Request for support from Nessie

[Nessie]

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.

It was not from his book, it was from his biography entry for his book on Amazon, which I made clear here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=499#p499

Of course he cannot deny events or he would be prosecuted.

He did not work inside the Kremas. He is NOT a witness. You are trolling me now, going round in circles. This is the last post from me on this issue, in reply to your repetitions.

[Nazgul]

He did not work inside the Kremas. He is NOT a witness. You are trolling me now, going round in circles. This is the last post from me on this issue, in reply to your repetitions.

He was a kapo at the ramps at Birkenau who saw where the inmates went. None of them went to the Kremas. If there was gassing it was not from the ramps as the narrative states and many movies. His work is testimony of the reality not the fabricted version within the hiatus of your skull.

[Nessie]

He did not work inside the Kremas. He is NOT a witness. You are trolling me now, going round in circles. This is the last post from me on this issue, in reply to your repetitions.

He was a kapo at the ramps at Birkenau who saw where the inmates went. None of them went to the Kremas. If there was gassing it was not from the ramps as the narrative states and many movies. His work is testimony of the reality not the fabricted version within the hiatus of your skull.

Show me in his book where he said that he worked at selections and no one ever went from a selection to the Kremas. Quote his exact words and include the page number. There is no e-book version, but I can get your claim verified.

Bear in mind that there are numerous other witnesses, Jewish and Nazi, who worked at selections, who saw people going to the Kremas and there is documentary and photographic evidence to support those witnesses.

[TlsMS93]

Berg is not a witness to what happened inside the Kremas, which he clearly states were used for gassings

How the hell can he claim that people were gassed in the kremas? The mind reading of a sprawling bureaucracy according to Raul Hilberg?

[Nazgul]

How the hell can he claim that people were gassed in the kremas? The mind reading of a sprawling bureaucracy according to Raul Hilberg?

Pierre and his team ensured that the Jews got off the transports and then to the various quarter. The narrative states the Jews went directly to the gas chambers; this is not what Berg described.

[Nessie]

Berg is not a witness to what happened inside the Kremas, which he clearly states were used for gassings

How the hell can he claim that people were gassed in the kremas? The mind reading of a sprawling bureaucracy according to Raul Hilberg?

Berg's claim about gassings is hearsay. He is repeating what he has been told. Revisionists mix hearsay with eyewitness evidence as if it is the same. The courts don't, it is rare that they allow hearsay evidence, due to its inherent unreliability, compared to testimony from someone who saw what they are talking about. Historians use witnesses like Berg not for what he repeats about gassings, but what he saw when he was at A-B.

[Nessie]

How the hell can he claim that people were gassed in the kremas? The mind reading of a sprawling bureaucracy according to Raul Hilberg?

Pierre and his team ensured that the Jews got off the transports and then to the various quarter. The narrative states the Jews went directly to the gas chambers; this is not what Berg described.

Quote please, include page number. Show Berg's exact words. I have produced a quote from Berg that contradicts your claim.

[Nessie]

Nessie makes repeated but vague claims like the following...

Archie, I have provided you with the information you requested about;

- which witnesses I rely on
- why I think they are reliable
- the archaeological data
- revisionist reliance on credibility
- 100% of witnesses supporting gassings
- no witness providing alternative evidence

Do you still think that revisionist witness assessment, based only on credibility, that ignores corroborating evidence and concludes all the witnesses who worked inside the AR camps and inside the Kremas are liars and cannot produce a single witness who worked there who they believe, is an accurate assessment?

[Nazgul]

Do you still think that revisionist witness assessment, based only on credibility, that ignores corroborating evidence and concludes all the witnesses who worked inside the AR camps and inside the Kremas are liars and cannot produce a single witness who worked there who they believe, is an accurate assessment?

The evidence point to most people not going near the Kremas unless deceased. The insistence of witnesses inside the morgues is somewhat deceptive. To be frank no one cares what Nessie thinks happened nor to respond to his trolling. The real story is slowly emerging from the mists.

[Archie]

Nessie makes repeated but vague claims like the following...

Archie, I have provided you with the information you requested about;

- which witnesses I rely on
- why I think they are reliable
- the archaeological data
- revisionist reliance on credibility
- 100% of witnesses supporting gassings
- no witness providing alternative evidence

Do you still think that revisionist witness assessment, based only on credibility, that ignores corroborating evidence and concludes all the witnesses who worked inside the AR camps and inside the Kremas are liars and cannot produce a single witness who worked there who they believe, is an accurate assessment?

You provided what you think is support.

Revisionists look "only" at credibility and ignore "corroborating evidence"? Nonsense. Revisionists compare testimonies to known facts. You saying that we don't is simply incorrect.

"All the witnesses are liars" You failed to provide one quote of a revisionist saying this. Not even online. In some cases the witnesses are likely just confused or are repeating rumors without necessarily lying deliberately. Some of course are presumably lying.

100% of the witnesses support you? Total fantasy. You have not read all the testimonies, and you ignore even ones that have already been pointed out to you. You also ignore that the testimonies have been collected by biased parties for the purpose of demonstrating German guilt.

For example I have shared before a few testimonies lending some support to the air raid shelter thesis.

Dr. Nyiszli's memoir, Chapter 22

I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.

We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here.

Or this person who was involved with the construction.

Unpublished. Polish Underground Movement (1939-1945) Study Trust; a reference number was not given
February 2, 1944
“The concentration camp in Auschwitz.”

The crematorium is underground; it is built following the pattern of an air raid shelter. Only the chimney protrudes above ground, in whose construction the informant was also involved. The informant does not know where the gas chambers are located; he merely heard that they are underground, built on the pattern of the crematorium.

Krematorium miesci sie pod ziemia zbudowane na wzòr scronu przeciwlotniczego. Nad powierzchnia ziemi unosi sie jedynie komin, przy budowie ktòrego byl zatrudniony ròwniez informator. Gdzie mieszcza sie komory gazowe, informator nie wie, slyszal jedynie, ze sa pod ziemia, zbudowane na zwòr krematorium.

For the AR camps, just off the top of my head, Jan Karski's testimony (a rather famous witness) does not fit your story at all. It is so contradictory that Holopromoters started retconning it to refer to some other random camp. But the original story for a good 40+ years, Karski was said to have gone to Belzec and witnessed transports leaving.

Even if it were true that "all" the witnesses supported you (which it isn't) that still would not be particularly impressive if there are systemic factors involved (like the investigating entities).

[Nessie]

Nessie makes repeated but vague claims like the following...

Archie, I have provided you with the information you requested about;

- which witnesses I rely on
- why I think they are reliable
- the archaeological data
- revisionist reliance on credibility
- 100% of witnesses supporting gassings
- no witness providing alternative evidence

Do you still think that revisionist witness assessment, based only on credibility, that ignores corroborating evidence and concludes all the witnesses who worked inside the AR camps and inside the Kremas are liars and cannot produce a single witness who worked there who they believe, is an accurate assessment?

You provided what you think is support.

Revisionists look "only" at credibility and ignore "corroborating evidence"? Nonsense. Revisionists compare testimonies to known facts. You saying that we don't is simply incorrect.

By "known facts" you mean revisionist beliefs that the gassings and cremations were physically impossible and there are no mass graves. That is not corrobroation. Corroboration comes from other contemporaneous evidence. When a Jewish prisoner and Nazi guard both state they saw gassings, that is corrobroation. When a Polish railworker and a Nazi document both record regular mass transports arriving at a location, that is corroboration.

You then dismiss all the witnesses who say they saw mass gassings, thousands being cremated at a time on pyres and mass graves, as liars, because you do not think they are credible claims.

"All the witnesses are liars" You failed to provide one quote of a revisionist saying this. Not even online. In some cases the witnesses are likely just confused or are repeating rumors without necessarily lying deliberately. Some of course are presumably lying.

Please give me an example of a witness who states he saw mass gassings, thousands being cremated at a time on pyres and mass graves at the AR camps, who you say is telling the truth about those events. When Wiernik etc make those claims, they are dismissed as lying.

100% of the witnesses support you? Total fantasy. You have not read all the testimonies, and you ignore even ones that have already been pointed out to you. You also ignore that the testimonies have been collected by biased parties for the purpose of demonstrating German guilt.

You ignore that all the major AR camp many A-B trials were by Germans in Germany.

For example I have shared before a few testimonies lending some support to the air raid shelter thesis.

Dr. Nyiszli's memoir, Chapter 22

I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.

We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here.

He is describing using a "gas chamber" during an air raid, as a temporary shelter. His memoir contains numerous details about the mass gassing process. You know that you consider him and every one else who worked at the Kremas, who states they were used for gassings, to be lying about that. To cherry-pick a use of a gas chamber during an air raid, as evidence it was an air raid shelter, is logically and evidentially flawed.

Or this person who was involved with the construction.

Unpublished. Polish Underground Movement (1939-1945) Study Trust; a reference number was not given
February 2, 1944
“The concentration camp in Auschwitz.”

The crematorium is underground; it is built following the pattern of an air raid shelter. Only the chimney protrudes above ground, in whose construction the informant was also involved. The informant does not know where the gas chambers are located; he merely heard that they are underground, built on the pattern of the crematorium.

Krematorium miesci sie pod ziemia zbudowane na wzòr scronu przeciwlotniczego. Nad powierzchnia ziemi unosi sie jedynie komin, przy budowie ktòrego byl zatrudniony ròwniez informator. Gdzie mieszcza sie komory gazowe, informator nie wie, slyszal jedynie, ze sa pod ziemia, zbudowane na zwòr krematorium.

That is a description of the construction of a gas chamber!!!! That the witness said it was like an air raid shelter, does not turn the gas chamber into an air raid shelter. That you again produce a witness who speaks to gas chambers, when you say the gas chamber are lies, as your best evidence, shows just how weak your case is.

For the AR camps, just off the top of my head, Jan Karski's testimony (a rather famous witness) does not fit your story at all. It is so contradictory that Holopromoters started retconning it to refer to some other random camp. But the original story for a good 40+ years, Karski was said to have gone to Belzec and witnessed transports leaving.

A search of references to Karski have him at the Izbica transit camp, not Belzec. Revisionists agree with historians that his descriptions do not match Belzec. His evidence does fit the "story" of horrific conditions in camps and mass transports. Yet again, you cannot produce a witness who worked inside an AR camp, who you believe.

Even if it were true that "all" the witnesses supported you (which it isn't)...

Of the three witnesses you reference, Nyiszli and the unnamed third party account both refer to gas chambers, which you claim are lies. The other, Karski, was not at the camp he referenced, as agreed upon by revisionists and historians, so he is not a witness to what happened inside the AR camp Belzec.

...that still would not be particularly impressive if there are systemic factors involved (like the investigating entities).

Cherry-picking parts of what witnesses said, is not particularly impressive. Neither is ignoring all the witness statements gathered by Germans for trials in Germany. You cannot produce a single witness who you say is telling the truth about what they describe inside the death camps, who does not describe gassings. You say that all the witnesses are lying when they describe gassings.

[Archie]

By "known facts" you mean revisionist beliefs that the gassings and cremations were physically impossible and there are no mass graves. That is not corrobroation. Corroboration comes from other contemporaneous evidence. When a Jewish prisoner and Nazi guard both state they saw gassings, that is corrobroation. When a Polish railworker and a Nazi document both record regular mass transports arriving at a location, that is corroboration.

You then dismiss all the witnesses who say they saw mass gassings, thousands being cremated at a time on pyres and mass graves, as liars, because you do not think they are credible claims.

"Revisionist beliefs"?

No. By known facts, I mean known facts. Nessie, if you are not going to be reasonable, then you can move along.

Example 1: It is known that Himmler visited Auschwitz in the summer of 1942 and it is also known that the Birkenau crematoria were completed in 1943. Vrba claimed that Himmler came to Auschwitz for a special inaugural gassing at the new crematoria. But when Himmler was there the crematoria hadn't been built yet. Vrba's story is therefore contradicted by known facts.

Example 2: Vrba claimed that he hid in a woodpile during his escape. And he describes an air raid while he was in the woodpile. But there was no air raid at Auschwitz in April 1944. The first bombing of Auschwitz was August 20, 1944. The story is therefore contradicted by known facts.

[Archie]

I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.

We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here.

He is describing using a "gas chamber" during an air raid, as a temporary shelter. His memoir contains numerous details about the mass gassing process. You know that you consider him and every one else who worked at the Kremas, who states they were used for gassings, to be lying about that. To cherry-pick a use of a gas chamber during an air raid, as evidence it was an air raid shelter, is logically and evidentially flawed.

It's called an "admission against interest." Look it up. We've discussed it before. I don't feel like going over it with you yet again.

Unpublished. Polish Underground Movement (1939-1945) Study Trust; a reference number was not given
February 2, 1944
“The concentration camp in Auschwitz.”

The crematorium is underground; it is built following the pattern of an air raid shelter. Only the chimney protrudes above ground, in whose construction the informant was also involved. The informant does not know where the gas chambers are located; he merely heard that they are underground, built on the pattern of the crematorium.

Krematorium miesci sie pod ziemia zbudowane na wzòr scronu przeciwlotniczego. Nad powierzchnia ziemi unosi sie jedynie komin, przy budowie ktòrego byl zatrudniony ròwniez informator. Gdzie mieszcza sie komory gazowe, informator nie wie, slyszal jedynie, ze sa pod ziemia, zbudowane na zwòr krematorium.

That is a description of the construction of a gas chamber!!!! That the witness said it was like an air raid shelter, does not turn the gas chamber into an air raid shelter. That you again produce a witness who speaks to gas chambers, when you say the gas chamber are lies, as your best evidence, shows just how weak your case is.

Read it again. It's a statement from someone involved in construction of one of the Leichenkellers.

• He says the cellar was "built following the pattern of an air raid shelter."
• He does NOT say it was a gas chamber
• It seems he was asked about "the gas chambers" but he "did not know" where they were located!

[Nessie]

By "known facts" you mean revisionist beliefs that the gassings and cremations were physically impossible and there are no mass graves. That is not corrobroation. Corroboration comes from other contemporaneous evidence. When a Jewish prisoner and Nazi guard both state they saw gassings, that is corrobroation. When a Polish railworker and a Nazi document both record regular mass transports arriving at a location, that is corroboration.

You then dismiss all the witnesses who say they saw mass gassings, thousands being cremated at a time on pyres and mass graves, as liars, because you do not think they are credible claims.

"Revisionist beliefs"?

No. By known facts, I mean known facts. Nessie, if you are not going to be reasonable, then you can move along.

Example 1: It is known that Himmler visited Auschwitz in the summer of 1942 and it is also known that the Birkenau crematoria were completed in 1943. Vrba claimed that Himmler came to Auschwitz for a special inaugural gassing at the new crematoria. But when Himmler was there the crematoria hadn't been built yet. Vrba's story is therefore contradicted by known facts.

Example 2: Vrba claimed that he hid in a woodpile during his escape. And he describes an air raid while he was in the woodpile. But there was no air raid at Auschwitz in April 1944. The first bombing of Auschwitz was August 20, 1944. The story is therefore contradicted by known facts.

Vrba is corroborated about, and is therefore being truthful that Himmler visited the camp and that there were air raids. His credibility, however, is reduced by getting the dates wrong. That does not serious damage his testimony, because most people are poor at remembering dates. We also know that Vrba was actively gathering testimony from others, so much of what he relates is hearsay, he did not see it and so its accuracy is likely to be diminished.

You have not dealt with corroboration. You have merely shown that he got dates wrong. On the events he is relating, he is corroborated. Memory and hearsay explain why he got the dates wrong. Vrba remains an important witness to general events at the camp and as one of the earliest reports. His testimony does not support revisionist claims that the Kremas had another purpose other than gassings and that there were regular mass transports back out of the camp, of people not selected to work at the camp.

[Nessie]

I was in the habit of reading for a while in bed each night before I went to sleep. One night, while I was doing just that, the lights suddenly went out and the KZ alarm siren began its dismal wail. Whenever there was an alert we were taken, convoyed by well-armed SS guards, to the Sonderkommando shelter, that is, to the gas chamber.

We crossed the threshold of the gas chamber with heavy hearts. The whole kommando was present, 200 strong. It was a terrible feeling to remain in this room, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people had met a frightful end here.

He is describing using a "gas chamber" during an air raid, as a temporary shelter. His memoir contains numerous details about the mass gassing process. You know that you consider him and every one else who worked at the Kremas, who states they were used for gassings, to be lying about that. To cherry-pick a use of a gas chamber during an air raid, as evidence it was an air raid shelter, is logically and evidentially flawed.

It's called an "admission against interest." Look it up. We've discussed it before. I don't feel like going over it with you yet again.

I have searched my posts for "admission against interest" and we have never discussed this. That he describes using the gas chambers to shelter during an air raid does not counter his claim that the gas chamber was normally used for gassings. Because of its construction, Krema I was converted for use as an air raid shelter, which lends credence to the claim the gas chambers at the other Kremas were temporarily used, and improves his credibility. It is not an admission that harms his gassing narrative.

Unpublished. Polish Underground Movement (1939-1945) Study Trust; a reference number was not given
February 2, 1944
“The concentration camp in Auschwitz.”

The crematorium is underground; it is built following the pattern of an air raid shelter. Only the chimney protrudes above ground, in whose construction the informant was also involved. The informant does not know where the gas chambers are located; he merely heard that they are underground, built on the pattern of the crematorium.

Krematorium miesci sie pod ziemia zbudowane na wzòr scronu przeciwlotniczego. Nad powierzchnia ziemi unosi sie jedynie komin, przy budowie ktòrego byl zatrudniony ròwniez informator. Gdzie mieszcza sie komory gazowe, informator nie wie, slyszal jedynie, ze sa pod ziemia, zbudowane na zwòr krematorium.

That is a description of the construction of a gas chamber!!!! That the witness said it was like an air raid shelter, does not turn the gas chamber into an air raid shelter. That you again produce a witness who speaks to gas chambers, when you say the gas chamber are lies, as your best evidence, shows just how weak your case is.

Read it again. It's a statement from someone involved in construction of one of the Leichenkellers.

• He says the cellar was "built following the pattern of an air raid shelter."
• He does NOT say it was a gas chamber
• It seems he was asked about "the gas chambers" but he "did not know" where they were located!

We know that the gas chambers had a similar construction to bomb shelters, since they were solid concrete and partially buried. Building something, in a similar way to something else, does not therefore alter the purpose of that thing. The information reads that the "informant" was involved in above ground construction, including the chimneys, of the Leichenkeller. He is clear he was not building an air raid shelter, he is building something that is constructed in a similar way. He had heard about gas chambers in the building, but was not sure of the precise location. The "informant" is clearly repeating hearsay, so the accuracy of the information is going to be low.

You have failed to produce eyewitness evidence that in 1943-4, the Leichenkellers were exclusively used as air raid shelters. Instead, you are using witnesses who believe that and saw their use as gas chambers. Your bomb shelter claim would never get past any academic, or court based assessment of evidence.