Witness Question for Nessie

[Stubble]

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing, and they have zero evidentiary value.

2 disparate allegations do not even support one another, and, a receipt for another thing assigned to another room doesn't support either unsubstantiated allegation.

If you interview 2 people and ask them what Bob had for breakfast and one says oatmeal and is very specific about the bowl, the consistency of the oatmeal and describes the spoon with a specific length, tilt and width, and the other person says he ate cereal with a spork, and gives similar specific details, and then you find a receipt for bacon and eggs, that doesn't mean that everyone corroborated each other, especially if the receipt is for a separate table.

For fucks sake.

Right.

See my post above.

One of the things I find remarkable is that Colls herself is trying to move the grave spaces outside the extermination area, and yet Nessie claims she has already found sufficient grave space or the claim.

viewtopic.php?t=831

The teams that have looked at these various sites have to varying degrees acknowledged the disparity regarding the claims, and yet, some still try to bring these studies up as some kind of support of the exterminationist thesis. Even the authors know the jig is up...

This is of course diversionary to the actual goal of the thread, but, we passed the purpose of the thread long ago when Nessie flat out refused to outline a case for at least 3 witnesses at any single camp.

If the forensics don't support the claim, it doesn't matter if the witnesses support one another. The real sting here is that the witnesses don't even support one another, and this shit is shoveled into the faces of school children in primary school.

Did people die in ww2? Obviously. Did people die at the Aktion Reinhardt sites? Surely, although, we actually know of a very, very few with certainty. Could people have actually been buried there in mass graves? I can see no reason why mass graves should not exist at these sites. Do they contain, the population of Seattle? Fuck no.

[Keen]

If the forensics don't support the claim, it doesn't matter if the witnesses support one another.

Exactly.

"Corroboration" without substantiation has no evidentiary value.

Could people have actually been buried there in mass graves? I can see no reason why mass graves should not exist at these sites.

Actually, there are many reasons that I want to point out and discuss with you, but not right now. It's Saturday night and I'm thirsty.

TBC.

[Stubble]

If the forensics don't support the claim, it doesn't matter if the witnesses support one another.

Exactly.

"Corroboration" without substantiation has no evidentiary value.

Could people have actually been buried there in mass graves? I can see no reason why mass graves should not exist at these sites.

Actually, there are many reasons that I want to point out and discuss with you, but not right now. It's Saturday night and I'm thirsty.

TBC.

You know my stance, and I know yours. My comment is generally aimed at lurkers more than at you. To summarize, you are correct and you add balance to the debate by pointing out that exactly 0 huge mass graves have ever been proven to exist. My belief that there 'should be' 'some' is not of any evidentiary value, currently there are exactly 0 proven mass graves at these sites.

[Eye of Zyclone]

According to the Jewish astronomer Carl Sagan, corroboration ("that many people tell the same story") would be "the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence" anyway...

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction

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

Tuesday, February 27, 1996

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.

It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of 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 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.

My second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence. There's not a hint of that from alien abduction enthusiasts.

Many of the principle advocates of UFO abduction seem to want the validation of science without submitting to its rigorous standards of evidence. When John Mack talks about parallel universes or other dimensions, he's using scientific ideas. Those have long been in play in the physics and astronomy community. But, there is no evidence for them. He also criticizes the current paradigm that is the skeptical scientific method. But, this isn't validated. We don't believe it just out of prejudice; we believe it because it works. 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]

2 disparate allegations do not even support one another, and, a receipt for another thing assigned to another room doesn't support either unsubstantiated allegation.

If you interview 2 people and ask them what Bob had for breakfast and one says oatmeal and is very specific about the bowl, the consistency of the oatmeal and describes the spoon with a specific length, tilt and width, and the other person says he ate cereal with a spork, and gives similar specific details, and then you find a receipt for bacon and eggs, that doesn't mean that everyone corroborated each other, especially if the receipt is for a separate table.

For fucks sake.

In your analogy there is corroborative evidence from two witnesses that Bob had breakfast and there is a record of him having breakfast. That is the main event and it is corroborated. If you dive into the details, such as what he ate and where he sat, there are discrepancies, but that does not alter the fact that the main event is corroborated.

