Witness Question for Nessie

[Stubble]

Just to add, two years ago on the old forum, Nessie showed up and started spamming the board (we didn't have the Debate board back then). He was derailing nearly every thread, so we limited him to one thread (it was called "Nessie's tar pit," IIRC; unfortunately it has been lost). We told him it was his thread and to show us everything he had. He trotted out this exact list of 300 gas chamber witnesses. We called him out for his gish gallop and told him to pick his favorite one to analyze in detail. He picked Abraham Krzepicki. It's no accident that the testimony he picked was 70 pages long. His goal was to do everything possible to avoid actually discussing the substance of the testimonies. This is what they do. We linked him to prior threads on Krzepicki whose description of the gas chamber of course does not match the standard version of the story. So that didn't go well for him. After face-planting on Krzepicki, Nessie picked a second "star witness." I forget the name, but the testimony was clearly hearsay (in the text it said things like, "others told me ..." etc). That was his second best witness.

This is interesting. Is there any other major operation in history (particularly where witnesses saw the alleged processes day-in and day-out), where there aren't at least a handful of truly exemplary -- or at least objective, believable -- witnesses?

As much as I've been witness to Nessie's shenanigans, I am actually surprised to find out he has a lack of confidence in specific witnesses. I suppose I just haven't given this question much thought.

Nessie, is this true? Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

It would be a very short essay to simply capture the exact statements of just 3-4 people, highlighting their integrity and consistency between one another.

Tempted to 'bump' this challenge to Nessie.

From 'Fangers.

Good luck guys, have fun.

[Keen]

Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

For Treblinka II, the two most “authoritative eyewitnesses” to the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" were Wiernik:



and Stangl:



The only so-called "huge mass grave" of the 6 alleged by these two “authoritative eyewitnesses” to exist that was ever "proven to exist" - is this one here:

[Stubble]

You know what I love the most about the Wiernik model?

That is almost exactly what the fucking site would have had to have looked like, and there is absolutely no denial that the site does not look like that in any fucking way.

That it is from an 'eyewitness' is just the icing on the cake. It is what someone who was just guessing would create assuming that their model had to conform with the reality of the alleged scale.

[Nessie]

This is interesting. Is there any other major operation in history (particularly where witnesses saw the alleged processes day-in and day-out), where there aren't at least a handful of truly exemplary -- or at least objective, believable -- witnesses?

As much as I've been witness to Nessie's shenanigans, I am actually surprised to find out he has a lack of confidence in specific witnesses. I suppose I just haven't given this question much thought.

Nessie, is this true? Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

It would be a very short essay to simply capture the exact statements of just 3-4 people, highlighting their integrity and consistency between one another.

Tempted to 'bump' this challenge to Nessie.

From 'Fangers.

Good luck guys, have fun.

I am perfectly confident in the eyewitnesses to the gassings at the camps. Corroborative evidence establishes their truthfulness.

The Jewish witnesses can lack credibility, due to their emotive testimony, exaggerations, use of figures of speech, hyperbole, mixing hearsay with what they saw, repetition of rumours and obviously erroneous estimations over time, duration and size. But, credibility is not the same as truthfulness. A poor description of an event that corroborative evidence has established to be true, is a truthful recollection from the witness. I suspect that many of the issues around the credibility of the Jewish testimony are caused by trauma and recollecting horrific events.

The Nazi witnesses are more credible, as they are more matter of fact, as if they are describing something quite routine and normal. They were disciplined, acting under orders and at the time, lawfully. They were fighting an enemy they hated and believed they were doing a good thing. That credibility is why revisionists have to pivot and claim the Nazis were all acting under duress and had been forced to lie.

That the Nazis corroborate the Jews, is compelling. In every court in the world, when an accused agrees with the witnesses, that is good enough to convict. Only in the court of Holocaust denial, is that standard ignored.

As for integrity and consistency, lets use Wiernik, Gerstein and Fuchs and the engine used for gassings. They all agree that the gassings at TII were by securing people inside chambers and then pumping exhaust fumes into the chamber so the people asphyxiated. That means they corroborate and truthfulness is established. That they vary in details, such as what fuel the engine used, is to be expected, as what they saw and time spent at the chambers were different. Fuchs spent time with and saw the engine, the other two did not. That they vary in the details, is indicative of a lack of collusion. That Gerstein said the engine was diesel, which is likely wrong for technical reasons, does not therefore mean he lied and there was no gas chamber. It does reduce his credibility and it is established that he is not a reliable and accurate witness.

[Nessie]

You know what I love the most about the Wiernik model?

That is almost exactly what the fucking site would have had to have looked like, and there is absolutely no denial that the site does not look like that in any fucking way.

That it is from an 'eyewitness' is just the icing on the cake. It is what someone who was just guessing would create assuming that their model had to conform with the reality of the alleged scale.

The maps drawn by other witnesses, the 1944 aerial photo and the site surveys corroborate the general layout of Wiernik's model. They locate the rail line into the camp, the sorting area, staff accommodation and mass grave locations in the same place.

[Archie]

The Nazi witnesses are more credible, as they are more matter of fact, as if they are describing something quite routine and normal.

Gerstein: "The next day, Captain Wirth’s car took us to Treblinka, about 120 km NNE of Warsaw. The installations of this death center differed scarcely from those at Belcec but they were still larger. There were 8 gas chambers and whole mountains of clothes and underwear about 35 – 40 meters high."

"At Belcek and Treblinka nobody bothered to take anything approaching an exact count of the persons killed. The figures announced by the BBC are inaccurate. Actually, about 25,000,000 persons were killed; not only Jews, however, but especially Poles and Czechoslovakians, too, who were, in the opinion of the Nazis, of bad stock."

Simulated Nessie Reply: "It is totally normal for people to think they saw a 40 meter high mound of underwear."

Uh, maybe if he was on an LSD trip.

[Nessie]

The Nazi witnesses are more credible, as they are more matter of fact, as if they are describing something quite routine and normal.

Gerstein: "The next day, Captain Wirth’s car took us to Treblinka, about 120 km NNE of Warsaw. The installations of this death center differed scarcely from those at Belcec but they were still larger. There were 8 gas chambers and whole mountains of clothes and underwear about 35 – 40 meters high."

"At Belcek and Treblinka nobody bothered to take anything approaching an exact count of the persons killed. The figures announced by the BBC are inaccurate. Actually, about 25,000,000 persons were killed; not only Jews, however, but especially Poles and Czechoslovakians, too, who were, in the opinion of the Nazis, of bad stock."

Simulated Nessie Reply: "It is totally normal for people to think they saw a 40 meter high mound of underwear."

Uh, maybe if he was on an LSD trip.

Gerstein is recognised as not a reliable or accurate witness, due to his obviously erroneous estimations. If you did even basic research into how good people are at estimations of size, you would find that we are generally not great and some people are very poor at it.

That Gerstein is clearly over estimating the size of any pile of clothes, does not mean he is lying about there being large piles of clothes at TII. That huge amounts of clothing were seized, sorted and transported, is evidenced by other witnesses and documents.

That means Gerstein's claim about a large quantity of clothing is corroborated, but he has over estimated the size of the pile he saw.

[Archie]

Gerstein is recognised as not a reliable or accurate witness,

I agree.

[Stubble]

Gerstein is recognised as not a reliable or accurate witness,

I agree.

I'll give that a 3rd.

[HansHill]

Hold on, you don't have an eyewitness to say Mount Underpants was <40 meters tall, therefore you cannot rewrite the historiography. Just because it seems incredulous to you does not mean it wasn't 40.0m exactly, especially since you cannot offer a revised historiography.

#JusticeForGerstein
#MountUnderpants
#NeverForgetThe40M

[Nessie]

Gerstein is recognised as not a reliable or accurate witness,

I agree.

You biggest flaw when assessing witnesses, is ignoring truthfulness. Gerstein may not be reliable with his inaccurate estimations, but corroborating evidence proves he is being truthful.

[Callafangers]

Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

lets use Wiernik, Gerstein and Fuchs

Gerstein is recognised as not a reliable or accurate witness, due to his obviously erroneous estimations.

Wtf?

[Nessie]

Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

lets use Wiernik, Gerstein and Fuchs

Gerstein is recognised as not a reliable or accurate witness, due to his obviously erroneous estimations.

Wtf?

That he is not reliable or accurate with some of his estimations and descriptions, does not therefore mean he does not effectively support the position of, there were gas chambers at the AR camps. That is because corroborative evidence proves he is being truthful about the existence of the chambers and he was an SS officer.

[Stubble]

Gurstein gets a mention in this debate with Faurisson.

https://odysee.com/@Stubble:4/Robert-Fa ... 82002%29:d

Also, some dark humor;

[Callafangers]

That he is not reliable or accurate with some of his estimations and descriptions, does not therefore mean he does not effectively support the position of, there were gas chambers at the AR camps. That is because corroborative evidence proves he is being truthful about the existence of the chambers and he was an SS officer.

Would you say that your interpretation only holds true if we assume his discrepancies were errors, rather than lies? Or do you think he could be a liar and still a good witness for your purposes?