Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Nessie]

To prove the witnesses lied, requires evidence

Or, a lack of evidence that would have to be present at the alleged crime scene if the alleged "witness" was not lying.

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.

Exactly, and the fact that expectable evidence isn't there or can't be shown is telling.

The evidence TII was a death camp, far exceeds the evidence it had a different function. Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.

[Keen]

Or, a lack of evidence that would have to be present at the alleged crime scene if the alleged "witness" was not lying.

Exactly, and the fact that expectable evidence isn't there or can't be shown is telling.

The evidence TII was a death camp, far exceeds the evidence it had a different function. Only a determined denier, who has lost grip on reality, will pretend that the corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses who describe mass graves, the aerial photo that shows disturbed ground and rectangular outlines and the site surveys that identified disturbed ground and pits in the areas of the camp that the witnesses said contained the mass graves, is not evidence to prove mass graves.

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?

PART FOUR:

5 - In total, how many single, disconnected human teeth have been tangibly discovered within the 15 [21] alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question: __?__.

10 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove actually exist and currently contain at least an iota of human remains: __?__.

15 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 2 human beings: __?__.

20 - List all of the Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question that you can conclusively prove currently contain the remains of at least 21 human beings: __?__.

25 - Of the 15 [21] alleged Treblinka II graves / cremation pits in question - the one that you can conclusively prove currently contains the most human remains is number: __?__.

[Nessie]

Archie assesses Hoess evidence;

viewtopic.php?t=803

The most popular debunk of Hoess is to point out that he was tortured. It's a strong point, and it has the virtue of being readily understandable. But imo the truly fatal flaws in the Hoess statement are the problems with the timeline. Hoess's story is fundamentally and irresolvably anachronistic.

That Hoess was subject to intense pressure, not just from being tortured, but also from the stress he was under as he knew he was going to be held responsible for what happened at the camp. People can crumble when they face up to the enormity of their crime, especially when that crime is serious and they face the ultimate punishment.

I asked AI to summarise how good are people at remembering details when they are under stress? The answer was;

"People under stress often have a complex and uneven memory performance, where they are very good at remembering the central, threatening features of the stressor but poor at recalling peripheral details. While moderate stress can enhance the encoding of emotional information, high or acute stress generally impairs the ability to recall details unrelated to the threat, hinders memory retrieval, and reduces the precision of memories"

Studies suggest the effect of stress is varied;

https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... istinctive

"Stress has complicated effects on our memories. Whereas some studies have found that we are better at remembering events that occurred during stressful situations, such as while watching disturbing videos, others have shown that stress impairs memory."

When Hoess was being interviewed by the army interrogators, he was being placed in a very stressful situation.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... d-remember

"An anxious witness takes the stand and then can't remember crucial details of her story. Faked or forgotten? A new study that teases apart the effects of a stress hormone on memory might exonerate the witness. The findings, which appear in the April issue of Nature Neuroscience, suggest that cross-examinations or other stressful situations may impair our ability to recall memories."

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ter-others

"The role of emotion in memory is complex. While positive emotions may improve recall, some stressful experiences are suppressed from memory.
This phenomenon is illustrated by a frequent inability of people to recall extremely stressful events. For example, murderers my not recall their crime so that they spend their lives falsely protesting their innocence. Such stress-induced amnesia happens because extreme stress prevents memories from being stored."

That Hoess was subjected to so much stress, in itself, explains why he made so many mistakes, such as over the chronology of what took place. Archie gives an example;

Hoess says he got his orders in 1941 and that mass killings were already underway at Treblinka at that time. That is universally acknowledged to be wrong since TII had not opened yet, but this problem is usually brushed off by saying that Hoess was bad with dates.

It is not a brush off, to acknowledge Hoess made mistakes. What Archie fails to do, is look for reasons why Hoess may have made such an obvious error. I asked AI, how good are people at remembering dates and chronologies?

"People generally possess a moderate to weak ability to remember exact dates and precise chronologies, often relying on reconstructing timelines rather than direct recall, though ability varies significantly based on emotional investment, age, and individual differences."

Studies find all sorts of factors affect our ability to remember dates and the order of events;

https://www.cogneurosociety.org/memoryg ... papenberg/

"As we age, our memories of autobiographical events often fade but some individuals are much better at remembering than others. A new study explores how our genetics result in some of these individual differences in memory retention – and finds that certain genes play an increasingly larger role in how much we forget as we get older."

