Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2023 8:28:34 GMT
Agreed, the Nazis tried to hide as much as possible, For example, by the well-documented transfer out of Auschwitz of over a hundred thousand possible witnesses during the camp's final year of operation. That must have helped. If denial was right and millions of Jews had not been gassed or shot, then it would be hundreds of thousands of Jews being moved out of camps as the Soviets advanced, it would be millions. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2023 8:30:07 GMT
Cross-posting from Klowns, I asked Nessie the following about the Steam Chamber report. Nessie's response: Do you understand my response? |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2023 8:32:02 GMT
Another related bit The matter of testimonies about gas chambers with collapsible floors came up and Nessie said no true eyewitnesses had claimed this. Nessie declined to answer this. One issue with this direct/indirect witnesses gambit that they try to do is that it won't leave them with many direct witnesses, especially early ones. I did answer. I pointed out that Biskowitz only saw the outside of a building he believed to be the gas chambers, he did not see inside, he was not an eyewitness and that is why the Judge dismissed him, as hearsay is not normally accepted in courts. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2023 8:36:42 GMT
Nessie declined to answer this. One issue with this direct/indirect witnesses gambit that they try to do is that it won't leave them with many direct witnesses, especially early ones. The matter of "direct" witnesses is a convenient way to select a few talented spokesmen for the story. Eyewitness evidence is more reliable than hearsay, so it makes sense to select eyewitness over hearsay evidence. It is better to eliminate rumour, due to its unreliability. Trained statement takers do know the difference between eyewitness evidence and hearsay. If deniers understood it and ditched the hearsay and concentrated on the eyewitnesses, they would get a far more reliable picture of what happened. The problem is, that picture is not what they want to see. Hence, they prefer to concentrate on the unreliable hearsay and rumours. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2023 8:44:00 GMT
The matter of "direct" witnesses is a convenient way to select a few talented spokesmen for the story. It was an early failsafe for Auschwitz when spreading camp rumors. It was claimed Sonderkommandos were strictly segregated - false - and yeeted often, such that one could never really verify the story that was repeated. Wiernik's copyeditors claim that a range in the thousands escaped from the race riot at the camp - it isn't clear if this isn't part of absurdly scaling up all the numbers at Treblinka - but conveniently they all must have died in the Warsaw Uprising later or something. I disagree with your acquiescence to Nessie's general gambit here. The people taking statements are professionals. The standard assumption, unless defeated by countervailing evidence such as supplementary information clarifying the matter, should be that the investigators produced statements competently regarding what they purported to investigate, and they sussed out what was "direct" or "indirect" - if that mattered. If they did not, that immediately opens another door. They are pretty clearly trying to neutralize the earliest stories which are hugely problematic. The earliest stories were primarily hearsay, which is not as reliable as eyewitness evidence, so it is not given as much weight. Why do you think unreliable evidence should be given the same weight as more reliable evidence? The earliest evidence contains the most hearsay. No, anyone who has any knowledge of the reliability of witness evidence, knows eyewitness evidence is more reliable than hearsay. The chronology of the evidence was that the earliest was primarily hearsay, from escaped prisoners, who had not actually seen what they were reporting, what they had been told when they were prisoners. It was towards the end of the war and after the war, that the eyewitness evidence became readily available. Why do you argue that hearsay should be given the same weight as eyewitness evidence? |
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 3, 2023 12:35:09 GMT
They are pretty clearly trying to neutralize the earliest stories which are hugely problematic. The chronology is important because generally speaking the earlier the testimonies the more ridiculous and contradictory. They want to write most of those off most of the early atrocity propaganda as "hearsay" and honest confusion. Many of the "direct" witnesses are SS men who testified after the war, in 1945-1948, or perhaps not until the 1960s. Because those are later, the stories had been smoothed out some by then. Their argument about the "direct" witnesses being more consistent is purely an artifact of the chronology (imo). I agree, but Nessie has a tendency to infer that if a witness statement does not expressly say the witness saw it with their own eyes then it's dismissable hearsay - without evidence from the text that it is supposedly hearsay. In doing so, he arrogantly assumes he is significantly above investigators who should have handled that when taking the statements. In most cases the investigators guided the questioning and the statements. The witnesses didn't just write free-form essays. This is when he's not outright lying about "direct" witnesses like Kurt Gerstein, who exclaimed in the middle of the testimony that he observed the Diesel engine he was narrating about - not to mention that his narrative makes it certain that it was Gerstein's mission at the camp to know precisely such details. The 60s German testimonies are beloved because they were the most tightly controlled, and sometimes authorities just took new statements when they wanted to update the story, even if previous statements were contradicted. German authorities stuck to very specific questions, made notes and then typed up a statement to give to the witness to read and sign, which legally vulnerable people did. If you read prosecution files where there's a series of statements taken by the same investigators the similarity in the writing style is all the more striking. In extremely few cases where there's copious prosecution notes, legible interview notes and/or audio recording transcripts, you can see the methodology. A layperson might look at the final statement and think the reliable perpetrator brought up specific details on his own whereas the transcript shows he was asked about them and simply responded it's possible. (This isn't even too surprising, prosecutors like to take shortcuts in complicated cases all the time, welcome to the real world!) |
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 3, 2023 12:39:47 GMT
For example, by the well-documented transfer out of Auschwitz of over a hundred thousand possible witnesses during the camp's final year of operation. That must have helped. If denial was right and millions of Jews had not been gassed or shot, then it would be hundreds of thousands of Jews being moved out of camps as the Soviets advanced, it would be millions. If the Germans had such robust transportation capability they would have also won the war. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2023 19:41:37 GMT
They are pretty clearly trying to neutralize the earliest stories which are hugely problematic. The chronology is important because generally speaking the earlier the testimonies the more ridiculous and contradictory. They want to write most of those off most of the early atrocity propaganda as "hearsay" and honest confusion. Many of the "direct" witnesses are SS men who testified after the war, in 1945-1948, or perhaps not until the 1960s. Because those are later, the stories had been smoothed out some by then. Their argument about the "direct" witnesses being more consistent is purely an artifact of the chronology (imo). I agree, but Nessie has a tendency to infer that if a witness statement does not expressly say the witness saw it with their own eyes then it's dismissable hearsay - without evidence from the text that it is supposedly hearsay. In doing so, he arrogantly assumes he is significantly above investigators who should have handled that when taking the statements. In most cases the investigators guided the questioning and the statements. The witnesses didn't just write free-form essays. Many of the statements were not for court purposes, so there was less need to distinguish between hearsay and eyewitness evidence. If a witness states he worked at the gas chambers, then it is more than likely most of their description is eyewitness evidence. If the witness worked elsewhere in the camp, then their description of the gas chambers is likely hearsay. Quote me about Gerstein, where you can show I lied. Gerstein did not work at the gas chambers, he visited and saw one gassing. His information is likely less accurate than someone who worked there and saw multiple gassings. It is not rocket science to work out which is most likely the witness with the most accurate information. It is the witnesses who worked at the gas chambers for a period of time. A statement for a trial is likely to follow a format, as the witnesses will tend to be asked the same questions and the prosecution and defence are looking for specific information. What do you think is the most reliable method for determining witness accuracy? |
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 4, 2023 0:09:37 GMT
I agree, but Nessie has a tendency to infer that if a witness statement does not expressly say the witness saw it with their own eyes then it's dismissable hearsay - without evidence from the text that it is supposedly hearsay. In doing so, he arrogantly assumes he is significantly above investigators who should have handled that when taking the statements. In most cases the investigators guided the questioning and the statements. The witnesses didn't just write free-form essays. Many of the statements were not for court purposes, so there was less need to distinguish between hearsay and eyewitness evidence. If a witness states he worked at the gas chambers, then it is more than likely most of their description is eyewitness evidence. If the witness worked elsewhere in the camp, then their description of the gas chambers is likely hearsay. Most statements taken down by authorities were taken "for court purposes," and arguably even those taken by quasi-independent Jewish groups. That sounds like a procedural confusion on your part. It's the job of the investigator to hash that out that before the statement is written. There's no reason to trust your intuition over that of statement-takers. Quote me about Gerstein, where you can show I lied. It was some RODOHs ago but that's easy, since you're still repeating it. It was Gerstein, who saw one gassing and not the engine used, who said it was diesel and as his was one of the earliest testimonies, his mistake was not spotted by many. I mean, I wouldn't say Mr. Gerstein saw the engine used. But he says he did, and it's what makes sense in the circumstances he laid out, so you get the point.
It's pretty much a gold-standard testimony if you accept it as true. For example, a worker might conceivably do rote work and be a total rube about it; Gerstein even has verified credentials for expertise.
Besides, Prof. Pfannenstiel said Belzec was one of Gerstein's repeated haunts.
