Hearsay Evidence

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 31 Oct 2002 19:26

Scott and Erik --

One who asserts that a proposition is true or false is no longer a skeptic, but an advocate. An advocate has the burden of proof. Simply repeating the conclusion, directly or in the form of an analogy ("witch trials", "Santa Claus"), does not prove the truth or falsity of a proposition. If you regard the "soap story" as unproven or subject to alternative interpretations, that's fine. If you are trying to prove that the "soap story" is false ("a libel"), you have a long way to go.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: B.S. Alert!

Post by Roberto » 31 Oct 2002 19:33

Roberto wrote:While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.
Smith wrote:We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.

That's what we're doin'.
:wink:
Who is "we", Mr. Smith ?

Is it "we 'Revisionist' hollow-heads", this time ?

As I see it, you are the ones who make a fuss about the assessment of Neely's and Witton's affidavits by the IMT and by historians.

Which means that providing the text of those affidavits and explaining on hand of them why you think they were improperly assessed is your baby.

And it's not as if you had not been given hints where to look, is it, buddy?

So my suggestion is that you give your keyboard a rest, do your homework and come back when you got something other than the usual blah-blah-blah to offer.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Shrewd (and Bogus) Forensics...

Post by Scott Smith » 31 Oct 2002 19:39

David Thompson wrote:Scott and Erik --

One who asserts that a proposition is true or false is no longer a skeptic, but an advocate. An advocate has the burden of proof. Simply repeating the conclusion, directly or in the form of an analogy ("witch trials", "Santa Claus"), does not prove the truth or falsity of a proposition. If you regard the "soap story" as unproven or subject to alternative interpretations, that's fine. If you are trying to prove that the "soap story" is false ("a libel"), you have a long way to go.
First we have to see proof for the claim or it is more reasonable to presume it to be false, especially if it is "miraculous" (i.e., unusual), and there isn't anything but allegations from Nuremberg here. A simulacrum of evidence but nothing but a watery stew and a photograph of an untested exhibit. Rumor mongering is irresponsible at the very least. How's that for advocacy?
:)
CLICK! Image

Photograph of Thomas J. Dodd at the Prosecution Table.
Nuremberg, 1946.

Dodd developed a reputation for rigorous cross-examination during the Nuremberg Trials. Building upon his experience prosecuting accused spies and dishonest industrialists during the war, Dodd helped destroy the facades of innocence Nazi defendants attempted to create. His flair for the dramatic and his forensic skills would serve him well during his subsequent career in the House and Senate.
Last edited by Scott Smith on 31 Oct 2002 21:11, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Shrew (and Bogus) Forensics...

Post by Roberto » 31 Oct 2002 19:49

Scott Smith wrote:
David Thompson wrote:Scott and Erik --

One who asserts that a proposition is true or false is no longer a skeptic, but an advocate. An advocate has the burden of proof. Simply repeating the conclusion, directly or in the form of an analogy ("witch trials", "Santa Claus"), does not prove the truth or falsity of a proposition. If you regard the "soap story" as unproven or subject to alternative interpretations, that's fine. If you are trying to prove that the "soap story" is false ("a libel"), you have a long way to go.
First we have to see proof for the claim or it is more reasonable to presume it to be false, expecially if it is "miraculous" (i.e., unusual), and there isn't anything but allegations from Nuremberg here. A simulacrum of evidence but nothing but a watery stew and a photograph of an untested exhibit. Rumor mongering is irresponsible at the very least. How's that for advocacy?
Once more, do yourself a favor and cut out the bullshit.

There's eyewitness and physical evidence that was assessed by a criminal justice authority and by historians, whose conclusions it is up to you to disprove it you think they were wrong.

And that requires an assessment of the evidence by yourself that convincingly explains why you think those conclusions were flawed.

Hollow rhetorical howling, on the other hand, will only get you to the bottom of ridicule - if you're not there already.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Reeducating the Germans...

Post by Roberto » 31 Oct 2002 19:58

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:The heirs of that collective idiocy are still around.
Is Günter Grass (1927- ) one of those "reeducated" Germans, Roberto?
How can Grass possibly be what only exists in the minds of Führer-loving morons?

Grass is a renowned German author. I hear his latest novel, about the sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff by a Soviet submarine, is a bestseller in Germany.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 31 Oct 2002 20:02

Scott -- "The better rule is that once evidence tending to rebut the presumption is introduced, the presumption loses all its force." (Black's Law Dictionary, "Effect of Presumptions").

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Charles Bunch » 31 Oct 2002 20:05

Scott Smith wrote:Image
Roberto wrote:While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.
We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.
The pertinent texts in support of Mazur have been presented.

If you wish to claim the tribunal hide additional evidence in the affidavits which undoes the pertinent sections presented to the court, while the defendents attornies sat on their thumbs saying nothing, that's your desperate claim to support. More mindless denial of evidence from Smith.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: B.S. Alert!

Post by Scott Smith » 31 Oct 2002 20:10

Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.
We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.

That's what we're doin'.
:wink:
Who is "we", Mr. Smith ?

Is it "we 'Revisionist' hollow-heads", this time ?

As I see it, you are the ones who make a fuss about the assessment of Neely's and Witton's affidavits by the IMT and by historians.
No, you are claiming that the Holy Soap is real, or at least Chuck is.

Chuck provided us with a kitchen soap recipe claimed by the Soviets at Nuremberg to have been found at the DAI (without substantiation), and claimed (again without substantiation) to be a recipe for Human Soap.

We (i.e., those of us who are not Believers) have provided everything else, including the text of Mazur (courtesy of Nizkor) and therein his claims to have used Human Soap with his Mom's laundry.

And I have provided you with lots of documents from ILL for our long-winded diesel-debate and sent them via U.S. mail to Portugal.

The ball's in your court now if you wish to continue trying to substantiate Mazur.

The rest of us saw the trees in the forest long ago.

Hint: If these "affidavits" can be found, in toto, you can see if Neely and Witton's specific claims support Mazur's specific claims. That would be a convergence-of-evidence, albeit somewhat tainted by the Nuremberg process itself, IMHO.

That's your best hope and it's weak even if it pans out for you.

Of course, if they all just give their own lurid Human Soap claims, then all we really have is just more wartime rumor, which counts for squat.
:wink:

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: B.S. Alert!

Post by Roberto » 31 Oct 2002 20:20

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.
We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.

That's what we're doin'.
:wink:
Who is "we", Mr. Smith ?

Is it "we 'Revisionist' hollow-heads", this time ?

As I see it, you are the ones who make a fuss about the assessment of Neely's and Witton's affidavits by the IMT and by historians.
No, you are claiming that the Holy Soap is real, or at least Chuck is.

Chuck provided us with a kitchen soap recipe claimed by the Soviets at Nuremberg to have been found at the DAI (without substantiation), and claimed (again without substantiation) to be a recipe for Human Soap.

We (i.e., those of us who are not Believers) have provided everything else, including the text of Mazur (courtesy of Nizkor) and therein his claims to have used Human Soap with his Mom's laundry.

And I have provided you with lots of documents from ILL for our long-winded diesel-debate and sent them via U.S. mail to Portugal.

The ball's in your court now if you wish to continue trying to substantiate Mazur.

The rest of us saw the trees in the forest long ago.

Hint: If these "affidavits" can be found, in toto, you can see if Neely and Witton's specific claims support Mazur's specific claims. That would be a convergence-of-evidence, albeit somewhat tainted by the Nuremberg process itself, IMHO.

That's your best hope and it's weak even if it pans out for you.

Of course, if they all just give their own lurid Human Soap claims, then all we really have is just more wartime rumor, which counts for squat.
:wink:
More of Smith’s hollow blah-blah-blah.

The times when I felt compelled to comment on such rubbish are over, my dear boy.

Whether you like it or not, I don't have to demonstrate that the Nuremberg judges were right.

It is you who has to demonstrate they were wrong, if you so think.

It is you who has to demonstrate that the evidence they based their conclusions on was flawed or not conclusive, or that they drew conclusions not warranted by that evidence.

Once again, do your homework and come back when you have something to show for your contentions.

Or then piss off for good.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Are We Being Served?

Post by Scott Smith » 31 Oct 2002 20:23

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Image
Roberto wrote:While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.
We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.
The pertinent texts in support of Mazur have been presented.

If you wish to claim the tribunal hide additional evidence in the affidavits which undoes the pertinent sections presented to the court, while the defendents attornies sat on their thumbs saying nothing, that's your desperate claim to support. More mindless denial of evidence from Smith.
Image

Sorry, Chuck, I cannot read a closed book! We need to see the Neely and Witton texts, in toto.

I won't even require that it have been published in 1946 by the IMT, as online from a Holo-site will do for these purposes--as long as it is complete text as shown.

(But even text published by the IMT in 1946 or thereabouts is still not the original affidavit; nevertheless, we'll just assume that they didn't generate it out of wholecloth for the occasion and truly copied the text of the "affidavits" as they received them.)

I stand waiting in abeyance for your serve.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Are We Being Served?

Post by Roberto » 31 Oct 2002 20:29

Scott Smith wrote:Sorry, Chuck, I cannot read a closed book! We need to see the Neely and Witton texts, in toto.
If you feel that need, Smith, go get them.

That would be a much better show than defending yourself with claws and teeth against doing what is your encumbrance.

Erik
Member
Posts: 488
Joined: 03 May 2002 16:49
Location: Sweden

Post by Erik » 31 Oct 2002 20:33

Mr Bunch wrote:
Erik wrote:
The evidence to the Soap libel have too close resemblance to the evidence to the gas chamber allegations.
Why don't you tell us about the resemblance?

