'The Matrix of Converging Evidence' / the true convergence supports the Revisionist side

[Hannover]

The old canard, 'convergence of evidence', which is claimed as proof of the impossible '6,000,000 Jews, 5,000,000 others & gas chambers' is simply a bluff.
Here we have a quick, to-the-point take down of that element of The Big Lie.

- Hannover

No human remains of millions in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.

The Matrix of Converging Evidence
By Panagiotis Heliotis
https://codoh.com/library/document/6426/?lang=en

One of the trump cards the Holocaust historians and promoters like to use is what they call the “convergence of evidence”. All available evidence they tell us, either testimonies, photos, documents, or anything, point to one single conclusion: The Holocaust as we know it.

Unfortunately, this is nothing but an illusion – in other words, a Matrix, as portrayed in the 1999 science-fiction film of that name. In order to make this clear we will pick five members of the Sonderkommando (Filip Muller, Henryk Tauber, Shlomo Venezia, Marcel Nadjari, Leon Cohen), as they are the most important eyewitnesses, and ask them 10 simple questions. Then we will see if their statements, as they appear in their respective memoirs, actually “converge.” All the questions are on essential points and not on some minor details. So their convergence or divergence is of the utmost importance for the official story. Are you ready to take the Red Pill (a choice against the Blue Pill, to prolong the illusions, featured in the above-mentioned movie)? Here we go.

Question #1: Where was the gas chamber?

• In a fake shower room (Muller, Tauber, Nadjari, Venezia).

• In a room next to the fake shower room (Cohen).

Question #2: How many holes were there on the roof?

• One (Nadjari, Venezia).

• One every 8 meters (Cohen).

• Four (Tauber).

Question #3: How was the gas inserted?

• Directly (Nadjari, Venezia).

• Through pillars made of sheet metal (Muller).

• Through pillars covered with pierced metal plates (Cohen).

• Through pillars made of three layers of iron mesh (Tauber).

Question #4: How many people could you fit into the chamber?

• 750 (Cohen).

• 2,500 (Nadjari).

• 3,000 (Muller).

Question #5: After throwing in the gas how long did you wait before opening the door?

• A few minutes (Muller).

• 10-12 minutes (Venezia).

• One hour (Nadjari).

• Two hours (Tauber, Cohen).

Question #6: When did you start on the ventilation?

• Before opening the door (Muller, Tauber, Nadjari).

• After opening the door (Venezia, Cohen).

Question #7: How long was the ventilation on?

• A few minutes (Muller).

• 20 minutes (Venezia).

• Two hours (Cohen).

Question #8: Did you notice any unusual color on the corpses?

• No (Nadjari).

• Many had turned blue (Muller).

• Some were red, some were pale (Venezia).

• Pinkish, some were covered with green marks (Tauber).

• Black near the columns, pink away from them (Cohen).

Question #9: Did you wear gas masks while working in the chamber?

• Yes (Muller, Tauber).

• No (Venezia).

Question #10: How many corpses could you cremate in 24 hours?

• 1,800 (Venezia).

• 2,500 (Nadjari, Tauber).

• 3,000 (Muller).

• 3,600 (Cohen).

So there you have it. Remember that all of this is supposed to be firsthand information from people who worked at the exact same installations during the same time period. But as any magician will tell you, for the illusion to work you need to always distract the audience. And that’s what the Holocaust historians do. They never give you the complete picture. Because they fear that once you see it, the spell will be broken and you will never go back.

So what will it be Dear Reader? It takes courage, it takes determination, but if you choose the Red Pill, welcome to the real world. Including the real Holocaust—what of it was real, anyway.

[Lamprecht]

Auschwitz gas chamber testimonies are extraordinarily rare. Fewer than 5% of testimonies at Birkenau mention homicidal gas chambers at all. I show this in my post here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12170#p90722

Believers will sometimes ask, when you claim the gas chambers are a hoax, "So, what, did all of the witnesses lie about it then? They just made it up?"

No, not all of them, but apparently 3-4% of them did. Is that so hard to believe, that fewer than 5% of the relevant eyewitness testimonies have fabricated the gas chambers?

Ultimately, the hoaxters cherry-pick testimonies that "fit" with their ridiculous gas chamber narrative. Evidently, these testimonies don't even agree with each other.

[AxisHistory2006]

Are all the testimonies listed all from the same camp?

[Hektor]

Auschwitz gas chamber testimonies are extraordinarily rare. Fewer than 5% of testimonies at Birkenau mention homicidal gas chambers at all. I show this in my post here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12170#p90722

Believers will sometimes ask, when you claim the gas chambers are a hoax, "So, what, did all of the witnesses lie about it then? They just made it up?"

No, not all of them, but apparently 3-4% of them did. Is that so hard to believe, that fewer than 5% of the relevant eyewitness testimonies have fabricated the gas chambers?

Ultimately, the hoaxters cherry-pick testimonies that "fit" with their ridiculous gas chamber narrative. Evidently, these testimonies don't even agree with each other.

That's what I also pointed out. While there is plenty of people that say they were in concentration camps only a tiny fraction claims to have seen homicidal gassings at all. Hence testimony isn't actually a friend of the Holocaust narrative. Of course the exterminationist reply would be that all those witnesses that 'saw nothing' were just deceived by Nazi-trickery keeping their extermination program using gas chambers a secret. But that would be a rescue device.

As far as cherry-picking goes, yes Holocaustians do that all the time. I do get that one can quote only one statement at the time. They don't seem to get this, when they are confronted with contrarian testimony or evidence. Then they will accuse you of cherry-picking almost immediately.

The cultural and media dominance of 'the Holocaust' is what keeps their belief floating. When confronted what they grasp for isn't through evidence though. They commonly pick footage collected by syke-warriors and Allied journalists at the end of the war ('liberation of the camps'). That there are valid explanation on how those pictures became a thing is commonly ignored of course. The conditions in 1945 were of such a nature that large numbers of prisoners fall sick and would die... that is a given. But Holocaustians are either to lazy or too emotionally charged to think this through. The Holocaust believes rely on creating cognitive malfunctions with the audience. And that's an indicator that there is something seriously wrong.

[Lamprecht]

Are all the testimonies listed all from the same camp?

The OP's article is only detailing Auschwitz testimonies. Curiously there are also gas van testimonies from the camp

Gas Vans at Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?t=13099

[AxisHistory2006]

The old canard, 'convergence of evidence', which is claimed as proof of the impossible '6,000,000 Jews, 5,000,000 others & gas chambers' is simply a bluff.
Here we have a quick, to-the-point take down of that element of The Big Lie.

- Hannover

No human remains of millions in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.

The Matrix of Converging Evidence
By Panagiotis Heliotis
https://codoh.com/library/document/6426/?lang=en

One of the trump cards the Holocaust historians and promoters like to use is what they call the “convergence of evidence”. All available evidence they tell us, either testimonies, photos, documents, or anything, point to one single conclusion: The Holocaust as we know it.

Unfortunately, this is nothing but an illusion – in other words, a Matrix, as portrayed in the 1999 science-fiction film of that name. In order to make this clear we will pick five members of the Sonderkommando (Filip Muller, Henryk Tauber, Shlomo Venezia, Marcel Nadjari, Leon Cohen), as they are the most important eyewitnesses, and ask them 10 simple questions. Then we will see if their statements, as they appear in their respective memoirs, actually “converge.” All the questions are on essential points and not on some minor details. So their convergence or divergence is of the utmost importance for the official story. Are you ready to take the Red Pill (a choice against the Blue Pill, to prolong the illusions, featured in the above-mentioned movie)? Here we go.

Question #1: Where was the gas chamber?

• In a fake shower room (Muller, Tauber, Nadjari, Venezia).

• In a room next to the fake shower room (Cohen).

Question #2: How many holes were there on the roof?

• One (Nadjari, Venezia).

• One every 8 meters (Cohen).

• Four (Tauber).

Question #3: How was the gas inserted?

• Directly (Nadjari, Venezia).

• Through pillars made of sheet metal (Muller).

• Through pillars covered with pierced metal plates (Cohen).

• Through pillars made of three layers of iron mesh (Tauber).

Question #4: How many people could you fit into the chamber?

• 750 (Cohen).

• 2,500 (Nadjari).

• 3,000 (Muller).

Question #5: After throwing in the gas how long did you wait before opening the door?

• A few minutes (Muller).



• 10-12 minutes (Venezia).

• One hour (Nadjari).

• Two hours (Tauber, Cohen).

Question #6: When did you start on the ventilation?

• Before opening the door (Muller, Tauber, Nadjari).

• After opening the door (Venezia, Cohen).

Question #7: How long was the ventilation on?

• A few minutes (Muller).

• 20 minutes (Venezia).

• Two hours (Cohen).

Question #8: Did you notice any unusual color on the corpses?

• No (Nadjari).

• Many had turned blue (Muller).

• Some were red, some were pale (Venezia).

• Pinkish, some were covered with green marks (Tauber).

• Black near the columns, pink away from them (Cohen).

Question #9: Did you wear gas masks while working in the chamber?

• Yes (Muller, Tauber).

• No (Venezia).

Question #10: How many corpses could you cremate in 24 hours?

• 1,800 (Venezia).

• 2,500 (Nadjari, Tauber).

• 3,000 (Muller).

• 3,600 (Cohen).

So there you have it. Remember that all of this is supposed to be firsthand information from people who worked at the exact same installations during the same time period. But as any magician will tell you, for the illusion to work you need to always distract the audience. And that’s what the Holocaust historians do. They never give you the complete picture. Because they fear that once you see it, the spell will be broken and you will never go back.

So what will it be Dear Reader? It takes courage, it takes determination, but if you choose the Red Pill, welcome to the real world. Including the real Holocaust—what of it was real, anyway.

Venezia never claimed anything of the sort. He simply never mentioned gas masks at all in relation to Sonderkommando activities in clearing out the gas chambers. Tauber mentions gas masks only in relation to entering the undressing room which had no gas extraction system in place so pockets of HCN could have been an issue there. Muller’s book was heavily edited so is not the best source when it comes to details.

The fact is that gas masks were definitely needed in Crematoria 4 and 5 as they had no ventilation system. They were not a necessity in the gas chambers of Crematoria 2 and 3 as they had a gas extraction system in place.

[Hektor]

The old canard,...
• Directly (Nadjari, Venezia).....]

Venezia never claimed anything of the sort. He simply never mentioned gas masks at all in relation to Sonderkommando activities in clearing out the gas chambers. Tauber mentions gas masks only in relation to entering the undressing room which had no gas extraction system in place so pockets of HCN could have been an issue there. Muller’s book was heavily edited so is not the best source when it comes to details.

The fact is that gas masks were definitely needed in Crematoria 4 and 5 as they had no ventilation system. They were not a necessity in the gas chambers of Crematoria 2 and 3 as they had a gas extraction system in place.

None of those had a 'gas extraction system'. The rooms had some sort of ventilation system though as is to be expected in morgues.

That type of ventilation/ air flow won't be of help, if you assume the scenario of 100s or 1000s of people being killed with HCN in that room.
The story doesn't live up to the given information. You'd have to assume a totally different scenario to make it fly. But then your testimony is out of the window. That means there is zero evidence for homicidal gassings as alleged.

[hermod]

Convergence of Evidence: Reflections on the Irving/Lipstadt Affair, by Paul Grubach

Convergence of Evidence?

Judge Gray’s final conclusion was as follows: “Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”[12]

The following example will illustrate to the reader how questionable “convergence of evidence” proofs for the traditional view of the Holocaust really are.

In their article on the Treblinka concentration camp, historian Mark Weber and attorney Andrew Allen collected six pieces of evidence that point to the conclusion that Jews and others were murdered in steam chambers at the site.[13] Let us note each of them:

1. According to an “eyewitness” account received in November 1942 in London from the Warsaw ghetto underground organization, Jews were supposedly exterminated in death rooms with “steam coming out of the numerous holes in the pipes.”[14]
2. In 1943, the New York Times published more “eyewitness” testimony regarding the mass murder of Jews in the alleged Treblinka steam chambers. This account provided readers with essential details about the operation of these steam chambers.[15]
3. In The Black Book of Polish Jewry, a 1943 work sponsored by an array of respected dignitaries like Albert Einstein and Eleanor Roosevelt, the Treblinka steam story was again given in detail.[16]
4. Another book, Lest We Forget, published in New York in 1943 by the World Jewish Congress, describes how Jews were steamed to death, and provides a diagram showing the location of the purported boiler room that produced the live steam.[17]
5. According to a 1944 “eyewitness” account compiled by the OSS, the principal US intelligence agency, Jews at Treblinka “were in general killed by steam and not by gas as had been first suspected.”[18]
6. In 1945, the Polish government “conclusively proved” the Germans operated these death chambers. They carried out “an onsite, physical examination of the steam chambers,” submitting an “expert report” to the Nuremberg Tribunal.[19]

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

Historians now tell us there were no steam chambers at Treblinka. The convergence of evidence that “proves” their existence is entirely false. Over the years, the story changed and today it is alleged that Jews and others were murdered with carbon monoxide gas, generated from captured Soviet diesel tank engines.[20] Neither Judge Gray or Lipstadt and company’s team of world renowned Holocaust experts have ever explained why the convergence of evidence for Treblinka steam chambers points to a false conclusion and the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers allegedly points to a true conclusion.

Since most of the evidence in the convergence of evidence for the Treblinka steam chambers is not qualitatively different from the evidence in the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers; and since the convergence of evidence for the Treblinka steam chambers leads to a false conclusion, isn’t it also possible that the convergence of evidence for the Auschwitz gas chambers also points to a false conclusion?

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Holocaust historian that formulated this “convergence of evidence” method for “proving” the traditional view of the Holocaust. What is not well known is that he also formulated the criterion for proving that the traditional view of the Holocaust is incorrect. He wrote:

“In order to prove that the Holocaust did NOT happen, a revisionist… will have to show that the consilience of inductions method [i.e., the convergence of evidence method] is either philosophically fallacious in general, or misinterpreted in the case of the Holocaust in particular.”[21]

It was shown here that the “convergence of evidence” method has been misinterpreted in the case of the Holocaust by Lipstadt’s team of Holocaust experts and Judge Gray. Shermer’s criterion for proving the traditional view of the Holocaust “did not happen” is thus satisfied.

This is only one of the many weak points in Judge Gray’s final judgment. The Holocaust Lobby’s presumed victory in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial is a Pyrrhic victory, for the whole affair forced the Lobby to publicly reveal how weak and questionable the evidence for the traditional view of the Holocaust really is. Time and the dawn of a new age of reason will show the world the validity of Holocaust revisionism.



