But, But, The Witnesses Corroborate Each Other!

[Stubble]

You, don't say?

Let's have a look at the Encyclopedia entry for, Sobibor, and see how much corroboration we have, shall we?

The table’s first column contains the witness’s name and the date when the testimony was recorded or published; the second column lists the claimed murder method; the third gives any means indicated on how the executioners monitored the murder; and the fourth lists any auxiliary mechanical means.

While many of these witnesses disagree on various other issues, it is safe to say that, when it comes to the core of the claims, gas-chamber mass murder at Sobibór was committed primarily using chlorine gas; that the procedure was observed through windows in the roof; and most of all, that the gas chamber(s) had a collapsible floor allowing the discharge of the victims’ corpses into carts in the basement underneath. This is also reflected by Jewish and Polish summaries of these accounts of 1946.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/locat ... bibor/842/

'Well, at the trials, everything makes sense'

Ok, let's look at that...

The reaction of the court and the public was very telling in the case where an attorney dared approach the witnesses whom the prosecution authorities had located, and questioned these witnesses prior to the trial without identifying himself as defense counsel. In court, it later turned out that the statements of these witnesses, which had been inconsistent and contradictory before the trial, were now brought into mutual accord and had been purged of their most unbelievable elements.214 The public condemned the attorney in question for his investigations, and the chief witness nations, Poland and Israel, banned him from entering their respective countries in the future

'Dissecting The Holocaust' Germar Rudolf Ch-3 p104

Now, let that sink in. This highlights the streamlining, just as Sobibor highlights the streamlining by Zdzisław Łukaszkiewicz (there are of course other places where his meddling and streamlining can be pointed to).

Still think these trials were 'impartial' and 'fair'?

Look, the witnesses corroborate each other, unless they don't. When they don't, then, it's apparently no big deal because, well, reasons. Hell, at Sobibor, the witnesses are basically thrown out of the equation...Even though they corroborated one another. See, they had landed on the wrong script according to the judge, so, we can just disregard them...

[Nessie]

The main Sobibor trial took place in West Germany. What trial is Rudolf referring to?

Corroboration, when accused and victim agree on the crime committed, is considered to be strong corroboration. When those witnesses are then further corroborated by evidence from sources such as documents, that evidential link grows even stronger.

[Archie]

The principle in historiography is that multiple, independent accounts are more likely to be historically accurate. The idea is that if the witnesses have not been able to coordinate in any way and have not heard other versions of the story ahead of time, then it is very unlikely that they will come up with the same lies.

The Holocaust witnesses are quite obviously not independent. It is clear that they have heard a lot of stories and that their accounts are contaminated. Their statements are also quite contradictory, and the earliest versions of the stories are the most contradictory.

"In court, it later turned out that the statements of these witnesses, which had been inconsistent and contradictory before the trial, were now brought into mutual accord and had been purged of their most unbelievable elements."

And this is the overarching problem. The testimonies were generally all collected by Allied atrocity investigators or Jewish groups.

[Nessie]

The principle in historiography is that multiple, independent accounts are more likely to be historically accurate. The idea is that if the witnesses have not been able to coordinate in any way and have not heard other versions of the story ahead of time, then it is very unlikely that they will come up with the same lies.

The Holocaust witnesses are quite obviously not independent.

They clearly are independent. They come from multiple countries, not speaking the same languages. Many worked at different camps and never met. You do not get two more independent groups than Nazi and Jewish.

It is clear that they have heard a lot of stories and that their accounts are contaminated.

It does not matter if a narrative was early, or later, they all remain the same regarding the main events.

Their statements are also quite contradictory, and the earliest versions of the stories are the most contradictory.

You are mixing hearsay and eyewitnesses, again. On the main events, the witnesses have little to no contradiction, as they all describe mass arrivals, processing, theft of property, gassing, mass graves and cremations.

"In court, it later turned out that the statements of these witnesses, which had been inconsistent and contradictory before the trial, were now brought into mutual accord and had been purged of their most unbelievable elements."

Where does that quote come from?

And this is the overarching problem. The testimonies were generally all collected by Allied atrocity investigators or Jewish groups.

A large number of testimonies were gathered by German investigators, for the numerous trials that were run in West, East and unified Germany. They are no different from the those gathered by Allies or Jewish groups.

[Eye of Zyclone]

https://postimg.cc/Wq64jqQG

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction

In this interview, the renowned astronomer speculates on why belief in alien abduction persists.

Tuesday, February 27, 1996 NOVA

Carl Sagan was captivated by the notion of life beyond Earth. Yet in this interview, conducted shortly before the well-known champion of science died in 1996, Sagan says that extraterrestrial intelligence is "a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence." Sagan doubted that the various proponents of so-called "alien abduction" making headlines in the 1990s had met those scientific standards.

