Request for support from Nessie

[Archie]

Another request for support:

...
Revisionist methodology is no different than the usual exacting historical methodology where source criticism and primary documentation is analysed.

Revisionist methodology means that 100% of the witnesses to the operations inside the AR camps and Kremas are dismissed as liars, and no witness can be produced, who is believed. Considering how many people went to those places, that makes the methodology used to determine witness truthfulness suspect.

Revisionist methodology cannot produce an evidenced chronological narrative of what did happen, which is the primary role of history.

It remains superior to exterminationist work because it cites sources for most claims made and does not rely on hearsay.

Revisionism cannot cite a single witness, which is suspect and the history of the death camps relies on eyewitnesses and other evidence, not hearsay.

Nessie, can you please clarify what you mean by your assertion that 100% of witnesses support the Holocaust and 0% support revisionism? And can you explain how you determined this?

[Nazgul]

I was asked "Please explain why you think the statements are reliable.", which I did. It was then claimed that I think "credibility doesn't matter", which is incorrect and I have explained why. I have also explained why revisionist reliance on credibility, rather than truthfulness and inability to accurately assess claims, makes them vulnerable. It is revisionists who have been fooled by a hoax.

I feel you should just concentrate on the reliability of witnesses. To me this is acceptable, and which others can agree or disagree. However, the continual rampage on "revisionist" analysis is totally unacceptable. All people who disagree with you have a profound variety of educational and work experiences, knowledge and expertise, some are scientists, some engineers, others real polizist, some are Ermittler detectives; some maybe hillbillies . In my opinion constant side digs at opponents is trolling; not if you mention it once, but the continuation of a negative theme which Archie has mentioned above. Not agreeing with you does not mean anyone is fooled by anything, let alone some apparent deception. The continuation of such pejoratives can only be perceived as trolling, even though you do not really intend to do so. I am sure that if you just stick to the arguments, without the extra stab in the side, Archie and others will have no issue with you.

[Nessie]

It was then claimed that I think "credibility doesn't matter", which is incorrect and I have explained why.

You have said repeatedly that revisionists are wrong for considering the credibility of witnesses. Below are but a few quotes from your RODOH post history.

The answer is yes, you know fine well that there are people who can lie and be very convincing. Credibility does not determine truthfulness. Someone can come over as credible and lie, and vice versa. Credibility alone is dependent on opinion and perception. If someone wants to believe another, they are more inclined to find them credible. If someone wants to disbelieve another, they are more likely to fond them not credible.

You cannot reliably use credibility to determine truthfulness.You need evidence to do that.
*
Credibility and truthfulness are different. You concentrate on credibility, I concentrate on truthfulness. When I first read Jewish testimony, I did think it was not particularly credible, because of the excessive use of emotive descriptives. I realised that by concentrating on credibility, deniers think they are reading false propaganda, when it is just the way eastern European Jews speak.
*
Just because the Jewish testimony, at times, reads like atrocity propaganda, does not therefore mean it is atrocity propaganda. Do you understand that a credible witness can be a total liar and that a witness who is not credible, can be telling the truth? Do you see how credibility and truthfulness differ?
*
You keep on getting credibility mixed up with truthfulness. Just because you do not find a witness to be credible, does not therefore mean they are lying. It is perfectly possible to be credible and a liar, or the other way round.
*
Comments about blood burning do harm witness credibility. Witness credibility is different from truthfulness. It is possible to be truthful about seeing a mass pyre and to say things that are not credible about burning blood. Courts, lawyers and historians understand that, denier do not.
*
Whether you consider the evidence to be credible or not, is moot, since your opinion does not accurately determine credibility.
*
A witness can be credible and a liar, or not credible and truthful, or credible and truthful, or not credible and a liar. Credibility is one way to determine truthfulness, but the more reliable method is corroboration, the checking of evidence independent of that witness. So, when Nazi documents records hundreds of thousands were sent to TII and witnesses claim the same, even if the totals do not match, the witness is telling the truth.
*
In any case, credibility and truthfulness are different. You are obsessed with credibility, but truthfulness is more important. A person can be credible and a total liar.

https://rodoh.info/thread/640/credibili ... ses-matter

I am criticising revisionism for ONLY considering credibility. By doing that, you are at risk of believing a liar and dismissing someone who is telling the truth, because a credible person can also be a liar. All con merchants are highly credible. A person, who lacks credibility, can also be telling the truth.

The Jewish witnesses are not particularly credible, because of their exaggerations, emotive descriptions etc. The Nazis are more credible, because they are more matter of fact and less emotional. That the Nazis are more credible than the Jews does not therefore mean the Nazis are telling the truth and the Jews all lied. It just means their version of events is more credible. That credibility is why revisionists have to switch tactics and claim the Nazis are lying under coercion.

A more credible witness is more likely to be closer to the truth in terms of details. For example, Gerstein and his claim about diesel being used for gassings. That is not a credible claim, but he did not run the engines used at the gas chambers. Fuchs did and he said it was a petrol engine. His claim is more credible, because he ran the engines.

Eyewitness evidence is more credible than hearsay. That is why courts, as a rule, rarely use hearsay evidence. Historians do, but they attach more credibility to the eyewitnesses, who saw the events they describe. Revisionists mix hearsay with eyewitness evidence, to make the witness evidence in general appear less credible. The result is their conclusion that 100% of the witnesses to gassings are liars.

I merely point out why that conclusion is wrong.

[Nessie]

Another request for support:

...
Revisionist methodology is no different than the usual exacting historical methodology where source criticism and primary documentation is analysed.

Revisionist methodology means that 100% of the witnesses to the operations inside the AR camps and Kremas are dismissed as liars, and no witness can be produced, who is believed. Considering how many people went to those places, that makes the methodology used to determine witness truthfulness suspect.

Revisionist methodology cannot produce an evidenced chronological narrative of what did happen, which is the primary role of history.

It remains superior to exterminationist work because it cites sources for most claims made and does not rely on hearsay.

Revisionism cannot cite a single witness, which is suspect and the history of the death camps relies on eyewitnesses and other evidence, not hearsay.

Nessie, can you please clarify what you mean by your assertion that 100% of witnesses support the Holocaust and 0% support revisionism? And can you explain how you determined this?

Revisionists cannot produce a single witness who they believe, who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who gives testimony as to what took place, other than gassings.

That leave 100% of the witnesses to the process followed inside each of those places all agreeing that people arrived on mass transports, got undressed, were gassed and then buried, or cremated. Not one single witness deviates from that narrative.

If you have a witness who you say does deviate, then do share their name and testimony.

[Nazgul]

Revisionists cannot produce a single witness who they believe, who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who gives testimony as to what took place, other than gassings.

You were given Pierre Berg a 19 year old non Jewish Frenchman who was a Kapo at the ramps of Birkenau. He saw nothing happen as described, nor did his female companion another Kapo. He saw the Muselmänner, but no evidence of people heading to krema. He did this for many transports. This is evidence nothing happened.

[Nessie]

Revisionists cannot produce a single witness who they believe, who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, who gives testimony as to what took place, other than gassings.

You were given Pierre Berg a 19 year old non Jewish Frenchman who was a Kapo at the ramps of Birkenau. He saw nothing happen as described, nor did his female companion another Kapo. He saw the Muselmänner, but no evidence of people heading to krema. He did this for many transports. This is evidence nothing happened.

I have never been "given Pierre Berg". You have also failed to give links or quotes from what he said. From the very limited information you provide, he did not work inside the Kremas. A-B was a huge camp, so unless someone worked inside the Kremas, they will not have seen what was taking place. From Berg's bio for his book on Amazon;

https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B001JS8AM2/about

"I escaped a selection to Birkenau's gas chambers because I did a good job washing my blockelster's shirts."

[Nazgul]

I have never been "given Pierre Berg".

Not true. Here is a quote from RODOH to this member several years ago. RODOH link to Nessie.

This fits with the observations of other people in the same places who acted in roles of some authority, such as Pierre Berg a ramp Kapo.

Incidentally Pierre a non Jew was put into Birkenau by the Gestapo for illicit ham radio operations. He got very sick at one stage and assumed he would be "aktioned" (14f13) but was hospitalized and brought back to full health with milk rations. He told the transportees where to go at the ramps. The Jew Pivnik also worked on the ramps, got sick and recovered. There were no reports of gassings from these inmates who had intimate camp knowledge.

Incidentally Pierre a non Jew was put into Birkenau by the Gestapo for illicit ham radio operations. He got very sick at one stage and assumed he would be "aktioned" (14f13) but was hospitalized and brought back to full health with milk rations. He told the transportees where to go at the ramps. The Jew Pivnik also worked on the ramps, got sick and recovered. There were no reports of gassings from these inmates who had intimate camp knowledge.

You have also failed to give links or quotes from what he said. From the very limited information you provide, he did not work inside the Kremas. A-B was a huge camp, so unless someone worked inside the Kremas, they will not have seen what was taking place

Pierre was the ramp Kapo and never mentioned anyone heading to any Krema. He did mention the women going to their sections and the men going to theirs from the ramps. He was aware of euthanasia of invalids which is why when he got sick he had major concerns.

[Nessie]

I have never been "given Pierre Berg".

Not true. Here is a quote from RODOH to this member several years ago. RODOH link to Nessie.

This fits with the observations of other people in the same places who acted in roles of some authority, such as Pierre Berg a ramp Kapo.

Incidentally Pierre a non Jew was put into Birkenau by the Gestapo for illicit ham radio operations. He got very sick at one stage and assumed he would be "aktioned" (14f13) but was hospitalized and brought back to full health with milk rations. He told the transportees where to go at the ramps. The Jew Pivnik also worked on the ramps, got sick and recovered. There were no reports of gassings from these inmates who had intimate camp knowledge.

Incidentally Pierre a non Jew was put into Birkenau by the Gestapo for illicit ham radio operations. He got very sick at one stage and assumed he would be "aktioned" (14f13) but was hospitalized and brought back to full health with milk rations. He told the transportees where to go at the ramps. The Jew Pivnik also worked on the ramps, got sick and recovered. There were no reports of gassings from these inmates who had intimate camp knowledge.

You have also failed to give links or quotes from what he said. From the very limited information you provide, he did not work inside the Kremas. A-B was a huge camp, so unless someone worked inside the Kremas, they will not have seen what was taking place

Pierre was the ramp Kapo and never mentioned anyone heading to any Krema. He did mention the women going to their sections and the men going to theirs from the ramps. He was aware of euthanasia of invalids which is why when he got sick he had major concerns.

A search of RODOH finds 5 posts (spread over 2021-23) where you have referenced Berg, in other discussions, usually also referencing other witnesses, without ever quoting or linking to Berg's words. Your reference to giving me Berg, suggests quotes and links and a detailed discussion about his evidence. That has not happened.

https://rodoh.info/user/23/recent?q=Pierre

Those posts include my specific reference to those who worked INSIDE the Kremas. A ramp Kapo does not work inside the Kremas, so anything they have to say, is hearsay. I have also quoted Berg stating that selections were for the gas chambers, so your suggestion that he saw nothing happen as described, when the selection process is important circumstantial evidence, is wrong.

My claim stands, revisionists cannot provide one single witness who WORKED INSIDE or was otherwise TAKEN INSIDE the AR camps, Chelmno or A-B Kremas, who states that they were not used for gassings and what their actual purpose was. Instead, 100% of those who worked or were taken inside and state gassings happened, are claimed to be liars.

[Nazgul]

Why did you say:
I have never been "given Pierre Berg".

now admit you have. Your credibility is lessened.

[Nessie]

Why did you say:
I have never been "given Pierre Berg".

now admit you have. Your credibility is lessened.

I said that because he has only been referenced in posts to me. He has never been the subject of thread, post or a discussion about his evidence that I have been a part of.

As for credibility, you have lessened yours by trying to claim him as a witness in your favour. Berg is clear that he believed those not selected for work, so how does he help your claims? All you have done is further prove my point, that revisionism's treatment of witnesses leaves them with no witnesses at all and that 100% are supportive of the gassing narrative. You have not given me Berg as a witness who speaks to something other than gassings taking place inside the Kremas.

[Nazgul]

Berg is clear that he believed those not selected for work, so how does he help your claims?

You have not read his work. He saw nothing as described in the narrative that selected Jews were sent to Kremas. He was the ramp Kapo and saw what happened. If something happened it was not at the ramps. He describes 14f13, nothing else.

[Nessie]

Berg is clear that he believed those not selected for work, so how does he help your claims?

You have not read his work. He saw nothing as described in the narrative that selected Jews were sent to Kremas. He was the ramp Kapo and saw what happened. If something happened it was not at the ramps. He describes 14f13, nothing else.

I have managed to find a quote from Berg that contradicts your claim he did not know the selections ended in gassings for many. You have never linked to or quoted Berg, because he is not a witness who speaks to a process that does not include gassings.

[Nazgul]

"The Gayssot Act or Gayssot Law enacted on 13 July 1990, makes it an offence in France to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945–1946."

Bergs book Scheisshaus Luck was first published September 3, 2008, after the enactment of the Gaysott Law. There are good reasons why this prudent Frenchman was very careful with his words in those pages. Try reading it, it is very good.

[Nessie]

"The Gayssot Act or Gayssot Law enacted on 13 July 1990, makes it an offence in France to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945–1946."

Bergs book Scheisshaus Luck was first published September 3, 2008, after the enactment of the Gaysott Law. There are good reasons why this prudent Frenchman was very careful with his words in those pages. Try reading it, it is very good.

IOW, Berg is not a witness to what happened inside the Kremas, which he clearly states were used for gassings. All you are doing is proving that I am correct, revisionist cannot produce a single relevant witness and instead claim 100% of those who worked in the relevant places, are lying.

[Nazgul]

IOW, Berg is not a witness to what happened inside the Kremas, which he clearly states were used for gassings. All you are doing is proving that I am correct, revisionist cannot produce a single relevant witness and instead claim 100% of those who worked in the relevant places, are lying.

Show us in his book where he said this. Include page number. Of course he cannot deny events or he would be prosecuted.