BA's case for orthodoxy

[Hektor]

So, how did Browning know that Eichmann was correct about (homicidal) gas chambers?!

Browning said that Eichmann's account was "contrary to what we know from other sources." He got some dates and locations wrong. But this doesn't mean he thought Eichmann's testimony was worthless. From a few paragraphs up, same book, speaking of Eichmann's accounts of gas chambers:

"Here I will argue that Eichmann's testimony is in fact a significant piece of evidence concerning the state of mind and intentions of the Nazi leaders in autumn of 1941 that is both compatible with existing documentation and adds to our understanding"

That's an exercise in eisegesis and narrative (myth) creation. The use of the term 'Nazi' is virtually always a give away for this as well. A historian should know that this isn't the name of the organization, which was National-Socialist. It's why some historians know this as well and they don't want to appear as creating a caricature.

For establishing physical events, you need physical evidence, hence you have to work empirically. You can use testimony as hints for this, but not as proof. Now the trick that Browning and his ilk are using can be determined. They pick a number of testimonies they like, because it affirms their prejudices, and then create a narrative from it. If nobody asks and they get through with this, they don't really bother about physical evidence. Whenever they are confronted with it, they simply interpret it in line with their paradigms and prejudices. Being persuasive is all that counts for them. After all this kind of story-telling is rewarded by prizes, titles, salaries, positions and reputations.

But it isn't convincing to people that think logical and in terms what can be physically proven. Fortunately for Browning and colleagues those people are in the minority and they won't last long in an academic environment that is given to story-telling and narrative creation.

As for existing documentation, when was that ever backed up by physical evidence? What about the tons of documentation that doesn't really harmonize with the narrative (Like the "Standort und Kommandanturbefehle des Konzentrationslagers Auschwitz")? Simply ignore that and go on with the Narrative. Rather pick and chose from testimonial records made under distress and stems from parties that also had vested interest in your narrative.

[fireofice]

Browning did not say Eichmann was lying about the existence of gas chambers. Yes I'm aware the historical consensus on Eichmann is that he lied a lot, as you say, to suit the perceived needs of the moment. My problem is there was no need for him to pretend to be a genocidal maniac and disturb a bunch of people.

Oh, well as long as you don't "need" to do something, you don't do it! Another airtight argument from BA.

Mattogno addresses the Kinna Report on page 210:

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/33-hia.pdf

HC's response to Mattogno is quite silly and pathetic. They just make up scenarios based on no evidence to explain away the fact that sick Jews were cared for. And it's inconsistent with the facts, see:

https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/02-tcoa.pdf

This is another example of liquidation meaning killing when referencing people.

It doesn't necessarily, actually. "Liquidate to relieve the camp of them" doesn't necessarily mean killing.

I've given you several examples of liquidation not meaning killing. Goebbels March 27 diary entry (which in context can't refer to killing) and a newspaper article. You still haven't come close to demonstrating how often this word means killing. You would have to look at everyone's conversations to do that, which is impossible. I provided a dictionary definition from before 1945 where it did not say killing. In order to contradict that, you would need to bring a ton of evidence in response that it was regularly used differently, which you simply don't have.

Browning said that Eichmann's account was "contrary to what we know from other sources." He got some dates and locations wrong. But this doesn't mean he thought Eichmann's testimony was worthless.

He says he's not credible, meaning he's a general liar. The fact that he irrationally tries to use him for evidence of his extermination story doesn't change that.

Fact is, you got no ground to stand on using Eichmann's absurd testimony. The facts contradict what Eichmann said, therefore he is lying or insane. I believe he was lying. But you don't just get to psychoanalyze him to justify your conclusions. I can just as easily psychoanalyze him and say he has false memories of the whole thing with no evidence. That is just as valid as your psychoanalysis of him having false memories in specific places. In fact, it would be more valid, since at least my hypothetical psychoanalysis would be more consistent with the fact that the holocaust didn't happen.

[bombsaway]

Revisionists using pseudonyms should be able to easily get in + there's been massive document dumps from various archives, available freely over the web.

Ah, so what you're saying is: "they probably don't check ID."

"Holocaust Denial" is illegal in Europe.  They check ID, and Revisionists aren't allowed.

I meant that revisionists using pseudonyms (like Thomas Dalton) or whose names aren't public would have 100% full access using their real names. I'd imagine even revisionists like Mattogno would be able to get in anyway (haven't seen anything about them getting denied access), but if not . . . 

