Claims of Forged, Altered or Missing Evidence

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

A Skeptic Speaks...

Post by Scott Smith » 14 Jan 2003 07:59

witness wrote:
In the third place, it's always a bad sign when a person starts a line of reasoning with a conclusion, and then stops. The reasoning is missing, and you have to ask yourself "Why? Is it because there isn't any?"
Absolutely. Thus for me it remains to be enigma why Scott keeps on ignoring the question presented by Roberto about those 700000 Jews deported to Treblinka ( where all these people disappeared ) This was exactly an example of starting "a line of reasoning " and then bringing it to an abrupt stop when the evidence becomes incompatible with the political agenda of the poster.
What horseshit! I am not ducking anything. In the first place, I did not say that nobody was killed or even gassed at Treblinka. I said that nobody was gassed with diesel exhaust and I used technical arguments to support that.

In the second place, I cannot logically answer a question that I don't know the answer to.

Roberto pretends that Hilberg with his 700 thousand, or Israel in the Demjanjuk trial with its 875 thousand, have a list of hundreds of thousands of names of people who disappeared into a postage-stamp-sized Black Hole. They don't. They cannot prove that these missing populations ever saw the camp let alone were killed there. At best there is a demographic mystery. The Nazis used Jews for forced-labor all over their occupied territories and they had general policies from Wannsee to deport them to Russia as well.

The evidence for gassing at Treblinka is extremely thin and contradictory. In my opinion, it is likely that many were killed; but I have repeatedly stated that what is needed to answer this question is legitimate and comprehensive forensic archaeology. Contrary to popular belief, evidence just doesn't disappear into the void. Physical evidence should give us some ballpark figures. If they square with Hilberg's numbers then maybe the gassing-thesis is viable--but not with diesel engines. At best we have one report that people might have been killed with a gasoline engine at Sobibor. For this to be hundreds of thousands gassed we need some forensic archaeology and some process-engineering studies on the murder-weapon. If we have "only" a thousand murders then the whole complexion of the story changes. Hilberg's "Pure Extermination Camp" thesis would have to be revised, and this would certainly add to the existing Intentionality/Functionality debate.

Of course, in some circles you cannot legally ask questions such as these. Even where it is legal, you get hit with the anti-intellectual "Denier" canard from the True Believers. That is not what historiography is all about.
:)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 14 Jan 2003 08:34

Alexx -- Thanks for your post. It is helpful in any discussion to start by agreeing on the subject matter to be discussed. I wasn't really sure what Scott was talking about, so (1) I told him; and (2) explained the unclear part, so if he was inclined, he could clarify his point.

From time to time on the forum, one or another contributor has suggested, speculated or stated that some one or another item of evidence relating to war crimes was or might have been forged, altered, or missing. No one, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that all of the evidence fell into those categories. What I wanted to do with this particular topic, was to use the thread as a place where allegations of forged, altered or missing evidence could be aired.

This subject matter is different from the issue of propaganda, which usually involves a type of argument derived from some kind of claimed evidence, whether strong or flimsy. Although forged, altered or missing evidence may be used in a propaganda-type argument, the evidence is not the same thing as the argument.

While I don't intend to stop any discussion of the propaganda issue, I believe those discussions provide a substantial distraction from specific claims that evidence is forged, altered or missing. When the issues aren't narrowly drawn, people have a tendency to talk past each other. Because other contributors have charged that allegations of forged, altered or missing evidence were merely "red herrings" or distractions, I thought I'd give the allegations a special place of their own -- here.

If anyone has any such allegations, this is the time and this is the place. Please post them.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 14 Jan 2003 09:02

Scott -- Thanks for your clarification. I didn't see the transfer notice on the "Nazi Plans for Poland" thread, which provided the context for your observation. Without having seen the transfer notice, your statement seemed unusually abrupt.

I agree with you that evidence needs to be weighed on a case-by-case basis. That's one of the reasons I posted the "bastard parentage," as you drolly put it, of the Nuernberg documents (at least the Anglo-American ones). As different topics come up from time to time, I'm looking forward to discussing the persuasiveness of the evidence with you. It is probably better to do this on a thread-by-thread basis, since I want to use this thread to air any claims of forged, altered or missing evidence.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Re: A Skeptic Speaks...

Post by witness » 14 Jan 2003 11:23

Scott Smith wrote:[. In the first place, I did not say that nobody was killed or even gassed at Treblinka.
Of course you didn't. Just because everywhere some people could be
killed during the war which is obvious.
Let's see - the numerous convergent testimonies of the SS camp personal plus the numerous convergent testimonies of the inmates of the camp plus the fact of disappearence of about 700000 Polish Jews who were deported to Treblinka - all this doesn't give us a clue that some mass systematic murder did take place there. :)
. They cannot prove that these missing populations ever saw the camp let alone were killed there
How on earth they could have to ?
In order to do so you would have to board the train along with the victims
which means that you would have to share their fate . Is not it self -evident?
Roberto pretends that Hilberg with his 700 thousand, or Israel in the Demjanjuk trial with its 875 thousand, have a list of hundreds of thousands of names of people who disappeared into a postage-stamp-sized Black Hole
So you would like to say that there are no comparisons of the census numbers available ? :)
And of course the report of Stroop doesn't mean anything to you either .. :)

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

Post by Erik » 15 Jan 2003 02:32

Two of our esteemed fellow posters are bent on raising suspicions about evidence to facts inconvenient to their political/ideological beliefs.

One of them engages in a lengthy, barely intelligible monologue, without giving substance to any of the suspicions he would like to raise.


That one is Erik, I / he (ie., I) suppose/s!

Of course, Roberto is right. “Giving substance” to a suspicion “about evidence to facts” is an entirely other matter than squealing about their inconveniences to political/ideological beliefs.

The problem that faces a WW2 revisionism is that the “substance-giving” of such suspicions is prohibited by law in the crucial “substance-harboring” countries because it is “inconvenient to their political/ideological beliefs”, some way or other.

And that is the inevitable “Is-Too/Is-Not!” of the matter. Surprise, surprise!

To Erik it doesn’t matter, really. The “actual policies” of the world will continue to be actuated and implemented on the substance and evidence of facts and forgeries for the rest of his time, without making neither allowances nor mitigations for his convenience.

But there are other convenieces around.

Mr. Thompson wrote:
In the first place, the undefined expression "propaganda" does not give the reader any guidance to sifting fact from fiction, which is the purpose of this thread. Not only is the expression "propaganda" an "emotionally loaded" term, it is so general that it could mean everything or nothing.


Scott Smith can fend for himself, but maybe that was exactly his point? “Propaganda” – “allied” and other – is not meant to be “any guidance to sifting fact from fiction”, and its “emotionally loaded” terms can mean everything or nothing. That is why it is so “convenient” to “political/ideological beliefs”.

But this point being pointed out is not necessarily in itself propaganda, is it?

“Forgery” is also an “emotionally loaded” term. It can mean “everything or nothing”, since its antonym is “the real thing”, whatever it is.

A forged thing is false, contrived, apocryphal, counterfeit, fictitious, spurious, unauthorized etc, and with further equivalents from any edition of Roget’s. No nice words speaking for it.

But the term “forgery” is not necessarily useless from being associated with such abominable attributes? It is not an “empty class” on account of being of “zero value” as a forgery?

Both “propaganda” and “forgery” must be accepted as a part of our everyday reality “now and then”, mustn’t they?

You can’t just dismiss the terms because of some “inconvenience” concerning their applications.

Mr. Thompson is also quoted and commented upon by witness:

Quote:
Not only is the expression "propaganda" an "emotionally loaded" term, it is so general that it could mean everything or nothing.



I agree . Besides this is a very good indication of the poster bias.
You see how the “expression” can be applied , Mr. Thompson! The emotional “load” of it can be unpacked to some purpose!

witness continues:
Quote:
In the third place, it's always a bad sign when a person starts a line of reasoning with a conclusion, and then stops. The reasoning is missing, and you have to ask yourself "Why? Is it because there isn't any?"

Absolutely.Thus for me it remains to be enigma why Scott keeps on ignoring the question presented by Roberto about those 700000 Jews deported to Treblinka ( where all these people disappeared )
This was exactly an example of starting "a line of reasoning " and then
bringing it to an abrupt stop when the evidence becomes incompatible with the political agenda of the poster.
‘”What is Truth? Said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.’(Bacon.)

Mr. Thompson as Moderator is “bound” to stay for an answer perhaps, but is not keeping himself from “jumping to conclusions” rather too quickly, I think. (But I see now that Mr.Smith has answered to that.)

I’m inclined the other way, to the “foregone conclusion” that there is ALWAYS a “reasoning” to be found for both forgery and propaganda.

But it can take some time and energy to make the “line of reasoning” continue uninterrupted by “red herrings” and “straw men”, compatible with some political agenda.

And forgeries and propaganda never mind waiting.

As Mr. Bunch explains:
… the possibility you suggest of forgery, based on nothing other than your argumentative nature, tends to be exposed as nonsense as the amount and types of evidence increase.
Who has ever heard of forgeries being exposed “as the amount and types of evidence increase”?


Witness introduces the subject of “missing evidence”, fully in line with Mr. Thompson’s intention and titling of this thread.

The line of reasoning that Mr. Smith is supposed to have “stopped” (“abruptly”) was on the subject of Treblinka diesel exhaust gassings – the “missing evidence” of the “700 000” Jews deported there.


Perhaps you can say that witness, by making the Fallacy of “shifting the burden of proof” (on the Net, OC!) :
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/lo ... l#shifting
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/ ... urden.html
http://www.geocities.com/xenu_rules/mis ... proof.html

has introduced a convenient “red herring”?

Or perhaps he is comparing Mr. Smith to Stangl, who according to Gitta Sereny became angry when he was accused of shooting at Jews on their way to the gas chamber, but cooly admitted the average of 5000 gassed per day during his “command” of Treblinka?

Since 700 000 died there, who cares how they died? (Stangl is protesting his personal shooting, Mr. Smith is protesting the functionality of diesel exhaust gassing….albeit not for the “same reason”. Scott Smith “wasn’t there”, was he?)

It’s the horrifying statistics of it that needs to “be accounted for”, not how it was technically possible!(?). (Compare Vidal-Naquet!).

The killing methods can eventually be reconstructed, if they turn out to be incompatible to some “convenience”.

This leads to the Population Statistics problem I broached in my first posting? (above). The “700 000” Jews deported to Treblinka must have been killed and cremated there since they do not exist anymore. The “700 000” travelled no further, according to witnesses and affidavits and missing travel reports. Ergo, they do not exist.

Here are the calculations:
As an average number of persons per wagon we may take 100 (the majority of witnesses deposed that it was more than 150).
According to this calculation the number of victims murdered at Treblinka amounts to at least 731,600. Taking into consideration the great caution with which the investigators assessed the number of train-loads and the average number of persons per wagon, this must be accepted as probable, that in actual fact the number of victims was even larger1. (1It should be pointed out that from pertinent documents such as telegrams, time-tables and way-bills it appears absolutely certain that more than two thousand wagon-loads of Jews were brought to Treblinka; yet these documents constituted but a small part of all the railway documentary evidence, the greater part of which is lost.)
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm

There is “great caution” already taken into consideration here, as you can read. Still, 2 000 wagons with 100 persons per wagon – ignoring “the majority of witnesses” for unspecified reasons – make 200 000 persons. The 531 600 missing in this calculation are accounted for in the “greater part” of the “railway documentary evidence”,…”which is lost”.

How do we know that it is lost? Because 531 600 persons are lost?

The mystery of the “missing evidence”!! The STATISTICAL evidence, even! The “numbers”!

How are historians handling such knowledge? They “know” something, but the evidence is missing!

Is it possible to know something BECAUSE evidence is missing (the perpetuators destroyed it, and they wouldn’t have destroyed it if it wasn’t criminating evidence, would they?)?

100 million black men and women are supposed to have perished as a result of the European-American slave trade, to supply the colonies of Europe in the New World with cheap labor.

Can this be denied? Is denial “mindless”? Can the “missing evidence” supply knowledge? The slave ships returned empty from America, didn’t they? Like the rail way wagons from Treblinka!

Where are they, the missing 100 millons?

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 15 Jan 2003 03:09

Erik wrote:
But it can take some time and energy to make the “line of reasoning” continue uninterrupted by “red herrings” and “straw men”, compatible with some political agenda.
And tops it off with:
100 million black men and women are supposed to have perished as a result of the European-American slave trade, to supply the colonies of Europe in the New World with cheap labor.

Can this be denied? Is denial “mindless”? Can the “missing evidence” supply knowledge? The slave ships returned empty from America, didn’t they? Like the rail way wagons from Treblinka!

Where are they, the missing 100 millons?

Oh. I see.

Well, as a starter, do we have census data for the slave era populations? Were there "modern" communications? Displaced persons from around the world managed to eventually find their friends, families, neighbors, and the survivers of their pre-war circles. Some actively searched for family members for years after the war; some still do today.

I have read some Denier claims of 200,000 dead Jews, with the standard answer that the millions of missing Jews all ended up in the hands of the Soviet, hidden forever from the rest of the world while they were apparently loaded on trains heading west from the eastern zones.

The claim of "100 million" of 2-4 centuries ago first asserts itself as legitimate, and then a valid comparison to the question of 6 million missing Jews in 1945.

What was that about "Red Herrings" again?

Mark

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jan 2003 03:40

Erik -- Your post provided a link to an article on KZ Treblinka at:
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm

About that article, you state: "There is “great caution” already taken into consideration here, as you can read. Still, 2 000 wagons with 100 persons per wagon – ignoring “the majority of witnesses” for unspecified reasons – make 200 000 persons. The 531 600 missing in this calculation are accounted for in the “greater part” of the “railway documentary evidence”,…”which is lost”."

Where did you get the figure of 2,000 "wagons" (US - railroad cars) -- the basis for your math on the 531 600 missing victims? A "find" check for 2,000, 2 000 and 2000 on the article only turned up "Last update 02/02/2000."
Last edited by David Thompson on 15 Jan 2003 03:42, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: A Skeptic Speaks...

Post by Scott Smith » 15 Jan 2003 03:41

witness wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:They cannot prove that these missing populations ever saw the camp let alone were killed there
How on earth they could have to ?
Well, they better; they are making a magnificent accusation here. Unless, of course, the monolithic-fact of the Genocide is prior to the facts of the matter. Instead of building "giants with feet of clay," truth is found by following the evidence where it leads.
:)

In any case, Hilberg's thesis comes under fire here:
The Giant With Feet of Clay: RAUL HILBERG and his standard work on the Holocaust, by JÜRGEN GRAF.

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

Post by Erik » 15 Jan 2003 04:31

Mr. Thompson wrote:
Scott, Erik & anyone else -- Because the subject has come up on several occasions, I think it would be very helpful to have a separate thread devoted to allegedly forged, altered or missing evidence relating to war crimes. This would allow the problem to be confronted directly, and not be buried in a different discussion. If there's something wrong with the evidence, people need to know about it.
(my emphasis).

Erik wrote:
I hope I’m not introducing another “red-herring” here if I broach the issue of Population Statistics under this thread?
Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:44 am

Tarpon 27 wrote:
What was that about "Red Herrings" again?


“Claims of forged, altered and missing evidence” is the name of the thread.

I thought that Population Statistics would fit under those specifications : “forged, altered and missing” statistics make their presence evident “now and then”, don’t they? And historians (at least since Hume) have been sceptical to their predecessors and contemporaries on that issue “from time to time”.

To an ignorant amateur like me it seems like it’s the kind of thing that would come easy to a forger, swindler, con man of any persuasion. The easiest way to make a million buck is to put a zero or two behind a given amount or sum on a check or a bill or account or whatever it is that gives you “credit”.

Of course, that’s were the scepticism is most alert, too, (un)fortunately. :x or :D

Can you TRUST figures on a paper any more than the words of a man? Statistics never lie?

I’ve heard the 100 million figure of slave trade victims mentioned on the radio, as an example of “absurd claims”, but I’ve not searched for the source of the calculation behind it.
Well, as a starter, do we have census data for the slave era populations? Were there "modern" communications? Displaced persons from around the world managed to eventually find their friends, families, neighbors, and the survivers of their pre-war circles. Some actively searched for family members for years after the war; some still do today.
You mean, those 100 million can’t be traced with something like the International Tracing Service (ITS) at Arolsen, so we can’t be assured that they have existed? The victims of Nazi politics can be searched after with ‘“modern” communications’ ? If they can’t be found in that way, they are exterminated by the Nazi extermination policy?

BTW, revisionists complain that they are denied access to the ITS at Arolsen.

