Evidence and Implementation

[ConfusedJew]

I'm seeing two big issues come up that hopefully you guys can help me understand better.

1. There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative. What I see happening here is that people cherry pick issues with individual pieces of evidence that don't fully invalidate those individual artifacts or testimonies, let alone the entire body of evidence.

In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again so I'm looking for some kind of meta heuristic to be more objective about these things and reduce the bias in discussions, which we all have to some extent.

2. If this is just a hoax or postwar narrative, how is it possible for all these different fake sources to have come up with different people that were mostly disconnected during and after the war? I don't see how it's physically possible for so many different people to fabricate so much evidence and testimonies without coordinating. Can you explain that to me? I don't think anything like that has ever happened before in the history of the world.

[Nessie]

I'm seeing two big issues come up that hopefully you guys can help me understand better.

1. There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative. What I see happening here is that people cherry pick issues with individual pieces of evidence that don't fully invalidate those individual artifacts or testimonies, let alone the entire body of evidence.

In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again so I'm looking for some kind of meta heuristic to be more objective about these things and reduce the bias in discussions, which we all have to some extent.

The best examples of cherry-picking and what that causes, are the AR camps and A-B Kremas. By cherry-picking, so-called revisionists have concluded that the AR camps were transit, customs, hygiene, property sorting camps, where people changed onto wider gauge trains. The Kremas were showers, corpse stores, bomb shelters and delousing chambers. There are even some who argue they cannot have been delousing chambers. When evidence is cherry-picked, it is impossible to reach a consensus. The so-called revisionists also cannot reach an evidenced, logical conclusion, as to what eventually happened and where people were in 1945. They fail at history.

2. If this is just a hoax or postwar narrative, how is it possible for all these different fake sources to have come up with different people that were mostly disconnected during and after the war? I don't see how it's physically possible for so many different people to fabricate so much evidence and testimonies without coordinating. Can you explain that to me? I don't think anything like that has ever happened before in the history of the world.

Exactly, why would the Nazis cooperate with reports by the Polish Government in Exile, if their reports about mass murder in certain camps were fake? Why would the Nazis not counter those reports, with evidence of millions of Jews still alive, in camps and ghettos, in 1944? If the hoax was a Soviet one, why would Latvia, on gaining independence, not blow that hoax, and reveal that Latvian Auxiliary Police units did not join with the Einsatzgruppen, shooting Jews?

[Wahrheitssucher]

I'm seeing two big issues come up that hopefully you guys can help me understand better.

1. There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative. What I see happening here is that people cherry pick issues with individual pieces of evidence that don't fully invalidate those individual artifacts or testimonies, let alone the entire body of evidence.

In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again so I'm looking for some kind of meta heuristic to be more objective about these things and reduce the bias in discussions, which we all have to some extent.

How to interpret inconsistencies in evidence is to gain as wide an understanding of all the available evidence as possible, and WITHOUT favouring any preconceived conclusions and by being alert to any possible subliminal confirmation biases that one might have. This requires some self-awareness and an ability to read and assimilate arguments and viewpoints that contradict one’s own current understanding with fairness and honesty.
With the emotionally-loaded ‘holocaust’ mass-gassing narrative that means being open to views that we each have had decades of indoctrination into rejecting totally. It requires being able to temporarily set aside that conditioning and overcome the training that insists ‘good’ people should have a repulsion and a ‘healthy’ resistance to any arguments or doubts of the official narrative.
If one is unable to do this, they will not be able to understand let alone ‘try on’ contrary viewpoints and understandings.

2. If this is just a hoax or postwar narrative, how is it possible for all these different fake sources to have come up with different people that were mostly disconnected during and after the war? I don't see how it's physically possible for so many different people to fabricate so much evidence and testimonies without coordinating. Can you explain that to me? I don't think anything like that has ever happened before in the history of the world.

Firstly, it wasn’t only a post-war narrative. It was concocted as ‘atrocity’ propaganda during the war. It is called psy-op warfare. That is short for ‘psychological-operations’. The British head of that was Victor Cavendish-Bentinck. One of his chief operatives was a Jew of Australian and German origins and upbringing/education.
This guy:


If you don’t know who that is, then be open to the idea that you yourself are the unwitting victim of a very skillful psy-op deception.

