Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[TlsMS93]

The best-documented event in history x Nazis destroyed the evidence.

Exterminationists love to create ad hoc explanations for their narratives.

[Nessie]

The best-documented event in history x Nazis destroyed the evidence.

Exterminationists love to create ad hoc explanations for their narratives.

The way it is one of the best documented events in history, is due to the Nuremberg Race Laws and Nazi obsession with identifying and registering Jews. Every country the Nazis occupied was expected to enforce the Laws and most did, often with a high degree of cooperation. Only Denmark and Finland stand out as uncooperative, which is why they had very high rates of Jewish citizen survival. What that documentary evidence proves is huge drops in the Jewish population during the war. All the arrest, camp and transit records, where evidence of life ends in a few specific camps, for millions of Jews, is part of the circumstantial evidence.

There was less record keeping in Eastern Europe. Instead, the documentary evidence is of multiple reports of executions, including Himmler reporting to Hitler in 1942, that 363,211 Jews had been executed over a four month period. Scale that up to the rest of the war and that rate of killing supports the historically accepted death toll of 5-6 million.

All that evidence of mass disappearances under the most suspicious of circumstances, and then when we go hunting for the corpses, we find evidence of a huge cover up, involving mass cremations and the destruction of the camps and buildings that were reported to have contained gas chambers. Destruction of evidence is illegal and when it happens, it is normal to infer criminality. That is not an ad hoc explanation, it is standard all over the world, when someone is accused of a crime and they hide or destroy evidence.

[Archie]

Clearly, the method used by historians and other trained investigators, is more thorough and accurate.

Historians discard statements due to inaccuracies and contradictions all the time.

You claim that the proof for the Kula columns is overwhelming. Yet -

-No Kula columns were ever found
-No photos or columns have ever been found
-No designs or plans or work orders for these columns have ever been found
-There is one inventory document which lists Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung ("wire-mesh push-in device") for LK2 (not the "gas chamber") of Krema II which could refer to any number of things.

The proof for this consists of statements by Kula who contradicted himself, claiming the columns were 70 cm in his first statement and 24 cm in his second statement.

"Kula is corroborated!" By what? Oh, other testimonies. Like Tauber's who describes a small removable container on a wire which is totally different from what Kula describes.

Objectively speaking, this evidence for the Kula columns is very weak. You are relying on essentially two contradictory witnesses from a communist investigation.

They ignore all the witness studies into how well people remember and recall

I am going to have to request that you cite the studies you are relying on that have found that it is common for someone who personally manufactured a device and who claims to remember the exact specs to be 71% off.

[Nessie]

Clearly, the method used by historians and other trained investigators, is more thorough and accurate.

Historians discard statements due to inaccuracies and contradictions all the time.

Can you provide an example of that? The main reason why any investigator would discard a statement is because it is hearsay. What historians do not do, which you do a lot, is discard eyewitness testimony, without any evidence the witness is lying. Your presumption of lying is based on your biased opinion and faulty understanding of credibility, accuracy and truthfulness.

You claim that the proof for the Kula columns is overwhelming. Yet -

-No Kula columns were ever found
-No photos or columns have ever been found
-No designs or plans or work orders for these columns have ever been found
-There is one inventory document which lists Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung ("wire-mesh push-in device") for LK2 (not the "gas chamber") of Krema II which could refer to any number of things.

Multiple witnesses describe seeing the columns, so their evidence is eyewitness testimony. When those witnesses are from a disparate group of Jews and Nazis, who would not cooperate and collude, that makes the corroboration strong. The document further corroborates them. Then there is the reason why no column etc has been found, which is due to Nazi destruction of evidence. All courts make the destruction of evidence illegal and infer criminality when it happens.

The proof for this consists of statements by Kula who contradicted himself, claiming the columns were 70 cm in his first statement and 24 cm in his second statement.

Can you link to evidence that when a witness gives repeated testimony and they change details, that proves they lied?

I asked AI if consistency is to be expected or not, when someone provides multiple statements and the answer was;

"No, it is not expected that witnesses will remember or report the exact same details every time they provide a statement. While consistency is a key factor in assessing credibility, memory is fundamentally flawed, malleable, and subject to change over time, meaning slight variations in witness accounts are normal."

"Kula is corroborated!" By what? Oh, other testimonies. Like Tauber's who describes a small removable container on a wire which is totally different from what Kula describes.

Objectively speaking, this evidence for the Kula columns is very weak. You are relying on essentially two contradictory witnesses from a communist investigation.

That Nazis also describe the columns, is what makes the eyewitness corroboration strong.

They ignore all the witness studies into how well people remember and recall

I am going to have to request that you cite the studies you are relying on that have found that it is common for someone who personally manufactured a device and who claims to remember the exact specs to be 71% off.

That is a very specific request. I can only provide more general studies about memory and recall things like size. For example;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ing-height

"Height and dimensional estimates are inconsistent and variable; sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but frequently not systematic. A wise detective or judge will not, therefore, put too much stock in this type of evidence...As we see from empirical research and from historical precedent, the human nervous system simply does not lend itself to highly accurate estimates of height or other dimensions."

