| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Jonathan Harrison |
Berg's Cognitive Dissonance |
Lead | ||
|
Member
Posts: 3534 9-Mar-2009 23:35 |
Berg is currently banging on about the unreliability of witness memory:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5427 Yet this is the same Berg who insists that witnesses would definitely have seen and remembered cherry-pink corpses and diesel gas chambers. |
|||
|
|
||||
 deathonacracker |
#1 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 4319 10-Mar-2009 00:36 |
Jonathan Harrison wrote:This was discussed here in another thread. There is a case in Alaska (http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/707844.html) having to do with DNA testing. This earlier case came up as an example that the DNA testing ought to be granted. Berg is misusing the 60 minutes piece for his own gains. Mike
Remember what Irma Grese said right after the trial? I'll remind you:
"It was our duty to exterminate anti-social elements, so that Germany's future would be assured." |
|||
|
|
||||
|
davidwoolfe |
#2 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 1307 10-Mar-2009 01:20 |
Eyewitness ID's of stranger-perpetrators are notoriously poor, as facial recognition memory for one-off events is very problematic. Witnesses remember
events in broad strokes. They may not recall a face, a name, a number, a color or a dimension. How Berg thinks this 60-minutes piece helps his case
vis-a-vis Holocaust testimony is beyond me.
Can you imagine trying someone based on 65 year old eyewitness testimony!Make me chuckle. In the next thread they'll be highly suspicious of Vrba not getting the height of the Krema right, after 40 years... - Dave |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Scott Smith 01 |
#3 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 14785 10-Mar-2009 12:05 humble, lovable shoeshine boy |
How so? Berg specifically mentions the Demjanjuk case in Israel--where they trotted out one Survivor after another to spout the most amazing horseshit and (not
surprisingly) convicted him of being Treblinka's Ivan the Terrible, a fantasy character who ran the diesel gaschambers--and who, according to Arad, cut
women's breasts off with his sword and stuff. Demjanjuk was sentenced to death, as is the case for Holocrimes. The UCLA's Dr. Loftus was hired by the
defense as an expert on lie-witness testimony, but in the final analysis she turned them down so as not to offend the Tribe and all its lie-witnesses. Before
executing Demjanjuk, though--when the world spotlight was on them, and even CNN commentator and perennial Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan was questioning
the viability of the diesel gaschambers in his syndicated articles--the Israelis quietly figured out a way to save face and find Demjanjuk a victim of mistaken
identity. He was then released from Israel and his American citizenship was restored by a thoroughly corrupt U.S. government that never should have deported
him in the first place, based on nothing besides the Jewish Lobby wanting it.
I agree that Loftus is thoroughly vile. It is one thing to have fun finding Negroes who didn't do it, after all, but quite another when Israel is involved. 
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jonathan Harrison |
#4 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 3535 10-Mar-2009 12:15 |
"How so" - because, as already discussed, deniers are evaluating testimony from a false premise that the testimony should be accurate, when infact
Loftus and others have shown there is no reason why it should be accurate at this point, then they are postulating a 'hoax' by inference from those
inaccuracies.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Scott Smith 01 |
#5 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 14787 10-Mar-2009 12:29 humble, lovable shoeshine boy |
Either the claims made are true or they are false. If they are false, the accusers need to shut up. Millions were killed in a wholly unnecessary and tragic
series of world wars in the last century, but only the Jews have made a religion out of it. All one has to do is read the Old
Testament to see that this is how they view history. After WWII, and with Allied/Soviet encouragement, they lied for the Tribe. Sorry, but I don't
think they should get a pass on it. Berg is right in this case.
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Peter Gast |
#6 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 1846 10-Mar-2009 13:37 |
Scott Smith 01 wrote: But Scott, something can be true without actually having happened. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
deathonacracker |
#7 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 4321 10-Mar-2009 13:48 |
Scott Smith 01 wrote: The point you refuse to see is that the 60 minutes issue and the Alaska issue concern different circumstances than the holocaust testimony. Tell me, has there ever been a time when you 4th-raters (Jonny excluded) has not agreed with each other or slapped each other on the back? Mike
Remember what Irma Grese said right after the trial? I'll remind you:
"It was our duty to exterminate anti-social elements, so that Germany's future would be assured." |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Scott Smith 01 |
#8 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 14790 10-Mar-2009 17:29 humble, lovable shoeshine boy |
I don't think there is a fundamental difference between Holocaust testimony and other testimony except that the Big-H is a Belief System, which only adds
to its miasmic moralizing properties.
