Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Keen]

The Holocaust has been investigated in the same way all historical events and crimes have been investigated.

And what have the "crime scene investigations" uncovered?

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.



Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, that millions of pounds of bones and teeth are actually buried in an alleged mass grave - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Keen]

I do not think you know how to go about evidencing there were no gas chambers.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

[Nessie]

Here is how a historian, journalist or criminal investigator would go about determining what took place inside the Kremas. They would,

- interview staff and prisoners who worked there (it would likely be that the journalist and criminal investigator would undertake that work, rather than the historian).
- gather evidence directly pertaining to the operation of the buildings, such as documents that referenced them, or physical examinations of the structure (it may be a scientist who undertakes that physical examination on behalf of the others).
- look for circumstantial evidence as to what was taking place inside Birkenau (that evidence would be in form of documents, witnesses, photographs etc).

The main aim of the investigation would be to produce an evidenced, corroborated, chronology of events, that proves what took place inside the buildings.

It is still not clear what a revisionist would do. Instead, the drop by this thread, criticise the historical method and then run away. That they cannot produce a concise description of how they would go about investigating the usage of the Birkenau Kremas, is evidence to prove their methodology is flawed.

[Keen]

Here is how a criminal investigator would go about determining what took place

The very first thing they would do is look for the physical evidence that confirms the alleged crime.

For instance, if there was an allegation that hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people were murdered and buried in "huge mass graves" in a precisely known location, the first thing they would do is look for the alleged "huge mass graves" that confirms the alleged mass murder.

It is still not clear what a revisionist would do.

Well, I'm not sure what a "revisionist" would do either, but a real investigator, someone who is not afraid to to speak the truth about the holohoax, would do something like this:

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this legitimate adjudicable question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, that millions of pounds of bones and teeth are actually buried in an alleged mass grave - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

[Hektor]

The Holocaust has been investigated in the same way all historical events and crimes have been investigated.

And what have the "crime scene investigations" uncovered?

It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.



Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, that millions of pounds of bones and teeth are actually buried in an alleged mass grave - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Looking at the photo. Does that look like a mass grave from an extermination camp to you?
Or does it rather look like occasional burials of individuals and small groups of people like in occasional death from epidemic for example?

[Nessie]

I see from Hektor's quote, Keen is still suggesting that there is a lack of evidence of mass graves. To prove no mass graves, would need witnesses who worked inside the camp, who stated there were no mass graves, or geophysics that finds undisturbed ground. Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality. It is a classic example of why so-called Holocaust revisionists are in fact Holocaust deniers.

As for Hektor's comment,

Looking at the photo. Does that look like a mass grave from an extermination camp to you?
Or does it rather look like occasional burials of individuals and small groups of people like in occasional death from epidemic for example?

Why would the find of a small mass grave of only a few persons, preclude the existence of larger mass graves at the site?

[Keen]

To prove no mass graves, would need witnesses who worked inside the camp, who stated there were no mass graves, or geophysics that finds undisturbed ground.

Yet another logical fallacy from the lying cornered rat.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this legitimate adjudicable question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be -

LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, that millions of pounds of bones and teeth are actually buried in an alleged mass grave - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are currently buried in the 100 specifically identified locations in question - Yes. - or - No. - ??

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

Additionally, and independent of any other Holocaust Archaeology Hoax Challenge, a - $100.00 reward - is being offered for each one of the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves / cremation pits in question that is proven - with the same standard of proof applied in U. S. civil courts - to actually exist and to currently contain the remains of - at least 2 people. (That is less than one tenth of one one thousandth of one percent of the alleged mass murder.)

Note: The 6 original fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” of Treblinka II that were alleged by “authoritative eyewitnesses” and allegedly - “PROVEN” - to exist in the early show trials - MODEL - MAP - (but never proven to exist), are also included in the above reward offer. (A photo of one of these 6 fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” can be seen - HERE.)

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove mass graves, is denial of reality. It is a classic example of why so-called Holocaust revisionists are in fact Holocaust deniers.

“HUGE MASS GRAVES” are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply: Show me that which you allege I deny.

What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

Claiming that multiple pits found by geophysics in the same part of the camp that witnesses state the main mass graves were dug, is not corroborating evidence to prove...

So when you say "corroborating" you are actually using the word "confirm" and not "support"

If mass graves have been "proven" or "confirmed" then show us.

What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?

[Keen]

roberto:

Millions were arrested and killed.

The buried remains have not been utterly eradicated.

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves, the pyres and the numbers killed are evidenced by the physical remains.

Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?

[Archie]

Since Nessie has brought up Gerstein as an example of exemplary critical method by the orthodoxy, I think it's worth talking through that example.

The Gerstein statement (PS-1553) was introduced at the IMT but was not featured prominently. It got more attention at NMT Case I. Nessie, in your opinion, how would characterize the use of Gerstein at these trials? Careful and rigorous? Sloppy?