A statement for a trial is likely to follow a format, as the witnesses will tend to be asked the same questions and the prosecution and defence are looking for specific information. What do you think is the most reliable method for determining witness accuracy? Statements produced by German authorities are unreliable for determining witness accuracy because the actual source of the information is uncertain. Someone concerned about possible "hearsay" should never use them. Vigorous cross-examination by opposing parties helps a lot. For example, in the U.S. Fedorenko proceedings, those who wanted Fedorenko murdered were torn apart by competent cross-examination. You then look at both sides and decide. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 4, 2023 10:43:21 GMT
Many of the statements were not for court purposes, so there was less need to distinguish between hearsay and eyewitness evidence. If a witness states he worked at the gas chambers, then it is more than likely most of their description is eyewitness evidence. If the witness worked elsewhere in the camp, then their description of the gas chambers is likely hearsay. Most statements taken down by authorities were taken "for court purposes," and arguably even those taken by quasi-independent Jewish groups. That sounds like a procedural confusion on your part. It's the job of the investigator to hash that out that before the statement is written. There's no reason to trust your intuition over that of statement-takers. It is quite straightforward to distinguish the hearsay in testimony. You saw an example in court with Biskowitz. Much of the testimony used by historians is from self statements and in that, such as Wiernik, it is also simple to reliably determine what is hearsay and what is eyewitness. Why do deniers mix the two and not give authority to eyewitness evidence? Gerstein did not specifically say he saw the actual engine. He describes a problem with the engine during a gassing. www.holocausthistoricalsociety.org.uk/contents/belzec/reportbykurtgerstein.html"Now at last I understood why the whole installation was called the Hackenholt Institute. Hackenholt was the driver of the diesel engine - a minor technician who was also the builder of this installation. The people were to be killed with diesel exhaust fumes. But the diesel did not work. Hauptmann Wirth came. He was obviously embarrassed that this had to happen on the very day that I was there. Yes I saw everything. And I waited. My stop-watch had recorded it all well. 50 minutes- 70 minutes - the diesel did not start. The people were waiting in the gas chambers. In vain! We heard them weeping, sobbing... Hauptmann Wirth struck the Ukrainian who was supposed to be helping Unterscharfuhrer Hackenholt mend the diesel. The whip hit him in the face 13 or 14 times. After 2 hours 49 minutes - the stop-watch had recorded it all well - the diesel started. He makes no mention of going inside the building. Since everyone who worked with the engines either said they were petrol, or did not say what fuel was used and only Gerstein of those at the gas chambers, said diesel, then it is reasonable and logical to say he was the one who made a mistake. The other likely cause of Gerstein's mistake is time. He wrote his testimony in May 1945, about events in August 1942. Anyone who knows anything about memory knows about the cause of likely errors. You have dodged answering. What do you mean by "the actual source of the information is uncertain"? The source of the information is Nazis who worked at the AR camps. That makes them a known and important source of eyewitness evidence.
How do you decide between "both sides"? What is the most reliable method for determining which side is more accurate?
What is the flaw in your claim about "both sides", in the Nazi trials?
|
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 4, 2023 15:44:34 GMT
Most statements taken down by authorities were taken "for court purposes," and arguably even those taken by quasi-independent Jewish groups. That sounds like a procedural confusion on your part. It's the job of the investigator to hash that out that before the statement is written. There's no reason to trust your intuition over that of statement-takers. It is quite straightforward to distinguish the hearsay in testimony. You saw an example in court with Biskowitz. Much of the testimony used by historians is from self statements and in that, such as Wiernik, it is also simple to reliably determine what is hearsay and what is eyewitness. Why do deniers mix the two and not give authority to eyewitness evidence? Yes, Biskowitz was mildly cross-examined because he came up with a story that even the Israeli court was embarrassed about - and his claims fell apart. Until cross-examination, he left it understood that he was a witness to these things. You're the one who speculates on eyewitness evidence. It would have been desirable for all claims to have have been cross-examined competently, to see just how much Biskowitz-style backtracking would occur. Your side made sure that wasn't the case so you can continue to speculate. He makes no mention of going inside the building. Gerstein says he saw everything and the context strongly implies he did. You then invent a scenario where he didn't see everything. The other likely cause of Gerstein's mistake is time. He wrote his testimony in May 1945, about events in August 1942. Anyone who knows anything about memory knows about the cause of likely errors. The 1943 version uses a tractor outside the building, but you'll no doubt complain about hearsay. Yeah, memory is the cause of likely errors which is why late-game story revisions are less impressive.