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Dalton ed.), p. 95

I think this sort of accusation doesn't add much to the conversation and makes me less inclined to continue our back and forth. I'm not here to convince you guys necessarily, more just to have an interesting conversation, and I think it's more productive to go about it this way rather than in an antagonistic way. 

I think the only way they could prove "millions" was by extracting all the ash and DNA testing in bulk, then seeing how many unique IDs there were.

I think you know this is a fallacy and you're saying it anyway.  i.e. "Since we can't DNA test every single bone fragment, no point in excavating or testing anything at all."  

Is that what you're saying?

Because what I'm saying is that we should do as much as we reasonably can.  And we have not done 1% of that.  We know why.

I'm saying you wouldn't be able to determine the numbers "prove millions" without doing this.

They did excavate, multiple times at most sites. And the archeologist reports indicate enormous grave areas with cremains under the surface. See and comment in the 'physical evidence' thread. I think we had a conversation ongoing there.  

That's a wide opening to suggest that perhaps he (Eichmann) is simply a liar, and his tales cannot be trusted, especially those which have to do with exterminating Jews and which were told in the mid-50s in Buenos Aires to an audience of fellow "Nazis".  

Eichmann did lie frequently, according to Stangneth, but there's no evidence he was a pathological liar, someone who just did it for no reason. So Eichman lied to benefit himself, to make himself look better or gain advantages over others, or (like everyone does) to facilitate social situations. The interviews with Sassen reveal how troubling his views were to people, particularly his approval of genocide. It took him weeks to open up to Sassen about this, so I'm not surprised he didn't do it in a one off conversation with Habel

What's your best reason for why (for months!) he pretended to be a near caricature of the Hollywood 'murderous bureaucrat'? I'll respond in detail. 

See, here again, you miss the point: your position is not one that can suggest that maybe, possibly, Eichmann was lying to Habel.  Your position requires a much higher standard of evidence given that the framework of the Holocaust debate (and world governments, society) implies that your position is 100% proven beyond any level of deniability.  If there is any chance that Eichmann is lying on those tapes, or that he's telling the truth to Habel, that's a huge problem for you.

I only need to prove there is a chance he didn't gas anyone.  You need to prove, 100%, with absolute certainty and without question, that he did.

[/quote]

If the Sassen interview was the only proposed piece of Holocaust evidence, I would agree with you. But there are thousands of other pieces of evidence, so the evidentiary burden on this particular item is much lower. It's simply convincing material (in that it would be very hard to fabricate) and is explained easily within the orthodox framework but not the revisionist one, so it heavily supports the former. It's the kind of positive evidence which simply doesn't exist on the revisionist side. I think this may be your problem. If you had more evidence to support your positions you would realize that a case is made in probabilistic terms. The more evidence you have the better it becomes.

But from wikipedia "Memory recall has been considered a credible source in the past, but has recently come under attack as forensics can now support psychologists in their claim that memories and individual perceptions can be unreliable, manipulated, and biased."

OK, then this can apply to everything Eichmann says. Everything he says is just "bad memory".

I'm saying it's reasonable for people to misremember details like the name of a camp, or maybe that they visited it in 1942 instead of 1943. It's far less likely in my view for somebody to misremember being intimately involved in a genocidal program for years, witnessing gassings, shootings, etc.

[fireofice]

I'm saying it's reasonable for people to misremember details like the name of a camp, or maybe that they visited it in 1942 instead of 1943. It's far less likely in my view for somebody to misremember being intimately involved in a genocidal program for years, witnessing gassings, shootings, etc.

False memories of entire events can happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI

And that is essentially what you are saying for certain events. Eichmann would not just "misremember" the events he described, he would have to have to have false memories of them. You don't just "misremember" the fact that you saw people being killed in a place you didn't or that an absurd form of murder happened. That would have to be an entire false memory. And if it can happen to big things like imaginary people being killed and an absurd form of murder being used, then it can happen for the whole story in general. Your special pleading here will not work.

The length of time he made a false confession is irrelevant.

[Hektor]

....

See, here again, you miss the point: your position is not one that can suggest that maybe, possibly, Eichmann was lying to Habel.  Your position requires a much higher standard of evidence given that the framework of the Holocaust debate (and world governments, society) implies that your position is 100% proven beyond any level of deniability.  If there is any chance that Eichmann is lying on those tapes, or that he's telling the truth to Habel, that's a huge problem for you.