From this trial transcript;

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-30-46.asp

"As far as the brutal extermination by gas Is concerned, we have the invoices for poison gas, intended for Oranienburg and Auschwitz, which we submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-350. The Tribunal will find translations on Page 27 of the second document book, Document Number 1553-PS."

"To Document 1553-PS is added the statement by Gerstein, and also the statement by the chief of the American service who collected this document."

So, that document is not a statement by Gerstein. As for how the court deals with the document,

"...in the case of the original exhibit, 1553-PS, it was certified, we imagine, by an officer of the United States. These documents which you have now drawn our attention to are not so certified by anyone as far as we have been able to see. Certainly we cannot take judicial notice of these documents, which are private documents; and therefore, unless they are read in Court, they cannot be put in evidence."

The court will not accept it as evidence until it has been verified. Or, are you referring to a different document?

Non-responsive. You don't want to answer so you are beating around the bush.

The Gerstein statement was submitted as PS-1553 and was cited in court.

The affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid description of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the thousands by order of Globocnik. (1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428.)
-NMT (Green Series), Vol I, pg. 804

A long extract from the statement was published on page 865. There was no discussion about all the errors in the statement. They didn't notice. All the careful fact-checking and quality control that you claim they always do didn't happen.

This same negligence (even unscrupulousness) is evident in the early treatment of Gerstein in the Holocaust literature. French historian Leon Poliakov in his 1951 booked cited Gerstein approvingly as a major witness.

The victims are no longer here to testify; the butchers, too, have either died or gone underground. Among the very few statements that we have on the operations of these camps is one from Kurt Gerstein, a chemical engineer who was a tragic hero in the German anti-Nazi resistance. His account was written down directly in an uncertain French; we have basically retained its original style. (Harvest of Hate, pg. 192)

He then dedicates to a long quote of the statement. We know Poliakov actually did notice some errors in the statement because he makes undisclosed changes to the statement without any discussion or explanation. For example Gerstein's description has 700-800 people in a gas chamber of only 25 sq meters. Poliakov arbitrarily increases the room to 93 sq meters without comment, i.e., he falsifies the text to hide Gerstein's error from the reader.

Critical comments about Gerstein from the orthodox side generally came very late and only AFTER revisionists had already debunked him.

[Nessie]

Since Nessie has brought up Gerstein as an example of exemplary critical method by the orthodoxy, I think it's worth talking through that example.

The Gerstein statement (PS-1553) was introduced at the IMT but was not featured prominently. It got more attention at NMT Case I. Nessie, in your opinion, how would characterize the use of Gerstein at these trials? Careful and rigorous? Sloppy?

From this trial transcript;

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/01-30-46.asp

"As far as the brutal extermination by gas Is concerned, we have the invoices for poison gas, intended for Oranienburg and Auschwitz, which we submit to the Tribunal under Exhibit Number RF-350. The Tribunal will find translations on Page 27 of the second document book, Document Number 1553-PS."

"To Document 1553-PS is added the statement by Gerstein, and also the statement by the chief of the American service who collected this document."

So, that document is not a statement by Gerstein. As for how the court deals with the document,

"...in the case of the original exhibit, 1553-PS, it was certified, we imagine, by an officer of the United States. These documents which you have now drawn our attention to are not so certified by anyone as far as we have been able to see. Certainly we cannot take judicial notice of these documents, which are private documents; and therefore, unless they are read in Court, they cannot be put in evidence."

The court will not accept it as evidence until it has been verified. Or, are you referring to a different document?

Non-responsive. You don't want to answer so you are beating around the bush.

No, I want to read the statement. I went looking for it, as you failed to provide a link and found PS-1553 is a document about the delivery of Zyklon B, it is not Gerstein's statement.

The Gerstein statement was submitted as PS-1553 and was cited in court.

According to the link I provided, his statement was submitted along with PS-1553.

The affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid description of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the thousands by order of Globocnik. (1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428.)
-NMT (Green Series), Vol I, pg. 804

A long extract from the statement was published on page 865.

Can you link to it?

There was no discussion about all the errors in the statement. They didn't notice. All the careful fact-checking and quality control that you claim they always do didn't happen.

I am not going to believe that claim until you provide links and evidence. You would not even know what to look for.

This same negligence (even unscrupulousness) is evident in the early treatment of Gerstein in the Holocaust literature. French historian Leon Poliakov in his 1951 booked cited Gerstein approvingly as a major witness.

The victims are no longer here to testify; the butchers, too, have either died or gone underground. Among the very few statements that we have on the operations of these camps is one from Kurt Gerstein, a chemical engineer who was a tragic hero in the German anti-Nazi resistance. His account was written down directly in an uncertain French; we have basically retained its original style. (Harvest of Hate, pg. 192)

He then dedicates to a long quote of the statement. We know Poliakov actually did notice some errors in the statement because he makes undisclosed changes to the statement without any discussion or explanation. For example Gerstein's description has 700-800 people in a gas chamber of only 25 sq meters. Poliakov arbitrarily increases the room to 93 sq meters without comment, i.e., he falsifies the text to hide Gerstein's error from the reader.

