The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Callafangers wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 4:26 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2026 12:27 pm That he is not reliable or accurate with some of his estimations and descriptions, does not therefore mean he does not effectively support the position of, there were gas chambers at the AR camps. That is because corroborative evidence proves he is being truthful about the existence of the chambers and he was an SS officer.

Would you say that your interpretation only holds true if we assume his discrepancies were errors, rather than lies? Or do you think he could be a liar and still a good witness for your purposes?

No witness can be a liar and a good witness. I do not think he can be a liar, due to the strength and volume of corroborating evidence. Every SS camp staff, of all ranks and nationality, agree there were gas chambers, as do all the Jewish prisoners. His descriptions of mass transports are corroborated by AR and transport records. Everything he says fits with the circumstantial evidence of the operation of the camp and AR.

That you seek to deny, ridicule or diminish that volume of evidence, and then fail to prove a revised history of the camps, is not how history is normally investigated and presented.

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 6:11 am No witness can be a liar and a good witness. I do not think he can be a liar, due to the strength and volume of corroborating evidence. Every SS camp staff, of all ranks and nationality, agree there were gas chambers, as do all the Jewish prisoners. His descriptions of mass transports are corroborated by AR and transport records. Everything he says fits with the circumstantial evidence of the operation of the camp and AR.

You're back to circular reasoning here:

Is Gerstein's word evidence Holocaust happened?
Yes, because of evidence Holocaust happened!

Gerstein is the very corroborating evidence you rely on. You cannot deflect onto other 'corroboration' when our question here is whether Gerstein's word counts as 'corroboration', which is how you have used it here and elsewhere.

+1

This circular “corroboration” was hilariously exposed during the Kula / Tauber thread.

>Kula corroborates Tauber!
>Tauber corroborates Kula!
>Scratch the surface
>They are describing different processes
>Try to integrate the processes
>Any integration requires deus ex machina “trust me bro” tier assumptions

Net result they contradict each other rather than corroborate the each other.

Callafangers wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 7:08 am

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 6:11 am No witness can be a liar and a good witness. I do not think he can be a liar, due to the strength and volume of corroborating evidence. Every SS camp staff, of all ranks and nationality, agree there were gas chambers, as do all the Jewish prisoners. His descriptions of mass transports are corroborated by AR and transport records. Everything he says fits with the circumstantial evidence of the operation of the camp and AR.

You're back to circular reasoning here:

Is Gerstein's word evidence Holocaust happened?
Yes, because of evidence Holocaust happened!

Gerstein is the very corroborating evidence you rely on. You cannot deflect onto other 'corroboration' when our question here is whether Gerstein's word counts as 'corroboration', which is how you have used it here and elsewhere.

You clearly do not understand corroboration. Corroborative evidence is where individual, separate sources of evidence agree. For example, when Gerstein describes mass transports and arrivals at the camp, he is corroborated by documents written by other people, that record mass transports and arrivals. The document comes from a different source, and it records what Gerstein describes.

HansHill wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 9:28 am +1

This circular “corroboration” was hilariously exposed during the Kula / Tauber thread.

>Kula corroborates Tauber!
>Tauber corroborates Kula!
>Scratch the surface
>They are describing different processes
>Try to integrate the processes
>Any integration requires deus ex machina “trust me bro” tier assumptions

Net result they contradict each other rather than corroborate the each other.

No, they agree, as they are both describing the same gassing process inside the Kremas. They vary in the details, which is to be expected, since their experience and what they saw was different.

Corroboration is not circular. It is where evidence points to the same conclusion. If an SS officer and a Jewish prisoner, both say they saw gas chambers in action, they corroborate as they report the same conclusion. If a Jewish prisoner reports he made a metal column used to insert Zyklon B to a Krema gas chamber and a document records a metal insertion device in a Krema inventory, they corroborate. The document is independent of the prisoner and it records what he describes.

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 10:56 am Corroboration is not circular.

