Nessie.. wrote:Hannover wrote:....... His claimed faith in so called 'survivors", and faith is what it is, I doubt he really believes them anyway, does not withstand scrutiny. Each of those that he cites are bizarre and contradictory in the extreme and Revisionists have shredded them all.
Truth does not matter to those like him.
The survivor testimony that I do believe is that which is corroborated by other evidence, which is the standard used in Scots Law. So a survivor witness who states the bodies at TII were exhumed and cremated is corroborated by the archaeological evidence of ash and cremains found at the site. A survivor witness who states they were selected to work on arriving at Birkenau and those not were lead away and never seen again is corroborated by Nazi admissions, photos of selections and the missing Jews. Both are then accepted as telling the truth.
Bizarre evidence such as repeated survival of gassings is not believed because of a lack of corroboration and the science which makes repeated exposure to poisonous gas not survivable. The contradictions are due to eye witness evidence being the least accurate in detail of all forms of evidence. Where none are contradictory is that the Nazis conducted mass murder of Jews and others they regarded as sub human.
So in the points they don't contradict each other completely (meaning they agree on certain points ), you deem them to be credible and truthful, despite the physical evidence not supporting the assertions. Is that right?
I guess there can be more then one reason why testimony of a number of people can agree on certain points. Do you know what they are?