You think that the details have to match for there to be corroboration, but, because of errors such as misremembering, or a mistake in a record, trained investigators do not expect those details to match. What they are looking for is whether the main event is corroborated.

Nessie, I don't expect people to remember very specific details, for the very specific details to be different across the cohort, and for people inside the cohort to change their story regarding method, repeatedly.

What do you base that expectation on? Have you read many studies of witnesses and why details may vary and people change their stories?

Chlorine through a hatch becomes engine exhaust, for example.

You have conflated hearsay with eyewitness evidence. No witness said it was chlorine and then engine exhaust. It was a witness who worked elsewhere in TII and not at the gas chmabers, who said it was chlorine. All the witnesses who worked at the gas chambers said it was engine exhaust.

You have misrepresented the witness evidence. By doing so, and failing to learn from your error, you are doomed to never understanding the witness evidence.

Then to learn that one of the key witnesses was a linchpin member of an underground resistance organization? And a Soviet propagandist prewar?

These are problems.

How so? That a Soviet propagandist who was a member of the underground, agrees with the SS camp staff, is strong corroboration. Those people come from two groups who hated each other and wished the other dead, so for them to agree is an indication of how strong the corroboration is.

Going back to Kula and his columns, I expect anyone who is going to be considered reliable to be able to agree if the columns dispense the pellets onto the floor, or if the fucking thing collects them.

'Minor details'....

No, these are not minor details.

Why do you expect that? What witness studies are you basing your belief on? Where is your evidence that only truthful witness would describe something like a metal column used to introduce Zyklon B to a gas chamber, will agree on the details?

[Archie]

The Nessie method of corroboration:

-Start with the official story. Accept this without question. (Ignore the question of how the official story came to be accepted. Simply say that "the historians" have it figured out).
-Look for anything in the testimonies that fits the official story and declare this to be "corroboration."
-Declare all the contradictions and blunders to be a priori insignificant.

[Archie]

Chlorine through a hatch becomes engine exhaust, for example.

You have conflated hearsay with eyewitness evidence. No witness said it was chlorine and then engine exhaust.

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.

Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine. They were buried alive.

Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

[Nessie]

Cherry-picking? Quoting from two translations of a document and linking to the source that is freely available online for anyone to read is cherry-picking?

You quoted a document that listed ten rules for those taking witness statements and concentrated on only one.

I hesitate to compare this to the plagiarized Das Prussian list of "sources."

I have specifically said that the list was complied by Das Prussian and not credited any of it to me. I have reproduced his introduction.

This is the only part of the document (Yiddish version) that Laura Jockusch quotes (ellipses in Jockusch's book):

We have to be prepared that after so many ... occupation experiences, memory has become weakened, and with the distance of several years, some facts ... will come out vague and not without mistakes. The zamler will do well not just to help the witness with questions but also to provide him with facts that he [the interviewer] already knows from other sources (that is, an associative method), [or by] reading aloud the testimony of another witness on a similar or the same topic.

- Jockusch, Laura. Collect and Record! Jewish Holocaust Documentation in Early Postwar Europe. p. 98, quoting CZKH, Metodologische onvayzungen.

I quoted the same two full sentences that Jockusch did; i.e., "cherry-picking."

Based on his own standard, Nessie believes that Laura Jockusch, a fellow at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and teacher of Holocaust Studies at the University of Haifa, is "guilty of cherry-picking." Nessie is bullying and abusing Laura Jockusch, which shouldn't be allowed. Why is he allowed to bully and abuse Jewish professors at Israeli universities?

There could be a substantive and respectful discussion/debate about that highly-interesting methodological document/questionnaire.

But instead, Nessie escalated to "guilty of cherry-picking." He probably had relevant training in de-escalation techniques, so is violating his own de-escalation methodology.

I'll refrain from escalating further.

Jockusch is not cherry-picking, as she is referring to a rule that applies generally to all witnesses, which is memory fades. She then suggests witness coaching is acceptable, which I disagree with, but she says "The data collector’s approach to the witness should always be individualized" and applies that coaching to only some witnesses. That is not me bullying or abusing her, you are clearly struggling with your argument, when you come out what that nonsense!

