The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie dismisses the methodology of corroboration;

viewtopic.php?p=23696#p23696

"Well, if the columns are a myth, how can you explain why there are so many testimonies?"

This sort of question assumes there are lots of (good quality?) Kula column testimonies but that is a claim that should be demonstrated. This is a very different sort of question from something like, "uh, how did the column supposedly work?"

Multiple testimonies are not per se impressive because of the possibility of dependence.

What is "impressive" about the eyewitness corroboration of those who worked at the Kremas is that they are entirely consistent with the main narrative and process of undressing, gassing and cremation, and that Nazi and Jew agree on that narrative. Then they are all in turn corroborated by the documentary evidence of undressing rooms, gas chambers and mass corpse cremations and the circumstantial evidence around the operation of the buildings, namely the mass transports, selections, disappearance from the records of those not needed for work and sent to the Kremas and theft of personal property.

The inconsistencies over details, are indicative of a lack of collusion between the witnesses. All the evidence corroborates logically, chronologically and it converges on a proven conclusion. Revisionists are unable to do that. As investigators, they fail.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 6:41 am Archie dismisses the methodology of corroboration;

Multiple witnesses isn't enough. They must be multiple INDEPENDENT witnesses.

Why do so many witnesses claim they saw huge flames coming out of the chimneys day and night?

By your logic, this would be "corroboration" when in reality this is just people hearing and repeating the same sorts of stories. (Note also that people usually claim to have personally seen the flaming chimneys which would be visible from some distance, so you can't even use you usual hearsay excuse for this one). The Mengele stories are similar. These are motifs that people work into their stories.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 6:41 am What is "impressive" about the eyewitness corroboration

Two unsubstantiated allegations do no corroborate each other, even when using the lesser of the two meanings for the word:

cor·rob·o·ra·tion
[kəˌräbəˈrāSHən]
evidence which confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation:

Why does roberto consitantly use the word corroboration rather than confirms?

Because the word has a double meaning, which at best, can be said to support, not confirm his so-called "evidence"

con·firm
[kənˈfərm]
establish the truth...

sup·port
[səˈpôrt]
suggest the truth...

The difference of the multiple meaning of the word corroborate comes down to establishing the truth or suggesting the truth.

es·tab·lish
[əˈstabliSH, eˈstabliSH]
achieve permanent acceptance

sug·gest
[sə(ɡ)ˈjest]
put forward for consideration

That is why roberto and his cult members always use the word corroborate rather than support.

Revisionists, as a group, are the worst debaters in the world, and the jews chortle as they toy and play word games with them.

It's embarrasing to watch and disgusting to be associated with them.

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 1:22 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 6:41 am Archie dismisses the methodology of corroboration;

Multiple witnesses isn't enough. They must be multiple INDEPENDENT witnesses.

You do not get much more independent of each other, than SS camp staff, German civilian contactors, Polish workmen and Jews from France, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Greece. They speak different languages, and most have no reason to collude and every reason to disagree.

That there are inconsistencies in their testimony, is evidence of the lack of collusion, rather than the evidence of lying that you believe, but cannot produce any evidence to back up.

Why do so many witnesses claim they saw huge flames coming out of the chimneys day and night?

By your logic, this would be "corroboration" when in reality this is just people hearing and repeating the same sorts of stories. (Note also that people usually claim to have personally seen the flaming chimneys which would be visible from some distance, so you can't even use you usual hearsay excuse for this one). The Mengele stories are similar. These are motifs that people work into their stories.

Remember, you demanded I produce evidence about the claims I make about the witness evidence, and I have done so. You have failed. Please explain what you mean by "motifs" and link to studies that prove the use of such, prove lying.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:05 pm Remember, you demanded I produce evidence about the claims I make about the witness evidence, and I have done so.

You are repeatedly asked to accept your burden of persuasion and proof, which you repeatedly and cravenly refuse to do.

What you proffer instead is evidentiary slop that does not persuade, much less prove your unsubstantiated allegations.

No wonder you cravenly refuse to post here using your real name roberto. If you did, you would be even more of a laughing stock to your fellow lieyers than you already are.

Archie;

viewtopic.php?p=23713#p23713

Here's the problem I have with this,

"the eyewitnesses almost all report columns,"

This is a claim. As a lawyer would say, you are "assuming facts not in evidence." Where did you even try to establish this?

"those who aren't clear eyewitnesses or are getting it second hand - don't and furthermore blatantly contradict the narrative"

A lawyer would know that it is their job to read all those statements and work out who said what and what is hearsay, since hearsay is not normally admissible. Revisionists think that is more than they should be expected to do. But, it is the type of legwork that genuine investigators know they need to do.

Or this?

It seems you want to steer the discussion away from the specifics (e.g., Kula) in favor of wild goose chases. I think you do this because you know you will lose on the specifics and want to pivot to vague propositions. To open the door for perpetual talmudry.

Creating a comprehensive/definitive database of Kula column testimonies and comparing this to all the testimonies more broadly is not the sort of project someone is going to take on just for sake of a forum reply. Germar's summary in the encyclopedia is probably the best thing that's been published (and the HH volumes on the Sonderkommandos are the best thing on that topic more generally). You are being unreasonable in demanding this in a thread which is specifically dedicated to discussing "Kula vs Tauber." Especially when you have made zero effort to contribute to such a project yourself. If you want to make that argument, you should try to put in the work. Or at least get it started.

My impression is that Sonderkommando testimonies generally contain more interior details than random stories, but you would expect that under both the Holocaust and Holohoax scenarios.

I think Germar's list is a pretty good start. Of course you object to having to do the legwork required to make it more detailed.

Kula did not see inside the Kremas, but he saw the columns. If he then talks to other prisoners about the columns, that becomes hearsay evidence. Tauber worked inside the Kremas and saw the columns. If he talks to other prisoners, that becomes hearsay. Hence, there is the mix of eyewitness and hearsay evidence about the columns.

What you lack, is an eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas, who speaks to a completely different process to that of people undressing, being gassed and multiple corpse cremations. Historians and other investigators, have spent decades tracing witnesses and taking their statements and they have established that multiple people speak to the existence of the columns.

HansHill is still to explain how he can reliably determine lying:

viewtopic.php?p=23721#p23721

Why are we out here lying?

Jeanette Kaufmann worked at Birkenau specifically in dismantling the Crematoria.

She claims the gas chamber was disguised as a bathroom and the gas was jury rigged to enter via shower heads...

How does he prove Kaufmann lied and there was no gas chamber?

roberta wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:29 pm A lawyer would know... bla bla bla...

A lieyer, like you roberto, would also know this:

BURDEN OF PRODUCTION:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_production

BURDEN OF PERSUASION:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_persuasion

BURDEN OF PROOF:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

What are you waiting for roberto?

What are you so afraid of?

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:05 pm You do not get much more independent of each other, than SS camp staff, German civilian contactors, Polish workmen and Jews from France, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Greece. They speak different languages, and most have no reason to collude and every reason to disagree.

That there are inconsistencies in their testimony, is evidence of the lack of collusion, rather than the evidence of lying that you believe, but cannot produce any evidence to back up.

Totally wrong. The statements by the SS men were collected as part of war crimes prosecutions by the Allies. They had an incentive to "cooperate" with the occupation regime. Hoess was tortured and interrogated by Jews, and the Zyklon B, the holes in the roof, etc were already in circulation by then. It's only independent if neither Hoess nor his interrogators had heard the Auschwitz gassing stories before.

Remember, you demanded I produce evidence about the claims I make about the witness evidence, and I have done so. You have failed. Please explain what you mean by "motifs" and link to studies that prove the use of such, prove lying.

You evaded the question I asked about the flaming chimneys.

-Hundreds of survivors describe flaming chimneys
-We know this is not true for technical reasons (and the info available about the Topf ovens)

So then we know these testimonies are wrong. Lol at you thinking we need "studies" to prove this. "Oh, but how could so many witnesses be wrong?" They're repeating stories. It's the same reason why romance novels feature the same tropes.

By tropes and motifs, I mean elements featured in a particular story. Plot devices, characters, ambient details, etc. Holocaust stories can be analyzed from a literary perspective as fiction or partial fiction.

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:43 pm They're repeating stories.

Let's not forget that you do the same thing when it comes to the AR camps - especially Belzec.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:29 pm A lawyer would know that it is their job to read all those statements and work out who said what and what is hearsay, since hearsay is not normally admissible. Revisionists think that is more than they should be expected to do. But, it is the type of legwork that genuine investigators know they need to do.

In court (at least in US law), you must properly introduce evidence before you can use it. If you refer to something you have not properly introduced, the other side can object on the grounds of "assuming facts not in evidence." I was making a similar objection because BA was demanding replies to an argument that imo he had not developed satisfactorily. It's not my job to make his arguments for him (although I do do that sometimes).

Incidentally, in court, you generally can't use out-of-court statements at all. A firsthand signed affidavit is generally NOT admissible unless the witness appears in court. Otherwise it's considered an out-of-court statement/hearsay. The main reason for the hearsay rule in court is that the person ultimately responsible for the truth claim isn't available for cross-examination.

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:43 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:05 pm You do not get much more independent of each other, than SS camp staff, German civilian contactors, Polish workmen and Jews from France, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Greece. They speak different languages, and most have no reason to collude and every reason to disagree.

That there are inconsistencies in their testimony, is evidence of the lack of collusion, rather than the evidence of lying that you believe, but cannot produce any evidence to back up.

Totally wrong. The statements by the SS men were collected as part of war crimes prosecutions by the Allies. They had an incentive to "cooperate" with the occupation regime. Hoess was tortured and interrogated by Jews, and the Zyklon B, the holes in the roof, etc were already in circulation by then. It's only independent if neither Hoess nor his interrogators had heard the Auschwitz gassing stories before.