Revisionists use issues, such as Hoess claiming he had orders and visited in 1941, before TII was even open, so suggest he lied about the gassings. Studies of memory prove that there are explanations, such as stress, as to why witnesses recall details that are obviously incorrect. Archie claims;

"He's Just Bad With Dates!

This excuse doesn't cut it here.

Unless Archie can produce evidence from studies that prove a witness under stress is normally very good at remembering dates and chronologies, then what he calls an excuse, but it is really an evidenced explanation, does cut it. The highly stressed Hoess was bad with dates.

[Nessie]

When I saw this being touted around X, I regarded it as a very good example of how little revisionists understand about memory and recall;



Do revisionists never forget dates, or get mixed up when they went somewhere?

[Archie]

When I saw this being touted around X, I regarded it as a very good example of how little revisionists understand about memory and recall;

That you think we can ignore all witness errors no matter how egregious reveals how little you understand about Type II error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

Do revisionists never forget dates, or get mixed up when they went somewhere?

In my post, I did not make an issue of dates: "Okay, so let's be generous and set aside the calendar dates and focus instead on the basic sequence of events in Hoess's story."

And then I broke down his story into a few main events

A - Receives order to implement "Final Solution"
B - Visits Treblinka which was already in operation
C - Sets up extermination facilities at Auschwitz (as an improvement upon the Treblinka procedures)

Since you have asserted that Hoess merely mixed up his dates a little, I would request that you share with us the correct dates for events A, B, and C.

[Nessie]

When I saw this being touted around X, I regarded it as a very good example of how little revisionists understand about memory and recall;

That you think we can ignore all witness errors no matter how egregious reveals how little you understand about Type II error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors

What has that got to do with witness errors? Why do you not post a relevant link about the types of errors witnesses make? I have been able to do that, with ease, proving that Hoess's evidence is full of the types of errors that are commonplace with witnesses. That he makes more than most, is explained by the stress he was under.

Do revisionists never forget dates, or get mixed up when they went somewhere?

In my post, I did not make an issue of dates: "Okay, so let's be generous and set aside the calendar dates and focus instead on the basic sequence of events in Hoess's story."

And then I broke down his story into a few main events

A - Receives order to implement "Final Solution"
B - Visits Treblinka which was already in operation
C - Sets up extermination facilities at Auschwitz (as an improvement upon the Treblinka procedures)

Since you have asserted that Hoess merely mixed up his dates a little, I would request that you share with us the correct dates for events A, B, and C.

You have ignored my point that you are likely to also make mistakes if you were asked to recall something that happened in the past. What would debating the correct dates achieve? It would make you think that you have a point and that his errors prove he lied, but you are wrong to think that. What you then do is avoid dodging debating why you are wrong to claim lies, when witnesses make mistakes.

We cannot ascertain, from the evidence we have, the "correct dates" for Hoess. You would think that if he had been coached to lie by his British interrogators, he would not keep on making mistakes. Or, if the British interrogators found Hoess just could not remember the lie, he would be quietly ditched as a witness.

Fact is that mistakes do not prove lying. You are wrong.

[Nessie]

Another example of a historian acknowledging issues with a witness. Browning also notes the revisionist tactic of trying to discredit all evidence, because some of it is "weak and confused". Lipstadt is correct to acknowledge when evidence is not reliable.

The problem revisionists have, is that Hoess is corroborated. That proves he did not lie about the main events, of mass transports, theft of property, gassings and cremations. When it comes to the main events, the witnesses are far more consistent and reliable than they are when it comes to the details. Hence, revisionists nit pick over the details.

[Keen]

If you cannot prove the witnesses lied, then your denial of the gassing claims is based on just a bone headed insistance.

You admit you cannot prove lying and then suggest that does not matter, all you need to do is find reason to disbelieve a witness and that somehow disproves the gassing claims.

The fact that witnesses lied about the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" has been proven.

And, as everyone knows, no mass graves = no mass murder, which means no mass gassings.

It really is that simple.

Nessies denial of that fact proves his mental illness.

The burden of proof is to prove that a witness is telling the truth. The mentally ill HC cult members lack the courage to accept their burdenn of proof and to accept the fact that the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" not only do not exist, but have been proven to be "eyewittness" fabrications.

