Response to "On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses"

[Nessie]

Requesting accurate citations for the entirety of this list again.

Every single one. With links where available. Citations in any standard style: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

What do you mean by "accurate citation"? Citation of what? For example, "Franz Hofmann Frankfurt - 1965
SS camp leader." Hofmann was a senior officer at A-B who was tried and convicted in Frankfurt in 1965. Are you disputing that?

You could try using the same citation methodology used by historians all over the world.

Citation Styles: APA, MLA, Chicago, Turabian, IEEE

"Frankfurt - 1965" is not an accurate citation for a court case. Is this a partial reference to a JuNSV court case? With no reference to the relevant document (transcript?) and page number containing "gassing eyewitness" testimony.

Bluebook Citation for Legal Materials

Do that one, then do the other 300. Whether they are court cases, books, journals, diaries, etc., historians have an established citation methodology that you can follow.

Are you disputing that?

Yes, I'm disputing every single one one, because the references are not clear and unverifiable as spammed. The burden is on you -- as the spammer of the stolen content -- to provide support for every single one.

Can you explain to me, why I should dump the citation methodology used by historians all over the world, to locate particular sources and switch to your and Das Prussian's citation method?

It is not my method. I would have just listed the names. The reason for that is because all you need to do, if you want to check on the name, is to google it along with the name of the camp. This is a debate forum, not an academic site, so no, I will not spent time changing how DP listed the witnesses, to one you prefer.

On topic, why don't you list contrary witnesses?

[Keen]

This is a debate forum, not an academic site

Why does Nessie cravenly run away from Callafangers?

viewtopic.php?t=674

[HansHill]

This is a debate forum, not an academic site, so no, I will not spent time changing how DP listed the witnesses, to one you prefer.

This in fact is the slop forum, where your slop belongs. Failure, refusal and inability to adhere to the most basic of forum rules yet again shows why your slop belongs here.

[Nessie]

This is a debate forum, not an academic site, so no, I will not spent time changing how DP listed the witnesses, to one you prefer.

This in fact is the slop forum, where your slop belongs. Failure, refusal and inability to adhere to the most basic of forum rules yet again shows why your slop belongs here.

viewtopic.php?p=5#p5

"Sourcing: Formal citations are not required, but, as a basic courtesy, you are encouraged to put in some effort to source your posts, and you should be ready to supply references upon request."

The list of names and the sourcing provided, was not compiled by me. It is a simple job to search for sources using the name followed by the name of the camp, or the trial where that is shown. It is not my job to improve the citations to the standard pilgrimofdark wants. If he does not believe the named people saw the gas chambers, it is up to him to produce the evidence of their denial.

As for slop, the reason why I am quarantined is that I constantly point out the slop you so-called revisionists produce. You are heavily reliant on illogical arguments. You fail at the basic task of producing an evidenced chronological narrative. You constantly lie about and misrepresent the evidence. You present yourself as experts in fields you have no training in. This car crash of a thread is a bun fight over what Konrad Morgan did or did not know about or say!

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=22976#p22976

Just admit that there is no eyewitness who provides contrary evidence to the gassing narrative, including Morgan.

[Keen]

the reason why I am quarantined

You constantly lie about and misrepresent the evidence. You present yourself as experts in fields you have no training in.

[Nessie]

Now up to page 4;

viewtopic.php?t=763

The challenge to provide contrary witnesses has been failed. All that the revisionists are doing, is repeating their arguments as to why they think the witnesses are all lying. Much of that has been around the Kula Columns, where lying is somehow proved by not knowing exactly how they functioned and some inconsistency around what happened to the pellets, with some descriptions of them having to be swept up. Apparently, according to revisionists, truthful witnesses have excellent memories, recall for detail and there will be no inconsistencies or unknowns in their testimony. That revisionist belief is based on no study of witnesses at all.

[Nessie]

Stubble;

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=23262#p23262

I would like to stress that Kramer initially said none of this happened, was tortured, entered a confession into evidence that is ridiculous and would have killed him deader than a door nail, then he danced at the end of a rope. (My earlier post was moved in the split)

This is what happened to 'contrary witnesses'. There's also the matter of this....

Wetzelrad wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 4:17 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue May 13, 2025 8:38 am
There is very little contemporaneous evidence to support revisionism. There are no eyewitnesses at all.

You are totally unserious. Nearly all revisionist material is contemporaneous. It is the exterminationists who rely heavily on increasingly late post-war materials as their proof.

Among the eyewitnesses that outright denied the Holocaust, there is Heinrich Himmler, Richard Baer, Josef Kramer, Joseph Mengele, Thies Christophersen, Paul Rassinier, Maria Van Herwaarden, Walter Schreiber, Marian Olszuk. There were so many deniers in 1946 that at the IMT prosecutor Fyfe declared outright that all of the defense's 102 witnesses and 312,022 affiants were "untrue".

None of the named are eyewitnesses to what took place inside an AR camp, Chelmno or the A-B Kremas. Just because they were nearby and did not see anything that they regarded as suspect, or they did not believe anything untoward was taking place, is not evidence to deny the mass killings took place. There is evidence that those places were subject to security measures to prevent people from outside, seeing what was taking place.