the 'Convergence of Evidence' canard

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

the 'Convergence of Evidence' canard

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Dec 08, 2002 2:17 pm)

I have extracted this from a forthcoming piece by Paul Grubach entitled:
'On Holocaust Revisionism: Some Basic Arguments and the Political Implications'

This excerpt is a nice example of the absurdity of what the 'holocaust' Industry likes to call their 'convergence of evidence'. I prefer to call it 'garbage in, garbage out.' Have a look, comments invited.

- Hannover

Convergence of Evidence?: Proof of the Holocaust?

Any critique of the traditional view of the Holocaust must incorporate an analysis of the method by which historians attempt to prove it. It is called a 'convergence of evidence' - an ensemble of written documents, eyewitness testimony, photographs, the ruins of the surviving camps themselves, and population demographics that supposedly points to only one conclusion. Namely, the Nazis planned to exterminate all the Jews, gas chambers were used to implement this plan, and approximately 6 000 000 were murdered.

The following examples will illustrate to the reader how questionable 'convergence of evidence' proofs for the traditional view of the Holocaust really are. In their article on the Treblinka Concentration Camp, historian Mark Weber and attorney Andrew Allen collected six pieces of evidence that point to the conclusion that Jews and others were murdered in steam chambers at the site. Let us list each of them.

- According to an 'eyewitness' account received in November 1942 in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organisation, Jews were supposedly exterminated in death rooms with 'steam coming out of the numerous holes in the pipes'.

- In 1943 The New York Times published more 'eyewitness' testimony regarding the mass murder of Jews in the alleged Treblinka steam chambers. This account provided readers with essential details about the operation of these steam chambers.

- In The Black Book of Polish Jewry, a 1943 work sponsored by an array of respected dignitaries like Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt, the Treblinka steam story was again given in detail.

- Another book, Lest We Forget, published in New York in 1943 by the World Jewish Congress, describes how Jews were steamed to death and provides a diagram showing the location of the purported boiler room that produced the live steam.

- According to a 1944 'eyewitness' account compiled by the OSS, the principle US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka 'were in general killed by steam and not by gas as had been first suspected'.

- In 1945 the Polish government 'conclusively proved' the Germans operated these death chambers. They carried out 'an onsite, physical examination of the steam chambers', which was submitted by the Americans as an 'expert report' to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Here we have a convergence of evidence from six sources. The eyewitness testimony is substantiated by the onsite, hands-on investigation of the Polish authorities. This convergence of evidence is even better ....because it has an onsite, expert study of the murder weapon itself that 'conclusively proves' the existence of the steam chambers. Therefore, the Germans must have murdered people in steam chambers at Treblinka. Lo and behold, the pitfalls of such a conclusion!

Historians now tell us there were no steam chambers at Treblinka. The convergence of evidence that 'proves' their existence is entirely false. Over the years, the story changed and today it is alleged that Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated from captured Soviet diesel tank engines......

max
Member
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 5:11 am

Postby max » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Dec 08, 2002 3:18 pm)

Grubach is wrong. This is no convergence of evidence. What he 'overlooks' is the fact that his six sources are contradicted by the evidence obtained after 1945, at the various trials. However, the characteristic of converging evidence is that it is further supported by fresh evidence. In this case, however the exact opposite occured. The more evidence was obtained, the more evidence against steam chambers came to light, hence no convergence of evidence for steam chambers.

So the concept of Convergence of Evidence has again proven that it helps establishing historical facts accurately.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:42 pm)

Well yes, thanks for that.

Given that we have vast contradictions within this alleged 'evidence' you wish to accept after 1945 as fact, you thereby just shot down your own argument. And it appears Grubach is right on target since he uses the same technique that the 'holocaust' Industry does.

Please start a thread on what you consider "evidence" from these show trials after 1945. Please be specific and do not dodge questions. I await, eagerly.

- Hannover

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sun Dec 08, 2002 10:42 pm)

Max:
This is no convergence of evidence. What he 'overlooks' is the fact that his six sources are contradicted by the evidence obtained after 1945, at the various trials.


