Witness Question for Nessie

[Archie]

So, which one is it? You originally attributed the entire manuscript to Wiernik,

No. The manuscript ITSELF says it is a first person account by Wiernik. As far as I know, you are the only Holocaust believer who thinks it's a forgery.

so which, if any, is his handwriting and who are the others? Did they write what he said verbatim?

To ID the handwriting, you'd needcomparative samples which are probably not readily available. It doesn't really matter since the words are attributed to Wiernik regardless of who transcribed it.

You missed out a vital part of information when you first posted about the document, as you tried to craft the narrative that Wiernik first wrote about chlorine and then changed that to an engine. It is an example of your lazy attitude to evidencing.

I linked you to the full statement which was not very long. Calling me lazy when you made multiple replies commenting on the document WITHOUT EVEN READING IT. Lol.

Does that mean exhaust was used for the chambers and that chlorine was used to kill people inside the transports? Could it be that by the time Wiernik wrote a Year in Treblinka, that he had learned the Nazis did not use chlorine to kill people in the transports, by opening hatches and pouring it into the wagons?

He claimed Jews were gassed with chlorine in the earlier version. They cleaned it up when they published it. But the prepublication manuscripts reveal how the story evolved. If it were factual, it would need to "evolve."

Regarding the interpretation,

As many as possible were stuffed into the gas chambers. Then, a hose was connected to the gas chamber's engine from a Soviet tank, and the gas was pumped in. Death lasted 15-20 minutes. Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine.

The way I read this is that they used a different gassing method at night vs the day. That doesn't make any sense, but that seems to be what he's saying. He does not say the chlorine gassings were in the train. And as he says "pulled out of chamber," I think the most natural reading is to think he's talking about the gas chamber. Either way, it's totally wrong. Which is why they removed it.

[Keen]

Is this deliberate or inadvertent

It is a pathological liar that lies as a matter of course. But is is also so stupid, that it forgets what it has previously lied about. For example:

nesserto:

A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.

Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?

Nessie's answer:

12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.

Also Nesserto:

Geophysics scientifically and conclusively proves that there are pits, G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54 and that they exist. But it does not prove that those pits contain human remains.

Remember, nesserto is not just an utter coward, it's a phychopath as well:

Roberto Muehlenkamp's Psychopathy

Psychopaths are often pathological liars, using deception to manipulate, control, or influence others for their own benefit. They may exaggerate the truth to inflate their ego, distort facts to suit their agenda, or fabricate stories entirely to achieve their goals. Unlike most people, who might feel guilt or fear about being caught in a lie, psychopaths lack a conscience, making dishonesty a guilt-free and frequent behavior. Deception is also a hallmark symptom of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), often manifesting as ‘faked’ remorse or concern designed to mislead others. Psychopaths do not follow the same code of ethics as most people in society, which is why they often behave in immoral or illegal ways. Psychopaths are master manipulators who readily use, abuse, and exploit others to achieve their goals, whether it’s power, wealth, or recognition. Their lack of empathy and remorse allows them to disregard the harm they cause, leaving a trail of victims in their pursuit of personal gain. Psychopaths are unhesitant to betray or undermine even those who have supported them, seeing people as mere tools to advance their agenda. This calculated and self-serving behavior underscores their dangerous and destructive nature. Even when they harm another person, a psychopath will not feel genuine remorse for their actions, and may not be phased by the consequences of their actions when they get in trouble. This also makes them especially dangerous because they are less likely to limit their behavior based on fears of getting caught and feeling guilty after. Psychopaths are also less likely to learn from their mistakes. A final warning sign of a psychopath is a person who seems to be especially skilled at the art of deception. Psychopaths are masters of deception and use distortions of truth, gaslighting, and other dishonest tactics to emotionally manipulate others and falsely represent the facts.

[Stubble]

Some little minor details, you know, oopsies...

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... ropaganda/

I'd link the audio book, but, the download button is right there. I listen at 2x speed.

[Nessie]

...

This holocaust pilpul is truly remarkable. You are pivoting to an extremely problematic part of the official narrative not being a problem by adopting the revisionist thesis here and then saying 'see, it isn't a problem'.

You don't even realize you just pissed all over not only the witness, but the fucking process...

You are content to treat this as a one off Ina vacuum despite the policy of interrogators to 'coach' witnesses as outlined by PoD.

An early account attributed to Wiernik, which has different people's handwriting, that suggests chlorine was used to kill people in the transports, a claim that is not made when Wiernik's book is later published, is indicative of the early, often poorly staged investigations into what took place. It is also evidence that the hoax suggested by revisionists, would be impossible to pull off, as it involves so many people and potential for mistakes.

[Nessie]

So, which one is it? You originally attributed the entire manuscript to Wiernik,

No. The manuscript ITSELF says it is a first person account by Wiernik. As far as I know, you are the only Holocaust believer who thinks it's a forgery.

I have not claimed it is a forgery. I have asked you about issues with the manuscript.

so which, if any, is his handwriting and who are the others? Did they write what he said verbatim?

To ID the handwriting, you'd needcomparative samples which are probably not readily available. It doesn't really matter since the words are attributed to Wiernik regardless of who transcribed it.

It matters a lot whether Wernik wrote the document itself, or part of it, or it was written in the first person by others who had interviewed him. Third party involvement could explain why there is a claim about the use of chlorine, that is later not made.

You missed out a vital part of information when you first posted about the document, as you tried to craft the narrative that Wiernik first wrote about chlorine and then changed that to an engine. It is an example of your lazy attitude to evidencing.

I linked you to the full statement which was not very long. Calling me lazy when you made multiple replies commenting on the document WITHOUT EVEN READING IT. Lol.

You obviously did not read it, as you not only failed to reference it had more than one author, but also that the chlorine was not attributed to use in the gas chambers.

Does that mean exhaust was used for the chambers and that chlorine was used to kill people inside the transports? Could it be that by the time Wiernik wrote a Year in Treblinka, that he had learned the Nazis did not use chlorine to kill people in the transports, by opening hatches and pouring it into the wagons?

He claimed Jews were gassed with chlorine in the earlier version. They cleaned it up when they published it. But the prepublication manuscripts reveal how the story evolved. If it were factual, it would need to "evolve."

If you did any study about witnesses who are repeatedly interviewed, you would know that is quite normal for people to alter what they say and recollect different details each time they are interviewed.

Regarding the interpretation,

As many as possible were stuffed into the gas chambers. Then, a hose was connected to the gas chamber's engine from a Soviet tank, and the gas was pumped in. Death lasted 15-20 minutes. Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine.

The way I read this is that they used a different gassing method at night vs the day. That doesn't make any sense, but that seems to be what he's saying. He does not say the chlorine gassings were in the train. And as he says "pulled out of chamber," I think the most natural reading is to think he's talking about the gas chamber. Either way, it's totally wrong. Which is why they removed it.

The references to the use of chlorine relate to the transports, not the gas chambers. Wiernik, if it was him and not a third party addition to his statement, was claiming that people were killed inside the trains. It is likely that some cleaning, disinfection process was used for the carriages and may he got the impression people were gassed like that. Then, later, as he talked to others about that, he was informed it did not happen that way, so he dropped the claim for his book.

Your comment about "they removed it" is suggestive of an over-riding power who is crafting the hoax. If so, why did they leave the manuscript to be eventually published? How is an error evidence that such as hoax is possible?

[Nessie]

Some little minor details, you know, oopsies...

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... ropaganda/

I'd link the audio book, but, the download button is right there. I listen at 2x speed.

Mattogno's strange approach to history. He investigates what he thinks did not happen, rather than what did happen. He should write more histories about what did not happen at D-Day, or in the North Africa campaign or on the Russian Front.

[Stubble]

It was in his handler Berman's personal effects, and, it didn't go through a diet.

Firstly, it is evidence that Wiernik's testimony was manipulated, secondly it is evidence that his testimony was 'recorded' by a group of people, not one person, thirdly it is evidence that what went into the record wasn't his 'first take'.

There is overlap with Wiernik with Aurbach through Berman as well.

A Year in Treblinka was a collaborative effort by the Warsaw Circle, the Judenrat and through Auerbach, Oneg Chabbat. It is a propaganda booklet. It became 'facts of common knowledge' and was used to coach testimonies by interrogators.

That you think this testimony was 'tainted' by 'another author' puts you firmly in revisionist territory, and, you should be defending it, not pissing on it. You can't, so you don't.

This particular manuscript is not something I think that I was personally intended to see, nor were you. It was hidden away in the effects of Berman. Hilberg never talked about it, neither did Bauer. As a matter of fact, very few mainstream historians have mentioned it, because it is so fucking problematic.

I find it incredibly comical that this evidence of a hoax is seen by you as not evidence of a hoax, because it exists. While incredibly rare, fuck ups like this seem to actually exist.

The pulpil on display here from you is impossible for any rational person to ignore, and, as you circle the drain, you think your ardent defense of this shit is rational and effective, because you sir, are a clown.

[Nessie]

It was in his handler Berman's personal effects, and, it didn't go through a diet.

Firstly, it is evidence that Wiernik's testimony was manipulated, secondly it is evidence that his testimony was 'recorded' by a group of people, not one person, thirdly it is evidence that what went into the record wasn't his 'first take'.

Correct, which often happens with major enquiries. Witnesses are interviewed by more than one person and more than one time. That happens because as now evidence appears, it is checked and verified.

There is overlap with Wiernik with Aurbach through Berman as well.

A Year in Treblinka was a collaborative effort by the Warsaw Circle, the Judenrat and through Auerbach, Oneg Chabbat. It is a propaganda booklet. It became 'facts of common knowledge' and was used to coach testimonies by interrogators.

That you think this testimony was 'tainted' by 'another author' puts you firmly in revisionist territory, and, you should be defending it, not pissing on it. You can't, so you don't.

Your ignorance due to never having had to interview any witness, or gather evidence for an investigation, is why you think what has happened is odd, or unusual.

This particular manuscript is not something I think that I was personally intended to see, nor were you. It was hidden away in the effects of Berman. Hilberg never talked ablut it, neither did Bauer. As a matter of fact, very few mainstream historians have mentioned it, because it is so fucking problematic.

I find it incredibly comical that this evidence of a hoax is seen by you as not evidence of a hoax, because it exists. While incredibly rare, fuck ups like this seem to actually exist.

The pulpil on display here from you is impossible for any rational person to ignore, and, as you circle the drain, you think your ardent defense of this shit is rational and effective, because you sir, are a clown.

Mistakes, multiple authors to manuscripts, changes in testimony, are all evidence that it would be impossible to coordinate a hoax as large as the Holocaust. They are examples of what happens in any large, major enquiry. You just did not know that and on finding out, you think you have comes across something significant.

Like revisionist critiquing of the archaeologists, you haven't a clue what you are talking about, as you have zero experience of conducting archaeological research. Go away, join the police or get a job as a journalist, get some training and then interview multiple witnesses to a major event. Then you will learn.

[Stubble]

You fucking idiot, we are talking about a hoax at Treblinka. You are defaulting to 'all or nothing' as a dichotomy.

Treblinka isn't 'the Holocaust', Auschwitz isn't 'the Holocaust'. These are specific and distinct places of a discrete size and in known physical locations.

Generally, with a literate witness, which Wiernik was, seeing as he was a graduate, you have them write their statement. You also don't fucking edit a statement 'because new evidence is found' either. It stands or falls on its content. You fucking clown.

The entire fucking reason to follow up with an interview after a statement is to fucking catch shit like this so you can wash out a witness or catch a guilty party, for fucks sake. You do not have 3 people in the room to take a statement all sharing the same fucking page. This is absolutely out of character with any kind of professional investigation of any sort. It is not 'normal' or 'procedural'.

It is highly unusual for a fucking propagandist to work with 2 separate underground propaganda mills and then for the city council to have a 'diet' around the propaganda and then for the propaganda to have another 'diet' before being translated into another fucking language.

That you see this as anything other than odd is some kind of cognitive dissonance or other cognitive defect. It is patently fucking obvious.

You are defending the indefensible.

[HansHill]

The Nessie method of corroboration:

-Start with the official story. Accept this without question. (Ignore the question of how the official story came to be accepted. Simply say that "the historians" have it figured out).
-Look for anything in the testimonies that fits the official story and declare this to be "corroboration."
-Declare all the contradictions and blunders to be a priori insignificant.

My method of corroboration, which is the method used by the police, historians and journalists.

- Start by gathering evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial sources.
- Look for consistencies where a narrative is agreed upon and that the evidence corroborates and converges to a conclusion.
- Look to see if there are rational explanations, based on studies of witnesses, memory and recall, that explain any contradictions or blunders. Is there consistency about the main event?

Critical thinking has left the building.

[Nessie]

You fucking idiot, we are talking about a hoax at Treblinka. You are defaulting to 'all or nothing' as a dichotomy.

Treblinka isn't 'the Holocaust', Auschwitz isn't 'the Holocaust'. These are specific and distinct places of a discrete size and in known physical locations.

Which means to hoax the Holocaust, needs the management of multiple sites. The Soviets failed to pass off a hoax about just one site.

Generally, with a literate witness, which Wiernik was, seeing as he was a graduate, you have them write their statement.

What is that claim based on? Wiernik had his statement taken by various investigators. The Polish War Crimes Commission took numerous statements;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/res ... 20camp&p=0

The police in the UK take all statements, none are self penned.

You also don't fucking edit a statement 'because new evidence is found' either. It stands or falls on its content. You fucking clown.

Yes you do. If a witness provides a statement that is then contradicted by another witness, or some evidence becomes known that the witness did not mention, they will be re-interviewed and a supplementary or new edited version will be created. That is standard practice with the UK police and from what I have seen with Wiernik, it happened with him as well. You just do not know about the re-interviewing of witnesses, because of your lack of training and experience.

The entire fucking reason to follow up with an interview after a statement is to fucking catch shit like this so you can wash out a witness or catch a guilty party, for fucks sake. You do not have 3 people in the room to take a statement all sharing the same fucking page. This is absolutely out of character with any kind of professional investigation of any sort. It is not 'normal' or 'procedural'.

Follow up interviews are not necessarily about catching witnesses out. They are often to clarify or ask about something that had been missed before. It could simply be that the witness forgot to mention something, that they are later asked about and provide a supplementary statement for. The police often use two interviewers, it is standard practice in Sotland due to corroboration rules. Of course, you know nothing about any of this and think it is all unusual.

It is highly unusual for a fucking propagandist to work with 2 separate underground propaganda mills...

What do you base that claim on? In Poland Oneg Shabbat, Polish journalists and the Polish Intelligence Services reporting back to the Government in Exile in London were gathering witness evidence as to what was happening to Jews in the country. For Wiernik to have provided multiple statements is not unusual.

... and then for the city council to have a 'diet' around the propaganda and then for the propaganda to have another 'diet' before being translated into another fucking language.

What are you going on about?

That you see this as anything other than odd is some kind of cognitive dissonance or other cognitive defect. It is patently fucking obvious.

You are defending the indefensible.

Your ignorance around how evidence was gathered, who by and how witnesses are interviewed, is being made more and more apparent by your posting.

[Nessie]

The Nessie method of corroboration:

-Start with the official story. Accept this without question. (Ignore the question of how the official story came to be accepted. Simply say that "the historians" have it figured out).
-Look for anything in the testimonies that fits the official story and declare this to be "corroboration."
-Declare all the contradictions and blunders to be a priori insignificant.

My method of corroboration, which is the method used by the police, historians and journalists.

- Start by gathering evidence from eyewitnesses, documents, physical, forensic, archaeological and circumstantial sources.
- Look for consistencies where a narrative is agreed upon and that the evidence corroborates and converges to a conclusion.
- Look to see if there are rational explanations, based on studies of witnesses, memory and recall, that explain any contradictions or blunders. Is there consistency about the main event?

Critical thinking has left the building.

How so? If a witness claims something and other credible, verified evidence independent of them confirms what they said, then they are corroborated and the claim is proved.

So, if a witness claims he was abducted by aliens and his pal agrees, but there is no physical or other evidence to corroborate the claim, then the claim is not proven. There is a lack of credible, verifiable evidence to corroborate the claim.

If a Jew claims the Nazis were operating a gas chamber inside a camp and the SS camp staff are interviewed and admit that happened, and evidence is found of the remains of the gas chamber, then the claim is proved. There is credible, verifiable evidence to support the Jewish claim.

The investigation is led by the evidence, rather than so called "critical thinking", which, for Holocaust revisionists consists of coming up with reasons to doubt or deny the evidence. The critical thinking used by genuine investigators consists of is this evidence verified and corroborated and how credible and accurate is it?

[Stubble]

You fucking idiot, we are talking about a hoax at Treblinka. You are defaulting to 'all or nothing' as a dichotomy.

Treblinka isn't 'the Holocaust', Auschwitz isn't 'the Holocaust'. These are specific and distinct places of a discrete size and in known physical locations.

Which means to hoax the Holocaust, needs the management of multiple sites. The Soviets failed to pass off a hoax about just one site.

Sites that have never been properly investigated and are now covered in concrete, steel and jagged stones...

Generally, with a literate witness, which Wiernik was, seeing as he was a graduate, you have them write their statement.

What is that claim based on? Wiernik had his statement taken by various investigators. The Polish War Crimes Commission took numerous statements;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/res ... 20camp&p=0

The police in the UK take all statements, none are self penned.

The UK is such a silly fucking place. An official takes the statement because witnesses are not properly educated to write their own statement? This is so fucking stupid.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... tPage=true

You are technically correct, although, the UK differs from the US where the witness writes their statement, and, i don't see anything about 3 people sharing one sheet of paper to take the notes.

You also don't fucking edit a statement 'because new evidence is found' either. It stands or falls on its content. You fucking clown.

Yes you do. If a witness provides a statement that is then contradicted by another witness, or some evidence becomes known that the witness did not mention, they will be re-interviewed and a supplementary or new edited version will be created. That is standard practice with the UK police and from what I have seen with Wiernik, it happened with him as well. You just do not know about the re-interviewing of witnesses, because of your lack of training and experience.

Again this appears to be correct for the UK. You try that shit in the US and the defense is going to fucking tear you apart, and rightly so. The idea that you can just edit a witness statement to conform to new evidence is just so fucking slimy and nasty. You don't find the truth that way, you construct a coherent narrative. Justice should be above all about truth.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

The entire fucking reason to follow up with an interview after a statement is to fucking catch shit like this so you can wash out a witness or catch a guilty party, for fucks sake. You do not have 3 people in the room to take a statement all sharing the same fucking page. This is absolutely out of character with any kind of professional investigation of any sort. It is not 'normal' or 'procedural'.

Follow up interviews are not necessarily about catching witnesses out. They are often to clarify or ask about something that had been missed before. It could simply be that the witness forgot to mention something, that they are later asked about and provide a supplementary statement for. The police often use two interviewers, it is standard practice in Sotland due to corroboration rules. Of course, you know nothing about any of this and think it is all unusual.

I understand seeking a clarification, that is not what fucking happened here. Part of the statement was excised because it was false.

It is highly unusual for a fucking propagandist to work with 2 separate underground propaganda mills...