[Keen]

What has that got to do with witness errors? Why do you not post a relevant link about the types of errors witnesses make? I have been able to do that, with ease

Nesserto, which of the followning "eyewitness" depictions of the alleged "huge mass graves" of Treblinka II has been proven to be the most accurate:

The Wiernik model:



or the Stangl map:



??

[Archie]

What has that got to do with witness errors? Why do you not post a relevant link about the types of errors witnesses make? I have been able to do that, with ease, proving that Hoess's evidence is full of the types of errors that are commonplace with witnesses. That he makes more than most, is explained by the stress he was under.

It has everything to do with it. In evaluating a witness, we can err in one of two directions.

-We can reject a valid witness (Type I error/False Positive)]
-We can fail to reject a bullshit witness (Type II error/False Negative)

The more serious the errors, the more likely the testimony is bullshit. This is common sense. But according to you, errors don't matter because they are "normal."

You have ignored my point that you are likely to also make mistakes if you were asked to recall something that happened in the past. What would debating the correct dates achieve? It would make you think that you have a point and that his errors prove he lied, but you are wrong to think that. What you then do is avoid dodging debating why you are wrong to claim lies, when witnesses make mistakes.

We cannot ascertain, from the evidence we have, the "correct dates" for Hoess. You would think that if he had been coached to lie by his British interrogators, he would not keep on making mistakes. Or, if the British interrogators found Hoess just could not remember the lie, he would be quietly ditched as a witness.

Fact is that mistakes do not prove lying. You are wrong.

I see you are refusing to answer because you can't.

My argument is Hoess's story is "inherently anachronistic," i.e., it's totally impossible.

"What would debating the correct dates achieve?" My argument is that the events he relates are fundamentally contradictory. Not only can you not give dates, there is no set of dates that would even be possible hypothetically.

[Nessie]

What has that got to do with witness errors? Why do you not post a relevant link about the types of errors witnesses make? I have been able to do that, with ease, proving that Hoess's evidence is full of the types of errors that are commonplace with witnesses. That he makes more than most, is explained by the stress he was under.

It has everything to do with it. In evaluating a witness, we can err in one of two directions.

-We can reject a valid witness (Type I error/False Positive)]
-We can fail to reject a bullshit witness (Type II error/False Negative)

Revisionists are guilty of many type 1 errors, as they reject witnesses who are proven to have been where they said they were and their claims are corroborated by other evidence.

The more serious the errors, the more likely the testimony is bullshit. This is common sense.

It is not a good idea to rely on common sense, when you could use scientific studies. Your idea of common sense, will be influenced by your bias and it may not tally with other's opinion.

But according to you, errors don't matter because they are "normal."

It is according to scientists, primarily from the field of psychology, that many errors, such as misremembering dates and the order of events, is normal. Revisionists like to pitch themselves as scientifically backed enquirers, so why do you ignore the science of witnesses, memory and recall? The answer is that you cannot fit that science with your desire to dispute all the eyewitnesses.

You have ignored my point that you are likely to also make mistakes if you were asked to recall something that happened in the past. What would debating the correct dates achieve? It would make you think that you have a point and that his errors prove he lied, but you are wrong to think that. What you then do is avoid dodging debating why you are wrong to claim lies, when witnesses make mistakes.

We cannot ascertain, from the evidence we have, the "correct dates" for Hoess. You would think that if he had been coached to lie by his British interrogators, he would not keep on making mistakes. Or, if the British interrogators found Hoess just could not remember the lie, he would be quietly ditched as a witness.

Fact is that mistakes do not prove lying. You are wrong.

I see you are refusing to answer because you can't.

Correct and neither can you answer the question, due to the lack of evidence. It is quite clear, from Hoess's testimony, provided when he was under great stress due to the enormity of the crime he was being accused of, and duress due to his harsh treatment, that he made multiple errors. We will never find the evidence to determine the correct dates.

My argument is Hoess's story is "inherently anachronistic," i.e., it's totally impossible.

"What would debating the correct dates achieve?" My argument is that the events he relates are fundamentally contradictory. Not only can you not give dates, there is no set of dates that would even be possible hypothetically.

