Lemmycaution must rue the day that he entered Pesye Schloss into Saggy's Official Show Me an Eyewitness Challenge. Lemmycaution does need to be commended for nominating a single person and not just spamming a list of two hundred or so as others have done. However, his nomination of hearsay evidence that follows the standard holocaust protocol of being light on the details and containing at least one example of excessive and unnecessary cruelty is somewhat mystifying. Perhaps Saggy wasn't clear that when he asked for one credible eyewitness, he was looking for one good example. But that shouldn't need to be spelled out. Lemmycaution attempted to explain that Kruk's description of what Pesye Schloss witnessed is equal to Pesye Schloss' description of what Pesye Schloss witnessed to no avail. And now he's switched back to the argument that eyewitness testimony singular is not the proper unit of analysis--we must consider eyewitness testimony as a whole.
This is a common theme. We hear it from NickTerry who insists that in order to challenge the Treblinka story, we must debunk forty two or so other camps. It appears this is a common strategy for the veteran Defenders of the Faith: avoid being drawn into discussions involving the trees by demanding analysis of the forest. Such a discussion would naturally be far too lengthy even for a single PhD thesis let alone an internet forum. Plus, unless there is a way to analyze the evidence as a whole without addressing any single piece evidence, any analysis of the forest must proceed one tree at a time.
But now we're treated to a synopsis of Sakowicz's entry for the murder action at Ponar that can be found in the English language edition of his Ponar Diary. So because there were many other eyewitnesses to the action at Ponar, Kruk's description of Pesye Schloss' description of what happened is direct eyewitness testimony and it is true? And this can all be confirmed by cross referencing the Jaeger report?
I really don't believe this is the best example you can come up with. Saggy has this theory that there aren't any good eyewitnesses to the holocaust. That's a reasonable assumption to make given that any time we try to discuss one individual survivor testimony, that one survivor is dismissed as irrelevant or not representative of survivors as a whole, or old, confused, traumatized, etc. We've been told the best known survivor of all time isn't respected among the holocaust scholar elite. When we point out the flaws in the survivor testimony that make the biggest impact in the mass media, we're told--not that these survivor's aren't lying--but that their lies aren't important because scholars don't rely on them anyway. Since we keep choosing bad survivors and bad testimony, it's time for you to tell us who is reliable.
Giving us a list of two hundred names isn't choosing one. Choose the one that you think is the best. There should be hundreds to choose from. If you can't name one, it must be because 1) you're still reviewing the list of two hundred and haven't been able to find one that is credible or 2) Pesye Schloss really is the gold standard of eyewitness testimony.
You're kidding, right? Anyway, I will remind you of the names of four reliable witnesses and one darned decent interviewer: Pesye Schloss, Yudis Trojak, Kazimierz Sakowicz, and Karl Jeager for the witnesses. And Herman Kruk for the interviewer. All gave similar accounts of the mass murder at Ponar the first week of September. All are credible, none has been shown to be anything like a degenerate liar.
First, Pesye Schloss was an
eyewitness and no amount of ignorant obfuscation on your part changes that fact. Look up the definition of eyewitness again and tell us with a straight face why Pesye Schloss wasn't an eyewitness to the events at Ponar that first week in September 1941, referencing the definition of eyewitness, not your wishful thinking. This - "Lemmycaution attempted to explain that Kruk's description of what Pesye Schloss witnessed is equal to Pesye Schloss' description of what Pesye Schloss witnessed to no avail" - is pure nitwittery. Think about it. I wrote that Pesye Schloss was an eyewitness; I even provided you with the common and ordinary definition of eyewitness, which perfectly describes Pesye Schloss. As I further told you, if your issue is with Kruk's account, go for it, but don't play games. So go after Kruk - show how his diary is unreliable. Explain how he came to summarize a number of testimonies about the action at Ponar in ways that other, independent sources confirm - but without his accounts having any credence. Go for it. But stop ranting with empty slogans. Please.
Second, you still don't know how to understand events in the past. We have several accounts that agree in many particulars, the most important being the carrying out of a mass execution at Ponar by Lithuanian shooters under direction of the Germans but also the pattern of the killings: groups of 10, theft of clothing, use of pits, etc. All this lends credence to the independent accounts. That is why Sakowicz's account is fatal to your case, because it confirms the shooting action and it is a good match with other accounts on the way it was carried out. Sorry, but that is a given, unless you can show something to cast doubt on the independent accounts. What makes these witnesses credible is that their testimonies reinforce one another and match with other independently given accounts.
Third, all your verbose waffling doesn't excuse you from giving direct answers, as you and your cohorts keep running from doing, to the following questions:
(1) As to the eyewitness Pesye Schloss, who offered first-hand knowledge of the early September mass execution of Vilna Jews at Ponar, can the deniers tell what were the lies they claim she told and how they know she lied?
(2) Then, can they explain how Yudis Trojak, another eyewitness, whose first-hand experience in the same murder action was taken down by Kruk, lied and how they know she lied?
(3) And then can they further explain Sakowicz's Ponar diary, which provides additional first-hand evidence for the same action?
(4) Also, can they explain the contents of Jaeger's official report of December 1941 describing in part the same event?
(5) And, finally, might they deal with a secondary source, Arad's account in Ghetto in Flames, and tell us the supposed problems with that reconstruction of the events of the first week of September 1941 in Vilna and at Ponar?
Fourth, this - "And now he's switched back to the argument that eyewitness testimony singular is not the proper unit of analysis" - is beyond lunacy and calls into question your reading comprehension skills again. I never subscribed to, indicated I subscribed to, or stated I subscribed to singular testimony as a proper unit of analysis. I told you that in a number of posts, explaining how even starting with a single witness will inevitably and inexorably lead you to other witnesses, to documents and reports, to similar events, to policy, etc. And after that Nick cogently explained that precisely this, leading you to see the absurdity of Saggy's method, was part of my own method. You are too dim to get what you are told directly over and over. That is astonishing, frankly.
One reason you and your chums, in fact, cannot answer my simple question - how do you know that Pesye Schloss lied? - is that it requires you to look beyond a single data point, start to make comparisons, draw conclusions about the weight of the evidence, and finally respond honestly.
And, last, let's not forget what this discussion is about. It is about whether every Jewish witness is a degenerate liar. You have done nothing to suggest that Pesye Schloss, eyewitness; Herman Kruk, chronicler of Vilna; Kazimierz Sakowicz, journalist and observer at Ponar; or Karl Jaeger, SS-Standartenfuhrer, lied degenerately about Ponar. Nothing. Isn't is strange that these diverse sources all agree on the main points? After all, that is what we ask of credible witnesses, that their testimony can be confirmed by other testimony, by documents, by other pieces of evidence. Explain that, Dogzilla.
