Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[TlsMS93]

The best-documented event in history x Nazis destroyed the evidence.

Exterminationists love to create ad hoc explanations for their narratives.

[Nessie]

The best-documented event in history x Nazis destroyed the evidence.

Exterminationists love to create ad hoc explanations for their narratives.

The way it is one of the best documented events in history, is due to the Nuremberg Race Laws and Nazi obsession with identifying and registering Jews. Every country the Nazis occupied was expected to enforce the Laws and most did, often with a high degree of cooperation. Only Denmark and Finland stand out as uncooperative, which is why they had very high rates of Jewish citizen survival. What that documentary evidence proves is huge drops in the Jewish population during the war. All the arrest, camp and transit records, where evidence of life ends in a few specific camps, for millions of Jews, is part of the circumstantial evidence.

There was less record keeping in Eastern Europe. Instead, the documentary evidence is of multiple reports of executions, including Himmler reporting to Hitler in 1942, that 363,211 Jews had been executed over a four month period. Scale that up to the rest of the war and that rate of killing supports the historically accepted death toll of 5-6 million.

All that evidence of mass disappearances under the most suspicious of circumstances, and then when we go hunting for the corpses, we find evidence of a huge cover up, involving mass cremations and the destruction of the camps and buildings that were reported to have contained gas chambers. Destruction of evidence is illegal and when it happens, it is normal to infer criminality. That is not an ad hoc explanation, it is standard all over the world, when someone is accused of a crime and they hide or destroy evidence.

[Archie]

Clearly, the method used by historians and other trained investigators, is more thorough and accurate.

Historians discard statements due to inaccuracies and contradictions all the time.

You claim that the proof for the Kula columns is overwhelming. Yet -

-No Kula columns were ever found
-No photos or columns have ever been found
-No designs or plans or work orders for these columns have ever been found
-There is one inventory document which lists Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung ("wire-mesh push-in device") for LK2 (not the "gas chamber") of Krema II which could refer to any number of things.

The proof for this consists of statements by Kula who contradicted himself, claiming the columns were 70 cm in his first statement and 24 cm in his second statement.

"Kula is corroborated!" By what? Oh, other testimonies. Like Tauber's who describes a small removable container on a wire which is totally different from what Kula describes.

Objectively speaking, this evidence for the Kula columns is very weak. You are relying on essentially two contradictory witnesses from a communist investigation.

They ignore all the witness studies into how well people remember and recall

I am going to have to request that you cite the studies you are relying on that have found that it is common for someone who personally manufactured a device and who claims to remember the exact specs to be 71% off.

[Nessie]

Clearly, the method used by historians and other trained investigators, is more thorough and accurate.

Historians discard statements due to inaccuracies and contradictions all the time.

Can you provide an example of that? The main reason why any investigator would discard a statement is because it is hearsay. What historians do not do, which you do a lot, is discard eyewitness testimony, without any evidence the witness is lying. Your presumption of lying is based on your biased opinion and faulty understanding of credibility, accuracy and truthfulness.

You claim that the proof for the Kula columns is overwhelming. Yet -

-No Kula columns were ever found
-No photos or columns have ever been found
-No designs or plans or work orders for these columns have ever been found
-There is one inventory document which lists Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung ("wire-mesh push-in device") for LK2 (not the "gas chamber") of Krema II which could refer to any number of things.

Multiple witnesses describe seeing the columns, so their evidence is eyewitness testimony. When those witnesses are from a disparate group of Jews and Nazis, who would not cooperate and collude, that makes the corroboration strong. The document further corroborates them. Then there is the reason why no column etc has been found, which is due to Nazi destruction of evidence. All courts make the destruction of evidence illegal and infer criminality when it happens.

The proof for this consists of statements by Kula who contradicted himself, claiming the columns were 70 cm in his first statement and 24 cm in his second statement.

Can you link to evidence that when a witness gives repeated testimony and they change details, that proves they lied?

I asked AI if consistency is to be expected or not, when someone provides multiple statements and the answer was;

"No, it is not expected that witnesses will remember or report the exact same details every time they provide a statement. While consistency is a key factor in assessing credibility, memory is fundamentally flawed, malleable, and subject to change over time, meaning slight variations in witness accounts are normal."

"Kula is corroborated!" By what? Oh, other testimonies. Like Tauber's who describes a small removable container on a wire which is totally different from what Kula describes.

Objectively speaking, this evidence for the Kula columns is very weak. You are relying on essentially two contradictory witnesses from a communist investigation.

That Nazis also describe the columns, is what makes the eyewitness corroboration strong.

They ignore all the witness studies into how well people remember and recall

I am going to have to request that you cite the studies you are relying on that have found that it is common for someone who personally manufactured a device and who claims to remember the exact specs to be 71% off.

That is a very specific request. I can only provide more general studies about memory and recall things like size. For example;

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ing-height

"Height and dimensional estimates are inconsistent and variable; sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but frequently not systematic. A wise detective or judge will not, therefore, put too much stock in this type of evidence...As we see from empirical research and from historical precedent, the human nervous system simply does not lend itself to highly accurate estimates of height or other dimensions."

Can you provide evidence to back up your suggestion that Tauber is lying, because he gave two different dimensions on different occasions he described the column?

[TlsMS93]

So, before dynamiting the Kremas in Birkenau, the Nazis removed the metal columns? Is there an order for this removal? Was even the order destroyed? Except for the Einsatzgruppen action reports found neatly and organized in Berlin, right?

[Stubble]

I know the ductwork was dismantled. They took stuff out of the Kremas for recycling before they dynamited them. I would assume that is when the Poles say the Germans removed the mythical Kula Columns.

If I recall correctly, Pressac has some pictures of some of the ductwork that was found after the camp was conquered by the Soviet in technique. I'll have a look later unless I forget.

[Nessie]

So, before dynamiting the Kremas in Birkenau, the Nazis removed the metal columns? Is there an order for this removal? Was even the order destroyed? Except for the Einsatzgruppen action reports found neatly and organized in Berlin, right?

There was a wholesale destruction of evidence, but there was so much evidence, some was missed. If the Nazis had been innocent of mass murder, that would have left a ton of evidence, as millions of Jews would still be alive in 1945. Instead, nothing. The conspiracist in you must be very confused that the Nazis somehow managed to miss inculpatory evidence, but they managed to destroy all the exculpatory evidence.

[Nessie]

I know the ductwork was dismantled. They took stuff out of the Kremas for recycling before they dynamited them. I would assume that is when the Poles say the Germans removed the mythical Kula Columns.

If I recall correctly, Pressac has some pictures of some of the ductwork that was found after the camp was conquered by the Soviet in technique. I'll have a look later unless I forget.

This thread is about methodology. Please explain how you have evidenced and proven there were no columns.

[Nessie]

Can Archie explain with a link to evidence, how this inconsistency proves lying and there were no columns?

viewtopic.php?p=23626#p23626

Huh?

The Jun 11 deposition he said 70 cm (for the total column width)

In court at the Hoess trial, the numbers he gave add up to only 24 cm. This is what I just quoted.

I can explain and have this link to evidence, that inconsistency does not prove lying.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5256441/

"That’s not what you said the first time: A theoretical account of the relationship between consistency and accuracy of recall...Over multiple response opportunities, recall may be inconsistent...In two experiments, we show that repeated attempts to recall a single list of items leads to many inconsistencies. Such inconsistently reported information is less accurate, a finding that is consistent with the expectations and behavior of lawyers in the courtroom."

Inconsistency relates to accuracy and credibility, more than it does to truthfulness. Inconsistent witnesses do not make for good witnesses. The study concludes that;

"Witnesses are often asked to describe a witnessed event on multiple occasions ranging over a wide period of time and a variety of circumstances. The legal system relies on witnesses to recount events consistently each time they are asked, but this reflects a misguided perspective on the nature of human memory."

The study does accept that inconsistency may indicate lying, but that is not proven.

"Our research, as well as that of others (Gilbert & Fisher, 2006; Krix et al., 2015; Oeberst, 2012, 2015), does suggest that inconsistencies are common among people with no incentive to lie; as such, small or few inconsistencies should not be considered an indication of dishonesty or general inaccuracy. However, because we have not measured inconsistencies within subjects with a motivation to lie it remains possible that higher levels of inconsistency may, in fact, be indicative of lying."

Inconsistency is common with those who are not lying and it may only indicate possible lying. The revisionists here exaggerate the inconsistencies they find with the witnesses, to support their belief that an inconsistent witness is a lying witness. But the evidence from studies of witnesses, does not support that belief.

[Archie]

Can Archie explain with a link to evidence, how this inconsistency proves lying and there were no columns?

viewtopic.php?p=23626#p23626

Huh?

The Jun 11 deposition he said 70 cm (for the total column width)

In court at the Hoess trial, the numbers he gave add up to only 24 cm. This is what I just quoted.

I don't care if he's lying or if he's delusional or what. The point is he's not a reliable witness and we can't accept that these columns existed on his authority.

Assuming the 70 cm is the correct, claiming it was 24 cm is absolutely not a reasonable variation. That's massively different. You claim you have "studies" that say this is normal, but you don't. Your links, which you probably googled just now, are vague and do not establish that Kula's extreme variation is within a typical range. That's an empirical/quantitative question. Common sense says that if Kula personally manufactured these things and claims to remember them, he should know if they were 70 cm or 24 cm.

He probably made the change for some deliberate reason, not because of "memory" issues. With the column height, he most likely shortened it because he realized the original 3 meters would be too tall. They wouldn't have been able to install them in the cellars in they were that tall.

[Nessie]

Can Archie explain with a link to evidence, how this inconsistency proves lying and there were no columns?

viewtopic.php?p=23626#p23626

Huh?

The Jun 11 deposition he said 70 cm (for the total column width)

In court at the Hoess trial, the numbers he gave add up to only 24 cm. This is what I just quoted.

I don't care if he's lying or if he's delusional or what. The point is he's not a reliable witness and we can't accept that these columns existed on his authority.

No one is doing that, straw man. Historians accept his claims about the columns, because they are corroborated by so many eyewitnesses, including SS camp staff and the inventory document. So far, no revisionist has been able to present a case to prove that corroboration is flawed and their assessment of the evidence is more accurate.

Assuming the 70 cm is the correct, claiming it was 24 cm is absolutely not a reasonable variation. That's massively different. You claim you have "studies" that say this is normal, but you don't.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... ing-height

"Height and dimensional estimates are inconsistent and variable; sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but frequently not systematic. A wise detective or judge will not, therefore, put too much stock in this type of evidence...As we see from empirical research and from historical precedent, the human nervous system simply does not lend itself to highly accurate estimates of height or other dimensions."

Your links, which you probably googled just now...

Indeed, I have, but I know a lot about the subject, since I am interview trained to detective level, I have interviewed hundreds of witnesses and watched many more give evidence in court. To me, based on my training and experience, someone who describes something as 70cm and then again as 24cm, barely registers as an inconsistency.

... are vague and do not establish that Kula's extreme variation is within a typical range. That's an empirical/quantitative question. Common sense says that if Kula personally manufactured these things and claims to remember them, he should know if they were 70 cm or 24 cm.

Typically, you think that the only person who needs to bring evidence into the debate, is me. How about you provide evidence, rather than your "common sense" that you must accept is subject to significant bias. Obviously the existing studies are unlikely to cover something as specific as someone describing the dimensions of an object they made, but as I have done above, you can find something about the estimation of dimensions. The reason why you will balk at such a task, is because I am sure you know that you will not find any study that categorically states if a witness changes a description, that is proof they lied.

At most, you will find evidence it makes the witness less reliable, or credible, but that does not mean they lied. I am sure you will find that most historians (and myself) think of the Jewish witnesses as generally poor witnesses, because they are prone to hyperbole, they often exaggerate and they regularly mix hearsay with what they saw. I wonder if that is due to culture, or trauma, or survivor guilt, or the fact that they were accessories to mass murder, or a combination of all of those factors. But, there is other evidence including the SS camp staff, to corroborate them. That makes them generally truthful, but not very credible or reliable witnesses.

He probably made the change for some deliberate reason, not because of "memory" issues. With the column height, he most likely shortened it because he realized the original 3 meters would be too tall. They wouldn't have been able to install them in the cellars in they were that tall.

We will never know. Even if you asked a witness why they changed what the said, they may not have a very good answer for you. The issue is that you cannot rule out mistake or misremembering and you have zero evidence that Kula giving two different dimensions is evidence he lied about the columns.

[Nessie]

Bombsaway understands inconsistency does not prove lying;

viewtopic.php?p=23620#p23620

I feel like you're misunderstanding something very basic

Picture a car accident at an intersection:

Witness 1: “I saw a car run a red light.”
Witness 2: “I saw a driver on their phone.”
Witness 3: “I heard a loud crash but didn’t see anything.”

These accounts are:

Partial (incomplete)
Focused on different details

They don’t contradict unless someone says:

“The light was green."
or “No crash happened".

So long as it is proved that the people were at the scene of the accident when it happened and there is evidence of a car crash, then it is proven that the three witnesses are not lying, despite the partial and inconsistent details.

There is corroborating evidence from multiple eyewitnesses and documentation that gas chambers existed inside the Kremas. There is also evidence from camp documents and identification, that the witnesses were at the Kremas. That is evidence to prove the eyewitnesses are not lying, despite the partical and inconsistent details, such as the Kula columns.

As with the car crash analogy, contradiction only happens if a witness says the Kremas only ever functioned as crematoriums, or they were used for mass showering. The contradiction has to be something very different from what other witnesses say.
Every single eyewitness from the Kremas in 1943-4, states that they were used for mass gassings. No one diverges from that.

The revisionist attempts to prove they all lied, is reliant on the details, but I have already linked to studies of witnesses that prove people are often inconsistent and they do not recollect everything correctly. The revisionist methodolgy is flawed, because it fails to take that into account. Their treatment of witness evidence, has many issues.

[Keen]

roberto:

Bombsaway understands inconsistency does not prove lying

True, but lack of physical evidence does prove lying, and bombsaway does understand this:

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.

That is why he is so afraid to debate the physical evidence issue.

Just like you are roberta.

[Nessie]

Bombsaway is encountering the same problem I am;

viewtopic.php?p=23680#p23680

btw for anyone reading this thread, it's about a revisionists asking me dozens of questions about a relatively minor detail in holocaust historiography, one that isn't broadly known in the mainstream and wasn't thoroughly investigated in terms of witnesses being asked about it. So details are murky. As I soon as I answer a question, new questions emerge, about other details I haven't spoken about, other witnesses, sometimes entirely unrelated details used to call the witnesses into question. Meanwhile these people "refuse" to answer any of my questions about the collective strength of the witness testimonies, why perpetrator confessions and sonderkommando testimony both speak to the existence of these columns, why non eyewitness gas chamber testimony mention them much less. What's the point of continuing, given the no doubt endless stream of questions, and the refusal to engage with any of my own?

Revisionists not pick over tiny details that no one else who has investigated the Holocaust has. Many of their questions about those details cannot be answered with any certainty. They then refuse to answer questions about the strength of the corroboration between the witnesses over the major events they describe and the reason why eyewitness and hearsay evidence is different.

I know why that is. Nitpicking over the details, gives revisionists reason to dismiss the evidence they do not want to accept and their unique to them methodology cannot be defended.

[Nessie]

Archie,

viewtopic.php?p=23684#p23684

It is a detail, but I strongly disagree that it's minor in importance. It is in fact absolutely crucial to the Auschwitz story. Whether the pellets were left in the room or were removed would make a major difference in the ventilation time, the amount of time the walls were exposed to HCN, etc. To evaluate the story technically we must first determine what the story is.

Why is knowing exactly how the Kula columns worked, crucial to the Auschwitz story?