Pilgromofdark is guilty of cherry picking one of the instructions to the statement takers, as if it applies to all the witnesses. Witness coaching was not as widespread as he suggests as it is only used in specific cases.

As I suggest? I didn't use the term "witness coaching" nor "suggest" a "spread."

Police corruption in Scotland isn't as widespread as Nessie suggests.
Stealing from people isn't as acceptable as Nessie suggests.
UK police planting evidence isn't as common as Nessie suggests as it is only used in specific cases.
Punching random people on the street isn't as cool as Nessie suggests.
Kicking puppies for fun isn't as celebrated as Nessie suggests.
Defrauding the elderly isn't as admirable as Nessie suggests.
Jews kidnapping Christian children to drain their blood for use in Passover rituals isn't as universal as Nessie suggests as it is only used in specific cases.

You quoted one specific instruction to data collectors, "the data collector should remind the witness of facts not only by asking him relevant questions, but also by recounting well-known events from the subject under discussion (association method). A witness’s memory is often jogged upon hearing the testimony of another witness who lived through similar experiences."

viewtopic.php?p=24953#p24953

Then you said "This is the methodology interviewers in Poland had relevant training and expertise carrying out."

[Nessie]

....
One of the things I find remarkable is that Colls herself is trying to move the grave spaces outside the extermination area, and yet Nessie claims she has already found sufficient grave space or the claim.

viewtopic.php?t=831

The teams that have looked at these various sites have to varying degrees acknowledged the disparity regarding the claims, and yet, some still try to bring these studies up as some kind of support of the exterminationist thesis. Even the authors know the jig is up...

Please quote from any archaeological survey, where the author states that the grave space found is inconsistent with the numbers claimed to have been buried at the camp.

This is of course diversionary to the actual goal of the thread, but, we passed the purpose of the thread long ago when Nessie flat out refused to outline a case for at least 3 witnesses at any single camp.

I refused to write essays. I have made the case as to how the witnesses are corroborated, using examples from TII and A-B.

If the forensics don't support the claim, it doesn't matter if the witnesses support one another. The real sting here is that the witnesses don't even support one another, and this shit is shoveled into the faces of school children in primary school.

The forensics do support the claim and the witnesses do corroborate each other.

Did people die in ww2? Obviously. Did people die at the Aktion Reinhardt sites? Surely, although, we actually know of a very, very few with certainty. Could people have actually been buried there in mass graves? I can see no reason why mass graves should not exist at these sites. Do they contain, the population of Seattle? Fuck no.

You cannot name a single person who worked an AR camp who supports your beliefs, let alone produce documentary or other evidence. Instead, all you do is deny the evidence that proves they were the sites of mass gassing and burial.

[Nessie]

...

You know my stance, and I know yours. My comment is generally aimed at lurkers more than at you. To summarize, you are correct and you add balance to the debate by pointing out that exactly 0 huge mass graves have ever been proven to exist. My belief that there 'should be' 'some' is not of any evidentiary value, currently there are exactly 0 proven mass graves at these sites.

You cannot prove there are zero mass graves at the AR camps, by merely denying the evidence of mass graves. You need evidence from eyewitnesses who worked at the camp, who state there were no mass graves. Or an aerial photo that shows no sign of disturbed ground. Or a geophysical survey that finds undisturbed ground.Or documents that records mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people back out of the camps.

[Nessie]

According to the Jewish astronomer Carl Sagan, corroboration ("that many people tell the same story") would be "the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence" anyway...

He explains that the witness evidence is not supported by any other evidence, and that there is evidence that alien abduction is not possible and that is why the corroborating witnesses in this case, as not good evidence.

Carl Sagan on Alien Abduction

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

Tuesday, February 27, 1996

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.

It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of 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 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.

My second point is that to the extent that extraordinary claims require extraordinary investigations, those investigations must be true to the spirit of science. And that means highly skeptical, demanding, rigorous standards of evidence. There's not a hint of that from alien abduction enthusiasts.

