Burden of Proof

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
JoFo
Member
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:14 pm

Burden of Proof

Postby JoFo » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Jun 13, 2010 3:36 pm)

I am a newcomer to this forum and a relative newcomer to this subject in general so if my comments or questions seem a bit academic, please indulge me. Where does the burden of proof in this debate lie? Many in the "exterminationist" camp scoff at the notion that they should have to further substantiate what they already consider established fact. Is it the revisionist's task to disprove their conclusions or could they be fairly required to offer more credible evidence in the first place?



avatar
SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby SevenUp » 6 years 10 months ago (Sun Jun 13, 2010 7:49 pm)

With regard to what happened during the war, both holocaustians and revisionists are on the same footing. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with documentation as best you can. The burden of proof is shared equally by both sides. How could it be otherwise?

But there is more than the question of what happened in the camps, on the front, etc. There is also the question of the hoax itself, that is, the creation of the lie, the false history of the what happened, the endless and pervasive hoax propaganda, the suppression of revisionism and revisionists, etc. Here it is necessary for the revisionist to do more than revise history, it is also necessary to demonstrate the construction of the hoax. Many revisionists overlook this aspect of the holohoax, I think, but not all, specifically M. Weber and A. Butz.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 10 months ago (Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:39 am)

In a perfectly just world the burden of proof lies with the accuser. But in the real world, 99 % of people not only know we are wrong but also believe it is evil to entertain a revisionist viewpoint. They will meet you with ad hominem attacks and a blanket refusal to listen. For holding such a view you are subject to imprisonment in a number of countries, a universal taboo, loss of your livelihood, physical violence and total censorship of your viewpoint from everywhere except the Net. Even here, revisionist sites are surrounded by an electric fence of taboo, and actual censorship by libraries and schools. So it's pretty clear where the effective burden of proof lies. It is doubtful if we will ever succeed in breaking through this barrier.

As for how the “hoax”(see (1) below) was propagated:

- It began with reports from Jewish and non-Jewish sources in Poland during the war. It was picked up by Allied propaganda services, who would have been concerned with its effectiveness, not its truth. The public and politicians probably believed it without even bothering to question it. It fed back into occupied Europe and into the camps, where the Jewish and Communist resistances will certainly have promoted it. Old hands, KAPOs and “tough” prisoners would have used the stories to scare newcomers and those lower in the pecking order, and to assert their authority. Released prisoners and escapees took the story back to the outside world, renewing the cycle.

- When Belsen and other camps were liberated, it appeared to confirm all the worst horror stories. The press and radio convinced the outside world which was all too ready to believe. This was the end of the worst conflict in history and the enemy had to be portrayed as subhuman to motivate and to justify.

- As well as the need to convince the folks back home, German public opinion also had to be turned away from any slightest sympathy with the Nazis, in order to manage a peaceful occupation with no danger of internal resistance.

- Army PsychWar units were among the first into the camps and they produced their exhibitions of lampshades and tattoos and they made propaganda films, with the help of professional film makers like Billy Wilder. It all served to distract attention from the very real brutalities of the Allies: the Russian rapes and murders, the displacement of millions of Eastern Germans, the fire bombing of cities, the awful conditions of German POWs. It worked and has lasted to this day. The one thing that brands the Nazis as irredeemably evil beyond the general level of wartime brutality is the attempted extermination of a people.

- Far from it being difficult to continue the wartime propaganda into peacetime, it would actually have been harder to do the opposite and acknowledge that it had all been propaganda.

- The Zionist lobby needed the holocaust story to justify the occupation of Palestine.

- Many years later, after the publication of early Revisionist works, the Holocaust Industry identified by Norman Finkelstein began its massive and well-financed PR campaign, creating the Holocaust Cult which we all know today, with it's dogmas, temples, Holy Sites, pilgimages and Doctrines taught in schools.


I am in the middle of reading Nick Davies' Flat Earth News. The opening chapter take as its example the Millennium Bug, to show how a story based on little more than suspicion is picked up by the media pack who run with it. None of the journalists involved really understood the issue, but they competed with each other to blow it up bigger and bigger.

Later in the same book Davies talks of the role of PR. He draws heavily (with acknowledgement) on Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders, which came out around 1960, much nearer to the “Holocaust” than to today. He points out that the father of PR was a nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays, who drew on his uncle's concept of the unconscious mind in order to manipulate the public. Davies' quotes him: “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it”.

Many readers of this board will recognize the Bernays surname. Another member of the family was a prominent player at Nuremberg.

The first episode of Adam Curtis' TV series The Century of the Self also looks at the influence of Bernays and PR. It can be found on YouTube.

Samuel Crowell's Gas Chamber of Sherlock Holmes is very good on why people believe this particular "Strange Thing". (Acknowledgements to Michael Shermer.) :)

Footnote (1)
I don't like use of this word “hoax”. I think you can make a good case that it is not necessary to demonstrate a planned conspiracy to explain what happened.
- The majority of people involved believed that conditions discovered in Belsen and elsewhere confirmed the worst claims of German savagery.
- After the war no one was in a mood to give the Germans the benefit of the doubt on anything.
- It's easier to spread an untruth convincingly if you believe it yourself, and as a species we are remarkably good at convincing ourselves that the truth is what it is to our advantage to believe.
- The use of suspect evidence does not contradict this. We all know that police forces sometimes manufacture evidence where they are convinced they have the right man, but don't have enough for the Court.
- Some eyewitnesses are certainly outright liars, but others may just embroider their story, misremember things, misinterpret what they do remember, be influenced by others' stories to adapt their own to conform, etc. Memories are particularly subject to error in conditions of severe stress and illness.

I also dislike the “hoax” approach because I have been on the other side of the fence and I can assure you it has a very negative effect on the public at large. It did on me, even though I had long ago accepted Finkelstein's arguments about the Holocaust Industry. It is a PR disaster, guaranteed to turn off people who might be approaching the subject with an open mind and to get you labelled as a “hater”.
Last edited by Kingfisher on Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

avatar
SevenUp
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:54 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby SevenUp » 6 years 10 months ago (Tue Jun 15, 2010 4:33 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:I don't like use of this word “hoax”. I think you can make a good case that it is not necessary to demonstrate a planned conspiracy to explain what happened.


This, to me, sounds like the Zionists' last refuge. 'Yes, we've created a country based on the Holocaust, we get billions in reparations every year, and what do you know, it didn't really happen, it was all just a series of honest mistakes, no one to blame.' LOL.

Hoax is the only word to describe what has happened. To see the history of the hoax, you have to start with Heddesheimer's "The First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During World War ONE", then, read Butz's 'Hoax of the Twentieth Century', he chose the word hoax carefully. All sorts of machinations went into the creation of the hoax, starting with the propaganda emanating from the World Jewish Congress, and progressing to the takeover of the US govt. policy with regard to post war policy by Henry Morgenthau, to the grotesque sham of the Nuremberg trials, to the incessant hoax propaganda coming from Hollywood and the 'news' media, to the prosecution of anyone questioning the hoax in many countries. These are not coincidences or mistakes. To seriously think such a thing is naive beyond imagination.

Further, I think, but I could be wrong, it is a losing proposition to try to argue that the holocaust didn't happen without supplying a convincing argument as to why everyone believes that it did. And, here is the point, the creation of the hoax is something that DID happen, there is evidence for it, you can argue that something DID happen, the hoax, and not be in the position of always arguing that something didn't. I think it strengthens the argument.

For example, what is the 'evidence' that is used to support the holocaust story? Simple, the pictures of the dead and dying at Belsen, Dachau, and Buchenwald at the end of the war. These pictures have been very cleverly used to imprint the holocaust on the psyche of every person at a very deep level. We have seen them since we were children. What we have not seen is the pictures of the prisoners in the camps who survived. In Belsen, for example, there were on the order of 50,000 prisoners who survived. Unless you have looked for pictures of these prisoners on the internet, you have NEVER seen them. This is not a happy accident for the Zionists. This is a deliberate policy of deception that has been practiced by Hollywood and the media from day one. By showing the pictures of the survivors in the camps, especially the children, it may have the emotional impact to make it possible to at least start to counter the effect of the years of propaganda. Then, you have to explain why they have never been shown. 'It just happened that way' is not an argument or explanation.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 10 months ago (Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:44 am)

SevenUp:

I am familiar with everything you wrote about and would disagree with little if any of it.

I just wrote you a long reply, but my draft failed to save and I didn't keep my own copy of it. I'll try to put it together again. Bear with me. I think we have the basis of a useful and fruitful discussion here.

avatar
Inquisitive
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:02 am

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Inquisitive » 6 years 10 months ago (Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:17 am)

Saw this on Toben's site and it makes so much sense:
Before there was "denial" it was simply denied as in "I deny something because it's a LIE"
Refuting an untruth.
Can't help but wonder if "Holocaust denial" is an inside joke on the gentile. We know it's a lie so we'll change the perception of the word, deny. It's out there for all to see, every day, yet no one does.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 10 months ago (Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:21 pm)

Hi SevenUp

You'll have seen my post above where I say:
I am familiar with everything you wrote about and would disagree with little if any of it.

So, to reply:
This, to me, sounds like the Zionists' last refuge. 'Yes, we've created a country based on the Holocaust, we get billions in reparations every year, and what do you know, it didn't really happen, it was all just a series of honest mistakes, no one to blame.' LOL.

That is a bit of straw-man version of what I said, isn't it? A series of dishonest mistakes and convenient uncritical acceptances plus a fair amount of embroidery might be somewhat nearer. Not unlike the Dodgy Dossier of the Iraq war. Followed by the PR machine taking it over and running with it. PR doesn't bother with whether the message is true or not. Or only insofar as if you convince yourself it's true first you'll find it easier to convince others.

I think the truth in this matter lies somewhere between the extremes of conspiracy and accident (for want of better words in both cases). What I am against is creating the picture of a conspiratorial cabal sitting up there chuckling evilly as they pull the puppet strings. It may not be what you intend but it is the image you risk creating in the mind of the average person out there, and you play right into the hands of the anti-anti-semites who will throw the Protocols at you. (And in true PR style, I don't care whether the Protocols are genuine or not: I just know that for Joe Public they are the ultimate slur.)

We are concerned to get people who have accepted the Holocaust uncritically to take a step back, look at it and, if not ask questions themselves, consider the questions that we ask. I have not said that there was no element of planned deception; I am in no position to know how much there was. I have said:
it is not necessary to demonstrate a planned conspiracy to explain what happened.
Since it is not necessary, why put this up additional major obstacle for the enquiring believer to surmount? It may be that the Zionist leadership made up the whole thing. It is more likely that they grabbed the ball with both hands and ran with it. It is enough to show Zionist leaders and Allied leaders twisting everything to their own advantage: in other words, doing what leaderships do. I have listed previously the steps by which it was done, so there is no point in repeating them.

A Nuremberg there was no need to present evidence for the crimes: only to assign guilt for them since the crimes were "common knowledge". So by the same logic, there was no harm in a bit of robust interrogation to get confessions or in a bit of dodgy evidence either. It was important not to upset the Russians who provided most of this evidence. (see Carlos Porter) In other words, in post-war conditions everybody was very receptive to any anti-German accusations and not too squeamish about how they were confirmed.

Of course, the question may be asked why, if they believed the story, did Churchill, Eisenhower and de Gaulle consider the deliberate genocidal murder of six million people of such triviality that they didn't bother to mention it in their multi-volume memoirs? Particularly Churchill, who had many Jews in his personal and political entourages. If there was a plot, it is unlikely that these three were part of it, but it is strong evidence that they were anything but totally convinced by it. We can use this to sow doubt, as Bradley has done in his campus adverts.

So, to return to my point: don't put off the enquiring by asking them to accept something not essential to our principal arguments, and which not even all of us here are agreed on. Just encourage them to accept open debate, and offer explanations which do not challenge them too hard. The most obvious weak spot is the number. What is it based on and how can it have remained unchanged for 65 years? Then you could try the Eisenhower/Churchill question. And don't stick it all on "the Joos"; the Allied powers had as big or bigger role in it. It suited everybody, especially the Russians. You can point out examples of genuine trickery by the US such as the Kuwaiti baby incubators and Colin Powell's presentation at the UN.

Make the task easier. You are fighting unreasoning resistance created by the toughest Bernays PR machine in the world.

avatar
astro3
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 329
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:52 am

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby astro3 » 6 years 10 months ago (Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:20 am)

Question:
Where does the burden of proof in this debate lie? Many in the "exterminationist" camp scoff at the notion that they should have to further substantiate what they already consider established fact.

Answer: While agreeing with everything Kingfisher has written (very eloquently), permit me to add:
There are Three Numbers, of cyanide wall concentration:
From alleged human gas chambers: 3 parts per million
of controls' ie dormitories, washrooms etc 2 ppm
Of the delousing chambers: 5000 parts per million.
These figures average the sixty-odd samples taken by Leuchter and Rudolf.
(See http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrnkwalls.html http://www.codoh.com/newrevoices/nrvnkleuchter.html )
These figures simply terminate the story that designated long, thin rooms were used for mass human gassing. The walls of Auschwitz *remember* where the cyanide was used.
In simple terms, there was no murder weapon.
The tons and tons of zyklon consumed were demonstrably used in the delousing chambers, where the Germans said they were used.
If anyone wants to prove that 'It' really happened, all they have to do is very simple: find the remains of a building where they reckon it happened, then we measure its wall cyanide concentration. If its significantly elevated - then the case is proved! But if, as earlier surveys have found, there is no significant elevation, the case is (once more) disproved.

The simple universal affifrmation that we should be making, is that mass human cyanide gas chambers have never existed on Planet Earth - nowhere, never. The burden of proof needs to lie with those who wish to pretend that they have so existed - in 1942-45, in Poland.
That is the burden of proof.
So, from a science viewpoint, the whole argument needs to rest (irrefutably) upon the permanence of the iron-cyanide bond, and porosity of those old walls to the cyanide gas.
Last edited by astro3 on Mon Jun 21, 2010 6:31 am, edited 3 times in total.

avatar
Hans
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 2:44 am

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Hans » 6 years 9 months ago (Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:04 pm)

Of course the burden of proof is on Holocaust researchers to show the mass murder happened. This was sufficiently done in the past. We are past this point. Checked.

And of course the burden of proof in on Revisionists to demonstrate that the Holocaust researchers are wrong. Now, this is what Revisionists are currently struggling with, making little progress to be honest.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 8964
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Hannover » 6 years 9 months ago (Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:48 pm)

Hans wrote:Of course the burden of proof is on Holocaust researchers to show the mass murder happened. This was sufficiently done in the past. We are past this point. Checked.

And of course the burden of proof in on Revisionists to demonstrate that the Holocaust researchers are wrong. Now, this is what Revisionists are currently struggling with, making little progress to be honest.

Nothing but wishful thinking from Hans. He should actually read his own posts and the responses to them. He has utterly failed to present anything which supports the standard and absurd 'holocaust' story line. Go ahead, search his name here and read. One can also note the almost complete absence of Hans in threads where the laughable 'gas chambers' are discussed. Why?

Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the 'holocaust' propaganda is the message.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
ps
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:29 am

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby ps » 6 years 9 months ago (Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:00 pm)

@Hans

Of course, the Holocaust was possible. It is actually only the question of the number of Jewish victims. If you give us a clue or Dimitry, how many Jews in a 1500 ° C hot gas chamber may have been driven daily so that they could be poisoned with Zyklon B, even the maximum number of Jewish Holocaust victims to be determined exactly.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6074&p=42282&sid=d2697a0b8b34c58c840f092dc1dc176e#p42282
German: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5996

avatar
skeptical
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:07 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby skeptical » 6 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:53 am)

Hans,
It occurs to me that I, and many of the other "revisionists" have gone through the evidence to one degree or another and changed our outlook on the whole matter, from the default position of being taught the Holocaust in school to the new position of doubting the particulars of the story. I have felt compelled to examine the details and formulate my own opinion as the flaws in my early, and whole heartedly accepted, education regarding the subject, became clear.
I've been shocked repeatedly as things I took to be fact turned out to be fabrications.... At this point when I hear a "survivors" tale I just assume it's a pack of lies... I have in fact been turned 180 degrees in this regard...
What I am wondering Hans, is this, does it matter what evidence or lack of evidence you are presented with? Could you alter your outlook here in any case?
S

avatar
JoFo
Member
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 11:14 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby JoFo » 6 years 9 months ago (Mon Jun 28, 2010 12:39 am)

So philosophically the answer is fairly straight forward: The burden of proof should fall on those who make the initial claim of deliberate mass murder. But in practice, it doesn't seem to play out that way. That it should allegedly take place during a devastating world war doesn't simplify the matter!

Kingfisher's idea of getting people to "step back" and re-examine the entire issue is constructive. I would hope that this could one day be treated solely as the murder investigation that it never was. Discard all previous conclusions and invite an unbiased, disinterested third part with sufficient technological prowess (the Chinese or Indians?) to conduct a thorough forensic and historical investigation. Focus on primary documentary evidence and use modern forensic science to find out what really happened. I understand that limited ventures toward this end have already been attempted in the past, but they always seem to run into issues of credibility and integrity.

Considering the opposition to such an undertaking, this is all pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; and even if it were to take place, it probably wouldn't put an end to the controversy. I am grateful to all who have commented so far.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1608
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby Kingfisher » 6 years 9 months ago (Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:40 am)

Jofo
The spirit of this site, though not of all who post on the boards, is "Open Debate". If we want open debate we must ourselves be open to debate. I support absolutely Bradley's position that while our present understanding of the facts leads us to think that there were no gas chambers, as genuine sceptics we are open to evidence and debate, and prepared to change our position according to the evidence. This is the only basis on which we can ask those who do not currently share our view to examine and debate with us. It applies regardless of whether our personal view is a moderate or an extreme position.

This is triply valid in the special situation of Holocaust Revisionism, where no debate is allowed, by law in an increasing number of countries, and by taboo and censorship in others. For this reason, we should be concentrating on the first hurdle, breaking the taboo. It is a big enough one in itself. There must be many people out there who, if the subject were open to the normal principles of free inquiry, would have real doubts, but who at the moment are effectively brainwashed. I used to take it for granted that as the story was so universally believed and deniers so universally reviled it must be true.

We need to establish that, while it appeals to antisemites, there is nothing antisemitic about Revisionism in itself. At the same time, we must be free to criticize Jews, individually and communally, as much -- but no more -- as any other group.

I think it is specially important to recognize and respect the fairly small numbers of believers who are prepared to debate openly (as opposed to exchanging polemic) with us. Also those like Raoul Hilberg who, while still believing, recognized the misuse to which it was being put. The obvious case is Norman Finkelstein, though I suspect that Finkelstein may well have doubts, but dare not express them.

avatar
The Warden
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:28 pm
Location: 'Murica!

Re: Burden of Proof

Postby The Warden » 6 years 9 months ago (Fri Jul 02, 2010 9:52 pm)

I never grasped the idea of someone making claims without having to provide any physical evidence. Even more unbelievable is the idea that more claims seems to make the other claims true. The "convergence of evidence" {Shermer] always seems to be lacking anything that backs up the claims. Somehow motive and opportunity equal guilt. Of course, this application could easily be turned around on the original claimants. The hoaxers have motive and opportunity to to maintain their victim status. Does that mean the mention of it makes it true and I don't have to prove it in any way other than having a few others agree with me? No other circumstance where a person or persons have been "violated" in some way has warranted zero physical evidence, and relied on the word of the "victim". Hoaxers seem to rely on the courts' decision to view the claims as "accepted truth" far too much, which leads them to a inevitable waterfall of baseless claims. That mentality opens them up to gullibility.

In my experience, Revisionists rely on actual evidence (all 3 main types). You don't need to be a mathematician to add two and two. It's the hoaxers that will tell you two and two equal six, and all because someone told them so.

It's my opinion, the burden of proof has to rest on the original claimant.

I read a quote by Lipstadt here once:

Have we solved the problems of Holocaust denial? Of course not. We did provide precise explanations by following their footnotes. By tracking their sources we proved that what they said are lies and inventions. We didn't prove what happened, we proved that what they say happened did not happen. - http://www.jta.org/news/article/2009/04 ... h-lipstadt

Revisionists have proven many of the claims didn't happen the way the way they were laid out by the hoaxers, but nothing changes. The myth carries on. The standard held for Revisionists seems to be much higher for no apparent reason, while the standard for hoaxers appears to be missing.
Why the Holocaust Industry exists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A81P6YGw_c


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 13 guests