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
deathonacracker |
#9 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 4322 10-Mar-2009 18:35 |
I'de discuss this with readers but not here in the memory hole. The issue of courts, memory, time, German Politics (East & West), and trials is a
larger issue. The 60 minutes show is apples to oranges concerning the plave Berg is at as well as yourself. I won't discuss this here in the Memory Hole.
Mike
Remember what Irma Grese said right after the trial? I'll remind you:
"It was our duty to exterminate anti-social elements, so that Germany's future would be assured." |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Scott Smith 01 |
#10 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 14795 10-Mar-2009 19:03 humble, lovable shoeshine boy |
The subforum is about, among other things, what they are saying at other forums, which was the point of the original post.
Loftus was part of the 60 Minutes segment, which I saw, and she was involved in the Demjanjuk trial--the defense for which wanted to retain her as an experimental research expert in forensic psychology in order to show the unreliability of eye-witnesses, including the ones in Israel, but she refused to help for ideological reasons. That is Berg's point. The psychological science has shown and explained what Revisionists have been saying, and what was clearly operating at the Demjanjuk trial. Like I said, it is fashionable to use the sciences to find Negroes who didn't do it, after all, but not to exculpate Nazis. None of this is hard to understand. Reasonable people can see the hypocrisy and the perfunctory obfuscation whenever cherished mythology might be questioned. I would frankly question the honesty of anyone who does not get this, but I understand the True Believer capacity for self-deception and I pity them.
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
davidwoolfe |
#11 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 1312 10-Mar-2009 19:18 |
Scott Smith 01 wrote:I'm sorry, but this really is a false dichotomy. A witness can be 100% truthful but not 100% accurate. As well, a witness can be part truthful and part untruthful. But thank you for once again illustrating the simpled minded approach of denialists to witness testimony. - Dave |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Jonathan Harrison |
#12 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 3539 10-Mar-2009 19:47 |
It also shows that invoking Loftus was a red herring, because it is clearly not her position that all witnesses lie.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Scott Smith 01 |
#13 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 14796 10-Mar-2009 20:54 humble, lovable shoeshine boy |
No, the claims are either true or they are false. There are many claims--and no, the details are not monolithic--but each discrete claim is either true or it
is false. The Moon is either made of green cheese or it is not. Gassings happened or they did not. Demjanjuk had a sword or he did not. Mengele had a monocle
or he did not. A rape was either committed by a Black man or it did not occur.
This does not mean that when in error the witnesses lied--lying and believing your own B.S. are two different things--though I would be a little harder on the people that testified against Demjanjuk, whose imaginations ran wild with their cultural mythology, no doubt prompted by memories of real (but not unique) suffering during the war. I do not agree with Berg's "all Jews are pathological liars" viewpoint, but that is not what he has said in the aforementioned post, nor why Loftus is relevant here. In addition, I will say that Loftus can be pardoned just a wee bit for at least coming clean, after the fact, about her professional moral cowardice in refusing to critically review the outrageously flawed Demjanjuk testimony for the Israeli trial, by openly admitting that this was because the testimony was given by her coreligionists. On the other hand, is she personally coming clean after the fact about how forensically flawed this particular trial really was in order to let precious-Israel and her co-religious liars save face? Damage control? The bottom line is that if Israel had not come clean and reversed itself and then executed Demjanjuk, we would be hard-pressed in proving that this was judicial murder because the Holocaust lie-witnesses are sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. The sword-swiping Demjanjuk the Terrible would historical truth. The fact is that the Israeli court knew they had screwed up and they backpedaled as deftly as they could without casting doubt of the essentials of the Holo Faith. Before the execution, a few trusted voices must have come along in a sidebar and said, "hey guys, we got a problem here. You didn't here it from me, and I won't testify for the defense on appeal, though I do reserve the right to publish an article in a scholarly journal about it later on." I disagree with Berg also in that even if "Jews are liars" in specific Holocaust instances, that doesn't make the Nazis angels. The truth of the what happened must be established by rigid critical historiography and forensic research that some impatient Revisionists like Faurisson would call "art for art's sake," and it is not enough to simply discredit the treasure trove of Holocaust storytellers who lied about the Nazis.