Secondly your question is based upon a false premise. Viz. it does NOT require so many people to fabricate the initial psy-op deception. Once it is in place and disseminated, then human nature does the rest. This is a well-documented and confirmable human phenomena called ‘group conformity’.

Thirdly, an example of millions of people believing, defending and repeating a fantastic and non-credible belief is the one in the virgin-birth of some dude from Galilee who could walk on water, could bring rotting corpses back to life, who lived and died two thousand years ago, yet who it is widely believed has been — and is STILL — appearing to people inside their heads and giving them messages, etc.

[Nessie]

...In general, how do you guys think about inconsistencies in evidence and how to interpret that? I just think these issues are blown out of proportion again and again so I'm looking for some kind of meta heuristic to be more objective about these things and reduce the bias in discussions, which we all have to some extent.

...

Inconsistencies in the evidence, are caused by mixing hearsay with eyewitness testimony, and normal differences in memory and recollection by the witnesses. Revisionists grossly exaggerate the level of inconsistency between the witnesses, by ignoring the difference between hearsay and eyewitnesses and by ignoring what is known to be normal witness behaviour.

[Stubble]

Again;

[ConfusedJew]

Not all witnesses are valid. Even if a witness is largely credible, you shouldn't expect their recollection to be 100% accurate and they might even be partially dishonest.

That meme doesn't really represent the situation.

As a general rule, going forward, how would you like to deal with imperfections in the evidence or testimonies? I just want to make sure that we all operate out of good faith and shared understanding of how to approach evidence so that we keep things as objective as possible in order to do our best to discuss the truth.

[Stubble]

Not all witnesses are valid. Even if a witness is largely credible, you shouldn't expect their recollection to be 100% accurate and they might even be partially dishonest.

That meme doesn't really represent the situation.

As a general rule, going forward, how would you like to deal with imperfections in the evidence or testimonies? I just want to make sure that we all operate out of good faith and shared understanding of how to approach evidence so that we keep things as objective as possible in order to do our best to discuss the truth.

'Fangers already covered that.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=350

[Nessie]

Not all witnesses are valid. Even if a witness is largely credible, you shouldn't expect their recollection to be 100% accurate and they might even be partially dishonest.

That meme doesn't really represent the situation.

As a general rule, going forward, how would you like to deal with imperfections in the evidence or testimonies? I just want to make sure that we all operate out of good faith and shared understanding of how to approach evidence so that we keep things as objective as possible in order to do our best to discuss the truth.

So-called revisionism would not work, if the witnesses were honestly assessed. They need 100% of the eyewitnesses to be lying.

[Nazgul]

There is a ton of different pieces of evidence, in my opinion, all pointing to the same narrative. What I see happening here is that people cherry pick issues with individual pieces of evidence that don't fully invalidate those individual artifacts or testimonies, let alone the entire body of evidence.

Du bist ein Jude. The only people pushing the narrative are the Jews who connect the apparent dots of evidence to form the picture they want. They did this in the Torah and then invented Christianity and Islam followed. An example is the description by Raol Hilberg on the "Death trains" where he interprets Scheduling Order Fahrplananordnung (Fplo) 587. Death Trains

Lets once again examine the stops: The information comes from www.deutschland-ein-denkmal.de/ which is currently down for maintence.
Here is an excerpt:
Scheduled to depart on September 30, 1942 from the Polish town of Sedziszow, the train, according to the scheduling order, wends its way with agonizing slowness towards Treblinka. The Locomotive pulls 50 freight cars and two third class cars. We know from other documents that upon arrival in the death camp, the Jews who are still alive are ripped out of the freight cars. We also know that within hours the Nazis kill almost everyone on the train; they send the Jewish men to the gas chambers first, then the Jewish women and children.
Here is an image of Fplo 587

Note that the transport stopped at locations for close to an hour each time. A steam train only needed to stop for 5 mins for fuel and water. Each of those place were sites of Zwangarbeitslager für Juden (Jewish Labour Camps) which are listed as follows.

