Amateur Barbarian is right, it’s not even a close call. The Minister was shown a picture by one of the people making the claims. Even if the picture taker was an independent government investigator, the Minister’s comments would STILL be hearsay. That’s why it would be unacceptable for the minister to testify in a court about the content or nature of either set of pictures – he could only testify as to what others told him about it. The actual photographers testimonies WOULDN’T be hearsay. For the claimant, the testimony might be suspect for other reasons, though.
This is like the Nazi UFO base, with the anti-gravity ring…it turned out to be an old town gas plant.
I have nothing to comment on what the legal definition of “hearsay” is, but I would say that the proclamation by the Deputy Culture Minister was an extraordinary one to have made and assured of attracting worldwide interest.
He said to a crowd of multiple recording journalists that an “exceptional” discovery had been made and that he had seen images of a train equipped with gun turrets. He said he was “99% convinced” that a Second World War military train had been found.
We, as outsiders on the proceedings, haven’t been privy to any real evidence and so the optimism that arose at the end of last week is purely derived from his announcement.
Having followed the story more closely since then, I’m getting the impression that no official or independent testing has yet been done at the site. I also read about an expert saying he thinks it unlikely that ground-penetrating radar would penetrate that deep. Defering to wikipedia on the subject it has approximate GPR penetration in dense wet clay of 6m and clean dry sand at 18m, and I would expect conditions at the site would be at the lower end of that scale. Plus, the two people that claimed to have found the train would most probably have used amateur-grade equipment rather than industrial/military-grade and so likely not as powerful.
Since no other officials have backed up the Deputy Culture Minister’s claims in the past week, my confidence in the veracity of his pronouncement has somewhat diminished. Yes, you can say “don’t trust politicians” and obviously, to an extent, that’s true. But this affair is going to be conclusively settled one way or the other soon enough, at this particular location at least. So for a politician who, unlike the rest of us, has actually been presented with evidence to nail his colours to the mast with such conviction ("99%) and in such detail (“with gun turrets”), was indeed a bold and remarkable statement.
Having said all that, I’ve enjoyed this story, even if it turns out to be a wild goose chase. I still have a glimmer of hope that there could be something there, but until something more definitive is released, and with greater corroboration from other official sources, I’m going to keep a high level of skeptism about the affair.
No, he said he saw such and such image.
This would be admissible. “Did you personally view a picture, allegedly of a buried train?” “Yes”. That’s not hearsay.
You clearly have no idea what the word means, even tho I gave you a definition.
He personally saw a image. He said so. That’s direct personal testimony.
No, he could say "I saw a picture, allegedly of a nazi Train. It seemed to have turrents."
If we were in court, I’m sure the hair splitting would make a difference.
Until absolutely anything in this charade isn’t something someone says they saw, or heard someone say they saw, or heard someone say they heard someone say they saw… all yours, counselor.
Until you see it yourself,* everything* is “something someone says they saw, or heard someone say they saw, or heard someone say they heard someone say they saw.”
:rolleyes:
There’s a point at which this kind of argument becomes pointlessly pedantic, and I think you passed the line about three posts ago.
The issue isn’t legal semantics. The issue is that absolutely no one involved in this claim has done anything but stand up and *say *they saw something, and the most “reliable” reporters (the government officials) are *saying *someone *told *them they saw something. It’s a chain of anecdotal evidence. It’s not a chain of circumstantial evidence based on an event or happenings only an eyewitness could report; it’s a claim of physically present elements that supposedly have GPR imaging as proof.
Do we have evidence of anything physical? Nope. Do we have anything but one or two people’s *claim *there is GPR imaging? Nope. We have a Figure of Authority saying people with questionable motives *showed *him imaging that might be something like a buried train.
Fine. It’s not “hearsay.” It’s just the same chain of anecdotal bullshit that smells up every other extraordinary claim until it turns out to be imaginary or fantastically played up. If the players were so certain, releasing more certain evidence would in no way compromise their claim or rights or even give away the location of the “train.”
But no, we have to rely on someone *telling *us what someone else *told *them (and possibly what someone yet again *told *them).
Suuuurrrrre.
I passed it? All by myself?
The Pot calls the Kettle black, I see. 
Black? Right. You’re the one who decided the whole issue was about the [Black’s](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/<a href=“HEARSAY Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary” title=“HEARSAY”>HEARSAY</a>) definition of “hearsay,” when I think every other person in the thread understood exactly what was meant.
The minister didn’t just uncritically repeat what the two treasure-hunters told him. He looked at their evidence, including a blurry GPR image, and made his conclusions based on that. My feeling is that either the image he saw was faked and it did realistically look like an armoured train with gun turrets, or that both he and the two treasure-hunters suffer from overactive imagination or increased susceptibility to pareidolia. (Or, of course, it’s all true!).
I also followed the MH370 case very closely as I like my mysteries (and you are probably lucky I wasn’t a Doper when that story was in full flight!). In the days following the plane’s disappearance, I stumbled across one Twitter guy who was convinced that the plane had crashed in the North-Eastern direction (almost the opposite direction). He, like me, had joined the Tomnod crew, the crowdsourcing website using up-to-date satellite imagery to look for the plane. This Twitter guy would see things on the images and was convinced of what he saw, even when people pointed out that the people he saw floating in the sea sitting in their plane seats were 30 feet tall according to the scale.
I didn’t agree with any of his analysis but I followed his “progress”, out of I suppose morbid curiosity, as he tried in vain to get his findings through to the people that matter. His conviction was so great that he eventually bought sonar equipment and flew out there himself, hired a boat and did his own search.
I mention that guy as I think it serves as an illustration of how there are some people that can be susceptible to seeing things in images that aren’t there and also become unshakeably convinced in their analysis.
Anyway, guys, this is an entertaining treasure hunt about a mystery gold train - so more Scooby Doo than Law & Order. So let’s focus on the mystery and suspense rather than the legalese of whether the Deputy Culture Minister’s comments can be used in a court against I don’t know who.
So you’re taking the word of a Figure of Authority, without any further evidence or support? Him saying he saw this evidence - but not anything truly concrete - is good enough? Okay.
Let’s see what happens next week, when it turns out to be either a hoax or a forgotten landfill. 
A local newspaper has published a picture that they claim is the image that the deputy Culture Minister saw before making his announcement. It’s the third image that I’ve seen that purports to be a GPR scan of the train. The first I saw was clearly fake, and the second is also shown in the article.
There is no certainty that this is the image that the minister saw. However, the article includes the following comment from someone who should hopefully know what they’re talking about:
There’s been a lot of stuff going round, including pictures of the alleged location and old maps, and I think there’s been at least three or four locations pinpointed as the “gold train”'s position, within a stretch of around 3 km long. So the situation is far from clear at this time.
If one wants to remain optimistic, then one could say there is nothing to be gained by the authorities in announcing anything until their certainty level rises to 100%, since there is no advantage in unnecessarily whipping up an international media circus and attracting treasure-hunters/tourists to an area along an active rail line.
I’d be the first to be thrilled if they really do find a hidden Nazi trove, even if it’s just old files and ammunition or something. We all know that there’s still stuff like that out there, and the odds that some truly magnificent lost artwork or item might be rediscovered some day.
But… even the article WAM cites has a plethora of the “semiattached images” of REAL WOW trains in REAL WOW tunnels and so forth, sloppy work giving credence to the notion that something about this whole claim is real. And we see why the GPR-image proof was held back from public scrutiny, only described to us.
It really is simple, folks. If something smells like bullshit by the time the first complete draft of the story comes together, it’s not going to smell like cotton candy later. When things like this are real, they *start *with validated claims and strong if not irrefutable proof. Hoaxes and “misunderstandings” start and continue with anecdotal, second-hand claims that don’t get any better because someone in a uniform or behind a big desk repeats them.
Damn. I was hoping maybe this *was *the Amber Room…
It’s buried right next to the crated Spitfires in Burma, right?
I also note that what were repeatedly called “cannons” on the train are now adjusted to be the guns of mobile artillery… a slight but regrettable slip of the tong, as the old limerick puts it.
I can’t find any worth citing, but I’ve run into a number of comments that “all Nazi armored trains are known to be accounted for” - any WWII/train historians care to check in on that?
The story’s not dead yet! The area above the alleged gold train location has been cleared of vegetation and military sappers are investigating. Here’s some aerial footage of the location.
Just for the sake of argument…what if there are valuables on that train? Who would get to claim ownership. I believe the area was legally part of Germany (Upper Silesia) before the peace treaty was signed that ended WWII and ceded the territory to Poland. Who would decide? An international court?
FTR I dont believe there is anything more valuable on the train than some natural resource or some 70 year old weaponry and/or parts.
You know, if I were going to get rid of a bunch of SS Nazi unkillable brain eating zombies so they could be used later I’d probably pack them into a train and bury it. Just sayin’.
I will grant the Polish government enough sense not to actually start digging and stuff without some kind of convincing proof, but… step 1 is to prove there is a train there.