You have dodged answering. What do you mean by "the actual source of the information is uncertain"? The source of the information is Nazis who worked at the AR camps. That makes them a known and important source of eyewitness evidence. How do you decide between "both sides"? What is the most reliable method for determining which side is more accurate? What is the flaw in your claim about "both sides", in the Nazi trials? The source of the German statements is German authorities on cleanup duty who like to put words in people's mouths. If the witnesses were at least cross-examined on these matters by an opposition and we knew the result, that would be something to show for it.
Ideally, there's two sides with peer resources arguing theirs and extensive cross-examination of witnesses, creating a copious record to examine. Then you can just examine it, sort of the way juries or judges do. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 4, 2023 19:32:58 GMT
It is quite straightforward to distinguish the hearsay in testimony. You saw an example in court with Biskowitz. Much of the testimony used by historians is from self statements and in that, such as Wiernik, it is also simple to reliably determine what is hearsay and what is eyewitness. Why do deniers mix the two and not give authority to eyewitness evidence? Yes, Biskowitz was mildly cross-examined because he came up with a story that even the Israeli court was embarrassed about - and his claims fell apart. Until cross-examination, he left it understood that he was a witness to these things. You're the one who speculates on eyewitness evidence. It would have been desirable for all claims to have have been cross-examined competently, to see just how much Biskowitz-style backtracking would occur. Your side made sure that wasn't the case so you can continue to speculate. There is no speculation. He was at Belzec, so the court decided to ask him about what he saw, which of the gas chambers was nothing. Many AR camp witnesses did not see gassings. They provide circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, the mass theft of property and disappearance of the majority of people who arrived. That circumstantial evidence fits with the eyewitness evidence to gassings.
Deniers always want to avoid discussing the process of what happened inside the AR camps, especially what happened to the people once they had had all their possessions, clothing and hair taken from them. That is evidence of what else was happening and it logically fits with gassings, not resettlement.
There is no invention he did not go inside the building, as he does not describe being there. It is ambiguous at best if he saw the engine.
Do you think hearsay should be given the same weight as eyewitness evidence? It does not matter what you think of the witness evidence. What matters is what is evidenced. You are still dodging the questions.
What is the most reliable method for determining if a witness is being truthful or not?
What is the flaw in your claim about "both sides", in the Nazi trials?
Your failure to answer my questions is evidence you do not understand evidencing.
|
|
nazgul
๐ต๏ธ
๐ฐ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฒ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
Posts: 1,139 
|
Post by nazgul on Feb 5, 2023 3:20:26 GMT
What is the most reliable method for determining if a witness is being truthful or not? Rigorous cross examination; thumb screws are an accessory that has worked. The allied investigators use these accessories as an integral part of their interview technique. |
|
Nessie
๐ฆ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ (Nessies forum)
Posts: 4,749
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 5, 2023 9:55:57 GMT
What is the most reliable method for determining if a witness is being truthful or not? Rigorous cross examination; thumb screws are an accessory that has worked. The allied investigators use these accessories as an integral part of their interview technique. What does the lawyer present the witness or accused being cross-examined with, to determine if that person is being truthful or not? |
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 5, 2023 15:11:53 GMT
Deniers always want to avoid discussing the process of what happened inside the AR camps, especially what happened to the people once they had had all their possessions, clothing and hair taken from them. That is evidence of what else was happening and it logically fits with gassings, not resettlement. It's not a very impressive argument. The Germans are accused of the same type of dispossession when deporting Poles and Jews to the GG before Operation Barbarossa or taking inmates in camps. Do you think hearsay should be given the same weight as eyewitness evidence? For the purposes of proving criminal accusations one should avoid hearsay, i.e. out of court statements not subject to cross-examination such as Gerstein's 1943 variant with a tractor or certain 60s statements. It does not matter what you think of the witness evidence. What matters is what is evidenced. That's okay, I'm only discussing folklore. You are still dodging the questions. What is the most reliable method for determining if a witness is being truthful or not? What is the flaw in your claim about "both sides", in the Nazi trials? Your failure to answer my questions is evidence you do not understand evidencing. I already answered. One could go with the witness being grilled with probing questions based on a complete record, preferably by a well-resourced adverse party. I'm not aware of any flaw you identified in my claim. Perhaps you can state it first, then I'll see if I agree with it. That twice you mentioned the limiting factor of "Nazi trials" isn't helpful. Cool. |
|