I only need to prove there is a chance he didn't gas anyone.  You need to prove, 100%, with absolute certainty and without question, that he did.

If the Sassen interview was the only proposed piece of Holocaust evidence, I would agree with you. But there are thousands of other pieces of evidence, so the evidentiary burden on this particular item is much lower. It's simply convincing material (in that it would be very hard to fabricate) and is explained easily within the orthodox framework but not the revisionist one, so it heavily supports the former. It's the kind of positive evidence which simply doesn't exist on the revisionist side. I think this may be your problem. If you had more evidence to support your positions you would realize that a case is made in probabilistic terms. The more evidence you have the better it becomes.
....

Is this 'convergence of evidence' again? You realize that any conspiracy theory does claim 'convergence of evidence'.

Now what is the nature of the other 'thousands of pieces' of evidence?
Do not confuse convincing with persuasive.

We know that there are 'thousands of other' statements that have been made. We also know about rumors and that rumors can be fanned like a wild-fire until this gets self-sustaining.

Now if that rumor is something that should have 'physical proof', and the proof is not been shown, than there is good reason not to believe in it.
If there were pro-active measures and motives to spread that kind of rumors than there is reason to believe that they were spread for malicious reasons.

There don't have to be any 'positive evidence' on the 'Revisionist side'. Simply because what Revisionists claim is that there is no positive evidence for the Holocaust allegation. And that there is better explanations for anything Exterminationists try to use as an argument for their position.

Exterminationists actually know that they 'lack evidence', but they still sell their hypothesis as some sort of superior truth. Now it wouldn't be a problem if they had 'the Holocaust' as a working hypothesis, but then they still would have to admit the lack of evidence. In private they sometimes do this, but publicly admission of error is only done for tactical reasons. So, sorry, one can not believe this, just because 'all serious historians say it is true'. Or because 'there's a news articles daily saying that it is true'.

Yet this is what the argument of the Holocaust Believers boils down to.

I'm saying it's reasonable for people to misremember details like the name of a camp, or maybe that they visited it in 1942 instead of 1943. It's far less likely in my view for somebody to misremember being intimately involved in a genocidal program for years, witnessing gassings, shootings, etc.

False memories of entire events can happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI
....
The length of time he made a false confession is irrelevant.

And they can be quite common. Especially when there is mass hysteria around a certain event. Groups of people start remembering similar things that were previously been talked and outraged a lot about.

The Eichmann show trial is an example for a series of people telling stories that are not based in memory. Although a lot of it can be altered memory.

[hermod]

If the Sassen interview was the only proposed piece of Holocaust evidence, I would agree with you. But there are thousands of other pieces of evidence, so the evidentiary burden on this particular item is much lower. It's simply convincing material (in that it would be very hard to fabricate) and is explained easily within the orthodox framework but not the revisionist one, so it heavily supports the former. It's the kind of positive evidence which simply doesn't exist on the revisionist side. I think this may be your problem. If you had more evidence to support your positions you would realize that a case is made in probabilistic terms. The more evidence you have the better it becomes.

That's a widespread fallacy. Bigfoot and UFO hunters also have thousands of pieces of "evidence" to support their position. Quantity is not quality. One thousandth piece of slight evidence + one thousandth piece of slight evidence + one thousandth piece of slight evidence + one thousandth piece of slight evidence + ... + one thousandth piece of slight evidence ≠ one piece of solid evidence, especially when the adherents of that thesis avoid debate (where evidence can be challenged and evaluated) like the plague.

[Hektor]

If the Sassen interview was the only proposed piece of Holocaust evidence, I would agree with you. But there are thousands of other pieces of evidence, so the evidentiary burden on this particular item is much lower. It's simply convincing material (in that it would be very hard to fabricate) and is explained easily within the orthodox framework but not the revisionist one, so it heavily supports the former. It's the kind of positive evidence which simply doesn't exist on the revisionist side. I think this may be your problem. If you had more evidence to support your positions you would realize that a case is made in probabilistic terms. The more evidence you have the better it becomes.

That's a widespread fallacy. Bigfoot and UFO hunters also have thousands of pieces of "evidence" to support their position. Quantity is not quality. One thousandth piece of slight evidence + one thousandth piece of slight evidence + one thousandth piece of slight evidence + one thousandth piece of slight evidence + ... + one thousandth piece of slight evidence ≠ one piece of solid evidence, especially when the adherents of that thesis avoid debate (where evidence can be challenged and evaluated) like the plague.

