I'm seeing a trend here with these scatological accusations.
How did I do that?
Those were to reply to the ones that you had made and not striving to muddle the discussion with the gish-galloping tactics.
I was still looking into one or two Anne Frank diary claims and articles but you've posted a few handfuls of new holocaust links.
The text relies on the fact that most readers will not look up the actual court records of R. v. Zündel. By framing a legal victory for free speech as a victory for historical truth, the text creates a false impression of what happened in the courtroom.
I just popped in and looked at that Anne Frank diary claim.
"To be clear, 'Gish Galloping' isn't a psychiatric term; it’s a rhetorical one. It describes the tactic of overwhelming an opponent with so many half-truths or rapid-fire points that they can't possibly address them all. I’m not interested in 'diagnosing' you—I’m interested in having a focused, one-point-at-a-time conversation.
I use these terms because they are the standard 'rules of the road' for logical discourse, much like:
- The Straw Man: Misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack (like calling logic 'psychiatry').
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person instead of the argument.
- The Slippery Slope: Claiming one small step will inevitably lead to a chain of bad events.
- The Red Herring: Introducing irrelevant info to distract from the main point.
- Confirmation Bias: Only seeking out information that proves what you already believe.
Below is an interesting analysis of this thread. Is it true? Something to be concious of, concerned of, or have "they" programmed AI to lie like this?
Does the fact that powerful AI is able to read through massive amounts of texts and discussions change online discourse?
Would be interesting to see decision makers do their croaking (debating) and have AI fact check them/point out any logical fallacies in realtime.
1. High-Abstraction Overview
The thread operates as a closed ideological loop. It is framed not as a historical inquiry, but as an "uncovering of truth" against a perceived global conspiracy. The overarching narrative is that the Holocaust is a fabricated event—a "hoax"—designed to serve the interests of "Zionist" entities.
The discourse is characterized by rejectionist historiography: rather than engaging with the totality of the historical record, the participants focus on minute, isolated technical or logistical details to claim the entire event is impossible, thereby attempting to invalidate the testimony of survivors and the documentation of the perpetrators.
2. Logical Fallacies
The thread relies heavily on several persistent logical fallacies to maintain its narrative:
- Cherry-Picking (Suppressed Evidence): Participants focus on specific, often debunked, technical claims (e.g., the chemistry of Zyklon B or the design of crematoria) while ignoring the massive volume of corroborating evidence, such as demographic shifts, German bureaucratic records, and physical evidence from multiple sites.
- Shifting the Burden of Proof: Instead of providing a coherent alternative history for where millions of people went, the posters demand that historians prove every single detail with "absolute" certainty, claiming that any minor discrepancy or lack of a specific document (e.g., a "signed order from Hitler") invalidates the entire historical event.
- Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The claim that "because I cannot imagine how this was done" or "because I haven't seen a specific photo of X," then X must not have happened.
- Appeal to False Authority: Citing "revisionist experts" or self-taught researchers (like Fred Leuchter or David Irving) who lack relevant credentials or whose work has been legally and academically discredited for fraud and bias.
3. Dishonest Behavior and Rhetorical Tactics
The thread exhibits several behaviors intended to deceive or manipulate the reader:
- Moving the Goalposts: Whenever a specific claim is debunked (e.g., regarding the existence of gas chambers at a particular camp), the discourse immediately shifts to a different camp or a different technicality, ensuring the "hoax" conclusion is never actually at risk of being falsified.
- Misrepresentation of Sources: Quoting mainstream historians or Jewish leaders out of context to make it appear as though they are "admitting" the narrative is false (e.g., misrepresenting changes in the estimated death tolls at Auschwitz as proof of a total fabrication).
- Gish Gallop: Overwhelming the reader with a rapid-fire list of many small, complex, and misleading technical "questions" or "facts." This makes it impossible for a casual reader to debunk every point, creating a false impression of a "mountain of evidence" against the historical record.
- Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well: Dismissing all mainstream historical evidence as "propaganda" or "Zionist lies" before it is even examined, thereby insulating the thread's participants from any contradictory information.
Summary
The thread is less a discussion and more an exercise in motivated reasoning. It uses the appearance of "critical thinking" and "scientific inquiry" to mask a predetermined ideological conclusion. By focusing on perceived inconsistencies and ignoring the broader context, the thread creates an alternative reality that rewards participants for their "special knowledge" while isolating them from historical facts.