As usual, you ignore all the investigations and prosecutions that have taken place in West, East and unified Germany and that there was no evidence of any coercion by the German prosecutors. You suggest, without any evidence, that the entirety of the SS death camp staff could be subdued and somehow forced into giving false evidence, without any of them whistleblowing or even making a mistake and accidentally revealing the actual purpose of those places. It was not in their interests to confess to a crime they did not commit and they had no reason to cooperate with the Jewish prisoners.

Then there is all the other evidence from documents etc, that corroborate the witnesses. That all together, proves they are telling the truth and gassing happened.

Remember, you demanded I produce evidence about the claims I make about the witness evidence, and I have done so. You have failed. Please explain what you mean by "motifs" and link to studies that prove the use of such, prove lying.

You evaded the question I asked about the flaming chimneys.

-Hundreds of survivors describe flaming chimneys
-We know this is not true for technical reasons (and the info available about the Topf ovens)

So then we know these testimonies are wrong. Lol at you thinking we need "studies" to prove this. "Oh, but how could so many witnesses be wrong?" They're repeating stories. It's the same reason why romance novels feature the same tropes.

Chimney fires are a real thing. Sonderkommandos speak to overloading the ovens. It is entirely possible that there were chimney fires. It is more than likely that some, if not many of the witnesses did not see any such fires, but they were repeating what they were told. There may have been no, or just one such fire and it became a rumour. You have made zero effort to check the statements to see which are likely hearsay and which were seen. This is yet another example of your low standard of investigation.

By tropes and motifs, I mean elements featured in a particular story. Plot devices, characters, ambient details, etc. Holocaust stories can be analyzed from a literary perspective as fiction or partial fiction.

You have failed to provide any evidence, from studies of witnesses, to prove that they all lied. You demanded I produce evidence and I have. Your failure is yet another example of your low standard of investigation.

Archie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 4:11 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 3:29 pm A lawyer would know that it is their job to read all those statements and work out who said what and what is hearsay, since hearsay is not normally admissible. Revisionists think that is more than they should be expected to do. But, it is the type of legwork that genuine investigators know they need to do.

In court (at least in US law), you must properly introduce evidence before you can use it. If you refer to something you have not properly introduced, the other side can object on the grounds of "assuming facts not in evidence." I was making a similar objection because BA was demanding replies to an argument that imo he had not developed satisfactorily. It's not my job to make his arguments for him (although I do do that sometimes).

Incidentally, in court, you generally can't use out-of-court statements at all. A firsthand signed affidavit is generally NOT admissible unless the witness appears in court. Otherwise it's considered an out-of-court statement/hearsay. The main reason for the hearsay rule in court is that the person ultimately responsible for the truth claim isn't available for cross-examination.

There are many examples, such as the claims about diesel engines and that gas came out of the shower heads, where revisionists have failed to complete the basic task of identifying and separating hearsay from eyewitness evidence. You need to comply with your own demand that evidence is properly introduced, by separating hearsay from eyewitness evidence and using the eyewitness evidence.

A very good example of referring to something "not properly introduced" is the suggestion that all the Nazis were tortured or otherwise coerced into making false confessions about gassings. You wheel out Hoess, where there is evidence, but what about the others? Next time you claim mass torture, you need to produce corroborating evidence for every single SS you are referring to, otherwise you are "assuming facts not in evidence."

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 4:33 pm You demanded I produce evidence and I have.

Your so-called "evidence" is not only insufficient and unpersuasive, it is unsubstantiated.

Burden of production:

The burden of production refers to a party's obligation to come forward with sufficient evidence to support a particular proposition of fact. The burden of production combines with the burden of persuasion to make up the burden of proof throughout a trial.

Burden of persuasion:

The burden of persuasion is the requisite degree of belief a party must convince a jury that a particular proposition of fact is true. Combined with the burden of production, the burden of persuasion makes up one half of the burden of proof.

Burden of proof:

The burden of proof is often said to consist of two distinct but related concepts: the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.

Depending on the jurisdiction and type of action, the legal standard to satisfy the burden of proof in U.S. litigation may include, but is not limited to:

beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal law.

clear and convincing evidence to prove fraud in will disputes.

preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases.

probable cause in the acquisition of a warrant or arrest proceeding.

reasonable belief as part of establishing probable cause.

reasonable suspicion in cases involving police stop and searches.

The so-called "evidence" that you proffer for the existence of sufficient physical evidence that substantiates your allegations does not even meet the reasonable suspicioin standard.

You are a laughing stock roberto. Every one knows that you have to hide behind your "nessie" alias here because of your laughable "legal" arguments. No real lieyer would ever try to spew the bullshit that you spew here using their real name.

All this simply adds to your reputation of being one of the most cowardly POS on this planet.

No wonder you run from Mr. Gerdes.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Apr 01, 2026 4:41 pm You need to comply with your own demand that evidence is properly introduced

roberta:

Millions were arrested and killed.

The buried remains have not been utterly eradicated.

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves, the pyres and the numbers killed are evidenced by the physical remains.

Proof, from multiple sources of corroborating evidence, has been produced.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

When are you going to comply with your burden of proof roberto?

What are you waiting for?

What are you so afriad of?

(Other than Mr. Gerdes?)