Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!newsgate.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cse.psu.edu!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Well designed mass gassing chambers Date: 29 Jun 1996 22:51:05 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 98 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net In article <email@example.com>, Ehrlich606
wrote: >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com >(Michael P. Stein) writes: > >> Assertion. No support with documentation, rates and computations. >>As usual. Therefore nothing to discuss. > >I disagree. Matt raises a number of issues about the condensation and >evaporation of HCN that even you admit are probably valid. The fact that >he does not do a set of calculations to _prove_ they are valid is >irrelevant. He is raising legitimate points. Respond to them on that >level. Let's leave aside for the moment that this would only be true in the winter - in the summer, things would work very well in Kremas II and III, because they were underground rooms and the incoming air would tend to be warmer. Spring and fall days would be a wash. The most active period of gassing, according to the witnesses, was in May, 1944, when the Hungarian Jews were arriving en masse. No heating needed, and no prolonged temperature difference problems during the day, at least. The short answer is that since the witnesses reported no problems, the effects were not enough to cause problems - or they did not conduct gassings under conditions which would cause problems. Imagine if I questioned whether you were telling the truth about seeing a catcher catch a baseball because it had been thrown at 90mph. "It would break his wrist!" Do you really need to compute the force of a baseball at 90mph, the characteristics of a catcher's mitt, and the strength of the bones in the wrist in order to prove to the world that you are not lying about seeing a fastball caught? According to one theory, bumblebees could not fly. Should we revise the theory, or declare that all observation of flying bumblebees are lies or hallucinations? He did not question whether there would be problems. He made specific assertions of fact - not just that there would be certain phenomena to some degree, but that these phenomena would cause problems (with the insinuation that the witnesses were lying). Therefore he has the burden of proof for backing up his claims, and of proving that the witnesses lied. Besides, in order to make a claim, he must have certain knowledge. Therefore he ought to give an accounting of the source of that knowledge so that others may evaluate it. He is playing a very dishonest game: he demands that everyone else provide proof of their claims, but that everyone else must also provide supported rebuttal of his unsupported assertions. And then he will reject technical references as being invalid Because! He! Says! So! If you have not noticed this, you are blind. And if you have noticed this, you are aiding and abetting intellectual dishonesty. I have attempted to address claims about energy requirements for cremation. And he has weaseled, dodged, evaded, used false and deceptive computations, and then outright lied about having posted detailed, supported computations of the amount of energy needed to heat the water in a 70kg corpse to the point necessary to permit ignition. The closest he ever got involved numbers pulled from his demonstrably unreliable memory and backed up by a book that was still packed away somewhere. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. If I were to post numbers, he would simply say they were wrong Because! He! Says! So! Anything he doesn't like, he simply accuses the other poster of lying. Rich Green is a doctoral student in chemistry. Richard Schultz is a chemistry professor. Yet they have both been told by a person that has _no_ credentials in chemistry that they are wrong about a number of items - but no documentation is offered to support that assertion. Therefore I have insisted that he be the first to produce the figures he says he knows how to compute - and besides, it was his claim and he bears burden of proof for claims which he makes. Once he gives properly supported figures, _then_ it is for me to either accept them or bring equally well-supported rebuttal to show where he went wrong. In case you hadn't figured it out, he is not acting as a scientist engaged in a dispassionate search for truth. He is acting as a defense lawyer, looking for any means he can to produce "reasonable doubt." If he were interested in the truth, he would provide the computations he says he knows how to do rather than engaging in game-playing. And what about you? Are you interested in the truth? Or are you here to aid and abet intellectual dishonesty? Why don't _you_ investigate this matter if you are interested? Why is it always _my_ responsibility not only back up my own claims, but to provide proof that everyone else's unsupported assertions are false, and to do all the work only to be told that my evidence is not good enough (Because! I! Say! So!). Because, you see, that is the final bit of intellectual dishonesty going on here: like Greg Raven before him, he is surreptitiously playing both defense attorney and judge. And what are you playing? Posted/emailed. -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor