify as an empirically based argument. An empirically based argument has to prove exactly how the Nazis gassed people in Auschwitz. If your hearing is indeed the official and authoritative voice on the Auschwitz gas chambers then we can glean some expert facts from those hearings. Experts facts must exist in order for your hearing to be authoritative on the matter. We will need physical measurement from Auschwitz. I don't see those measurements at this link you provided.

    Please show the link where this following Auschwitz measurements:

    How many people does you hearing claim to be gassed in Auschwitz?
    How many people maximum fit in the gas chamber?
    How long does it take to gas those people?
    How long does it take to clear out the gas chamber before workers can enter?
    How long does it take to drag the bodies to the ovens?
    How many bodies can fit in the ovens?
    How long does it take to cremate those bodies now in the ovens?

    Based on the facts above, we will deduce how much time it takes to gas and burn the claimed number of people your high court claims was gassed and burned. This measurement of time will reveal to us one aspect of whether your hearing is authoritative or not authoritative, whether we are dealing with science or judicial hokus pokus.

    If you refuse to show the links in this measurement evidence your source is not authoritative or scientific. I will not accept it as evidence. This is not the argument to push your claim. I will accept it as evidence if these facts can be gleaned from it. These facts are necessary to prove the claim you believe.
  22. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Under these conditions you would not even be able to prove that WWII actually happened. Even if somebody drove a WWII tank to your home and parked it on the front lawn you would only be able to examine it and establish that it was indeed...a tank.

    Anything beyond that would have to rely on human testimony in written or verbal form. Your not going to be able to dig up graves and do your own dna tests to establish that the authors of this testimony in fact existed.

    Establishing historical truth is very different from establishing scientific truths.

    The laws of physics can be tested right NOW, or at any time...their proofs are not limited to the past.

    Even still, if you reject all human testimony the burden of proof then falls on you to prove that this testimony is a deliberate fabrication involving a co-ordinated objective among dozens of different sources.
  23. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Again, expert testimony is just WORDS...which you have already rejected as evidence.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page