But when it comes to African slaves, they have never existed, since they cannot be searced after with such ‘”modern” communications”?
I have read some Denier claims of 200,000 dead Jews, with the standard answer that the millions of missing Jews all ended up in the hands of the Soviet, hidden forever from the rest of the world while they were apparently loaded on trains heading west from the eastern zones.


Can such a claim be checked and refuted by ‘”modern” communications”, after the raise of the Iron Curtain? Unlike the acres of Treblinka?
The claim of "100 million" of 2-4 centuries ago first asserts itself as legitimate, and then a valid comparison to the question of 6 million missing Jews in 1945.


Like the missing Jews “in the hands of the Soviet”? Or the missing 700 000 Jews in the acres of Treblinka?
Last edited by Erik on 15 Jan 2003 05:04, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Erik » 15 Jan 2003 05:02

Mr Thompson wrote:
Where did you get the figure of 2,000 "wagons" (US - railroad cars) -- the basis for your math on the 531 600 missing victims? A "find" check for 2,000, 2 000 and 2000 on the article only turned up "Last update 02/02/2000."


You can find the figure emphasized here, in the same quote as in my former posting:
According to this calculation the number of victims murdered at Treblinka amounts to at least 731,600. Taking into consideration the great caution with which the investigators assessed the number of train-loads and the average number of persons per wagon, this must be accepted as probable, that in actual fact the number of victims was even larger1. (1It should be pointed out that from pertinent documents such as telegrams, time-tables and way-bills it appears absolutely certain that more than two thousand wagon-loads of Jews were brought to Treblinka; yet these documents constituted but a small part of all the railway documentary evidence, the greater part of which is lost.)
(My italics and emphasis.)

But of course, the following passage gives another estimation:
The total number of wagon-loads of victimls from August 1, 1942, to May 15, 1943, may be taken, with some certainty, to have been 7,550.
(my italics).

Compare the absolutely certain that more etc above with with some certainty in the second quote here.
As an average number of persons per wagon we may take 100 (the majority of witnesses deposed that it was more than 150).
“With some certainty” of 7,550 “wagonloads” gives 755 000 with 100 persons “per wagon”, and more than 1,132,500 victims if "the majority of witnesses" were right. (And Zarnecki “knew” best, didn’t he?– being in the position to be able to count, as station master at Treblinka.)

And the wagons came back empty, didn't they?

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jan 2003 05:03

Erik -- In an earlier post you said that, according to someone's calculations, there were 531,600 missing victims from Treblinka.

I asked, "Where did you get the figure of 2,000 "wagons" (US - railroad cars) -- the basis for your math on the 531 600 missing victims?"

In your reply, you did not answer that question, but referred to "the missing 700 000 Jews in the acres of Treblinka."

In your reply, you also ask "Can you TRUST figures on a paper any more than the words of a man?"

Good question. Which is it -- 531,600 or 700,000 missing victims? And how did you come to the two contradictory figures?

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

Post by Erik » 15 Jan 2003 05:31

Mr. Thompson:
We are writing past each other it seems. But I wrote the reply to Tarpon 27 before I read your posting.

The puzzling part of my quote from this link
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm
which I suppose is not the only calculation of its kind, is the following parenthesis:
(1It should be pointed out that from pertinent documents such as telegrams, time-tables and way-bills it appears absolutely certain that more than two thousand wagon-loads of Jews were brought to Treblinka; yet these documents constituted but a small part of all the railway documentary evidence, the greater part of which is lost.)
Why write like this? “…absolutely certain that more than two thousand….” unless the 2,000 has some special “basis” of sort? Why not being “absolutely certain” with 3,000? 4,000? Especially when you wind up eventually with a more exact looking figure of “7,550”?

And then only “with some certainty”!! A precision indicates more certainty than "some", you'd think.
The total number of wagon-loads of victimls from August 1, 1942, to May 15, 1943, may be taken, with some certainty, to have been 7,550.
(my emphasis.)

You suspect that the precision is somewhat “contrived”.

(The "700 000" is taken from the posting of witness.)

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23724
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 15 Jan 2003 06:32

Erik -- I know what you mean -- the same thing happened with Scott the other day. We were both posting at the same time.