Could you please comment on the part of the quality of the evidence that is put forward by these so-called "abduction proponents."

Well, it's almost entirely anecdote. Someone says something happened to them, and people can say anything. The fact that someone says something doesn't mean it's true. Doesn't mean they're lying, but it doesn't mean it's true.

To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: a scraping of the whole ship, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that aren't present on Earth, chemical elements from the so-called island of stability, very heavy elements that don't exist on Earth. Or material of absolutely bizarre properties of many sorts—electrical conductivity or ductility. There are many things like that that would instantly give serious credence to an account.

But there's no scrapings, no interior photographs, no filched page from the captain's log book. All there are are stories. There are instances of disturbed soil, but I can disturb soil with a shovel. There are instances of people claiming to flash lights at UFOs and the UFOs flash back. But, pilots of airplanes can also flash back, especially if they think it would be a good joke to play on the UFO enthusiast. So, that does not constitute good evidence.

"Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

[...]

According to Hopkins and others, the main evidence for these stories—in the absence of other evidence—is the similarity of details. In your opinion, what other explanations might account for the similarity and the details of the stories or hallucinations of these abductees?

The culture contaminates. Movies, television programs, books, haunting pages of aliens, and television interviews with passionate abductees—all communicate to the widest possible community the alien abduction paradigm. So, it's not as if each abductee has been hermetically sealed from the outside world and has no input about what others are saying. It's all cross contaminated, and it has been for decades. I think that's the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence—that many people tell the same story.

If you could speak directly to the multitudes of people who believe they're going to bed and perhaps being abducted by aliens, what is it you would like to say to them?

If I were speaking to a group of abductees, I think the first thing I would do would be to tell them that I'm sure to many of them the pain that is expressed is genuine, that they're not just making this up. And it's very important to be compassionate. At the same time, I would stress that hallucinations are a human common place, and not a sign that you are crazy. And that absolutely clear hallucinations have occured to normal people, and it has a compelling feeling of reality, but it's generated in the head.

"I don't think that scientists are prejudiced to begin with. Prejudice means pre-judging. They're post-judice."

That being the case, I would ask them to try to be as objective as they can and see if anything like that might, in fact, explain what they said happened to them. And I'd remind them that children, universally, have terrible nightmares, especially around [the ages of] 7 to 11, and wake up from sleep absolutely terrified about a monster, a witch, a goblin, a demon, and why shouldn't some of us retain that? I mean, there's no question that those monsters don't exist, and they're [not] hiding in the closet or under the bed. That's something generated in the mind. Why should it all go away when we grow up? We should retain some of that. And could not something like that be an explanation?

I would try to simply ask them to adopt the scientific method of multiple working hypothesis. Right now, they have only one hypothesis and their minds are, in many cases, closed to the alternative. I would ask them to do a serious consideration of the alternative, see if it makes sense.

Can you tell us how you feel if someone came to you with good evidence that there was, in fact, alien life trying to communicate with us? How would that make you feel as a scientist?

If someone came to me with compelling, bona fide evidence that we're being visited, my reaction would be "Whoopee!" And I'd want to play a role in analyzing the evidence. I would try very hard to bring in the absolute best scientists in the world to study it, depending on what the evidence is like. And I don't doubt that there would be a lot of cooperation from the scientific community. I don't think that scientists are prejudiced to begin with. Prejudice means pre-judging. They're post-judice. After examining the evidence they decide there's nothing to it. There's a big difference between prejudice and post-judice.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/s ... abduction/

[Nessie]

If only there was a way, when a group of witnesses makes a claim, to check to see if their claim is correct or not.

[Stubble]

[...]

"In court, it later turned out that the statements of these witnesses, which had been inconsistent and contradictory before the trial, were now brought into mutual accord and had been purged of their most unbelievable elements."

And this is the overarching problem. The testimonies were generally all collected by Allied atrocity investigators or Jewish groups.

This is the issue I was attempting to highlight. I suppose I should have dug for more examples. I was hoping to keep them in my pocket as fodder further down thread as the debate progressed.

There's also the self contradictory stuff.

For clarity, the quote is from a Mr Ludwig Bock an attorney for the defense in the Majdanek Trial. His entry in 'The Holocaust Encyclopedia' is well put together.

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/histo ... udwig/419/

I ran into his quote incidentally while looking at some absurdities Israeli students on their 'pilgrimage' to the 'holocaust sites' are told with regard to Hildegard Lächert.

The incendiary statements can be found here at around timestamp 00:49:00.00;



This is a documentary by an Israeli film maker about 'antisemitism' titled 'Defamation; Antisemitism The. Movie'.