It is circular. You are simply assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving. Before you make an argument, you should ask yourself if it would be convincing to someone who doesn't already agree with you. Don't make assumptions that presuppose the conclusion.

Start with Gerstein. He has his story, compiled under suspicious circumstances, filled with nonsense (Mount Underpants, etc). You have already conceded that Gerstein is ridiculous, yet you claim we can take some of what he says because "corroboration." Accept you have no hard corroboration for the gas chambers or the millions killed which is what really matters. Ultimately you claim that the witnesses, who you admit are individually unreliable, suddenly become reliable as long as their stories have vague similarities. Basically as long as multiple witnesses say "Jews" "gas" and get the name of the camp right, we can it to the bank. This is so laughably wrong I'm rather surprised that you are willing to state it so openly. Most Holocaust promoters have the good sense to simply avoid discussing this.

If the testimonies could be shown to be independent, then perhaps we could argue the multiple independent accounts were corroborative. But independence has not been demonstrated. It is nothing more than an assumption, and the evidence suggests major cross-pollination in these stories.

Weirnik plagiarized the map from a 1942 source in A Year in Treblinka. That proves he was aware of prior material. Wiernik claimed 3,000,000 killed a Treblinka, a false number which is then found in the accounts of many other ESC Treblinka witnesses. Independent my ass. In some cases, we cannot prove exactly what someone may or may not have seen, but given that Treblinka stories were being published already in 1943 and 1944, it is a strong assumption to assume chronologically later testimonies like those of Gerstein could not have heard of other material.

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 10:56 am No, they agree, as they are both describing the same gassing process inside the Kremas.

Please draw me a picture of the mechanism (use AI if you want) that would satisfy both statements. Bombsaway attempted to describe a harmonized version in words and it was hilarious. Most sane people will acknowledge that the accounts are obviously contradictory.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2026 9:02 am The Jewish witnesses can lack credibility. The Nazi witnesses are more credible

So what makes the Stangle map more cridible than Wierniks?

Stangl:



Wiernik:



Nesserto:

As for integrity and consistency, lets use Wiernik

The 1944 aerial photo and the site surveys corroborate the general layout of Wiernik's model.

Look at the lying POS talk out of both sides of its mouth!

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

The only one of the 6 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" that has ever been "proven to exist" is this one here:

Nesserto wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2026 9:02 am The Jewish witnesses can lack credibility. The Nazi witnesses are more credible.

Also nesserto:

The 1944 aerial photo and the site surveys corroborate the general layout of Wiernik's model.

As for integrity and consistency, lets use Wiernik.

Nessie wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2026 2:47 pm Gerstein may not be reliable with his inaccurate estimations, but corroborating evidence proves he is being truthful.

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 6:11 am due to the strength and volume of corroborating evidence

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 10:51 am You clearly do not understand corroboration. Corroborative evidence is where individual, separate sources of evidence agree. For example, when Gerstein describes mass transports and arrivals at the camp, he is corroborated by documents written by other people, that record mass transports and arrivals. The document comes from a different source, and it records what Gerstein describes.

Look at the mentally ill pathological liar continuously use a word that has a double meaning without revealing what meaning he is using.

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms or supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration", do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

The thread is getting mired already. Ive got to ask, is there a way we could get nessie to respond to the question posed by 'Fangers in the OP?

I would like to see an essay from him outlining 3-4 witnesses he finds credible and showing that the actually do corroborate each other.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:31 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 10:56 am Corroboration is not circular.

It is circular. You are simply assuming the thing you're supposed to be proving.

There is no assumption. When an eyewitness describes mass transports arriving on trains, that is one piece of evidence that there were mass transports. If that is the only evidence, then the claim is not corroborated. If a document is found, that records mass transports arriving on trains, and that document is not connected to the witness, as in they did not wrote it, then that is a second piece of evidence of mass transports. There are now two, independent of each other, sources of evidence, that both evidence mass transports, which means the evidence is corroborated. No assumption is made, the conclusion is based on two pieces of evidence.

