Request for support from Nessie

[Archie]

One of Nessie's major witnesses, brazenly lying in court.

[Nessie]

One of Nessie's major witnesses, brazenly lying in court.

Yes, the identification of Demjanjuk was challenged in court and the witnesses found to be unreliable and unable to identify him. When a Nazi denied being responsible, his defence is able to challenge witnesses. That explains why in the other camp trials, witnesses were not challenged, because the Nazis admitted to the allegations and crimes. Demjanjuk denied responsibility or being there, but just like every other Nazi, he did not provide any evidence to challenge that gassings took place at TII, or for mass resettlement.

Demjanjuk's testimony was all over the place, as he conveniently forgot and made false claims, as he brazenly lied in court.

[Keen]

It is normal witness behaviour to use figures of speech, repeat atrocity stories and lie.

Nessie,

*9 - Is it - True. - or - False. - that; Not one of the alleged - “HUGE MASS GRAVES” - of Treblinka II alleged by so-called “eyewitnesses” - has ever been proven to exist - ??

XIV - Is it - True. - or False. - that; It is common for juries in the U.S. to be given instructions that include some form of the following: “If you decide that a witness has deliberately testified untruthfully about something important, you may choose not to believe anything that witness said.” - ??

[Keen]

I complied a list of available online evidence for TII... such as... archaeological finds of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains... That is corroborating evidence to support the witness claims.

Providing so-called "evidence" that allegedly "supports" the liewitness allegations that have already been proven to be lies is meaningless. No amount of contrary "evidence" can overrule what has already been proven, and that is:

We know, with 100% certainty, that the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the one hundred graves / cremation pits that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II, in which verified human remains have been tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY FIVE PEOPLE.

NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - PROVES - NO MASS MURDER

Of course, if Nessie disagrees with the above, all he has to do is show us a "huge mass grave" with the remains of 6 people in it.

What are you waiting for Nessie?

What are you so afraid of?

[AreYouSirius]

Does that therefore mean everything Wiernik said is a lie and nothing he describes happened? The answer is no. From all the studies of witness behaviour, the claim about a child being torn in half can be simply explained by the use of figures of speech, or repeating atrocity hearsay and it does not mean that therefore Wiernik made everything up.

This is not witness behaviour, this is in his book. It is all carefully planned, contrived atrocity propaganda without a shred of evidence.

It is normal witness behaviour to use figures of speech, repeat atrocity stories and lie.

Oh my god I think you truly can’t hear it when you say it.

How is a witness a witness if they are “repeating atrocity stories?” Recounting something not directly experienced by the experiencer means they weren’t there for anything and didn’t see nuthin’.

Parroting something not directly witnessed by the “witness” means the witness was not in fact a witness. So what good are their campfire fables to our discussion of the veracity and feasibility of the Holocaust as a WWII genocide atrocity?

[Nessie]

This is not witness behaviour, this is in his book. It is all carefully planned, contrived atrocity propaganda without a shred of evidence.

It is normal witness behaviour to use figures of speech, repeat atrocity stories and lie.

Oh my god I think you truly can’t hear it when you say it.

How is a witness a witness if they are “repeating atrocity stories?” Recounting something not directly experienced by the experiencer means they weren’t there for anything and didn’t see nuthin’.

Parroting something not directly witnessed by the “witness” means the witness was not in fact a witness. So what good are their campfire fables to our discussion of the veracity and feasibility of the Holocaust as a WWII genocide atrocity?

Those who worked inside the camps, will have both seen and heard about, what happened inside the camp, which makes most of the witnesses a mix of hearsay and eyewitness testimony. For example, one of the earliest escapees from TII, Abram Krzepicki. He was inside for only 18 days, and he worked sorting property, not at the gas chambers. He is an eyewitness to mass arrivals, people being told to strip they were going for showers, the theft of their property and that they did not subsequently leave the camp. His descriptions of the gas chambers are hearsay and he has nothing to say about cremations, as he had escaped before that started. He is very much a witness to what happened inside TII.