Indeed, there is not only Big Foot Sightings, but also "Nessie" sightings. And there is 'convergence of evidence" as well. That there is problems with the evidence is another matters.
For Alien Abductions we have plenty of testimony from 'survivors'. "Are they all lying?"

The difference is that there is no establishment interest in those stories. Otherwise they would be in all the school books and experts would tell us on TV how dangerous big foot is and that we should give money for a National Park to look after "Nessie". Movies would be made about it. "Based on a true story". Etc. Etc.

But there isn't, because nobody gives a rats ass about making people believe in it. There is no advantage in it for people that have influence in media, education, politics, etc.

In fact Ufologists may get disparaged. I recall Michael Shermer's "Skeptics Society" taking them on. He loves to go for easy pickings, but burned his fingers with the "Holocaust Deniers". He and his "skeptics" never took on any main stream theories no matter how bad the evidence for them may be. Apparently he and his ilk believe that they all must be true, because they are "science". That's 'scientism' at its finest. As for off-center theories they are of course never as well funded, well-argued, well developed as the theories entertained by Main-Stream Academia. Those promulgating them, won prices for them, get credentials and 'are reputable'. What could possibly be wrong with what they are saying.

For starters, if you pushed a theory (or paradigm) all your life, you have no interest in people thinking that it might be false or that there are problems with it. If you were brought up with the paradigm, that's all you know anyway. Finding out that there was/is a problem with the paradigm will shake your trust in the professors you looked up to and the institutions you trust to 'tell you the truth'. It's a bit of a cultish environment one deals with their. As with other cults it is also about power, prestige and wealth. The funding that academia gets from public sources (Yes, from you, you taxpayer) or from private donors is huge. And as towards the public academics tend to be quite arrogant and not at all grateful towards them (exceptions, excluded). In fact they favor policies that make the live of Joe Public even more miserable by more regulations and having to pay more taxes, etc.

What do Holocaustians do? They have an industry that helps them to get donations, public funding, compensation payments, etc. Logically they have in interest in that narrative to be immortal in some way. But what will they do, if there is no more survivors? Will they persist to live off Germany's taxpayers money? Now how do they spin it that they are owed something, anyway. Last time I looked, you could get compensation as an individual being harmed by another person in some way. But you could not get money, because you belonged or represented a group that you allege was harmed for whatever reason. You'd have to prove that you were harmed anyway, first. Not so with the Holocaust. They simply make allegations, spin a story and then tell others that they have to cough up for this. What is really amazing is that they still can find so many believers for that scam. That people don't seem to notice what game is being played there. That politicians and officials will be glad to cooperate with 'Holocaust Education' in schools, etc. It's a religion, plain and simple. Not officially, off course. Officially it is "history". That helps with bypassing restrictions on religion in school.

[bombsaway]

I'm saying it's reasonable for people to misremember details like the name of a camp, or maybe that they visited it in 1942 instead of 1943. It's far less likely in my view for somebody to misremember being intimately involved in a genocidal program for years, witnessing gassings, shootings, etc.

False memories of entire events can happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB2OegI6wvI

And that is essentially what you are saying for certain events. Eichmann would not just "misremember" the events he described, he would have to have to have false memories of them. You don't just "misremember" the fact that you saw people being killed in a place you didn't or that an absurd form of murder happened. That would have to be an entire false memory. And if it can happen to big things like imaginary people being killed and an absurd form of murder being used, then it can happen for the whole story in general. Your special pleading here will not work.

The length of time he made a false confession is irrelevant.

From what I know this type of memory aberration (false memories of composite events, and many of them) is very uncommon, especially in adults. I'm talking more like something I've personally experienced. I went on a road trip in the midwest a few years back and can't for the life of me remember the names of half the towns and cities I stayed at. Looking back there are places I think I stayed at (Flagstaff?) that maybe I didn't even visit.

That's a widespread fallacy. Bigfoot and UFO hunters also have thousands of pieces of "evidence" to support their position. Quantity is not quality.

