TMoran wrote:As to Hannover saying:
'ex: one says 23,600 thousand Jews were supposedly killed in one place but there is no such site, it's a lie, very simple'
Independent Thinker says:
"Yes, but how do you know there is no such place? It seems the Believers can show you witnesses to how the bodies were burned, and also Soviet reports on investigation of mass graves. And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all? And that the witnesses who say they destroyed the bodies lied or were tortured?"
We have all this witness testimony and Soviet reports and nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence when the witness testimony and
Soviet reports indicate there would be massive amounts of it?
Don't understand the question. How do you know there's "nothing whatsoever in way of physical evidence"? If I well remember, you quoted a Soviet report on an assessment of physical evidence on another thread. I don't know if it's complete or just a summary with much more behind, but who tells you they just made it up? Let's assume there's also a German document talking about massacres at that place. Let's assume that the killers or those who buried or burned the corpses described the whole thing at a fair trial, and were cross-examined and all. How can you under such conditions say that there's no physical evidence, just because you don't trust Soviet reports? You will have to do an investigation yourself and prove that the Soviet report was totally wrong, or at least show that the document was forged and the witnesses were lying or someone tortured them. That's a lot of work for you.
TMoran wrote:As to your question, 'And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, but can you prove they made it up and that there was nothing at all?'? Wouldn't you think it would be legitimate to ask you, 'And you can say what you want about the quality of these investigations, so can you prove they were not made up and that there is something tangible to prove it?'
You have something credible to answer that question?
Of course. I don't think it's up to me to prove that there is "tangible proof" that a given report is correct. That's absurd, because I cannot organize and investigation of the site myself, and neither can you, and neither can a historian, and neither can a court. So what a court or a historian will do is trust that report until there are strong indications that it is wrong or even a better report proves it to be wrong. They will also compare it with other evidence like documents and eyewitness testimonials to make sure. I don't think that if you are accused of a murder and someone presents a report on the site of your murder you can just say "they made it all up" and they will have to prove they did not (prove a negative?). If the evidence is a document, you cannot just say "forgery" either, you will have to prove that it is or at least cast important doubt on it. Same for a witness. If this were not so, criminal justice would not work, no murderer would ever be convicted, and history could not be written about anything.
Do you understand?
TMoran wrote:You see, it's not up to skeptics to prove something wasn't,
That is not correct under certain circumstances, see above.
TMoran wrote:it's up to you to prove that there was and that would involve your presenting something more than something written on pieces of paper when what's written on the pieces of paper tells us there should have been documentation of massive physical evidence associated with the words written on pieces of paper.
A report written by a commission appointed to investigate crimes is not just a "piece of paper", and I do not either assume that the Soviet reports in question consisted just of a short summary, there must have been "documentation of massive physical evidence" behind them if the Soviet investigation commissions filled up two million pages of documents with reports of exhumations and forensic examinations and eyewitness testimonials and so on. But I don't think you need that detail in the report itself to prove a crime if you have independent documentary evidence or testimonials of several eyewitness that match each other or the confessions of those accused at a trial that was fair. That is not how crime justice or the writing of history can possibly work, not in regard to any event. Do we have for instance "documentation of massive physical evidence" that the Dresden attack, anniversary today if I'm correct, killed tens of thousands of people? Or about the expulsion crimes against Germans in Checoslovaquia? Or about the starvation of the Ukrainians by Stalin, or the purges, or the massacres committed by the Israelis of the Palestinians? I don't think your requirements will ever be matched in case of these event, but yet you have no doubt about them, have you?