[12]See Judge Gray’s “Judgment” in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial, online: http://www.focal.org/judg.html, paragraph 13.91.
[13]“Treblinka,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1992, pp.134-135.
[14]“Likwidacja zydowskiej Warszwy, Treblinka,” Biuleytn Zydowskiego Instytutu Historysznego (Warsaw), Jan.-June 1951, pp. 93-100. Quoted in Carlo Mattogno, “The Myth of the Extermination of the Jews.” The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1988, pp.273-274, 295 (n.16).
[15]The New York Times, August 8, 1943, p.11.
[16]Jacob Apenszlak, ed., The Black Book of Polish Jewry( New York, 1943), pp.142-143.
[17]World Jewish Congress, Lest We Forget(New York, 1943), pp.4, 6-7.
[18]OSS document, April 13, 1944. National Archives (Washington, DC), Military Branch, Record Group 226 (OSS records), No.67231.
[19]Nuremberg Trial Document 3311-PS. IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (IMT “blue series”/1947-1949), vol.32, pp.152-158; Also published in Carlos Whitlock Porter, Made in Russia: The Holocaust(Historical Review Press, 1988), p.2-7.[20]See the statements of Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg in Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die?: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian "False News" Trial of Ernst Zündel (Samisdat, 1992), p.31.
[21]Michael Shermer, “An Open Letter to Holocaust Revisionists: In Response to W.D. Brocksmidt’s ‘Open Letter to Michael Shermer’ in Newsletter of the Adelaide Institute, 27, January, 1995.” March 14, 1995. A copy of this letter is the possession of Paul Grubach. This letter may have been published in Shermer’s Skeptic magazine or posted on his Website.

https://codoh.com/library/document/conv ... idence/en/

[Hektor]

'Convergence of Evidence'
This can be circumstantial proof, if done correctly. In terms of "proving the Holocaust" it's however a rescue device, a cop-out.

One can use it correctly on a murder case.
You'd need to have good solid prove already:
* a murder victim and establish cause of death, time of death etc.
* a feasible murder weapon and prove that it was used.
* testimony, that is sound and credible.
* placing the suspect at the scene.
* Motive of the perpetrator(s).
* Excluding alternative explanations.


Do they have this for the Holocaust (homicidal gas chambers)?

* They have no murder victims/remains and also no feasible explanation for the figures they claim.
* They have no feasible murder weapon and also no proof that something like that was used.
* They have *some* testimony for homicidal gassings, but the vast majority of potential witnesses 'did not know about' until after the war.
* Well, there were guards / SS-men at the scene.
* NS was of course 'anti-semitic', but apparently they wanted to resolve the issue by moving Jews out of their sphere of influence.
* Alternative explanations for the evidence are not considered at all.
** That there were reasons for controlling and detaining Jews in camps, due to the war was ignored.
** That there epidemics that killed a lot of people is ignored, although it is occasionally mentioned.
** That cremation was a way to fight off epidemics is ignored.
** That Zyklon B was an delousing agent used to prevent communicable diseases is ignored, although it would not be denied of course.
** Healthcare and other services are ignored in the camps. Instead attention is shifted to "human experiments" as to have an explanation for the medical in the camps.
** That deported people were also transferred elsewhere is ignored.
** That witnesses had ulterior motives to 'disparage the Nazis' and increase their suffering for sympathy is ignored.
** The massive propaganda campaign and psychological warfare against NS-Germany is ignored.
** Interested parties (Allies, Jews, Communists, present German elites) in atrocity propaganda are ignored.

[hermod]

* They have no feasible murder weapon and also no proof that something like that was used.

As conceded by Judge Gray at the end of the notorious Irving-Lipstadt trial...

“What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps?
The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps,
coupled with the lack of archeological evidence,
means that reliance has to placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence…”
- Judge Charles Gray, Judgement in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial, paragraph 6.80

[Hektor]

* They have no feasible murder weapon and also no proof that something like that was used.

As conceded by Judge Gray at the end of the notorious Irving-Lipstadt trial...

“What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps?
The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps,
coupled with the lack of archeological evidence,
means that reliance has to placed on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence…”
- Judge Charles Gray, Judgement in the Irving-Lipstadt libel trial, paragraph 6.80

And also noted by Hans Hofmeyer and his team during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial.

6.80 What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps? The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence, which I shall shortly summarise. In giving an account of the Defendants' case as to the scale of the exterminations, I shall also summarise their argument that Hitler was complicit in the mass murder. The starting point is the evidence, such as it is, which is contained in contemporaneous documents.
https://www.hdot.org/judge/

'Circumstantial Evidence' that says it as well. But it still needs to be weighted properly against contrary evidence, which they never did.