Witness Question for Nessie

[Stubble]

No wonder you are performing so terribly when your threshold for corroboration is an item in a different location to where you need it to be

Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung Inventoried to the wrong location.

viewtopic.php?t=549&sid=f48d906545d3359 ... 4d2e542e47

You either:

- Have pathetic thresholds for corroboration
- Dont understand how to read an inventory sheet
- Dishonestly invoking a deus ex machina to force a narrative
- Brazenly lying & attempting to manipulate those less familiar with the events
- All of the above

Absolute slop as always

Two eyewitnesses describe the same item, with both being specific about it being located in the gas chamber. A document also describes the same item in an inventory, but it appears to list it in a different room. But all three locate it inside the same building. The discrepancy can be simply explained as a mistake in the inventory, no need for a deus ex machina. I have lied about nothing, with quotes from both witneses and a link to the document.

You are seriously stretching credibility, claiming that there is no corroborative evidence for the columns. If the type of evidence used here, was used for something that you were happy to accept, you would declare there is corroboration. If two Jews and a document described a mesh column that was used for improved ventilation inside a Krema corpse store, you would accept that as corroborating evidence, without any problems!

Something hand written on a typed inventory sheet detailing the one thing you want to assume is something else being in the wrong location is not evidence that something described differently by everyone who claims to have interacted with it being placed in a different location you fucking retard.

Holy fuck.

[Nessie]

Two people describe two different things and a third thing is somewhere else!

Corroboration!



The absolute state of Holocaust enjoyers.

Two people describe the same object and locate it in the same building as a document that is describing the same object. Corroboration.

Stop pretending that they all describe a completely different object.

[Nessie]

....

Two eyewitnesses describe the same item, with both being specific about it being located in the gas chamber. A document also describes the same item in an inventory, but it appears to list it in a different room. But all three locate it inside the same building. The discrepancy can be simply explained as a mistake in the inventory, no need for a deus ex machina. I have lied about nothing, with quotes from both witneses and a link to the document.

You are seriously stretching credibility, claiming that there is no corroborative evidence for the columns. If the type of evidence used here, was used for something that you were happy to accept, you would declare there is corroboration. If two Jews and a document described a mesh column that was used for improved ventilation inside a Krema corpse store, you would accept that as corroborating evidence, without any problems!

Something hand written on a typed inventory sheet detailing the one thing you want to assume is something else being in the wrong location is not evidence that something described differently by everyone who claims to have interacted with it was placed in a different location you fucking retard.

Holy fuck.

The document locates the object in the same building as the witnesses, in a room next to the one the witnesses describe. No wonder you get abusive, when that minor discrepancy is all you have to claim they all do not corroborate each other.

[Stubble]

Minor discrepancy...

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

It is problematic as fuck.

Herr Hill is absolutely correct;

Two people describe two different things and a third thing is somewhere else!

Corroboration!



The absolute state of Holocaust enjoyers.

[Keen]

Two people describe the same object and locate it in the same building as a document that is describing the same object. Corroboration.

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing.

When "revisionsists" continue to use the word "corroboration" they are just playing nesserto's game.

WHY???

Confirm and support are two different words.

If you mean confirm, then use the fucking word.

[Keen]

No wonder you get abusive, when that minor discrepancy is all you have to claim they all do not corroborate each other.

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing, and they have zero evidentiary value, even if they are exactly the same.

[Stubble]

No wonder you get abusive, when that minor discrepancy is all you have to claim they all do not corroborate each other.

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing, and they have zero evidentiary value.

2 disparate allegations do not even support one another, and, a receipt for another thing assigned to another room doesn't support either unsubstantiated allegation.

If you interview 2 people and ask them what Bob had for breakfast and one says oatmeal and is very specific about the bowl, the consistency of the oatmeal and describes the spoon with a specific length, tilt and width, and the other person says he ate cereal with a spork, and gives similar specific details, and then you find a receipt for bacon and eggs, that doesn't mean that everyone corroborated each other, especially if the receipt is for a separate table.

For fucks sake.

[Nessie]

No wonder you get abusive, when that minor discrepancy is all you have to claim they all do not corroborate each other.

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing, and they have zero evidentiary value.

2 disparate allegations do not even support one another, and, a receipt for another thing assigned to another room doesn't support either unsubstantiated allegation.

If you interview 2 people and ask them what Bob had for breakfast and one says oatmeal and is very specific about the bowl, the consistency of the oatmeal and describes the spoon with a specific length, tilt and width, and the other person says he ate cereal with a spork, and gives similar specific details, and then you find a receipt for bacon and eggs, that doesn't mean that everyone corroborated each other, especially if the receipt is for a separate table.

For fucks sake.

In your analogy there is corroborative evidence from two witnesses that Bob had breakfast and there is a record of him having breakfast. That is the main event and it is corroborated. If you dive into the details, such as what he ate and where he sat, there are discrepancies, but that does not alter the fact that the main event is corroborated.

You think that the details have to match for there to be corroboration, but, because of errors such as misremembering, or a mistake in a record, trained investigators do not expect those details to match. What they are looking for is whether the main event is corroborated.

[Nessie]

Minor discrepancy...

Get the fuck out of here with that shit.

It is problematic as fuck.

Herr Hill is absolutely correct;

Two people describe two different things and a third thing is somewhere else!

Corroboration!



The absolute state of Holocaust enjoyers.

Kula and Tauber both describe the gas chamber as having a metal column that the Zyklon B was poured into. An inventory document, with a hand written entry, records a metal insertion device in the room next to the gas chamber.

There are discrepancies over what the column looked like, how it worked and which room it was in. They can be accounted for as a likely error by the inventory compiler and that witnesses will describe the same object using different words and remember it differently.

The main event of a metal column inside Kremas II and III is corroborated. The variance, which is normal, is in the details.

[Nessie]

Wetzelrad;

viewtopic.php?p=24966#p24966

Some of the context makes it even worse, especially the sentence just prior to that you quoted, where Kermish wrote that a witness account "might contain occasional mistakes." This is a very casual, lake-monster-esque way of dismissing what can actually be -- as we have often seen -- very substantial differences between witnesses or between a witness and hard evidence.

Witness will make mistake and for you to doubt that is clearly wrong. There are not very substantial differences between the witnesses to the gassings at the death camps. They are highly consistent in how the process worked. Variances are in the details, which revisionists concentrate on. Witnesses are better at remembering the main event, than the details, such as people were herded into a chamber, which is the main event and then the details, such as how long they were in that chamber.

But what makes this worse is that it comes directly prior to all the remarks about "reminding" the witness of facts and events. Is this not a description of witness coaching?

Yes. This quote from a previous post by pilgromofdark, describes witness coaching.

"...the data collector should remind the witness of facts not only by asking him relevant questions, but also by recounting well-known events from the subject under discussion (association method). A witness’s memory is often jogged upon hearing the testimony of another witness who lived through similar experiences."

In Scotland, the police would ask open questions and not give witnesses other witnesses evidence prior to taking their statement. From the source used for the above quote;

https://www.vr-elibrary.de/doi/pdf/10.1 ... 3666368561

"The data collector’s approach to the witness should always be individualized.
One should therefore avoid acting like an obedient clerk administering
a preset template. Thus, e. g., when approaching an intelligent witness,
one can suggest that he writes down his experiences by himself in as
exhaustive and as lucid a manner as possible. One can also ask such a
witness a number of questions taken from the questionnaire. Often,
especially if the witness is direct, honest, and open, one should write down
|8| his testimony without interrupting his train of thought. At most, one
could ask questions to clarify a point in his testimony. When the witness
has finished, we can ask him questions from the questionnaire."

That is the methodology used by the Scottish police, for all, not just "intelligent" witnesses. This is also a rule used in Scotland;

"Under no circumstances may the data collector change anything in the
witness’s testimony. If the witness’s account is so disjointed that the data
collector needs to shape his thoughts into sentences, as a court reporter
does, the data collector must be especially careful not to distort or change
a single detail of the facts provided by the witness."

Statement altering is forbidden. Then comes the section on witness coaching;

"The data collector should offer to help refresh the witness’s memory."

That coaching is given context;

"If the [intellectual] level of the witness allows it, the data collector should
familiarize him with the issues being researched to the greatest extent
possible. Before taking down testimonies, some data collectors try to
familiarize the witnesses with |10| issues contained in the questionnaire
that relate to Jewish life under occupation."

Coaching only applies to unintelligent witnesses who are struggling to remember anything. Otherwise, witnesses should be left to recollect as best as they can and no alterations are to be made. Pilgromofdark is guilty of cherry picking one of the instructions to the statement takers, as if it applies to all the witnesses. Witness coaching was not as widespread as he suggests as it is only used in specific cases.

[Nessie]

The main difference between trained witness statement takers and revisionists is that trained witness statement takers expect the witnesses to corroborate on the main event, but not the details, whereas revisionists expect corroboration in the details as well.

For example, the mass shooting in LV in 2017. Trained witness statement takers would expect the witnesses to get the main event, that they were at a festival in LV and then there was a mass shooting correct. They would not expect the witnesses to recollect details such as how many shots were fired, where there were fired from, what gun was used, how many people were in the crowd, how long the shooting took place, or even the exact date, correctly. They would expect witnesses inside the hotel to recollect different events to those outside. They would differentiate between hearsay and what the witness saw.

For reasons known only to revisionists, they would expect the witnesses to the shooting to get the details consistent and accurate, if they apply the same standards to the as they do to the witnesses at the death camps.

[Stubble]

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing, and they have zero evidentiary value.

2 disparate allegations do not even support one another, and, a receipt for another thing assigned to another room doesn't support either unsubstantiated allegation.

If you interview 2 people and ask them what Bob had for breakfast and one says oatmeal and is very specific about the bowl, the consistency of the oatmeal and describes the spoon with a specific length, tilt and width, and the other person says he ate cereal with a spork, and gives similar specific details, and then you find a receipt for bacon and eggs, that doesn't mean that everyone corroborated each other, especially if the receipt is for a separate table.

For fucks sake.

In your analogy there is corroborative evidence from two witnesses that Bob had breakfast and there is a record of him having breakfast. That is the main event and it is corroborated. If you dive into the details, such as what he ate and where he sat, there are discrepancies, but that does not alter the fact that the main event is corroborated.

You think that the details have to match for there to be corroboration, but, because of errors such as misremembering, or a mistake in a record, trained investigators do not expect those details to match. What they are looking for is whether the main event is corroborated.

Nessie, I don't expect people to remember very specific details, for the very specific details to be different across the cohort, and for people inside the cohort to change their story regarding method, repeatedly.

Chlorine through a hatch becomes engine exhaust, for example.

Then to learn that one of the key witnesses was a linchpin member of an underground resistance organization? And a Soviet propagandist prewar?

These are problems.

Going back to Kula and his columns, I expect anyone who is going to be considered reliable to be able to agree if the columns dispense the pellets onto the floor, or if the fucking thing collects them.

'Minor details'....

No, these are not minor details.

[pilgrimofdark]

Cherry-picking? Quoting from two translations of a document and linking to the source that is freely available online for anyone to read is cherry-picking? I hesitate to compare this to the plagiarized Das Prussian list of "sources."

This is the only part of the document (Yiddish version) that Laura Jockusch quotes (ellipses in Jockusch's book):

We have to be prepared that after so many ... occupation experiences, memory has become weakened, and with the distance of several years, some facts ... will come out vague and not without mistakes. The zamler will do well not just to help the witness with questions but also to provide him with facts that he [the interviewer] already knows from other sources (that is, an associative method), [or by] reading aloud the testimony of another witness on a similar or the same topic.

- Jockusch, Laura. Collect and Record! Jewish Holocaust Documentation in Early Postwar Europe. p. 98, quoting CZKH, Metodologische onvayzungen.

I quoted the same two full sentences that Jockusch did; i.e., "cherry-picking."

Based on his own standard, Nessie believes that Laura Jockusch, a fellow at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and teacher of Holocaust Studies at the University of Haifa, is "guilty of cherry-picking." Nessie is bullying and abusing Laura Jockusch, which shouldn't be allowed. Why is he allowed to bully and abuse Jewish professors at Israeli universities?

There could be a substantive and respectful discussion/debate about that highly-interesting methodological document/questionnaire.

But instead, Nessie escalated to "guilty of cherry-picking." He probably had relevant training in de-escalation techniques, so is violating his own de-escalation methodology.

I'll refrain from escalating further.

Pilgromofdark is guilty of cherry picking one of the instructions to the statement takers, as if it applies to all the witnesses. Witness coaching was not as widespread as he suggests as it is only used in specific cases.

As I suggest? I didn't use the term "witness coaching" nor "suggest" a "spread."

Police corruption in Scotland isn't as widespread as Nessie suggests.
Stealing from people isn't as acceptable as Nessie suggests.
UK police planting evidence isn't as common as Nessie suggests as it is only used in specific cases.
Punching random people on the street isn't as cool as Nessie suggests.
Kicking puppies for fun isn't as celebrated as Nessie suggests.
Defrauding the elderly isn't as admirable as Nessie suggests.
Jews kidnapping Christian children to drain their blood for use in Passover rituals isn't as universal as Nessie suggests as it is only used in specific cases.

[Keen]

No wonder you get abusive, when that minor discrepancy is all you have to claim they all do not corroborate each other.

It is a logical fallacy to pretentd that two unstubstantiated allegations actually "corroborate" each other.

First off, "corroboration" has two meanings:

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

The use of the word "corroboration" without specifying which meaning you are using is disingenuous at best, since it is obvious that if something is unsubstantiated, nothing can be said to be "confirmed." And nothing can be said to be "supported" either, unless and until the underlying issue is substantiated. As long as the underlying issue ("huge mass graves" for example) remains unsubstantiated, nothing of any evidentiary value has been "corroborated."

The mentally ill HC cult members use of the word "corroboration" is nothing more than the old "conversion fo evidence" nonsense rehashed as "corroboration." There is zero evidentiary value in an unsubstantiated allegation, no matter how many people tell a similar story. The following fact explains this perfectly:

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

A thousand people could allege the exact story, but if the story entails physical evidence that must exist for their story to be true, then the above maxim applies, no matter how hard the mentally ill HC cult members prentend otherwise.

NO MASS GRAVES = NO MASS MURDER = NO MASS GASSINGS = NO hOLOCAUAST WITHIN THE hOLOCAUST

[Keen]

No wonder you get abusive, when that minor discrepancy is all you have to claim they all do not corroborate each other.

Two unsubstantiated allegations do not confirm a thing, and they have zero evidentiary value.

2 disparate allegations do not even support one another, and, a receipt for another thing assigned to another room doesn't support either unsubstantiated allegation.

If you interview 2 people and ask them what Bob had for breakfast and one says oatmeal and is very specific about the bowl, the consistency of the oatmeal and describes the spoon with a specific length, tilt and width, and the other person says he ate cereal with a spork, and gives similar specific details, and then you find a receipt for bacon and eggs, that doesn't mean that everyone corroborated each other, especially if the receipt is for a separate table.

For fucks sake.

Right.

See my post above.