Unreliable evidence

At the end of WWII, as enquiries were being made for the Nuremberg trials, numerous claims were made by camp prisoners of gas chambers. Dachau and Bergen-Belsen were two examples of camps where claims were made about gassings, but enquiry found no evidence to support those claims. Many people believed the famous film and photos of naked dead bodies being bulldozed into mass graves at B-B had been gassed. There were famous images of the gas chambers at Dachau. But, it was quickly established that was not the case.

Over the years, many Holocaust victims have had their claims dismissed. Some, such as Elie Wiesel, whilst popular in Holocaust literature, are not used by historians, because their claims have been proved to be too unreliable. Others, such as Joseph Hirt, have had their lies exposed by journalists and historians.

The evidence of what happened inside the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B Kremas, comes from witnesses, documents, physical examinations of the sites and circumstantial evidence that is contemporaneous and directly pertains to those places. Over the decades, that evidence has been studied by multiple historians from all over the world. The provenance of the evidence and whether it is corroborated, is used to determine whether or not that evidence is reliable.

There are numerous explanations as to how historical evidence reliability is determined;

www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability
www.history.org.uk/student/resource/3211/using-historical-sources

Revisionism uses a different method. Revisionism is determined to disprove the claims of mass gassings, so it uses arguments from incredibility and ignorance to claim that all the witnesses to gassings are liars and therefore there were no gassings. Evidence that cannot be dismissed that way, such as documents, are claimed to be forged or faked, some witnesses are claimed to have been coerced, archaeological evidence is claimed to be bogus for various reasons and anything that does evidence gassings is summarily dismissed. Revisionists often like to position themselves as if they are the defence of the Nazis, in a trial. But they forget, the Nazis who worked at the camps, admitted to gassings. No defence lawyer would defend a client as innocent, when that client admits to the crime.

There is no logic, consistency or proven methodology for testing evidence in revisionism.

A revisionist is what I am required to call what are usually referred to as deniers after been-there objected to people who deny there were mass gassings being called deniers. There are also revisionists who claim no planned genocide and mass shootings. Their common ground is denying mass gassings at the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas.

Revisionists have no reliable methodology for determining the reliability of evidence. Instead, they use logical fallacies.

So you say, but you are unable to provide any evidence from any source to show what did happen. I then have a choice. Believe in what multiple academics have assessed as reliable evidence, using the methodology I was taught at university and in the police, or believe in an unevidenced version of events, that comes from people with obvious bias and agendas, using a series of arguments from logical fallacies.

Rule 7: 𝗗𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮.
Rule 8: 𝗜𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. 𝗞𝗻𝗲𝗲 𝗷𝗲𝗿𝗸 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲.

On other threads, this poster has said:


It is expected that Nessie will in future be more productive than the knee jerk mantra of evidencing.  Take this as friendly advice. 

There is little confliction in the evidence. ALL witnesses who worked at the AR camps state people arrived, had their property taken from them, were killed inside chambers and the bodies buried in mass graves, which was switched to the use of pyres. ALL the witnesses who worked at the A-B Kremas state people arrived, undressed, were gassed with Zyklon B and then cremated.



That is not "hard evidence". It is you suggesting a reason why you do not believe Wiernik. Your disbelief is not evidence.



Nothing has changed about the use of corroborating evidence.

I get you do not consider Wiernik was reliable as a witness. Please example a witness who worked at TII who you say is reliable and how you established their reliability.