Request for Nessie - Primer on these "witness studies"

[Archie]

Cant wait for Nessie's submission - I heard he understands witnesses the best so it will be a blockbuster

Eh, I wouldn't expect much since Nessie does not seem to have any literary inclinations. When he reads these pulpy horror stories, he reads them as 100% earnest "eyewitness" testimonies and fails to detect the obvious fictional elements. When these Holocaust pulp writers like Wiernik say ridiculous things, it can only be due to imperfect estimations and lapses in memory. It couldn't be that they are making this stuff up. I suspect that because Nessie cannot imagine producing literature himself, he assumes others are also incapable of this.

[Nessie]

Cant wait for Nessie's submission - I heard he understands witnesses the best so it will be a blockbuster

Eh, I wouldn't expect much since Nessie does not seem to have any literary inclinations.

I can spot when a witness uses hyperbole, emotive descriptions, hearsay, figures of speech, exaggerations etc. You lot struggle and take far too much literally, such as how many fitted inside a gas chamber, how long a gassing took and how big the graves were.

When he reads these pulpy horror stories, he reads them as 100% earnest "eyewitness" testimonies and fails to detect the obvious fictional elements.

You have that wrong, as ironically, you do not even know how to prove someone is lying.

When these Holocaust pulp writers like Wiernik say ridiculous things, it can only be due to imperfect estimations and lapses in memory. It couldn't be that they are making this stuff up.

It could be down to them making stuff up. The issue is that you do not know how to determine if someone is making things up, or they made a mistake.

I suspect that because Nessie cannot imagine producing literature himself, he assumes others are also incapable of this.

Like all other so-called revisionists, you are incapable of accurately assessing witnesses to determining if they are telling the truth, but lack accuracy, or they are lying, or mistaken.

[Archie]

A few more comments on this.

Most studies on witness memory etc are by psychologists. Most of this research is relatively recent. Traditionally, historians do not rely on such studies. Historians by and large assess sources using their own methods of source criticism. In law, witnesses are sworn and subjected to cross-examination. Generally no "studies" are relied upon. Occasionally, psychologists may be employed as expert witnesses. John Demjanjuk's defense team actually tried to get Elizabeth Loftus to give expert testimony on his behalf to undermine his accusers.

Loftus tells of her personal involvement in the well-known case of John Demjanjuk, the Ukrainian-born Cleveland auto worker who was tried in Israel and sentenced to death for allegedly helping to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews during the Second World War in the Treblinka camp. In her analysis of the trial, Loftus presents compelling reasons to doubt Demjanjuk's guilt. And even though, as she explains, she felt a professional obligation to come to the aid of the defendant, she ultimately decided not to do so.

https://codoh.com/library/document/an-e ... a-dilemma/

Contrary to what Nessie says, revisionists have actually been very well aware of this sort of research and have been citing it since the 1980s. And that's because it helps revisionists. If it's conceded that eyewitness testimony is far less reliable than commonly assumed, that erodes the evidentiary basis for the Holocaust.

It is also worth noting that research studies in psychology specifically are not the most reliable. In the last decade or two there has been much attention on the so-called Replication Crisis in the social sciences, especially psychology. Basically most of the results in the papers fail to replicate when tested.

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

[fireofice]

It is also worth noting that research studies in psychology specifically are not the most reliable. In the last decade or two there has been much attention on the so-called Replication Crisis in the social sciences, especially psychology. Basically most of the results in the papers fail to replicate when tested.

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

Here are some articles that go into the replicability of fields in general just for comparison:

https://hereticalinsights.substack.com/ ... psychology

https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019 ... leb-on-iq/

I'm not arguing against the point here, just thought it would be important information if others want to do their own comparisons.

The most relevant field for witnesses seems to be social psychology, since it's based on how people psychologically react to others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_ps ... ion_crisis

[Stubble]

This also may be of interest;

In the U.S. and across the world, reliance on witness testimony and interrogation techniques leads to the conviction and incarceration of innocent people. It is generally assumed that only real criminals admit guilt or that a confident witness could be fully trusted. Psychologists have found, however, that memory is far less reliable than we once imagined.

https://themacweekly.com/2022/03/bites- ... -of-truth/

It is an important point to touch on for sure.