The Treblinka Trials in 1964/1965 and in 1970 in Düsseldorf Germany proofed actually nothing.
The poster is adviced to read about these trials in NS-Vernichtungslager im Spiegel Deutscher Strafprozesse (NS-Extermination camps in the Mirror of German Trials) by Adalber Rückert. The book is in German and can be purchased second hand.

Specifically about Treblinka the court accepted and believed any evidence brought against the defendents, whose only defence was do agree that these atrocities were committed but that they had nothing to do with it and they then received relatively light sentences or none at all. If they were stubborn and maintained that the alleged crimes were not true, did not happen, too bad: long term prison sentences.
The court did not find it necessary to check with a diesel engine design engineer about the exhaust fumes and their poison content.
Nor did they think it necessary to have the alleged Treblinka grave sites excavated to look for the remains of the remains of 700,000 or whatever bodies.

These court rulings are now widely used as "evidence" by many court historians and anti-revisionists.
Another fiasco was the Demjanjuk trial in Jerusalem. The poster is advised to read about it on the Ukrainian Archive site.
It is not the the responsibility of a judge or the lawyers to write history. Their job is to decide about guilt or innocence of an accused. The task of a judge is quite different from that of a historian.

So the concept of Convergence of Evidence has again proven that it helps establishing historical facts accurately.


The logic of the poster simply escapes me. :?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9768
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 5 years ago (Mon Jan 19, 2004 1:12 pm)

In regards to the inquiry about 'convergence of evidence'.
- H.
Convergence of evidence: a convergence of falsehood

by B. Renk

On the Original Convergence of Evidence: A Deliberate Falsehood

It is the contention of the Director of the Nizkor Project that a certain "convergence of evidence" exists with regard to descriptions of Holocaust allegations, and that such "convergence" serves to validate the contentions of Holocaust officialdom.

On May 6, 1945, the Report of the Soviet War Crimes Commission, which had investigated the Auschwitz concentration camp, was signed. The "Special State Commission" had concluded that "over 4 million people from the countries occupied by Germany were killed in Auschwitz, in most cases immediately after their arrival", and that "in Auschwitz camp, the Germans killed and burned 10,000-12,000 human beings daily, of whom 8,000-10,000 arrived by railway and were immediately killed, plus 2,000-3,000 camp inmates".(The Soviets had specifically referred to the testimonies of witnesses Tauber and Dragon in this regard). It is illegal to contest these claims in a number of Western democratic states today.

Further Convergence of Falsehood

As to the "veracity" of the statements amassed by the Soviet War Crimes Commission for its report (Nuremberg document USSR-008), there have been a number of additional testimonies to these claims cited in the major works of Holocaust history.
The testimonies of Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss, Filip Müller, Mylos Nyisli, the so-called Franke-Gricksch report, and other well-known witness statements all "converge" on ratifying the idea that 10,000 people could have been gassed and cremated every day at Auschwitz, and, as the Soviet Commission had extrapolated, 279,000 every month for a total of four million killed.

The Problem of the Witness Statements

No reputable historian today would write that four million people were killed at Auschwitz, just as no scholar or execution technology expert would write that it was physically possible to cremate 10,000 bodies daily in the crematoria of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Indeed, since it is now claimed that approximately one million people were killed and/or died at Auschwitz, as Israeli scholar Yehuda Bauer told the Jerusalem Post in 1989, anti-revisionist researcher Jean-Claude Pressac has argued that testimonies which "converge" on ratifying the Soviet figures (such as Nyisli's) must be divided by four or five to arrive at a true figure [!].

Unmasking the Fraudulence

Revisionist scholars have found that the President of the Special State Commission (N. Burdenko), who submitted the now-famous fraudulent report on the alleged German massacre of the Polish officers in the Katyn Forest (Nuremberg document USSR-54), was also a member of the Special Commission which created the Auschwitz report USSR-008. Burdenko did the best he could to convince the Nuremberg tribunal that the Polish officers were not murdered by the Soviet NKVD at Katyn, and his ability to assemble massively fraudulent testimonies were re-employed with regard to Auschwitz, as with his co-commissioner Nikolaus. Herein lies the key to the Auschwitz gassing claim: There is indeed a "convergence of evidence"-- evidence of falsehood.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests