Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

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: 9762
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Hannover » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:07 pm)

So called "holocaust' survivor statements can generally said to consist of contradictions, impossibilities, events which do not comport with the marketed storyline, assertions for which there is no proof, and down right laughable absurdities.

The lion's share of so called "holocaust survivors" claims are made in the media where they are published without question, outside of legitimate courts of law where cross examination would afford the opportunity to expose their fraudulence.

Of those claims actually made in person*, in courts of law (Nuremberg), we have repeatedly seen how easy it is to expose their foolishness. And in many cases challenges against the bizarre statements were essentially banned in those trials. Also note that verbatim texts from post Nuremberg trials held in Germany are predictably not available for review.

* Much "testimonial evidence" presented at Nuremberg was presented in the form of a typed affidavit, no actual person was available for questioning. Nonetheless, these affidavits still present the same problems for the 'holocaust' Industry.

Here we read about a vast array of problems in the use of anecdotal 'testimonies' which certainly apply to those of "holocaust survivors". It's one thing to describe someone as a "holocaust survivor", it's quite another to verify what they claim. Details, details.

Also, to describe someone as being a 'holocaust /death camp survivor' is in itself contradictory. The promoted narrative claims that 'the Germans wanted to kill every Jew they could get their hands'. Yet we have "survivors" coming out of the woodwork. Read on.

- Hannover

relevant excerpts from http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence

Testimonials and vivid anecdotes are one of the most popular and convincing forms of evidence presented for beliefs in the supernatural, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. Nevertheless, testimonials and anecdotes in such matters are of little value in establishing the probability of the claims they are put forth to support. Sincere and vivid accounts of one’s encounter with an angel or the Virgin Mary, an alien, a ghost, a Bigfoot, a child claiming to have lived before, purple auras around dying patients, a miraculous dowser, a levitating guru, or a psychic surgeon are of little value in establishing the reasonableness of believing in such matters.

Anecdotes are unreliable for various reasons. Stories are prone to contamination by beliefs, later experiences, feedback, selective attention to details, and so on. Most stories get distorted in the telling and the retelling. Events get exaggerated. Time sequences get confused. Details get muddled. Memories are imperfect and selective; they are often filled in after the fact. People misinterpret their experiences. Experiences are conditioned by biases, memories, and beliefs, so people's perceptions might not be accurate. Most people aren't expecting to be deceived, so they may not be aware of deceptions that others might engage in. Some people make up stories. Some stories are delusions. Sometimes events are inappropriately deemed psychic simply because they seem improbable when they might not be that improbable after all. In short, anecdotes are inherently problematic and are usually impossible to test for accuracy.

If such testimonials are scientifically worthless, why are they so popular and why are they so convincing? There are several reasons. Testimonials are often vivid and detailed, making them appear credible. They are often made by enthusiastic people who seem trustworthy and honest, and who lack any reason to deceive us. They are often made by people with some semblance of authority, such as those who hold a Ph.D. in psychology or physics. To some extent, testimonials are believable because people want to believe them. Often, one anticipates with hope some new treatment or instruction. One’s testimonial is given soon after the experience while one’s mood is still elevated from the desire for a positive outcome. The experience and the testimonial it elicits are given more significance than they deserve.

For many years I've repeated the skeptical mantras: 'the plural of anecdote is not data,' 'anecdotal evidence is unreliable,' and 'anecdotes are useful as a guide to what to study scientifically.' ....
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Thames Darwin
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Thames Darwin » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:55 pm)

Hannover wrote:Also, to describe someone as being a 'holocaust /death camp survivor' is in itself contradictory. The promoted narrative claims that 'the Germans wanted to kill every Jew they could get their hands'. Yet we have "survivors" coming out of the woodwork. Read on.


That's an absurd assertion. Presumably, the attackers on 9/11 wanted to kill everyone in the buildings. Nevertheless, people got out in time before the collapse. Hundreds (maybe thousands) survived the attack on the Pentagon. Does that mean the attack didn't happen?

The statement also represents complete ignorance of Third Reich labor policy during the war.

relevant excerpts from http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html
anecdotal (testimonial) evidence

For many years I've repeated the skeptical mantras: 'the plural of anecdote is not data,' 'anecdotal evidence is unreliable,' and 'anecdotes are useful as a guide to what to study scientifically.' ....


You left out the most important part, which follows immediately afterward:

For many years I've repeated the skeptical mantras: 'the plural of anecdote is not data,' 'anecdotal evidence is unreliable,' and 'anecdotes are useful as a guide to what to study scientifically.' My recent diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer has motivated me to reexamine my view on the value of anecdotal evidence or testimonials.


That strikes me as dishonest.

User avatar
Kingfisher
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1673
Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:55 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Kingfisher » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:50 pm)

What you posted there, Hannover is very good indeed, but the same guy (it appears to be a one-man site) also wrote this;
Holocaust denial

The mass extermination of the Jews and other “undesirables” at the hands of the Nazis during World War II is referred to as the Holocaust. It has become a symbol of evil in our time. Like many symbols, the Holocaust has become sacrosanct. To many people, both Jews and non-Jews, the Holocaust symbolizes the horror of genocide against the Jews. Some modern anti-Semites have found that attacking the Holocaust causes as much suffering to some Jews as attacking Jews themselves. “Holocaust denial” refers to attacking the accuracy of any aspect of the symbology or history of the Holocaust.

Holocaust denial seems to be the main motivation of the Institute for Historical Review and its Journal of Historical Review. Since 1980 this journal has been publishing articles attacking the accuracy of various claims about the Holocaust. There is clearly an agenda when a journal is devoted almost exclusively to the single issue of making the Holocaust seem like an exaggeration of biased historians. If truth and historical accuracy were the only goals of this group, it would be praised rather than despised. However, it seems that its promoters are more concerned with hatred than with truth. Thus, even the inaccuracies that they correctly identify are met with scorn and derision. For they never once deal with the central question of the Holocaust. They deal with details and technical issues: Were there six million or four million Jews who died or were killed? Could this particular shower have been used as a gas chamber? Were these deaths due to natural causes or not? Did Hitler issue a Final Solution order or not? If so, where is it? These are legitimate historical issues. However, the Holocaust deniers do not deal with the questions of racial laws that led to the arrest and imprisonment of millions of Jews in several countries for the “crime” of race. They do not concern themselves with the policy of herding people like animals and transporting them to “camps” where millions died of disease or malnutrition, or were murdered. They don’t address the moral issues of medical experimentation on humans or of persecution of homosexuals and the infirm. Why not?

Michael Shermer devotes two chapters of Why People Believe Weird Things (1997) to the arguments of the Holocaust deniers. (In Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? [2000] Shermer and coauthor Alex Grobman devote nine chapters to the subject.) Shermer takes up many of the deniers’ arguments and refutes them one by one. For example, one of the favorite appeals of the Holocaust deniers is to demand some proof that Hitler gave the order for the extermination of the Jews (or the mentally retarded, mentally ill, and physically handicapped). Holocaust deniers point to Himmler’s telephone notes of November 30, 1941, as proof that there was to be no liquidation of the Jews. The actual note says: “Jewish transport from Berlin. No liquidation.” Whatever the note meant, it did not mean that Hitler did not want the Jews liquidated. The transport in question, by the way, was liquidated that evening. In any case, if Hitler ordered no liquidation of the Berlin transport, then liquidation was going on and he knew about it. Hitler’s intentions were made public in his earliest speeches. Even as his regime was being destroyed, Hitler proclaimed: “Against the Jews I fought open-eyed and in view of the whole world. . . . I made it plain that they, this parasitic vermin in Europe, will be finally exterminated.” Hitler at one time compared the Jews to the tuberculosis bacilli that had infected Europe. It was not cruel to shoot them if they would not or could not work. He said: “This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so that they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts who wanted to bring Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?”

See also Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
http://skepdic.com/holocaustdenial.html

How he can reconcile the two is beyond my powers of comprehension. As also is how he can reconcile the above with this:

critical thinking

The goal of critical thinking is to arrive at the most reasonable beliefs and take the most reasonable actions. We have evolved, however, not to seek the truth, but to survive and reproduce. Critical thinking is an unnatural act. By nature, we're driven to confirm and defend our current beliefs, even to the point of irrationality. We are prone to reject evidence that conflicts with our beliefs and to attack those who offer such evidence.

http://skepdic.com/ticriticalthinking.html

A perfect description of his own behaviour in the above article.

Let's look at what I've marked in red above:
They do not concern themselves with the policy of herding people like animals and transporting them to “camps” where millions died of disease or malnutrition, or were murdered.