Historians argue that Hoess is not credible and I have provided reasons as to why that is, using studies of witnesses recalling stressful events, under stress. Historians have then gathered evidence that corroborate His main claims, proving that he told the truth about the mass transports, selections, theft of property, gassings and cremations. Corroboration and credibility are not the same thing. Corroboration determines how truthful a witness is, credibility determines how reliable he is when he describes what he saw.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied? If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied? Why could he have not made mistakes instead? Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly? Why does contradiction prove lies? Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall? Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

[Wetzelrad]

I hate to divert from Archie's very compelling point that Nessie is unable to respond to, however...

It is not a good idea to rely on common sense, when you could use scientific studies.

Have you ever even considered looking for scientific studies that would refute your view? For example, here is a study which found that 13.8% of interrogees make false confessions. In some countries an even greater percentage.



If the Allies took the time to interrogate just 1,000 Germans, that could provide some ~138 false confessions that could be used at trial.

But that is a number for modern countries which mind civil rights. How much greater could the percentage become in an environment where the usage of torture was acceptable, along with threats, starvation, extreme cold, mock trials, disproportionate punishments, and other forms of coercion?

[Nessie]

I hate to divert from Archie's very compelling point that Nessie is unable to respond to,

I have responded in detail. Hoess is widely regarded as unreliable when it comes to details such as dates. Studies prove that we are not great at remembering details, especially when stressed. Hoess's unreliability, does not prove he lied, since his main claims are all corroborated.

however...

It is not a good idea to rely on common sense, when you could use scientific studies.

Have you ever even considered looking for scientific studies that would refute your view?

I have searched for the studies I have linked to, by asking google open questions, such as "are people good at remembering dates?" Such a question would mean that if the answer was yes, people are usually good at remembering dates, I would get that as a response.

For example, here is a study which found that 13.8% of interrogees make false confessions. In some countries an even greater percentage.



If the Allies took the time to interrogate just 1,000 Germans, that could provide some ~138 false confessions that could be used at trial.

But that is a number for modern countries which mind civil rights. How much greater could the percentage become in an environment where the usage of torture was acceptable, along with threats, starvation, extreme cold, mock trials, disproportionate punishments, and other forms of coercion?

Your example would leave 862 Nazis who knew the truth, keeping quiet and never whistleblowing or tipping off a journalist, about what really happened. How does the study know what were the false confessions? The answer is that evidence was found that contradicted the confession, proving it was false, something that revisionists cannot do.

[Archie]

I like how Nessie is trying to use the torture in order to excuse all of Hoess's outrageous blunders. To anyone with a rational mind, the fact that he was tortured AND his story makes no sense reinforces the dubiousness of his testimony. But in Nessieland, the torture means we should grant him MORE latitude for blunders!

These are really two reasons to discount Hoess yet Nessie thinks these things effectively cancel out. Nessie, I don't believe that you really believe what you are saying. You know damn well that a tortured witness who tells a story with fatal blunders is not a valid witness. Yet, Hoess was relied on extensively and in a totally uncritical way by both the courts and by the H historians.

viewtopic.php?t=638

[Archie]

My argument is Hoess's story is "inherently anachronistic," i.e., it's totally impossible.

"What would debating the correct dates achieve?" My argument is that the events he relates are fundamentally contradictory. Not only can you not give dates, there is no set of dates that would even be possible hypothetically.

Historians argue that Hoess is not credible and I have provided reasons as to why that is, using studies of witnesses recalling stressful events, under stress. Historians have then gathered evidence that corroborate His main claims, proving that he told the truth about the mass transports, selections, theft of property, gassings and cremations. Corroboration and credibility are not the same thing. Corroboration determines how truthful a witness is, credibility determines how reliable he is when he describes what he saw.

How does your methodology prove Hoess lied? If a witness describes something in a way that means what he described is impossible, how does that prove he lied? Why could he have not made mistakes instead? Where are the studies that prove when someone is lying, they will get dates and events mixed up, but if they are telling the truth, they will remember everything correctly? Why does contradiction prove lies? Why are you again ruling out errors of memory and recall? Why do you reject corroboration as a means to determine truthfulness?

Since you are being so evasive, I will repeat my challenge that you offer some dates for the events below that are possible.

A - Receives order to implement "Final Solution"
B - Visits Treblinka which was already in operation
C - Sets up extermination facilities at Auschwitz (as an improvement upon the Treblinka procedures)

Since you have asserted that Hoess merely mixed up his dates a little, I would request that you share with us the correct dates for events A, B, and C.

[/quote]