What do you base that claim on? In Poland Oneg Shabbat, Polish journalists and the Polish Intelligence Services reporting back to the Government in Exile in London were gathering witness evidence as to what was happening to Jews in the country. For Wiernik to have provided multiple statements is not unusual.

He provided the one written statement and from it was drafted what would become the template about the camp, and, it diverges from his written statement, and it passed through all these organizations AFTER it was collected, not during the collection process. You are framing this like some natural thing one would expect where he gave multiple statements and there were just some small errors in them but the core thesis was consistent, that is not what the fuck this is.

... and then for the city council to have a 'diet' around the propaganda and then for the propaganda to have another 'diet' before being translated into another fucking language.

What are you going on about?

The Diet of the underground judenrat (Warsaw Circle, oneg shabbat, the 'coordination council' etc.) before A Year in Treblinka was put to print and the further Diet in New York it underwent before being printed in English.

That you see this as anything other than odd is some kind of cognitive dissonance or other cognitive defect. It is patently fucking obvious.

You are defending the indefensible.

Your ignorance around how evidence was gathered, who by and how witnesses are interviewed, is being made more and more apparent by your posting.

My ignorance of some terrible practices used the the UK is apparent. The way you conduct witness interviews there and the way you handle witness statements is abhorrent. You try that in a court looking for the truth, and, you will get fucking ripped up one side and down the other. That is absolute NOT how it is done here, and that you don't see the problem with it explains a lot about why you don't see the holes in the Holocaust narrative. Your idea of 'justice' is narrative driven tellings constructed from witness statements refined through narrative smithing. My idea of justice is truth finding by analysis of statements and evidence.

Here, if a statement doesn't fit, we don't go ask for clarification from someone who lied about something, you discount that witness and move the fuck on, because they won't hold up in court at that point anyhow.

The latest HoloCast seems to belong here and so I will link it;

[Wetzelrad]

To be clear, Wiernik or his ghostwriters changed the story multiple times, so it is not as if this is an isolated problem. The rewriting shows up most obviously with dates.



The purpose of making changes like these was to make the story conform better with other evidence, which is exactly the thing that should never have happened if its authenticity is meant to be proved by corroboration with other evidence.

[Nessie]

You fucking idiot, we are talking about a hoax at Treblinka. You are defaulting to 'all or nothing' as a dichotomy.

Treblinka isn't 'the Holocaust', Auschwitz isn't 'the Holocaust'. These are specific and distinct places of a discrete size and in known physical locations.

Which means to hoax the Holocaust, needs the management of multiple sites. The Soviets failed to pass off a hoax about just one site.

Sites that have never been properly investigated and are now covered in concrete, steel and jagged stones...

It is only your biased opinion that they have not been properly investigated.

Generally, with a literate witness, which Wiernik was, seeing as he was a graduate, you have them write their statement.

What is that claim based on? Wiernik had his statement taken by various investigators. The Polish War Crimes Commission took numerous statements;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/res ... 20camp&p=0

The police in the UK take all statements, none are self penned.

The UK is such a silly fucking place. An official takes the statement because witnesses are not properly educated to write their own statement? This is so fucking stupid.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... tPage=true

You are technically correct, although, the UK differs from the US where the witness writes their statement, and, i don't see anything about 3 people sharing one sheet of paper to take the notes.

"AI Overview. In the US, witnesses rarely write their own statements from scratch; instead, the investigating police officer conducts an interview and drafts the written statement on behalf of the witness. The witness then reviews it for accuracy, makes any necessary changes, and signs it under penalty of perjury"

Same as the UK. Wiernik's statement that is in more than one person's handwriting is odd, but, it is clear that has happened.

You also don't fucking edit a statement 'because new evidence is found' either. It stands or falls on its content. You fucking clown.

Yes you do. If a witness provides a statement that is then contradicted by another witness, or some evidence becomes known that the witness did not mention, they will be re-interviewed and a supplementary or new edited version will be created. That is standard practice with the UK police and from what I have seen with Wiernik, it happened with him as well. You just do not know about the re-interviewing of witnesses, because of your lack of training and experience.

Again this appears to be correct for the UK. You try that shit in the US and the defense is going to fucking tear you apart, and rightly so. The idea that you can just edit a witness statement to conform to new evidence is just so fucking slimy and nasty. You don't find the truth that way, you construct a coherent narrative. Justice should be above all about truth.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

It is fine to edit statements, so long as the edits are shown. Edits primarily consist of clarifications, additions or retractions. So, Wiernik's first statement shows edits, where another has added to it and then his book has a retraction, where he does not refer to the chlorine claim. Those changes are not hidden.

I would like you to evidence your claim that only one witness statement can be taken in the USA and no form of edit is allowed to clarify, add or retract anything.

The entire fucking reason to follow up with an interview after a statement is to fucking catch shit like this so you can wash out a witness or catch a guilty party, for fucks sake. You do not have 3 people in the room to take a statement all sharing the same fucking page. This is absolutely out of character with any kind of professional investigation of any sort. It is not 'normal' or 'procedural'.

Follow up interviews are not necessarily about catching witnesses out. They are often to clarify or ask about something that had been missed before. It could simply be that the witness forgot to mention something, that they are later asked about and provide a supplementary statement for. The police often use two interviewers, it is standard practice in Sotland due to corroboration rules. Of course, you know nothing about any of this and think it is all unusual.

I understand seeking a clarification, that is not what fucking happened here. Part of the statement was excised because it was false.

It is likely that the chlorine claim was dropped because it was not corroborated or otherwise established to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with doing that, especially when the earlier version with the claim is still available, to show the changes.

It is highly unusual for a fucking propagandist to work with 2 separate underground propaganda mills...

What do you base that claim on? In Poland Oneg Shabbat, Polish journalists and the Polish Intelligence Services reporting back to the Government in Exile in London were gathering witness evidence as to what was happening to Jews in the country. For Wiernik to have provided multiple statements is not unusual.

He provided the one written statement and from it was drafted what would become the template about the camp, and, it diverges from his written statement, and it passed through all these organizations AFTER it was collected, not during the collection process. You are framing this like some natural thing one would expect where he gave multiple statements and there were just some small errors in them but the core thesis was consistent, that is not what the fuck this is.

Yes it is. A witness who gives multiple statements to different people, will not give the same statement twice, there will be variances.

... and then for the city council to have a 'diet' around the propaganda and then for the propaganda to have another 'diet' before being translated into another fucking language.

What are you going on about?

The Diet of the underground judenrat (Warsaw Circle, oneg shabbat, the 'coordination council' etc.) before A Year in Treblinka was put to print and the further Diet in New York it underwent before being printed in English.

That you see this as anything other than odd is some kind of cognitive dissonance or other cognitive defect. It is patently fucking obvious.

You are defending the indefensible.

Your ignorance around how evidence was gathered, who by and how witnesses are interviewed, is being made more and more apparent by your posting.

My ignorance of some terrible practices used the the UK is apparent. The way you conduct witness interviews there and the way you handle witness statements is abhorrent. You try that in a court looking for the truth, and, you will get fucking ripped up one side and down the other.

The police interviewing witnesses is standard practice in the UK and I have an AI overview that it is also standard in the USA.

That is absolute NOT how it is done here, and that you don't see the problem with it explains a lot about why you don't see the holes in the Holocaust narrative. Your idea of 'justice' is narrative driven tellings constructed from witness statements refined through narrative smithing. My idea of justice is truth finding by analysis of statements and evidence.

Here, if a statement doesn't fit, we don't go ask for clarification from someone who lied about something, you discount that witness and move the fuck on, because they won't hold up in court at that point anyhow.

I don't believe you. I think you are making that up.

The latest HoloCast seems to belong here and so I will link it;

You are ignorant of investigation and witness interviews. Your claim that the only acceptable statements are one's the witness composed themselves, and there can be no clarification, is made up.