1. Kielce--8 labour camps for Jews--stopped 1 hour
2. Skarzysko Kam--Skarżysko-Kamienna--major munitions camps with thousands of häftling---stopped 1 hour
3. Radom--3 labour camps--stopped 25 mins
4. Deblin Gbf--Gbf freight station--6 labour camps--stopped 40 mins
5. Lukow--Major railway junction--stopped 50 mins
6. Siedlce--6 camps--stopped 1.5 hours
7. Treblinka--2 labour camps for Jews (jJudenlagers)..Treblinka arbeitslager, Kosow Laski; stopped 6.5 hours

Some places on the Fplo such as Malkinia are railway junctions to other labour camps for Jews.

Perhaps there were direct transports to Treblinka but the Fplo indicated by Hilberg is not one of those. Nessie was presented with this information and immediately changes topic to ask where the Jews were in 1945.

For years people believed that the transports took Jews from A to T. The reality is that they stopped at multiple locations of Jewish labour camps. Even some Sobibor survivors arrived at Sobibor and ended up by train at one of the camps in the Fplo (Skarzysko Kam).

I am convinced that most of the Jews were place in labour camps, some elderly euthanized (14f13). Of course genocide and the holocaust are not the same. There was genocide, stopping breeding is enough for that charge. People also forget that with no birth there was death from natural attrition over the lengthy period of the conflict. This was calculated to be about 2 million.

[TlsMS93]

The best examples of cherry-picking and what that causes, are the AR camps and A-B Kremas. By cherry-picking, so-called revisionists have concluded that the AR camps were transit, customs, hygiene, property sorting camps, where people changed onto wider gauge trains. The Kremas were showers, corpse stores, bomb shelters and delousing chambers. There are even some who argue they cannot have been delousing chambers. When evidence is cherry-picked, it is impossible to reach a consensus. The so-called revisionists also cannot reach an evidenced, logical conclusion, as to what eventually happened and where people were in 1945. They fail at history.

My God, do you mean that in the German concentration camps there could be none of these things, only gas chambers or torture rooms? Now if you are referring to the places that are BELIEVED to be gas chambers, revisionism has a certain consensus on that. Morgue then air raid shelter in Stammlager, morgue in Birkenau, delousing chamber and bath and disinfection in Majdanek.

[ConfusedJew]

'Fangers already covered that.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=350

This is great actually because it is reasonable objective although you could argue and refine certain aspects of this rubric. I uploaded the rubric to ChatGPT and asked it how it would evaluate the testimonies of Adolf Eichmann.

Final Score: ~81/100
Interpretation: “Generally reliable document with minor concerns.”
Eichmann's testimony is highly valuable, especially for understanding Nazi administrative processes and ideology. However, self-interest, shifting narratives, and selective presentation reduce its probative value in some areas. Historians typically cross-check it with other independent evidence and give it partial but important weight.

I asked it to identify areas where his testimony would be suspect and this is what it came back with.

"Eichmann’s testimony is both rich in detail and rife with contradictions, and your framework rightly demands scrutiny of self-interest, shifting narratives, and selective presentation. Below is a focused breakdown of the most concerning elements within each of those categories—specifically how they may undermine parts of his testimony."

It gives some reasons, which you can look through, which are very interesting. And then highlights the areas where the testimony are most questionable and why:

Claim 1 - “I was only following orders"
Contradicted by prideful Sassen remarks and organizational authority he wielded

Claim 2- “I didn’t know what was happening in the camps”
Refuted by transport documents, Himmler speeches he referenced, and contemporaneous Nazi knowledge

Claim 3 - “I was powerless”
Undermined by consistent role in coordinating deportations and dealings with top officials

Claim 4 - “I had no ideological motivation”
Contradicted by earlier comments expressing belief in anti-Jewish policies

I asked it how the flaws and inconsistencies in his testimony undermine his description of the Final Solution:

Eichmann’s inconsistencies and inaccuracies undermine his personal credibility, but they do not undermine the existence or core details of the Final Solution—and in some cases, they unintentionally confirm it.

In between, they give a lot of concrete examples.

Conclusion
Eichmann’s distortions do not undermine the existence or the central details of the Final Solution. They undermine:
His credibility as a reliable narrator
The extent of his claimed ignorance or powerlessness
The specifics of his self-portrayal
But far from weakening the historical case for the Final Solution, his testimony—when analyzed critically—actually reinforces it by aligning with other evidence, even when it tries not to.

I asked it "Can you really think very hard to find any way that this undermines the credibility of the Final Solution and existence of the gas chambers?" This was the response.