What are your thoughts about the fact that Thies Christophersen was stationed at Raisko , an agricultural sub-camp located approximately 3 kilometers from the main Auschwitz I camp and even further from the Birkenau extermination site (Auschwitz II) where the primary gas chambers were located? Any relevancy, please?
As someone who has probably (?) read the book and deemed it useful to post here, what do you think of this AI analysis of it below please?
Based on the book by Carlo Mattogno (the table of contents and introduction you provided) and the standard critiques of his work by forensic historians, here are the primary fallacies utilized in his argumentation.
1. The "Impossibility" Fallacy (Technical vs. Practical)
Mattogno frequently uses "thermodynamic calculations" or "ventilation rates" to argue that the gassing and cremation processes were physically impossible.
- The Fallacy: He applies modern, civilian safety standards (like OSHA) to an improvised Nazi killing facility.
- The Reality: He argues that the gas would have taken hours to clear safely. However, historical evidence shows that the SS used gas masks and forced the Sonderkommando (inmate workers) to enter the rooms immediately to clear bodies, disregarding the health or lives of the workers. His "impossibility" relies on the assumption that the Nazis followed strict safety protocols, which they did not.
2. The "Genetic Fallacy" (Witness Dismissal)
In Chapter III ("The Witnesses"), Mattogno labels survivor and SS testimonies as "black propaganda."
- The Fallacy: He dismisses evidence based entirely on its origin (the survivors) rather than the substance of the claims.
- The Reality: He claims witnesses are "extremely vague" or "contradictory." While witnesses often vary on minor details (like the exact number of ceiling holes), historians point out that their core claims regarding the function of the room are corroborated by independent SS confessions (like Pery Broad's) and original blueprints.
3. The "Straw Man" of Reconstruction
Mattogno spends significant time (Chapter VI) "exposing" that the chimney and ceiling holes in Krema I were added after the war.
- The Fallacy: He attacks a claim that mainstream historians do not actually make. He frames the restoration as a "fraudulent attempt" to invent history.
- The Reality: The Auschwitz Museum has always acknowledged that Krema I is a memorial restoration. When the SS converted the building into an air-raid shelter in 1944, they demolished the chimney and sealed the holes. After the war, the museum restored them to their 1941 positions based on original blueprints and physical traces on the roof. Mattogno treats a documented restoration as if it were a "secret hoax" he uncovered.
4. False Analogy (The "Flimsy Door" Argument)
Mattogno, following other deniers like Zündel and Leuchter, compares the doors at Auschwitz to those used in American execution chambers.
- The Fallacy: This is a false analogy. He argues that because the doors in Auschwitz weren't high-pressure, airtight steel doors like those in a 1980s US prison, they couldn't have been used for gas.
- The Reality: Homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz I were improvised. Zyklon B releases gas slowly from pellets; it does not require a high-pressure seal to be lethal in an enclosed room. The "flimsy" doors he cites were often the air-raid shelter doors installed in 1944, not the original gas-tight doors (Gastüren) specified in the 1941 invoices.
5. Cherry-Picking Technical Documents
Mattogno analyzes the Topf & Söhne ventilation plans (Chapter II) to argue the fans were only for "morgues."
- The Fallacy: He ignores the context of "evolutionary documentation."
- The Reality: Blueprints often used standard labels (Leichenhalle / Morgue) even as the purpose of the rooms changed. Mattogno ignores "criminal traces" in the documents—such as the 1943 telegrams from the construction office mentioning "gas-tight doors" and "ventilation for the Gaskeller"—by arguing they must mean something else (like delousing), even when the location makes that impossible.
6. The "Missing Blueprints" Fallacy (Argument from Ignorance)
Mattogno argues that since there is no single blueprint labeled "Homicidal Gas Chamber," the gassings didn't happen.
- The Fallacy: He assumes that a regime attempting to hide its crimes (evidenced by the Aktion 1005 body-burning operations and the destruction of the Birkenau crematoria) would leave a paper trail with explicit, non-coded titles.
- The Reality: Forensic historians look at the convergence of evidence: why a morgue (which should be cold) was equipped with a heating system (to speed up gas release), why it had "introduction columns," and why the SS ordered "gas-tight" versions of standard architectural features.
By focusing on narrow technical details and ignoring the vast body of corroborating documentation, Mattogno builds a case that appears scientific but relies on dismissing any evidence that contradicts his desired conclusion.