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
deathonacracker |
#14 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 4323 10-Mar-2009 21:58 |
davidwoolfe wrote: It looks like your post is out of sync with Scott's silly either-or fallacy. This has become a very complex topic since I've been reading Herf's Divided Memory. I'll try put things as simply as I can for there were a whole mess of trials right after the war when memories were fresh. The things done to these people and others were done over a period of months, if not years, by the perpetrators they were testifying against. It was not some one time rape that is full of all kinds of memory corruptions and we have, darn it, discussed this stuff here in other threads about testimony. The trial Berg is blathering about is one that relied on old memory and had no DNA issues. East Germany decided that they would not remember the Jewish victims specifically and only remember those who died fighting against the Nazis. This would be the freedom fighter concept. As a result memories were not used or delayed. The East also seemed to not trust the Germans to not go back to National Socialism so they imposed a dictatorship to prevent this from happening. It seems they felt that a democracy could simply re-elect another Hitler. West Germany simply did not want to remember and put the Nazi past behind them as well as denazifications. Trials had to end so that the German people could come together. On page 267 of Herf's book he destills Kronrad Adenauer's argument down to that the establishment of a functioning democracy required less memory and justice for crimes of the Nazi era and more "integration" of those who had gone astray. AS time passed memories would age and become corrupted. Period. Still the 60 minute show is apples and oranges as far as Berg's points go. Mike
Remember what Irma Grese said right after the trial? I'll remind you:
"It was our duty to exterminate anti-social elements, so that Germany's future would be assured."
Last Edited By: deathonacracker 10-Mar-2009 22:30.
Edited 1 time.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
davidwoolfe |
#15 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 1315 10-Mar-2009 23:37 |
deathonacracker wrote: Well, Scott seems to think Berg's main point is to do with Loftus, when actually that is just a little side jab he throws in. His main point is quite clearly this: "Eyewitness testimony" was and still is a major feature of holocaust mythology and was used heavily during the postwar war crimes trials in Germany. Since there was no real evidence such as autopsies, or ducuments for mass gassings, nor even valid theories as to how the gas chambers even operated--"eyewitness testimony" was decisive. Now we know, thanks to 60 Minutes, just how bad it can be.His point is about how "bad" eyewitness testimony can be, and he uses as analogy the 60 minutes show about a mistaken ID in a rape. These kinds of examples do not help the denialist case at all. - Dave |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Scott Smith 01 |
#16 | |||
|
Member
Posts: 14798 11-Mar-2009 23:09 humble, lovable shoeshine boy |
Dave, the 60 Minutes TV program brought in Loftus to note how easy it is for eyewitness tesimony to be flawed and to
be influenced by the investigation itself, but it didn't really spend a lot of time on her research about how bad eyewitness testimony really is and how
the police themselves can inadvertently influence it.
Berg's point in the CODOH thread is absolutely valid. If it is still not clear, Loftus has written many articles on this, including on the Demjanjuk trial specifically and how they identified him as "Ivan the Terrible," and you can read her articles yourself. There is one in the Jewish journal Tikkun, for example. The SurvivorsTM brought in to testify at Demjanjuk's trial in Israel would have identified Santa Claus as "Ivan the Terrible" if he had been the one that was brought in in chains; both are equally fictitious if you ask me. But all is not mere faulty memories. Yizhak Arad, the Zionist generalissimo and Reinhardt Camps Israeli academic expert who also testified at the trial, knew for his part that Ivan Demianuk and Ivan Marchenko were not the same persons--but he was happy to let the Israel court find Demjanjuk to be "Ivan the Terrible" just the same.
But putting aside the virile hate directed against those who question the veracity of the typical Holocaust narrative, what is it that these people believe and say at the risk of imprisonment and bodily harm? For most Holocaust Revisionists or Deniers if you prefer, their arguments boil down to three simple contentions: 1. Hitler's "Final Solution" was intended to be ethnic cleansing, not extermination.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2009/02/what-does-holocaust-denial-really-mean/
|
|||
|
|
||||
