Witness Statistics

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
mdmguyon
Member
Member
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:44 pm

Witness Statistics

Postby mdmguyon » 7 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:22 pm)

Has anyone ever taken every person who claims they were a witness to the Holocaust and compiled statistics on them? How many say they saw people killed in gas chambers? How many say they believe people were killed in gas chambers but never saw it? How many say they don't believe anyone was killed in gas chambers?

Another project I'm interested in is determining if there is any order or sense to the Nazis' statements about extermination. My impression is that schizophrenia is the only explanation, since so many quotes refer to the final solution as evacuation and so many speak of the desire to kill all Jews. Has anyone ever taken all of these statements and shown a pattern to them which can rule out one intent or the other or rule out the theory that their original intent was to evacuate them but, when they started losing the war, they chose to kill them since they couldn't evacuate them?

Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Breker » 7 years 9 months ago (Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:29 pm)

An excellent inquiry.
I believe that Germar Rudolf did some of this, perhaps Samuel Crowell too, especially when it came to those who said they were eyewitnesses to gassings. As I recall, and as expected, these stories were so contradictory as to be humorous. You might have some success by looking at the Revisionist Library at http://www.codoh.com. Maybe by keyword searching it would come up. I'll check into it with you.
You might also enjoy reading Henri Roques compelling work on the multiple and conflicting 'confessions' of SS officer Kurt Gerstein that are frequently cited as 'proof of gas chambers'. It is truly devastating to the propaganda.
review - http://vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/10/2/Dibert223-227.html
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

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

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hans » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:01 am)

Has anyone ever taken every person who claims they were a witness to the Holocaust and compiled statistics on them? How many say they saw people killed in gas chambers? How many say they believe people were killed in gas chambers but never saw it? How many say they don't believe anyone was killed in gas chambers?


Indeed an excellent inquiry, but do not expect Revisionists to have touched the issue.

For homicidal gassings in Auschwitz, a statistical survey on the testimonial evidence from the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial can be found here:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... kfurt.html

Image

Image

Extract:
Summary

At the first Frankfurt Auschwitz trial and at its pre-trial interrogations, the vast majority of witnesses, who were questioned on the issue, testified affirmative on homicidal gassings in Auschwitz. Only an insignificant number of witnesses testified they had no knowledge and zero witnesses testified negative on homicidal gassings. This result is the worst case scenario for Revisionism and does not provide evidence to doubt that homicidal gassings were carried out in Auschwitz.

SKcz
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:17 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby SKcz » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:58 am)

Hans wrote:Only an insignificant number of witnesses testified they had no knowledge and zero witnesses testified negative on homicidal gassings. This result is the worst case scenario for Revisionism and does not provide evidence to doubt that homicidal gassings were carried out in Auschwitz.


Hans, your claims are one of the most interesting here and so are the claims from your source, you can for sure answer my simple question which is better than to dissect your source.

During this trial, they just introduced some randomly chosen alleged witnesses without knowledge of what these witnesses are going to say, or they chosed witnesses with knowledge of what they are going to say? Consider it as challenge of course.

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Zulu » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:19 am)

SKcz wrote:
Hans wrote:Only an insignificant number of witnesses testified they had no knowledge and zero witnesses testified negative on homicidal gassings. This result is the worst case scenario for Revisionism and does not provide evidence to doubt that homicidal gassings were carried out in Auschwitz.


Hans, your claims are one of the most interesting here and so are the claims from your source, you can for sure answer my simple question which is better than to dissect your source.

During this trial, they just introduced some randomly chosen alleged witnesses without knowledge of what these witnesses are going to say, or they chosed witnesses with knowledge of what they are going to say? Consider it as challenge of course.


What did they make with those 313,213 affidavits collected for the defense and deliberately ignored by the judges?

Excerpt of Colonel Neave Report

When the time limit for affidavits was reached on August 5th, the total number of collective affidavits submitted was 313,213.

The total for each organization was as follows:

Political Leaders..155,000
SS....................136,213
SD.......................7,000
Gestapo................2,000
SA......................10,000
General Staff..........3,000

.../

We come now to the question of knowledge of criminal activities on the part of the members. Mr. Justice Jackson has stated that the nature of the criminal aims and methods must be such that they "generally" known. This is substantially
the wording of the order which includes the expression "open and notorious". Similarly Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe has said "The nature of the criminal aims or methods must have been such that a reasonable person must have had knowledge of the purposes pursued by the organizations which he joined, i.e., he must have known what kind of an organization it was."