Can you provide evidence to back up your suggestion that Tauber is lying, because he gave two different dimensions on different occasions he described the column?

[TlsMS93]

So, before dynamiting the Kremas in Birkenau, the Nazis removed the metal columns? Is there an order for this removal? Was even the order destroyed? Except for the Einsatzgruppen action reports found neatly and organized in Berlin, right?

[Stubble]

I know the ductwork was dismantled. They took stuff out of the Kremas for recycling before they dynamited them. I would assume that is when the Poles say the Germans removed the mythical Kula Columns.

If I recall correctly, Pressac has some pictures of some of the ductwork that was found after the camp was conquered by the Soviet in technique. I'll have a look later unless I forget.

[Nessie]

So, before dynamiting the Kremas in Birkenau, the Nazis removed the metal columns? Is there an order for this removal? Was even the order destroyed? Except for the Einsatzgruppen action reports found neatly and organized in Berlin, right?

There was a wholesale destruction of evidence, but there was so much evidence, some was missed. If the Nazis had been innocent of mass murder, that would have left a ton of evidence, as millions of Jews would still be alive in 1945. Instead, nothing. The conspiracist in you must be very confused that the Nazis somehow managed to miss inculpatory evidence, but they managed to destroy all the exculpatory evidence.

[Nessie]

I know the ductwork was dismantled. They took stuff out of the Kremas for recycling before they dynamited them. I would assume that is when the Poles say the Germans removed the mythical Kula Columns.

If I recall correctly, Pressac has some pictures of some of the ductwork that was found after the camp was conquered by the Soviet in technique. I'll have a look later unless I forget.

This thread is about methodology. Please explain how you have evidenced and proven there were no columns.

[Nessie]

HansHill, why do you need help identifying who is an eyewitness?

viewtopic.php?p=23609#p23609

What is it that you don't understand about what makes someone an eyewitness? Then bombsaway explains why eyewitness incompatibility is not evidence to prove they all lied;

viewtopic.php?p=23620#p23620

I feel like you're misunderstanding something very basic

Picture a car accident at an intersection:

Witness 1: “I saw a car run a red light.”
Witness 2: “I saw a driver on their phone.”
Witness 3: “I heard a loud crash but didn’t see anything.”

These accounts are:

Partial (incomplete)
Focused on different details

They don’t contradict unless someone says:

“The light was green."
or “No crash happened".

So long as it is proved that the people were at the scene of the accident when it happened and there is evidence of a car crash, then it is proven that the three witnesses are not lying, despite the partial and inconsistent details.

There is corroborating evidence from multiple eyewitnesses and documentation that gas chambers existed inside the Kremas. There is also evidence from camp documents and identification, that the witnesses were at the Kremas. That is evidence to prove the eyewitnesses are not lying, despite the partical and inconsistent details, such as the Kula columns.

As with the car crash analogy, contradiction only happens if a witness says the Kremas only ever functioned as crematoriums, or they were used for mass showering. The contradiction has to be something very different from what other witnesses say.
Every single eyewitness from the Kremas in 1943-4, states that they were used for mass gassings. No one diverges from that.

Your attempt to prove they all lied, is reliant on the details, but I have already linked to studies of witnesses that prove people are often inconsistent and they do not recollect everything correctly. Your methodolgy is flawed, because you fail to take that into account. Your treatment of witness evidence, has many issues.

[Nessie]

Can Archie explain with a link to evidence, how this inconsistency proves lying and there were no columns?

viewtopic.php?p=23626#p23626

Huh?

The Jun 11 deposition he said 70 cm (for the total column width)

In court at the Hoess trial, the numbers he gave add up to only 24 cm. This is what I just quoted.

I can explain and have this link to evidence, that inconsistency does not prove lying.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5256441/

"That’s not what you said the first time: A theoretical account of the relationship between consistency and accuracy of recall...Over multiple response opportunities, recall may be inconsistent...In two experiments, we show that repeated attempts to recall a single list of items leads to many inconsistencies. Such inconsistently reported information is less accurate, a finding that is consistent with the expectations and behavior of lawyers in the courtroom."

Inconsistency relates to accuracy and credibility, more than it does to truthfulness. Inconsistent witnesses do not make for good witnesses. The study concludes that;

"Witnesses are often asked to describe a witnessed event on multiple occasions ranging over a wide period of time and a variety of circumstances. The legal system relies on witnesses to recount events consistently each time they are asked, but this reflects a misguided perspective on the nature of human memory."

The study does accept that inconsistency may indicate lying, but that is not proven.

"Our research, as well as that of others (Gilbert & Fisher, 2006; Krix et al., 2015; Oeberst, 2012, 2015), does suggest that inconsistencies are common among people with no incentive to lie; as such, small or few inconsistencies should not be considered an indication of dishonesty or general inaccuracy. However, because we have not measured inconsistencies within subjects with a motivation to lie it remains possible that higher levels of inconsistency may, in fact, be indicative of lying."

Inconsistency is common with those who are not lying and it may only indicate possible lying. The revisionists here exaggerate the inconsistencies they find with the witnesses, to support their belief that an inconsistent witness is a lying witness. But the evidence from studies of witnesses, does not support that belief.