They don't concern themselves only in the sense that they don't dispute it. Any sane person will find it abhorrent, but like all acts of war it can only be judged in the context of the war. No sane person should think it acceptable to pour fire onto city centres, burning and suffocating tens of thousands alive at one time but you'll find plenty prepared to defend that.
They don’t address the moral issues of medical experimentation on humans or of persecution of homosexuals and the infirm. Why not?[
Why would they address the moral issue? It's obvious that what is described is abhorrent, but revisionist concern is with how much of it really happened. Most would say that some experimentation, some of it quite legitimate, took place but that most of the horror stories are unproven. The imprisonment of homosexuals was common practice nearly everywhere except France and the Euthanasia programme is not disputed.

This conflation of moral and factual issues is a typical Believer tactic for muddying the waters. The two aspects must be kept entirely separate. We cannot discuss the morality of what happened unless we first establish what that was. In any case, morality and war just don't go together. but if you are going to indulge in moral judgment you have to use the same measuring stick for all concerned.

As for the Hitler quote, I don't know its source or if it is genuine, but even if it is, it tells us nothing about what happened.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9762
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Hannover » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Feb 03, 2015 2:49 pm)

Indeed Kingfisher, that was the point. Yet another example of them being hoisted by their own petard. Hypocrisy galore, and not a shred of proof.

Will get back to Darwin later, busy now. Should be a riot.

sample:
"they killed every Jew they could get their hands on including infants, the elderly, and the sick"

- Pathways Through the Holocaust: An Oral History by Eye-Witnesses
By Clara Isaacman, p.20
- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9762
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Hannover » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Feb 03, 2015 6:21 pm)

Thames Darwin, you said:
That's an absurd assertion. Presumably, the attackers on 9/11 wanted to kill everyone in the buildings. Nevertheless, people got out in time before the collapse. Hundreds (maybe thousands) survived the attack on the Pentagon. Does that mean the attack didn't happen?

The statement also represents complete ignorance of Third Reich labor policy during the war.
An absurd comparison, my dear boy.
The 9/11 people never claimed to have been in so called "death camps" or claimed to have "witnessed" that for which there is no proof, where it's claimed that the Germans wanted to kill every Jew they could get their hands on, where it's claimed that all those unable to work (the young, the old, the ill) were killed upon arrival.
Of course, pile on the fact that most of the living "survivors" would have been in the too young category at the time of alleged events. Also note that at this forum there are endless examples of what "survivors" actually claim. Please avail yourself to their own words. Revisionists are just the messengers.
In German-occupied Europe during World War II, the killing center was a facility established exclusively or primarily for the assembly-line style mass murder of human beings. Those few prisoners who were selected to survive, temporarily, were deployed in some fashion in support of this primary function. The killing centers are sometimes referred to as "extermination camps" or "death camps."
source:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10007327

... the systematic attempt to murder every last Jew within the German grasp
source: Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, 2004, p. 424. Also cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution"
...they killed every Jew they could get their hands on including infants, the elderly, and the sick ...
source: Pathways Through the Holocaust: An Oral History by Eye-Witnesses
By Clara Isaacman, p.20
https://books.google.com/books?id=N99MC ... on&f=false

T. Darwin, you're apparently not even aware of the storyline you are trying defend.
You say they simply "got out in time" when in fact the real reason they supposedly 'got out in time' was because there never was a plan or and/or an effort to exterminate Jews in the first place. Yet we witness an endless lines of senile & delusional "survivors" with their tin cups in hand making embarrassing, impossible, and bizarre claims for reasons shown in my OP.

Third Reich labor policy was certainly different from the bogus & impossible 'systematic extermination of Jews', I know that, all Revisionists know that, so what?
Another crappy comparison by you and a poor attempt at deflection.

You said:
"You left out the most important part, which follows immediately afterward:
"For many years I've repeated the skeptical mantras: 'the plural of anecdote is not data,' 'anecdotal evidence is unreliable,' and 'anecdotes are useful as a guide to what to study scientifically.' My recent diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer has motivated me to reexamine my view on the value of anecdotal evidence or testimonials."

That strikes me as dishonest.
Hellooo, it strikes me that you didn't actually read, or perhaps understand what he said. Who's really being dishonest.
He's referring to pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer, not 'testimonials' that are filled with "contradictions, impossibilities, events which do not comport with the marketed storyline, assertions for which there is no proof, and down right laughable absurdities."
And in his case he saw a scientific basis to reeaxmine anedcdotal evidence, so what? That's definitely not the case whatsoever when scrutinizing the endless "survivors" claims. Revisionsts have 'studied scientifically' the "survivors" claims and they simply fall apart. As I said, "details, details".

Good to have you back.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby hermod » 4 years 4 months ago (Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:47 pm)

Kingfisher wrote:What you posted there, Hannover is very good indeed, but the same guy (it appears to be a one-man site) also wrote this;
Holocaust denial

They deal with details and technical issues: Were there six million or four million Jews who died or were killed? Were these deaths due to natural causes or not?


There is a "Lepenization" of Holocaust believers these days. That's what Jean-Marie Lepen's famous "detail" was about. Lepen didn't say that the death of 6 million Jews was a detail, as mainstream media often claim. He only said that he didn't know if the Nazi gas chambers were real or not and that several hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of Jews died together with dozens of millions of non-Jews during WW2. He added that the way all those people died at that time is a detail. I see that more and more Holocaust believers now say things such as "One Jew or 6 million, that doesn't matter" and "Gassed, starved to death or killed by diseases, that was a genocide" when attempting to save Israël's founding myth with only dubious 'evidence' and laughable horror tales at their disposal. Pathetic damage control.


However, the Holocaust deniers do not deal with the questions of racial laws that led to the arrest and imprisonment of millions of Jews in several countries for the “crime” of race. They do not concern themselves with the policy of herding people like animals and transporting them to “camps” where millions died of disease or malnutrition, or were murdered. They don’t address the moral issues of medical experimentation on humans or of persecution of homosexuals and the infirm. Why not?


Why would/should "Holocaust deniers" deal with that? Moral issues are not historical research.

Jews arrested, deported and held in camps? Complaint to be addressed to Chaim Weizmann, leader of the World Zionist Orgnaziation and Israël's first President, when he declared war on Nazi Germany in the name of all Jews. Roosevelt didn't wait for a similar declaration of war from the leaders of Japan before sending Americans of Japanese ancestry in U.S. concentration camps. And America had no lesson to teach about race and tolerance more than 20 years prior to the abolition of segregation toward U.S. negroes.

History in a vacuum as usually. There was a world war and numerous war-linked deaths. The emergence of titanic epidemics was just part of normal warfare at that time and in that part of the world. No evil Vernichtungslagers were needed to make typhus kill over 10 million people in Eastern Europe during the previous world war and the following years. One can't exclude that data from the WW2 equation.

And there is medical experimentation and medical experimentation. Almost everybody here knows that Mengele's pointless cruel experiments were just fictional fantasies told by liars and storytellers. There were medical experiments in concentration camps, but they were life-saving experiments due to the necessities of war: altitude (depression), cold, seawater, anti-typhus vaccine, etc. And the most dangerous medical experiments were performed on prisoners who had been sentenced to death and could escape death if they survived the experiment. Far from Uncle Sam's post-WW2 medical experiments on disabled people with radioactive meals....


Hitler at one time compared the Jews to the tuberculosis bacilli that had infected Europe. It was not cruel to shoot them if they would not or could not work. He said: “This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so that they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts who wanted to bring Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?”


Holocaust historians are fond of quoting Hitler’s statements to the Hungarian Head of State, Horthy:[23]

“In Poland this state of affairs has been cleared up: if the Jews there did not want to work, they were shot. If they could not work, they were treated like tuberculosis bacilli with which a healthy body may become infected. This is not cruel if one remembers that even innocent creatures of nature, such as hares and deer when infected, have to be killed so they cannot damage others. Why should the beasts that wanted to bring us Bolshevism be spared more than these innocents?”

These same Holocaust historians usually conveniently fail to quote what Hitler told Horthy the previous day. Horthy protested, “But they [the Jews] can hardly be murdered or otherwise eliminated.” Hitler responded, “There is no need for that.”[24]

http://codoh.com/library/document/1805/
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

Thames Darwin
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55 pm

A Treatise on Evidence

Postby Thames Darwin » 4 years 4 months ago (Wed Feb 04, 2015 12:42 am)

[This post was merged into this thread so that it's points / responses could more easily be compared to previous points / responses. M1]

This response is necessarily going to have to be long, so I'm posting it in its own thread. I apologize in advance for the length. The referenced thread to which I'm responding is here:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9238

FIRST, on my original comparison to 9/11. I was responding to what I had thought was Hannover's assertion that a genocide -- or perhaps an intended genocide -- was impossible because there were survivors. My point here was to indicate that the mere existence of survivors proves nothing about intent. But to stay here for a moment, there are accounts from survivors of events on 9/11 that have not been proved and for which there is no evidence, e.g., secondary explosions in the trade centers after they were hit but before collapse, these allegedly occurring multiple stories below the points of impact (in at least one case, situated in the elevator lobby). There is no reasonable explanation, nor any proof, beyond the testimony, for these explosions. They are assumed by most experts not to have happened.

SECOND is this matter of multiple claims of German intent to exterminate all Jews in Europe. Unsurprisingly, I hold that this assumption is true. However, I think that it's been heavily oversimplified in its presentation by many well-meaning people. Here multiple sub-points must be made.

(1) While there are some historians who maintained, and a smaller number who continue to maintain, that the Nazis always intended to murder Europe's Jews, this has always been a poorly substantiated theory that was never borne out by the weight of the evidence. As some of you reading this might be aware, this was the thrust of the intentionalist vs. functionalist debate. Indeed, what the evidence has borne out is the functionalist argument, put forth by Hilberg first and foremost in English-language scholarship, i.e., that Nazi policy vis-à-vis Europe's Jews only became essentially murderous by the summer of 1941 at the absolute earliest. Even a large number of the intentionalists ultimately concede that position. The position of extreme intentionalists (in English-language scholarship, Davidowicz and Goldhagen, e.g.) is (rightly, in my opinion) virtually ignored by the vast majority of experts on the topic, as is the position of the extreme functionalists (in English, again, Arno Meyer comes to mind as an example). The historians on whom I rely (on this, more below) are functionalists, as I think the evidence increasingly bears out.*

(2) Given (1), any claim about Nazi policy regarding Europe's Jews is going to have to be considered within the historical context of the frequently changing nature of that policy. So perhaps it's surprising for some of you to read that it's only a minority of the period between 1939 and 1945 that the Nazis could fairly be said to "want to kill every Jew they lay their hands on," and even in the places where that policy could be considered true, it might be true in one place and not another.

(3) Turning now to the sources cited by Hannover:



This particular Web page concerns only the death camps, i.e., the six camps in Poland with which I assume you are all familiar. Ergo, the claim as given is what I would call "mostly true." Certainly, I consider it true for the Reinhard camps and for Chelmno. I do not consider it true for Auschwitz and, if possible, even less true for Majdanek. E.g., the periods during which Jews deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau were killed on arrival was quite brief, particularly given the length of time during which that particular camp was open -- essentially parts of 1942 is the only significant period during which that particular style of treatment applied consistently. I can elaborate on this point more elsewhere or in response to specific questions, but this is the short version of why some children deported to Auschwitz survived.

source: Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, 2004, p. 424. Also cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution


Browning's work is absolutely essential to understanding the point of view most widely accepted and best supported today. Most importantly, the quote as given is incomplete without its context. Browning is saying that the policy applied became killing of all Jews between 1939 and the fall of 1941. This is the focus of this particular book. Browning is perfectly aware of how and why Nazi Jewish policy changed during and after 1942, nor is he ignorant to the fact that a large number of Jews were nevertheless spared and/or allocated to labor between the fall of 1941 and the end of Aktion Reinhard, when he establishes that the Nazi régime was at its most murderous.

source: Pathways Through the Holocaust: An Oral History by Eye-Witnesses
By Clara Isaacman, p.20
https://books.google.com/books?id=N99MC ... on&f=false


Again, as in the case from the USHMM Web site, the specific case discussed here is the death camps. To be fair, as I've already noted, this assertion by Isaacman is only true for certain camps and, at Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek, certain periods. That said, I've never heard of Clara Isaacman before and I haven't read her book, so I don't know anything about her methods, her credentials, her reliability, etc. A quick Google search reveals she was in a concentration camp during WWII.

Finally, to this assertion of Hannover's -- "you're apparently not even aware of the storyline you are trying defend" -- I find this a bit ironic. Most of the criticisms of Holocaust history that I hear from self-styled revisionists have nothing to do with the prevailing historical understanding of the period at all; in fact, it is they who rely too much on the "marketed storyline." The majority of revisionists seem to believe a sort of popular culture version of the events and have engaged in no real reading of any of the core historical studies or historians of the period. Rare is the revisionist who has even read Hilberg, much less Browning. As such, they are woefully ignorant of the period, historically speaking.

THIRD, there is the matter of the testimony itself and the role it plays in developing an historical understanding of the period. This also requires a nuanced approach, as follows.

(1) First, is should be understood that all historians of any caliber know that eyewitness testimony is the single least reliable form of evidence that exists, which is why no responsible historian ever relies on it alone. Rather, historians rely on corroboration to determine what testimony, if any, should be considered seriously and what should be discarded as wholly worthless. This corroboration comes in two varieties, which we could call internal and external corroboration. The former would be examining testimonies to see where they agree in the main. The latter would be examining testimonies in the light of other forms of evidence (documents, scientific evidence, etc.).

(2) Second, the job of the historian is not only to determine which pieces of evidence are reliable or not reliable and/or which to ignore or treat seriously. Rather, it is a core function of the historian to provide a narrative of events that accounts for the evidence, explaining how each individual source elucidates that narrative and conceding where the events are unclear or the sources tenuous. This is something that wasn't really established in English until Reitlinger, followed by Hilberg. I have yet to see a single revisionist do this. (3) Third, there is the frequent revisionist criticisms of "orthodox historians" that "they can't keep their stories straight." Again, I would submit that this is a gross misunderstanding of how history works. There are several reasons why the accounts of an historical event or series of events would change over time, and the Holocaust is no different. Where Hilberg's version differs from Reitlinger's, e.g., has to do both with their individual methodologies, as well as (I'd argue, more importantly) the sources used by them. Here we engage the matter of archives. A key matter playing a role in the evolution of the history of the Holocaust has been the availability of archives in different places in time. Perhaps the best-known example was the opening after 1991 of the Soviet archives. Unsurprisingly, what we know about the Holocaust in the Soviet Union has changed enormously since the 1990s for precisely this reason. If there has been a greater emphasis on the Einsatzgruppen since that time, it's because the Einsatzgruppen operated overwhelmingly in the Soviet Union, and access to Soviet archives was severely limited before that point.

(4) Bringing this finally back around to eyewitnesses, a series of discussions in this forum over the reported colors of corpses in the Reinhard camps serves as a good example. Some reported they were yellow, some that they were blue, etc. So what we don't have is reliable eyewitness testimony on the color of the bodies. What we do have agreement on is that there were bodies. Similarly, we have disagreement on the dimensions of the gas chamber or on the number (six or eight) at a specific camp; what we don't have disagreement about among the eyewitnesses is that there were, in fact, gas chambers. That's internal corroboration. Another example of internal corroboration, relying solely on eyewitness testimony, is the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau (a bit of a hobby horse of mine). The amount of internal corroboration that there were gas chambers in the crematoria buildings is simply enormous -- in the dozens, including former perpetrators, witnesses, and bystanders. But there's also external corroboration in this particular case -- albeit not much -- in the form of documents (a large number thanks to the work of Pressac) and scientific investigation. It provides a narrative by which we can understand the specific history of that camp and what went on there. As time has gone on, we've learned more about events there; for instance, we've learned that the number of Hungarian Jews who died there was less than originally believed, in part because a much larger number of deportees from the middle of 1944 were apportioned to labor. Therefore, the story changes not because we "can't keep it straight" but because historians working in archives have found sufficient evidence to make a specific case.

FINALLY, we can return to my remarks on the essay here:

http://www.skepdic.com/testimon.html

My take on the addendum differed from Hannover's, unsurprisingly. First, I have been reading medical literature for a living for the last decade, so I get where the writer is coming from and I understand why the sort of evidence that would constitute the best possible evidence from a medical standpoint (a double-blind, randomly and prospectively enrolled, placebo-controlled trial -- commonly called an RCT [randomized, controlled trial]) is lacking in virtually all oncology cases. Thus, case studies (i.e., anecdotal evidence) forms a core part of how oncology drugs come to be used. There are not the only type of evidence, however. While double-blind RCTs are not possible in oncology, open-label trials for nonresponders to approved treatments are available, as well as animal studies. In fact, it's on the basis of the former (open-label trials) that many oncology drugs are approved because RCTs aren't possible. One of the drugs referred to in the article is one I know a lot about -- bevacizumab. This drug was approved first for colon cancer on the basis of open-label trials. It was then used off-label for patients with other cancers that were nonresponsive to approved treatments, yielding case studies, and on this basis, open-label trials were launched. On this basis, bevacizumab has received approvals to treat other forms of cancer.

So my conclusion about the article is that what the author is saying is that not only is it true (as he had always conceded) that eyewitness testimony provides a basis for scientific investigation, but also that when the best possible evidence for something does not exist or is not possible (RCTs), very good, very reliable conclusions can be drawn on the basis of less reliable forms of evidence (case studies and open-label trials).

Note, by the way, that if either case studies or open-label trials had proved ineffective, then no conclusions would be drawn about the efficacy of these drugs, and they would never be approved for any indications whatsoever. In addition, corroboration of animal studies is always necessary -- no drug is ever tested in humans without having shown efficacy and safety in animals first.

The analogy back to the Holocaust is this: The best possible evidence we could have would be a video recording of the events in question, but no such recording exists. As such, we must rely on less reliable forms of evidence, including the least reliable source of all, e.g., eyewitness testimony. In doing so, we move ahead only with caution. We throw out what, among the eyewitness testimony, is in clear disagreement with the vast majority of the testimony. In addition, we reject any detail that is not borne out by or that is disproved by other forms of evidence.

I hope I've made the points I tried to make here. I'm happy to answer questions.

=======

* Just a side note: Readers ought not think that I believe that policies preceding the summer of 1941, i.e., deportation eastward, relocation to Madagascar or Nisko, ghettoization, or encampment, were not fundamentally murderous. I do believe these policies amounted to dumping Jews in places until they starved or were worn out from labor. No version of the Madagascar plan, e.g., involves provisioning the Jews to be sent there once they'd been moved.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby borjastick » 4 years 4 months ago (Wed Feb 04, 2015 8:21 am)

I can see where Thames Darwin is coming from: he clearly suggests that as self styled revisionists we are therefore not legitimate historians and thus have no credibility at all and should be dismissed accordingly.

Further because he has read books by Browning, which most people have not, that makes his viewpoint somehow more important and worthy than all the books and documents (thousands of pages BTW) that I have read

He accepts, as do we, that there were bodies in the Reinhardt camps. The difference is that he then makes the leap that those bodies confirm the presence of gas chambers and the intent from within the Nazi hierarchy to extinguish all jews they could get their hands on. He conveniently skips the red colour issue.

He is happy to accept eyewitness claims because they are somehow approved by his 'historians' who write of similar events. Well guess what there are many people in the US who are absolutely certain they have seen UFOs and many who are totally sure they were abducted by aliens...

He seems to dismiss the fact that most if not all revisionists, the self styled worthless ones like me of course, who have read masses of the official story and were taught all about it at school and who then saw a different path that has led to the truth, that there were no gas chambers used for mass murder, no intent to kill all the jews of europe, no scientific evidence to back these claims up and wait for it, no remains and proof of millions of bodies as claimed at Treblinka, Auschwitz etc.

But of course I have no skin in the game because he thinks I am a numbskull who has zero credibility and am led by my extreme right wing, neo Nazi beliefs. On the other hand his far left Marxist establishment academic historians like Terry are totally wonderful and we should hang on their every word.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9762
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Hannover » 4 years 4 months ago (Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:46 am)

Thames Darwin want's to mix apples with oranges. As I said those who survived 9/11, real survivors, do not claim to have survived a situation where they should not have survived. They do not make claims which defy laws of science, they do not make claims which contradict what other 9/11 survivors claim, which IS the case of the bogus 'holocaust' survivors.

Thames Darwin's bringing in the "intentionalist vs. functionalist" debate does nothing but demonstrate that those who market the '6M & gas chambers' can't keep their stories straight, the internal contradictions are a result of promoting a big lie which cannot be substantiated by physical evidence or real German documents, both of which have been discussed repeatedly at this forum.

In regards to:
"In German-occupied Europe during World War II, the killing center was a facility established exclusively or primarily for the assembly-line style mass murder of human beings. Those few prisoners who were selected to survive, temporarily, were deployed in some fashion in support of this primary function. The killing centers are sometimes referred to as "extermination camps" or "death camps."
source:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php ... d=10007327
Darwin says: "Ergo, the claim as given is what I would call "mostly true."
Say what? I mean that is just another instance of the contradictory nature of those who attempt to defend the 'holocaust' storyline. It's become comedic. They use different excuses depending on the need, upon the desperate situation they find themselves.

In addressing:
... the systematic attempt to murder every last Jew within the German grasp

source: Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution, 2004, p. 424. Also cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution"
Thames Darwin essentially says Browning knows better but says it anyway. Hellooo. Again more contradictions inherent in attempting to defend an impossible storyline. No other 'historical fact' has to jump through so many hoops in an attempt to smooth over the contradictions and utter scientific impossibilities of it's claims. No other 'historical fact' is so filled with excuses, rationalizations, and glaring red flags.

And in response to:
...they killed every Jew they could get their hands on including infants, the elderly, and the sick ...

source: Pathways Through the Holocaust: An Oral History by Eye-Witnesses
By Clara Isaacman, p.20
Darwin says it was only true for certain camps for certain periods, but that is not what the US 'holocaust' Museum actually said nor what Clara Issacman says. Even those excuses fail to absolve the absurd impossibility of there being hundreds of thousands of "survivors", many who in fact claim they were at those specific camps during those specific periods. Thames Darwin uses as an excuse while the references I have given did not make such excuses. Once again, trying to defend the impossible always present problems which cannot be explained away.