Here again the Commissioners considered it their duty to try and limit the evidence to what appeared to have been the general situation in Germany at the time.

The Prosecution has frequently alleged that the "whole world" knew about these crimes and so why did not the members?

This was attacked by the Defense as being entirely untrue. It is their claim that under the HITLER regime the reading of foreign, newspapers or listening to foreign broadcasts was prohibited except for a very small circle of officials of the Government. In consequence it was impossible for the average person to have knowledge of such atrocities even though they were being published all over the world.

...

This suppression of information by the GESTAPO and other organizations played some part in the evidence regarding the extermination of the Jews. Where it could be shown that the GESTAPO deliberately prevented information from reaching any large number of members of the population this was considered relevant. A mere statement, however, by a witness who asked the GESTAPO for information as to whether the atrocities alleged in Auschwitz were actually occurring and received a negative answer, was declared inadmissible. There appeared to be no evidence that this information was passed on to the public as a
whole, nor in this particular case, did it appear to relate to the organization (the SS) for which he had sworn an affidavit.

For the same reason evidence by a witness that his own brother had been an inmate of Belsen concentration camp and told him that there were no atrocities going on, was declared irrelevant to the question of whether the atrocities were generally known to
the SS Similarly, evidence was also declared irrelevant which relates only to the guilt or innocence of a particular person.

The summary of evidence which follows will perhaps serve to illustrate further problems concerning the Order of March 13th that have arisen during the hearings.


Colonel Neave Report
Final Report on the Evidence of Witnesses for the Defense of Organizations Alleged to be Criminal, Heard Before a Commission Appointed by the Tribunal Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Order of the 13th of March, 1946.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9913
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hannover » 7 years 9 months ago (Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:30 pm)

Zulu stated:
What did they make with those 313,213 affidavits collected for the defense and deliberately ignored by the judges?

That's just the tip of the iceberg concerning the post war trials and treatment of Germans.

Hans, agrees that we have an excellent inquiry. Yet he posts information that is supposedly serious about The Franfurt Auschwitz trial where what's called 'judicial notice' was asserted. Courts use this to prevent such silly arguments about whether the sky is blue or whether there is water in oceans, etc.

However, in this case it meant the court (which had no scientific forensic reports on the alleged murder weapon, except for the actual claim and report of steam chambers from the communist Soviets) accepted as fact the absurd 'gas chambers' without a study of the alleged murder weapon. Any defense by a German in that trial or any post war trial for that matter was virtually impossible if he wanted a small chance of avoiding death by hanging.

For those post war trials there are no verbatim transcripts available, no complete cross examination records, IOW, they were Show Trials in the grand style of the Communists. 'Confessions? What a joke.
Hans tactic is the classic 'garbage in, garbage out'. But remember, this is the so called 'holocaust' where rules of jurisprudence, rules for acceptance of evidence are ignored. Hans prefers that facts be ignored. His conjured pie charts are laughable when the facts are known.

Please see the links below where you will gain insight into these Show Trials, little beauties like:
Texas Supreme Court Judge Gordon Simpson confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49.

That's just warm-up, read on:

getting the desired 'confession'....via torture
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1121&p=6931

False Confessions
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6229&p=44610

fact: Torture used to get 'confessions' from Germans
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5552&p=36708

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

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Mkk » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:14 am)

"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hektor » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:02 am)

SKcz wrote:Hans, your claims are one of the most interesting here and so are the claims from your source, you can for sure answer my simple question which is better than to dissect your source.

During this trial, they just introduced some randomly chosen alleged witnesses without knowledge of what these witnesses are going to say, or they chosed witnesses with knowledge of what they are going to say? Consider it as challenge of course.

Indeed an excellent inquiry, but do not expect Hans to have touched the issue.

It would also be interesting to see how many of the witnesses came from Eastern Europe and where pre-selected by the government and/or were coached by any of the myriad of Jewish organisations that had a stake in the issue.

I also think the initial use of the word "witness" creates a bit confusion, as that can lead to circular reasoning. A better wording would be Holocaust survivors or former camp inmates that have claimed to witness homicidal gassings.

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

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hans » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:02 pm)

SKcz wrote:During this trial, they just introduced some randomly chosen alleged witnesses without knowledge of what these witnesses are going to say, or they chosed witnesses with knowledge of what they are going to say? Consider it as challenge of course.


As in any trial, the witnesses were not randomly chosen from the population, but selected from the prosecution and defense to provide testimony on aspects related to the charges against the defendants. There is nothing in the files of the trial which would indicate that the witnesses were screened whether they confirmed or not homicidal gassings and excluded in the latter case, if this is what you are trying to tell us. But even if this were true, it would not explain the huge amount of affirmative testimonies if there were no homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.

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

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hans » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:12 pm)

Hektor wrote:It would also be interesting to see how many of the witnesses came from Eastern Europe and where pre-selected by the government and/or were coached by any of the myriad of Jewish organisations that had a stake in the issue.



Even if we were ignoring witnesses from Eastern Europe, you are not qualitatively changing the result. With your little trick, you are not getting rid of the 61 affirmative testimonies of SS personnel as well as the non-eastern European former prisoners (I can count them for you if you wish).
Last edited by Hans on Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hans » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:20 pm)

Hannover wrote:However, in this case it meant the court (which had no scientific forensic reports on the alleged murder weapon, except for the actual claim and report of steam chambers from the communist Soviets) accepted as fact the absurd 'gas chambers' without a study of the alleged murder weapon. Any defense by a German in that trial or any post war trial for that matter was virtually impossible if he wanted a small chance of avoiding death by hanging.


a) There was no death sentence in West-Germany.

b) The defense could have shown that the gassings are a hoax and the prosecution would have to drop a large part of the charge. Disproving gassings would have been a ticket out of the accusations for most defendants and they could have expected a verdict of not guilty.

For those post war trials there are no verbatim transcripts available, no complete cross examination records, IOW, they were Show Trials in the grand style of the Communists. 'Confessions? What a joke.


The verbatim transcripts of most sessions of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial are available for some years already. In fact, I did provide the testimonies on homicidal gassings for each witness in my blog article, including the source. You did not read it, I guess.

Even Mattogno has started now to use some of the testimonies in the new editions of his books. So do not tell us the records do not exist or are not available when everybody can buy them for little money:

http://www.amazon.de/Digitale-Bibliothe ... 898535010/

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Zulu » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:19 pm)

Hans wrote:
SKcz wrote:During this trial, they just introduced some randomly chosen alleged witnesses without knowledge of what these witnesses are going to say, or they chosed witnesses with knowledge of what they are going to say? Consider it as challenge of course.


As in any trial, the witnesses were not randomly chosen from the population, but selected from the prosecution and defense to provide testimony on aspects related to the charges against the defendants. There is nothing in the files of the trial which would indicate that the witnesses were screened whether they confirmed or not homicidal gassings and excluded in the latter case, if this is what you are trying to tell us. But even if this were true, it would not explain the huge amount of affirmative testimonies if there were no homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.

Of course. We are invariably told by exterminationists that "witnesses" are that numerous. Now, in such situation, one could find very surprising that ANY OF THEM was found in order to testify against Zundel in his 2nd trial in Toronto in 1988. Maybe, they were a little bit afraid after seeing the treatment administrated to Rudolf Vrba and Arnold Friedman by Mr. Christie during the 1st trial in 1985. NO EYEWITNESS of "murder gassing operation" exists who would resist a serious cross examination a la Faurisson. Actually, no so called "eyewitness" was ever presented against Faurisson at his numerous trials sued by the usual French Jewish Organizations.

Mkk
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:00 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Mkk » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:27 pm)

But even if this were true, it would not explain the huge amount of affirmative testimonies if there were no homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.

You could say the same thing about the witch trials.
"Truth is hate for those who hate the truth"- Auchwitz lies, p.13

neugierig
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 7:01 pm

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby neugierig » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 2:23 pm)

The following is from the Frankfurt verdict of August 19/20, 1965. It appeared in IDGR, information service against right wing extremism, roughly translated. The site is gone, it was claimed that the info was used by “deniers”. Go figure, all I have is a copy. Concerning evidence we read:

“Bei der Feststellung der individuellen Beteiligung der Angeklagten an den in dem Konzentrationslager Auschwitz begangenen Mordtaten, sei es an Massenmorden, sei es an Einzeltötungen, sah sich das Schwurgericht vor ausserordentlich schwierige Aufgaben gestellt. Die Angeklagten selbst trugen zur Aufklärung nur sehr wenig bei. Soweit sie eine Beteiligung zugaben, schwächten sie diese ab, stellten sie verzerrt dar oder hatten stets eine Reihe von Ausreden zur Hand.
Die wenigen zur Verfügung stehenden Urkunden dienten im wesentlichen nur der Aufklärung allgemeiner Dinge, konnten jedoch über die individuelle Schuld der Angeklagten kaum Aufschluss geben.
Das Gericht war somit bei der Aufklärung der von den Angeklagten begangenen Verbrechen fast ausschliesslich auf Zeugenaussagen angewiesen.“


My very rough translation: “The court had great difficulties in determining participation by the accused in crimes, be it single murders or mass murders. The accused refused to help. If they admitted to anything they downplayed their participation, or had excuses at the ready. The few available documents were only useful in a general way, but not to determine if the accused were guilty. Thus the court had to depend almost exclusively on witness testimony.”

Why would an accused have to help the court in determining his guilt? As for the “witnesses”, defense counsel Dr. Laternser, who had already participated in the IMT fraud, made a list of issues re. the “witnesses”, just a few exerts:

Most of them came from communist countries, Poland mainly. Who picked them? Were they subjected to programming before being allowed to travel to the west? Were they influenced when arriving in Frankfurt? Laternser proves that pamphlets were distributed telling the “Auschwitz story”, including pictures of the accused and what they allegedly participated in.

Impossible to list it all but this Frankfurt “trial” was just another show trial, as already mentioned by Hannover, no evidence was submitted, no reports compiled by experts in the field of criminal investigations, nothing, just the usual “witnesses”. But before I forget, the audience was prepared, the shysters Brozsat and Krausnick told horror stories when the sham started, termed “Expert analysis”, talking about “...die Entwicklung der nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager“ (the process of establishing the concentration camps”and “...SS und Polizei im NS-Staat“ (the SS and police and the National Socialist state). Now that would surely convince anyone that the accused were guilty, proven without doubt. It did convince the court, we read: “Das Gericht hat sich den beiden überzeugenden und fundierten Sachverständigengutachten angeschlossen.”(The court endorses the well funded and convincing analysis)

They did however have something on the “murder” weapon:

“Zur Tarnung der in der Decke befindlichen Öffnungen, durch die das Zyklon B von aussen hineingeschüttet wurde, hatte man aus durchlöchertem Blech bestehende hohle Säulen installiert, die vom Boden bis zur Decke reichten und die Öffnungen verdeckten. In den Säulen befanden sich Spiralen, die das gekörnte Zyklon B nach dem Einschütten verteilten.”
(To camouflage the opening in the ceilings through which the Zyklon B was poured, columns made from perforated tin were installed, with a spiral inside to distribute the Zyklon B)

A little bit of everything, but nothing that stood up over time, because of the ever changing Holo-Story.

This Frankfurt “trial” was needed to bring the holocaust to the fore, people needed convincing. It was a show trial in the truest sense of the word, school classes made to attend, the accused called “murderers” by the prosecution, etc., etc. Stalin would have been proud. The German public seems to have swallowed it, and that is the sad part.

Regards
Wilf

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3386
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Witness Statistics

Postby Hektor » 7 years 9 months ago (Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:22 pm)

Hans wrote:...
Even if we were ignoring witnesses from Eastern Europe, you are not qualitatively changing the result. With your little trick, you are not getting rid of the 61 affirmative testimonies of SS personnel as well as the non-eastern European former prisoners (I can count them for you if you wish).
So you are calling reasonable cautioning a trick? Do you really believe that the witnesses selected for the Frankfurt trial are a representative sample of former concentration camp inmates or people that have been at camps for any reason?
Let's take your categories and at the one that you omitted:
- Residents of Eastern Europe, hence Communist Countries.
- Former SS-personnel
- Preselected and coached witnesses by Jewish (or for that matter Commuist) organisations.
You are welcome to do the stastics on this and tell us how many reasonably neutral witnesses remain that have no obvious stake in "cooperating". Also, it's funny how your friends at hcontroversies are representing this. For one what would a "negative witness" be? Or to transcend, would that be somebody that has seen that a theft didn't occur as opposed to someone that has no knowledge of any theft? Isn't that something you'd call a trick?

And as for hearsay, wouldn't that have to distinguish to hearsay as in 1945 or before or to hearsay after the gassing allegation were repeatedly a story spread via the media over and over again?


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 10 guests