Please excuse my delay in responding to your questions about statistics. The reason is that I'm ambivalent about statistical evidence. The figures you read may be more or less exact but sometimes it's difficult to find out how the writer came up with the numbers. Even if you can understand the method, the result is often based on other numbers that you may not be too sure about.

I'm somewhat more comfortable if the statistics are being used against the fellow who compiled or tabulated the numbers, because then you can ask "If the figures are phony, how come you provided them? Why would you go to the trouble of keeping bogus records? What kind of person would do that?"

In the passages to which you refer, the author(s) (or perhaps the translator) has a method of expression reminescent of a character in a Kafka novel. When a writer doesn't detail the basis or method of their calculations, you're left with either having to take his (or their) word for it, or look somewhere else.

For these reasons, I haven't put very much time into studying holocaust statistics, other than Nazi records. To me, it's like arguing over whether a serial killer murdered 18, 27, or "over 40" victims. I'm more interested in a showing that there was a crime, it was the result of a policy, and that a specific person or group of persons did it.

This isn't a very satisfactory answer to the questions you raised, but at least it has the feature of truth. Hopefully, persons better informed than I on this subject can be more helpful.

As for some other points you raised:

(1) "But this point being pointed out is not necessarily in itself propaganda, is it?"

No, not necessarily. But it would be helpful to know how the other guy is using the word, before getting into the discussion.

(2) ‘”What is Truth? Said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer.’(Bacon.) Mr. Thompson as Moderator is “bound” to stay for an answer perhaps, but is not keeping himself from “jumping to conclusions” rather too quickly, I think.

If a person (like myself) doesn't understand something, it's better to say something about it sooner than later. If you can say why you don't understand it, so much the better. That way, hopefully no one's time will be wasted.

(3) "I’m inclined the other way, to the “foregone conclusion” that there is ALWAYS a “reasoning” to be found for both forgery and propaganda."

This is my inclination as well, once forgery and/or propaganda have been established.

(4) "Who has ever heard of forgeries being exposed “as the amount and types of evidence increase”?"

I have. That's how the forgery of diplomatic cables supposedly dating from the Kennedy administration came to light. Also, sometimes science can be a wonderful thing. Although not a result of a forgery, the cause of Napoleon's death had to wait for many years to be thoroughly explained.

(5) "Is it possible to know something BECAUSE evidence is missing (the perpetuators destroyed it, and they wouldn’t have destroyed it if it wasn’t criminating evidence, would they?)?"

Consciousness of guilt is the usual and most likely explanation, once you show that the perpetrators destroyed it.

I hope this helps with some of the issues you raised.

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 15 Jan 2003 07:16

Erik wrote:
Perhaps you can say that witness, by making the Fallacy of “shifting the burden of proof” ........
has introduced a convenient “red herring”?
Of course "shifting the burden of proof " to those who tend to ignore the disappearence of huge number of people ordered by the individuals whom
they are so fond of defending in the first place . 8O Weird ahh ?
But weird for whom ? Maybe for those who would not like to carry this
"burden"?
Maybe we can sense some "deja vu " of not quite Allied "propaganda " here in this accusation of "shifting of blah .."
Let's not forget that not only the victors were familiar with all those "propaganda"advantages..
Still, 2 000 wagons with 100 persons per wagon – ignoring “the majority of witnesses” for unspecified reasons – make 200 000 persons. The 531 600 missing in this calculation are accounted for in the “greater part” of the “railway documentary evidence”,…”which is lost”.
Maybe I misunderstand something ? 8O
From the source Erik himself provided :
The total number of wagon-loads of victimls from August 1, 1942, to May 15, 1943, may be taken, with some certainty, to have been 7,550.
Would you mind clarifying what you mean by "2000 wagons " Erik ?

One more thing - so far nobody adressed the Stroop report here...
"Red herring " ?

Oh I see - of course it is just one more "forgery" product of the Allied
"propaganda "

User avatar
witness
Member
Posts: 2279
Joined: 21 Sep 2002 00:39
Location: North

Post by witness » 15 Jan 2003 07:35

Sorry - I didn't see the previous Erik' post .
But still -is not it absolutely essentual what goes after the highlighted
by Erik text (from the quote about 2000 wagons ):
yet these documents constituted but a small part of all the railway documentary evidence, the greater part of which is lost.)
Again the Stroop report numbers would tell us that much of this " documentary evidence" was lost indeed :)

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”