Congratulations for finally making a definitive statement!
Thanks!

You have probably already read the similar exhortations expressed earlier by Roberto?
How about telling us in a concise and intelligible manner what exactly you think is wrong with the evidence or assessments of evidence that don't fit into your moronic dreamworld ?
(sic)

Then you bring me into a quandary (“practical dilemma”) again, as you are wont to do.

You are inviting me to the “Is-too/is-not” racket, fun for the con-man, less so for the less confident.

But let’s put the “resemblance” like this!

Soap=gas chambers of Treblinka.

Photografic evidence of the Soap bar=”map”/model by Franz/Wiernik(?)

If you bunk photografic evidence of “human” soap from experiments, you can just as well bunk maps and models as evidence of mass murder.

Mazur=Blobel.

Both confessed. It’s possible to make soap, according to the receipt. It is possible to cremate cadavers on grills in open-air arrangements.

If you bunk the confession on soap experiment, you can just as easily bunk the confession of an Enterdungs-Aktion.

Witness testimonies on human soap experiments=witness testimonies on gas chambers.

The latter can be “bunked” on the same ground as the former. They can have seen “something else” than they thought they saw, and their interpretations are subject to the same possibilities of mistaken impressions.

Photo of “human soap”=gas chamber of Dachau?

Now I have thought too little (=”even less”, if you prefer) on this equation.( I.e., “arrangements” as evidence). But are there any mathematicians around who can “bunk” the equation?

A soap bar can be investigated by modern forensic chemistry methods(DNA and such), can it not? Can the model gas chamber, allegedly built at Dachau by the Nazis, be “proven” to work?

If the soap bar in the photo is found, and a test shows that it contains human fat, the case is proven. Mazur made “experiments” of soap production from human fat. Period.

And so is the probability of a test gas chamber at Dachau strenghtened.

If the test does not show such traces of human fat, the arrangement illustrated by the photo is a fake arrangement. If such fake arrangements were made to prove human fat soap, why shouldn’t a fake gas chamber be built on the same principles?

Is that a fair “resemblance”?

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re:

Post by Charles Bunch » 31 Oct 2002 20:35

Scott Smith wrote:
David Thompson wrote:Scott and Erik --

One who asserts that a proposition is true or false is no longer a skeptic, but an advocate. An advocate has the burden of proof. Simply repeating the conclusion, directly or in the form of an analogy ("witch trials", "Santa Claus"), does not prove the truth or falsity of a proposition. If you regard the "soap story" as unproven or subject to alternative interpretations, that's fine. If you are trying to prove that the "soap story" is false ("a libel"), you have a long way to go.
First we have to see proof for the claim or it is more reasonable to presume it to be false, expecially if it is "miraculous" (i.e., unusual)

No, you can't apply Hume's standard without applying Hume's definition. A miracle is not merely unusual, but a violation of the laws of nature. All atrocities are unusual, they are not violations of natures laws.

Next you confuse proof with evidence. The evidence for the making of human soap has been presented. You may not wish to believe it constitutes proof, but that has nothing to do with claiming it has been proven false. Try: The Fallacy of Negative Proof.

,
and there isn't anything but allegations from Nuremberg here.
More confusion. What was presented at Nuremberg were not allegations, but evidence.
A simulacrum of evidence but nothing but a watery stew and a photograph of an untested exhibit. Rumor mongering is irresponsible at the very least. How's that for advocacy?
Piss poor advocacy, and even worse logic.

Direct testimomy of events, under oath, is not rumor mongering. And there is nothing about the evidence which only resembles evidence. I assume you selected this archaic term, often used in literary thought, in yet another attempt to substitute pseudo-thought for the real thing. I can only conclude that your penchant for mis-using or mis-applying terms at the drop of a hat reflects an anarchic mental process - an argumentative version of Ali's "rope-a-dope" strategy.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 31 Oct 2002 20:38

Erik wrote: You have probably already read the similar exhortations expressed earlier by Roberto?
How about telling us in a concise and intelligible manner what exactly you think is wrong with the evidence or assessments of evidence that don't fit into your moronic dreamworld ?
And the audience has probably noticed that what I suggested is the last thing the poor philosopher is able or willing to do.
Last edited by Roberto on 31 Oct 2002 20:42, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Burden of Proof...

Post by Scott Smith » 31 Oct 2002 20:39

David Thompson wrote:Scott -- "The better rule is that once evidence tending to rebut the presumption is introduced, the presumption loses all its force." (Black's Law Dictionary, "Effect of Presumptions").
I need no "evidence to rebut a presumption" here unless it is presumed that the Human Soap MUST be real because it contains a good story about the Nazis.

A presumption is always negative without proof offered, particularly if contested. The burden-of-proof is therefore on the claimant. I do not have to prove a claim false that is not proved true on the basis of reliable evidence.

If anything passed as evidence then anything would be true.
:aliengray

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”