Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:@ - Horhug
I do not quite understand what I have said to upset you. By saying "I should not have challenged the claim that the Auschwitz Returns decrypted at Bletchley Park are compatible with the Death Books of Auschwitz by referring to a Nuremberg document", I did admit that I made a mistake.
Your statement above, which you now claim was an admission of a mistake, does not describe the mistake you made.
Your "mistake" was attempting to criticise the claim that the 1942 HORHUG data for Aushwitz is compatible with the 1942 death books data, by attempting to use the discrepancy between the death books data for August 1943 and the data in the Nuremberg document for August 1943.
That is an entirely separate issue and so that was your "mistake", to which you still have not admitted and which you are still dodging.
So why don't you simply admit that ?
Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:
I think it is not that hard to understand why I made this mistake. The paper I was referring to says:
"In the terrible month of August 1942, thirty percent of the Auschwitz male camp population died. A year later, that catastrophic level had been successfully reduced to only one-tenth as much: so that a mere 3% of the camp died in August 1943. It will here be argued that that initial mortality was caused by typhus hitting the camp to a degree far worse than any other German labour-camp and that the subsequent drop was due to a successful implementation of hygiene technology and so-called special treatment protocols.
We here aim to establish that several quite independent databases are coherent and compatible. It will help to have read the previous article which evaluated the British-intelligence monthly decrypts data, comparing their figures with the Auschwitz Death-Books,[1]and showing that they were in accord. We here additionally include a Nuremberg document which gave statistics on mortality through the German labour-camps over twelve months 1942-3, and does so in terms of percent monthly mortality, as alluded to above.
By showing that these various databases are interlocking and compatible [...]."
I disagree.
It is quite obviously very difficult to understand, why you, an educated, scientific person, who is presumably used to reading, understanding and interpreting papers / essays etc., would introduce a specious claim such as you did.
All the more difficult to understand why you chose the month of August 1943 to base that claim upon, when you know full well that no HORHUG data exists for August 1943.
We have already covered this. NK was discussing the reduction in the mortality caused by the typhus epidemic which began in 1942. He avers compatibility between the HORHUG 1942 data and the 1942 death books data.
You are now being given another opportunity to explain what persuaded you to attempt to present NK's compatibility claim as being anything to do with August 1943, when you know full well that there is no HORHUG data for August 1943.
How can you suggest that he is claiming compatibility between one dataset which does exist and another which you know does not exist ?
Dr. Edgar Dahl wrote:
Maybe my English is not good enough, but are these italicised sentences not suggesting a compatibility?
Au contraire, your English seems perfect.
I am entirely confident that even as a non-native English speaker, you are able to discern the difference between 1942 and 1943.
I would have expected a person of scientific training and experience, to have first evaluated the information presented and then, if choosing to present a critique of that information, to do so with substantive facts.
What you have attempted to do is offer some specious critique, by using a discrepancy between two other datasets.
You know full well that no data compatibility claim is being made for August 1943, either between the HORHUG & death books data, nor the HORHUG and the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS data, nor the death books data and the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS data.
Yet you, presumably drawing on your methodical, scientific analysis expertise, chose to present the discrepancy between the death books data for August 1943 and the Nuremberg doc 1469-PS data for August 1943, as somehow highlighting a problem with the compatibility claim between the 1942 HORHUG data and the 1942 death books data.
Apples and oranges is hardly representative of any scientific method I know of.
Now why would you even attempt to do such a thing when you know full well that no HORHUG data exists for August 1943 ?
How could any sane person make a claim for compatibilty between one dataset and another, which does not exist ?
How could any scientifically trained professional person, such as yourself, attempt to present that specious nonsense as somehow being proof of something else ?
.