Many of the principle advocates of UFO abduction seem to want the validation of science without submitting to its rigorous standards of evidence. When John Mack talks about parallel universes or other dimensions, he's using scientific ideas. Those have long been in play in the physics and astronomy community. But, there is no evidence for them. He also criticizes the current paradigm that is the skeptical scientific method. But, this isn't validated. We don't believe it just out of prejudice; we believe it because it works. 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/

[/quote]

[Nessie]

The Nessie method of corroboration:

-Start with the official story. Accept this without question. (Ignore the question of how the official story came to be accepted. Simply say that "the historians" have it figured out).
-Look for anything in the testimonies that fits the official story and declare this to be "corroboration."
-Declare all the contradictions and blunders to be a priori insignificant.

My method of corroboration, which is the method used by the police, historians and journalists.

- Start by gathering evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial sources.
- Look for consistencies where a narrative is agreed upon and that the evidence corroborates and converges to a conclusion.
- Look to see if there are rational explanations, based on studies of witnesses, memory and recall, that explain any contradictions or blunders. Is there consistency about the main event?

[Nessie]

Chlorine through a hatch becomes engine exhaust, for example.

You have conflated hearsay with eyewitness evidence. No witness said it was chlorine and then engine exhaust.

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.

Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine. They were buried alive.

Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

The link is to original documents and a translation, which states, "This manuscript is handwritten by two or three people and contains details that were not included in the published version of Wiernik's book."

The published version here, does not contain a reference to chlorine;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

Please evidence the handwriting that describes the use of chlorine, is Wiernik's. If you can do that, you then need to show context and was he referring to a time before he arrived at the camp, meaning his claim is hearsay, not what he actually saw when he worked at the gas chambers.

[Archie]

You have conflated hearsay with eyewitness evidence. No witness said it was chlorine and then engine exhaust.

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.

Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine. They were buried alive.

Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

The link is to original documents and a translation, which states, "This manuscript is handwritten by two or three people and contains details that were not included in the published version of Wiernik's book."

The published version here, does not contain a reference to chlorine;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

Please evidence the handwriting that describes the use of chlorine, is Wiernik's. If you can do that, you then need to show context and was he referring to a time before he arrived at the camp, meaning his claim is hearsay, not what he actually saw when he worked at the gas chambers.

Nessie, that is the earlier version of Wiernik's account. You don't even have a reply. You are merely insinuating forgery based on zero evidence. Lol. We have this three-page manuscript. And similar stories were published in newspapers BEFORE the full length work was published.

The original version: Three pages, chlorine, hatches in the roof. The published version is much longer and has changes. If he were describing real events, chlorine hatches on the roof should not be morphing into an engine.

[Nessie]

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.



Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

The link is to original documents and a translation, which states, "This manuscript is handwritten by two or three people and contains details that were not included in the published version of Wiernik's book."

The published version here, does not contain a reference to chlorine;

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

Please evidence the handwriting that describes the use of chlorine, is Wiernik's. If you can do that, you then need to show context and was he referring to a time before he arrived at the camp, meaning his claim is hearsay, not what he actually saw when he worked at the gas chambers.

Nessie, that is the earlier version of Wiernik's account. You don't even have a reply. You are merely insinuating forgery based on zero evidence. Lol.

I have not insinuated forgery. I have pointed out your link is to a three page document that has three different authors, based on the three different handwriting. I asked you if Wiernik wrote the parts that referred to chlorine and you have dodged that question.

We have this three-page manuscript. And similar stories were published in newspapers BEFORE the full length work was published.

The original version: Three pages, chlorine, hatches in the roof. The published version is much longer and has changes. If he were describing real events, chlorine hatches on the roof should not be morphing into an engine.

There was hearsay evidence that chlorine was used, but no eyewitness describes seeing that happen. You are trying to suggest Wiernik stated he saw it happen, but the document you link to has three authors and when it came to Wiernik's book being published, there is no mention of chlorine, which suggests it came from one of the others who wrote the manuscript. I then pointed out that even if Wiernik had written about the use of chlorine, you need context, as the camp had been open for months before he arrived.