Critical comments about Gerstein from the orthodox side generally came very late and only AFTER revisionists had already debunked him.

You criticise others, without providing evidence, such as where does Poliakov increase the size of the chamber? You then, crucially, without evidence, claim revisionists have debunked him. How have you done that? Show your methodology.

[Nessie]

The German historian Hans Rothfels writes about Gerstein;

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/846188/pdf

"The question remains, however, whether it was even possible for
G. to make observations on the scale he maintains and whether these observa-
tions are internally credible."

"The results of this credibility test can be summarized as follows: the available evidence completely
confirms the core of the statements (religious propaganda, twice in protective
custody, dismissal from the party) and the early party membership (May 1933) is
willingly admitted, but G. tends to overtax his memory when it comes to the accu-
racy of certain details (e.g. 2 October instead of 15 October; 14 October instead of
23 July)."

" Was it even logistically possible (200 Ukrainians, approx. 100 chairs,
12-13 lashes)? Is it possible to remember such specifics? It must be clear that not
every word can be taken at face value and that it is entirely possible that there
are mistakes or inaccuracies in terms of the incidentals..."

Rothfels finds that Gerstein is not that credible, he makes mistakes, makes claims that are not possible, but his core claims are corroborated. He disputes that claim by the Bishop of Berlin that Gerstein's claims were "absolutely true". Instead, he states;

" The historian, bound by his methods, cannot go quite so far in his conclu-
sions, but indisputably, this witness and his verification of the matter weigh
heavily alongside the other corroborating evidence."

Here is another example of a historian, who has assessed Gerstein as unreliable and provided examples of why that is. He then applies the test of corroboration and finds that the primary claims about gassing are verified by other evidence. As for PS-1553, Rothfels states;

"A number of the references provided in the PS-1553 file and in the German version have been questioned or
testified to in the Frankfurt trial."

"The question remains, however, whether it was even possible for
G. to make observations on the scale he maintains..."

Gerstein's version of events has been questioned and subjected to extensive checking and verification. He passes the primary test of corroboration, but he fails many of the tests regarding the accuracy and credibility of his claims.

[Archie]

No, I want to read the statement. I went looking for it, as you failed to provide a link and found PS-1553 is a document about the delivery of Zyklon B, it is not Gerstein's statement.

The Gerstein statement was submitted as PS-1553 and was cited in court.

According to the link I provided, his statement was submitted along with PS-1553.

The affidavit of Kurt Gerstein, which also mentions Wirth, gives a vivid description of the terrible way in which the victims were killed by the thousands by order of Globocnik. (1553-PS, Pros. Ex. 428.)
-NMT (Green Series), Vol I, pg. 804

A long extract from the statement was published on page 865.

Can you link to it?

There was no discussion about all the errors in the statement. They didn't notice. All the careful fact-checking and quality control that you claim they always do didn't happen.

I am not going to believe that claim until you provide links and evidence. You would not even know what to look for.

This same negligence (even unscrupulousness) is evident in the early treatment of Gerstein in the Holocaust literature. French historian Leon Poliakov in his 1951 booked cited Gerstein approvingly as a major witness.

The victims are no longer here to testify; the butchers, too, have either died or gone underground. Among the very few statements that we have on the operations of these camps is one from Kurt Gerstein, a chemical engineer who was a tragic hero in the German anti-Nazi resistance. His account was written down directly in an uncertain French; we have basically retained its original style. (Harvest of Hate, pg. 192)

He then dedicates to a long quote of the statement. We know Poliakov actually did notice some errors in the statement because he makes undisclosed changes to the statement without any discussion or explanation. For example Gerstein's description has 700-800 people in a gas chamber of only 25 sq meters. Poliakov arbitrarily increases the room to 93 sq meters without comment, i.e., he falsifies the text to hide Gerstein's error from the reader.

Critical comments about Gerstein from the orthodox side generally came very late and only AFTER revisionists had already debunked him.

You criticise others, without providing evidence, such as where does Poliakov increase the size of the chamber? You then, crucially, without evidence, claim revisionists have debunked him. How have you done that? Show your methodology.

You need to learn how to do basic research. How are you not familiar with the Gerstein statement after 15 years of doing this?

Butz reproduces it here:
https://www.unz.com/book/arthur_r_butz_ ... _79_1:1-31

Here is the Poliakov book I cited. Check it. He says 93 square meters.
https://archive.org/details/harvestofhatenaz00poli

See Roques for a detailed discussion of the textual variations, including Poliakov's inaccuracies.
https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/the ... -gerstein/

[Archie]

Gerstein's version of events has been questioned and subjected to extensive checking and verification.