Meta-Analysis: Can Eichmann’s Inconsistencies Rationally Undermine the Gas Chamber Narrative?

Only under two assumptions:
1. That most or all corroborating evidence is also compromised (coercion, fraud, or misunderstanding).
2. That Eichmann’s ignorance is genuine and indicative of the broader Nazi leadership's ignorance.

But both assumptions collapse when evaluated:
Other Nazis confessed to direct involvement (Höss, Blobel, Broad).
Allies and neutral parties documented the camps (e.g., Polish resistance, Soviet liberators, U.S. military).
Physical and forensic evidence exists (e.g., gas chamber remains at Majdanek, Zyklon B traces in Auschwitz ruins).
Eichmann’s own boasts pre-trial contradict his courtroom denials—which would be the opposite pattern if he were being manipulated into confession.

You can look through the entire AI thread below, but please address the core arguments made here. If you want to use AI, more power to you, there's no reason to denigrate it in my opinion.

We can move this to another thread if you like.

https://chatgpt.com/share/682cad1b-6800 ... 602113ac8b

[ConfusedJew]

So-called revisionism would not work, if the witnesses were honestly assessed. They need 100% of the eyewitnesses to be lying.

I'm being intellectually honest here, but I am personally not sure how you can explain away the testimony of all of the perpetrators. I can't imagine why the Nazis would testify against themselves while on trial. I find the counter arguments on this forum to be very interesting and thought provoking, but not compelling. But I'm here engaging in good faith so I'm curious where this will take us.

[Stubble]

You, do understand that you are drifting your own thread when the correct thread for your reply actually exists, don't you?

So far as 'perpetrators' testimony is concerned, you should make threads for each and we can go over them there.

It is my opinion that this thread is redundant and should be deleted. That's just my opinion though, others may disagree.

[ConfusedJew]

Fair point, I repositioned the argument to this other thread. Let this thread return to the debate on how to evaluate evidence and how all the evidence could have been faked or distorted.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=9526#p9526

[curioussoul]

So-called revisionism would not work, if the witnesses were honestly assessed. They need 100% of the eyewitnesses to be lying.

I'm being intellectually honest here, but I am personally not sure how you can explain away the testimony of all of the perpetrators. I can't imagine why the Nazis would testify against themselves while on trial. I find the counter arguments on this forum to be very interesting and thought provoking, but not compelling. But I'm here engaging in good faith so I'm curious where this will take us.

You're not being intellectually honest at all. Despite being corrected on multiple occasions, you've repeated the lie that there are "hundreds of thousands of witnesses" to the Holocaust, despite the actual number of eye-witnesses numbering barely 20 people. As for perpetrator confessions, I challenge you to name a perpetrator you find most convincing and then explain why that particular testimony is important.

I've seen you claim repeatedly that revisionists nit pick minor inaccuracies in testimonies and use that to dispense with the witnesses altogether, but that's far from the truth. What fundamentally undermines the credibility of a witness is not minor inaccuracies and mistakes (those are to be expected from any sort of witness), it is the fact that key eye-witnesses to gassings and the Holocaust make claims that could not possibly be innocent mistakes - they all (categorically) make verifiably false claims. It simply is not possible for Rudolf Hoess to have innocently claimed to have visited Treblinka to 'learn about the murder method' for implementation in Auschwitz, just to give you one of the most famous examples. And if you study the history of witness testimony for the Holocaust, you'll notice that Holocaust witnesses are the least accurate the closer to war's end you come, and "more accurate" the more time passes. That is to say, a Holocaust testimony from the 1970's is more streamlined with the official story than witness testimony from 1945 and 1946. And all core testimonies to the Holocaust are incompatible with each other on key details in a way that should never be able to happen if the event actually took place as described. You'll see Nessie swear up and down that witnesses agree on major details, and what he means by that is they all 'agree' on selections, gassings and undressing. But that's simply not enough for establishing the reality of a historical event, especially not when all important witnesses all lied about major things.

The biggest issue I'm having with you at the moment is that you're simply uneducated on the Holocaust (and the breadth & depth of evidence) while giving a false pretense of neutrality and intellectual curiosity when in reality you are uncritically accepting and repeating the orthodox story without even knowing the strengths or deficiencies of the arguments you're repeating.