Sure. I think the approach is common in historiography, eg Kues's long series on resettlement tries to make the case using dozens of pieces of evidence. Of course these must be evaluated for their strength. The criteria I posted above is how well do each of these fit into the orthodox vs revisionist framework.

https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... in-the/en/

[Butterfangers]

I meant that revisionists using pseudonyms (like Thomas Dalton) or whose names aren't public would have 100% full access using their real names. I'd imagine even revisionists like Mattogno would be able to get in anyway (haven't seen anything about them getting denied access), but if not . . .

There you go with your imagination again. If you're going to bank on Mattogno being able to get access, you're going to lose. I cannot find the mention I saw previously where he clearly states he's had to access archives via proxy (anyone here share it if you know what I'm referring to), but it's there.

If Thomas Dalton feels the need to use a pseudonym, what makes you think he'd be comfortable putting his real name in the hands of an archive that if/when they find out what he's done, they ruin his life, prosecute him, etc.? Revisionists have day jobs, cannot work in their field of interest since it is an oppressed category. It's exceptionally difficult for them to access archives, as compared to establishment scholars who may do so freely.

You're pretending that these structures and systems that work against Revisionists are trivial or minimal. You're dead-wrong (and I'd wager you know you're wrong but are saying these things anyway).

Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Dalton ed.), p. 95

I think this sort of accusation doesn't add much to the conversation and makes me less inclined to continue our back and forth. I'm not here to convince you guys necessarily, more just to have an interesting conversation, and I think it's more productive to go about it this way rather than in an antagonistic way. 

You're not being honest---that's the issue here. You pretend like you don't know that's the issue, in the same way you seem to have pretended you didn't know that Eichmann had lied elsewhere during his precapture years. That's just a couple examples. Your intentions here are obviously not as innocent as you claim.

I cited the Hitler quote because it describes patterns which are very similar and in some ways identical to what I have seen from you, here. You can feign being offended, if you'd like. No one cares.

I'm saying you wouldn't be able to determine the numbers "prove millions" without doing this.

They did excavate, multiple times at most sites. And the archeologist reports indicate enormous grave areas with cremains under the surface. See and comment in the 'physical evidence' thread. I think we had a conversation ongoing there.  

In all of the excavations to date, how many human bodies' worth of "cremains" were found at Sobibor? Please do not dodge.

In all of the excavations to date, how many human bodies' worth of "cremains" were found at Treblinka? Please do not dodge.

As for Belzec, finding "evidence of cremains" amounting to much less than 1% of numbers allegedly buried there (and not excavating the cremains but simply/allegedly finding "evidence of" them), where Revisionists do not deny there were massive pyres of property being burned and that many dead also arrived on trains (hence needing cremation), is not surprising, all the more so when much of the remains were actually intact rather than solely 'cremains' as you say. Cremation was the standard; not as a "kill all Jews" campaign but, rather, as a best practice to ensure sanitation and disease control. To any extent that "destruction of evidence [corpses]" may have actually been the intent, this has to be considered within the scope of typhus and other epidemics being a PR nightmare for Germans, given the epidemics happened while Jews were in German captivity. And that is a long-shot from an policy of "kill all Jews with gas chambers". Absolutely zero physical evidence of any alleged 'chambers' exists (steam, gas, electricity, vacuum or otherwise).

In all of these camps, many of the claimed 'eyewitnesses' are blatant, proven liars.

Eichmann did lie frequently, according to Stangneth, but there's no evidence he was a pathological liar, someone who just did it for no reason. So Eichman lied to benefit himself, to make himself look better or gain advantages over others, or (like everyone does) to facilitate social situations.

I'm really glad to know you admit this. It is nice to see that we are finally in agreement and can put this whole Eichmann issue to rest.

If the Sassen interview was the only proposed piece of Holocaust evidence, I would agree with you. But there are thousands of other pieces of evidence, so the evidentiary burden on this particular item is much lower. It's simply convincing material (in that it would be very hard to fabricate) and is explained easily within the orthodox framework but not the revisionist one, so it heavily supports the former. It's the kind of positive evidence which simply doesn't exist on the revisionist side. I think this may be your problem. If you had more evidence to support your positions you would realize that a case is made in probabilistic terms. The more evidence you have the better it becomes.

Actually, what you just said here is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Quantity means exactly nothing (N-O-T-H-I-N-G) if it lacks quality. I don't need to explain further.

[Hektor]

I meant that revisionists using pseudonyms (like Thomas Dalton) or whose names aren't public would have 100% full access using their real names. I'd imagine even revisionists like Mattogno would be able to get in anyway (haven't seen anything about them getting denied access), but if not . . .

There you go with your imagination again. If you're going to bank on Mattogno being able to get access, you're going to lose. I cannot find the mention I saw previously where he clearly states he's had to access archives via proxy (anyone here share it if you know what I'm referring to), but it's there.....

If all you need to do is imagine something and this proves it then, then there is a serious problem. The issue is indeed that imagination is very important for Holocaust belief. And emotion of course. It is however a way of going dead wrong on issues.

If Thomas Dalton feels the need to use a pseudonym, what makes you think he'd be comfortable putting his real name in the hands of an archive that if/when they find out what he's done, they ruin his life, prosecute him, etc.? Revisionists have day jobs, cannot work in their field of interest since it is an oppressed category. It's exceptionally difficult for them to access archives, as compared to establishment scholars who may do so freely.
....

It's PT to get access to archives. If you are a Revisionist they may find a way to cancel that access. It's far more advisable to get access incognito there. But there they also have a way to keep Revisionists out. Only allow people with academic credentials and you can be almost 100% sure they would only produce work in line with Exterminationism. So there is several obstruction against Revisionism.

That means that it is a close-loop system only producing results that affirm the paradigmatic hypothesis that was never proven to begin with.

And yes, the establishment historians can do that full time and even get payments for this by the people their work helps to be fleeced.

[fireofice]

From what I know this type of memory aberration (false memories of composite events, and many of them) is very uncommon, especially in adults. I'm talking more like something I've personally experienced.

Nope, Loftus talks about false memories occurring at a high rate if given the right stimulus, and there was plenty of stimulus after WW2 of this holocaust hoax. And again, it is you that is saddled with him having false memories of big events (which you have no evidence for), not me. So you have no basis for denying the possibility of a false memory to the whole event.

I went on a road trip in the midwest a few years back and can't for the life of me remember the names of half the towns and cities I stayed at. Looking back there are places I think I stayed at (Flagstaff?) that maybe I didn't even visit.

OK but you didn't see a bunch of people getting mass killed there, which would be a big event that would stick out in your mind.

[Hektor]

From what I know this type of memory aberration (false memories of composite events, and many of them) is very uncommon, especially in adults. I'm talking more like something I've personally experienced.

Nope, Loftus talks about false memories occurring at a high rate if given the right stimulus, and there was plenty of stimulus after WW2 of this holocaust hoax. And again, it is you that is saddled with him having false memories of big events (which you have no evidence for), not me. So you have no basis for denying the possibility of a false memory to the whole event.

Works with 25% of people apparently that one can insert a totally false memory. Alteration over time is a different matter.
That means that it is perfectly possible to have a small percentage of people that can provide useful testimony. There is however some oddities with 'gas chamber testimony' and that is that it appears coached, sometimes with the same false information inside, which gives this away.

false or altered memory are a problem for investigations. false testimony and false confessions as well. And police investigators told me that this is a serious problem for their work. This can however be useful, when one is pushy and wants to frame people.

I went on a road trip in the midwest a few years back and can't for the life of me remember the names of half the towns and cities I stayed at. Looking back there are places I think I stayed at (Flagstaff?) that maybe I didn't even visit.

OK but you didn't see a bunch of people getting mass killed there, which would be a big event that would stick out in your mind.

What is memorized is of course selective and traumatizing, horrific events will be memorized more likely than others. I have memories of dead or injured people although I may struggle to determine on which dates I witnessed this.

Not having any physical evidence and simply picking physical givens when they don't necessarily contradict your assertions is of course a different matter. Holocaustians seem to be able to live with that. They have no problem that their assertions could be malicious, defamatory and simply false. They know the targets or victims of their slander can't fight back anymore.

Jews know that slander works, they frequently made use of this, they also know how to get others or their own people fight about this and that it can be useful for pursuing agendas. When they get disliked due to this, they play victim and count on other people's sympathy that way. Concerning that people continue to fall for this, since it seems to get worse over time. And it will cause problems as this serves to set policy. When policy is set by fraud and conniving in a direction that puts many at a disadvantage, sooner or later this will lead to tremendous conflict.

[bombsaway]

OK but you didn't see a bunch of people getting mass killed there, which would be a big event that would stick out in your mind.

He never claimed to. In 41 he just saw the gas chambers being prepared. Browning speculates a little further down that he visited a site near Lublin (hence the confusion with Majdanek) where tests were underway. Browning references other witnesses who have testified to the existence of such a site.