Thames Darwin says Revisionists have not read the likes of Browning or Hilberg, that is simply wrong. I have read them as have the all the Revisionist researchers as indicated by their copious citations of the Brownings & Hilbergs found within Revisionist publications. Thames Darwin is grasping at straws in an attempt discredit those whom he cannot refute.

He says:
the job of the historian is not only to determine which pieces of evidence are reliable or not reliable and/or which to ignore or treat seriously. Rather, it is a core function of the historian to provide a narrative of events that accounts for the evidence, explaining how each individual source elucidates that narrative and conceding where the events are unclear or the sources tenuous.
When in fact his so called "historians" have presented no factual scientific or physical proof that their "evidence" is reliable in the least, in spite of Andrew Mathis's verbose convoluted pleading.

I call on Andrew Mathis (who has let it be known here that he is Thames Darwin), in separate threads, in his words:

- Tell us how the alleged 'cyanide gas chambers' of Auschwitz-Birkenau actually worked.

- Actually show us the alleged enormous mass graves said to contain millions upon millions of Jew corpses. We want to actually see them, see verified forensic excavations.

This is too easy.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Thames Darwin
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:55 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Thames Darwin » 4 years 4 months ago (Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:14 am)

I think anyone who read what I posted carefully can see that Hannover is representing it as it was intended. Or perhaps not. That's not my concern. As I see it, we come down to two issues:

(1) Is variation in the history of an event an indication of serious flaws in the historiography?

(2) On what evidence does the historiography of the Holocaust rely?

I've made it clear my position is (1) is that it isn't an indication of anything other than varying opinions over the details of what happened. The "orthodox" historians don't doubt that millions of Jews were murdered by the Nazis, that gas chambers were among the methods used, and that at some point, the process became deliberate. Where the debate among these historians lies is primarily on the third point (when did it become deliberate); none debate the existence of gas chambers, and few at this point dicker over the numbers, with most suggesting a range between five and six millionl.

On (2), as I hope I've made clear, I'm happy to debate these points in intricate detail, but not in this forum.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9762
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby Hannover » 4 years 4 months ago (Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:04 pm)

Andrew Mathis's orthodox "historians" are part of the unethical yet profitable 'holocaust' Industry, they are not unbiased sources of information. Revisionist have pointed this out repeatedly. Revisionists have demonstrated repeatedly and precisely how this these "historians" are liars and frauds*. Asking these bogus "historians" to be honest is like asking a band of crooks to come clean and admit to their despicable behavior, to admit their lying.

* search Hilberg or Browning at this forum and see for yourself

In support of these shysters is a Jewish supremacist dominated media and publishing industry that repeats their nonsense without ever fact checking it. That's been the work of Revisionists, we check their work to a 'T' and it is found to be what it is, lie after easily debunked lie. It's just not that difficult.

Andrew Mathis / Thames Darwin is afraid to debate his claim to fame at this forum because he knows he has no chance in a fair fight. He cannot dodge the tough questions, he cannot deflect and obfuscate like he can and does at other forums. He knows his positions will not hold up here, there are bullshit detectors at this forum.

In the past Mathis has debated here with results not to his liking, his problem. Not a single point that he has ever raised in defense of his position has been censored at this forum and he cannot show us otherwise, he's simply making excuses.

For marketers of the standard 'holocaust' storyline the results will always be the same when they debate informed Revisionists, utter defeat. They know it and hence we see anti free speech laws, we have arrests of Revisionists, we have persecution of Revisionists, we have violence against Revisionists, we have those who want to deny a living to Revisionists, but Revisionists have the truth and are not going away.

- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
The Internet is demolishing the false narrative promoted by arrogant Jewish supremacists. From the slaughter of the Palestinians to the lies of Auschwitz the world is recognizing the dangers of Jewish supremacism.
The tide is turning.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
borjastick
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2442
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
Location: Europe

Re: Anecdotal evidence & "holocaust survivors"

Postby borjastick » 4 years 4 months ago (Sat Feb 07, 2015 4:24 am)

I wonder why people like Thames Darwin won't come here and debate. Yes I wonder why. I'm thinking hard and still wondering, yes still thinking and haven't got the answer yet...

Aha, got it now.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'

'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 2 guests