You're not being honest---that's the issue here. You pretend like you don't know that's the issue, in the same way you seem to have pretended you didn't know that Eichmann had lied elsewhere during his precapture years.

Where did I claim Eichmann never lied during any of his pretrial statements? Look back at my responses and you'll see this was about the Browning quote re Eichmann's credibility surrounding seeing gas chambers in 1941.

In all of the excavations to date, how many human bodies' worth of "cremains" were found at Sobibor? Please do not dodge.

In all of the excavations to date, how many human bodies' worth of "cremains" were found at Treblinka? Please do not dodge.

In my mind there's no way to know because the ashes weren't DNA tested for unique IDs, and the ashes were mixed with sand making calculation near impossible. But you can see it's a lot, eg in Treblinka based on the ash field there, which according to witnesses contained part of the ash

In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones).

2 hectares is 20,000 square meters. A 100 pound body yields 100 cubic inches of ash according to the web. There are 1550 inches in a square meter. Therefore if the ash layer was 1 inch deep, 20,000 cubic meters would yield 20,000 x 15 or 300,000 bodies worth of ash. At a 10th of an inch that's 30,000 bodies. This is, again, partial since not all the ashes are believed to have been spread on the field.

We can continue this discussion in the appropriate thread.

Eichmann did lie frequently, according to Stangneth, but there's no evidence he was a pathological liar, someone who just did it for no reason. So Eichman lied to benefit himself, to make himself look better or gain advantages over others, or (like everyone does) to facilitate social situations.

I'm really glad to know you admit this. It is nice to see that we are finally in agreement and can put this whole Eichmann issue to rest.

We can't because just because Eichmann lied frequently, as many many people do, it doesn't mean everything he said was a lie. It hurts his credibility to some degree, but I think we agree that when he lied, it was for a reason. asked you this before:

What's your best reason for why (for months!) he pretended to be a near caricature of the Hollywood 'murderous bureaucrat'? I'll respond in detail.

Quantity means exactly nothing (N-O-T-H-I-N-G) if it lacks quality. I don't need to explain further.

[/quote]

I agree completely. How do you determine quality of evidence? You can use this Kues series as a reference. https://codoh.com/library/document/evid ... in-the/en/

[fireofice]

He never claimed to. In 41 he just saw the gas chambers being prepared.

False.

"I was not a little astonished, as this man had little houses built and hermetically sealed and said to me, 'Here Jews are now being gassed.'"

In both precapture accounts, Eichmann's dating is vague. Furthermore, the claims that gassing was already taking place at this first camp, or that it was Majdanek, are contrary to what we know from other sources. The precapture testimonies, in short, are helpful to neither the historian nor Eichmann's credibility.

“Perpetrator Testimony: Another Look at Adolf Eichmann.” by page 23

Eichmann is clearly describing Jews being gassed in front of him. Also, the gassing procedure he describes is impossible (he says the same thing when talking about a Russian U-boat engine being used). He is in a position to know that this is an impossible gassing procedure if he was really overlooking all this stuff. He is clearly lying, not mistaken. If he is lying here, he can be lying about the whole thing.

You've already been provided explanations for his false confessions. There's no point in repeating a question that's already been answered.

[Hektor]

....

Eichmann did lie frequently, according to Stangneth, but there's no evidence he was a pathological liar, someone who just did it for no reason. So Eichman lied to benefit himself, to make himself look better or gain advantages over others, or (like everyone does) to facilitate social situations.

I'm really glad to know you admit this. It is nice to see that we are finally in agreement and can put this whole Eichmann issue to rest.

We can't because just because Eichmann lied frequently, as many many people do, it doesn't mean everything he said was a lie. It hurts his credibility to some degree, but I think we agree that when he lied, it was for a reason. asked you this before:
...

Well, that isn't even suggested that he 'everything he said was a lie'.
What is suggested is that there is a high probability of lying and twitching, when it is suitable to him. It was suitable for him to say things that would bring him into favor with his captors, wouldn't you agree.

Bear in mind that he was completely isolated after he was captured. And then bombarded with what was claimed by what the Israelis confronted him with for month. And we have seen that there were people involved in the trial that had experience with psychology, setting up show trials, manipulation, etc. If this is applied craftily, one can make any person make anything one wants him to say. And boy, didn't he do that.