Before you make an argument, you should ask yourself if it would be convincing to someone who doesn't already agree with you. Don't make assumptions that presuppose the conclusion.

I have explained the simple concept of corroboration to you, but you have failed to grasp that concept, as you think it is circular and involves assumptions.

Start with Gerstein. He has his story, compiled under suspicious circumstances, filled with nonsense (Mount Underpants, etc). You have already conceded that Gerstein is ridiculous, yet you claim we can take some of what he says because "corroboration." Accept you have no hard corroboration for the gas chambers or the millions killed which is what really matters.

I disagree. There are multiple sources of evidence of gas chambers operating at the camps Gerstein visited, that corroborate his claim that the camps had gas chambers.

Ultimately you claim that the witnesses, who you admit are individually unreliable, suddenly become reliable as long as their stories have vague similarities. Basically as long as multiple witnesses say "Jews" "gas" and get the name of the camp right, we can it to the bank. This is so laughably wrong I'm rather surprised that you are willing to state it so openly. Most Holocaust promoters have the good sense to simply avoid discussing this.

The witness descriptions of the operation of the camps are very similar. They all variously agree to a process of mass arrivals on train transports, the removal and sorting of all personal possession, deaths inside chambers, mass graves and then cremations. No witness in any AR camp deviates from that process and none support the various alternative processes claimed by so-called revisionists.

If the testimonies could be shown to be independent, then perhaps we could argue the multiple independent accounts were corroborative. But independence has not been demonstrated. It is nothing more than an assumption, and the evidence suggests major cross-pollination in these stories.

You do not get much more independent than Nazi and Jew. They hate each other with a passion. Then there is independence such as Polish rail workers describing mass arrivals at the camps and the British intercepted a Nazi transmission recording mass arrivals. Those sources are unconnected, but they agree.

Weirnik plagiarized the map from a 1942 source in A Year in Treblinka.

A claim you cannot prove.

That proves he was aware of prior material. Wiernik claimed 3,000,000 killed a Treblinka, a false number which is then found in the accounts of many other ESC Treblinka witnesses. Independent my ass. In some cases, we cannot prove exactly what someone may or may not have seen, but given that Treblinka stories were being published already in 1943 and 1944, it is a strong assumption to assume chronologically later testimonies like those of Gerstein could not have heard of other material.

You find similarities and claim collusion, at the same time you find differences and claim the evidence is falling apart. Gerstein and Weirnik have no connection, save they were briefly in the same camp. They have no reason to collude and there is no evidence of such. They are independent of each other eyewitnesses who agree on the process inside TII and they are supported by evidence from documentary, physical, archaeological and circumstantial evidence. Each piece of evidence is separate and they corroborate.

Archie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:34 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 10:56 am No, they agree, as they are both describing the same gassing process inside the Kremas.

Please draw me a picture of the mechanism (use AI if you want) that would satisfy both statements. Bombsaway attempted to describe a harmonized version in words and it was hilarious. Most sane people will acknowledge that the accounts are obviously contradictory.

Tauber;

"The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated."

Kula;

"The locksmith’s workshop was responsible for manufacturing, among other things, fake showers for the gas chambers and net posts to dump the contents of the Zyklon cans into the gas chambers. They were about three-meter tall posts with a square cross-section (about 70 cm). Such a post was made of three nets placed one inside the other. The outer net was made of wire (3 mm in diameter), strengthened on square timbers (50 mm by 10 mm). Such square timbers were placed in all corners of the post. They were joined on the top and on the bottom with the same square timber. Each mesh in the net was about 45 sq mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and placed inside the first one, about 150 mm apart. Each mesh in that net was about 25 sq mm. In the corners, the two nets were connected with iron bars. The post was empty inside, made of a thin zinc sheet, whose cross-section was about 150 sq mm. It had a cone-shaped ending on the top and an even, square base on the bottom. Square metal bars were soldered onto thin posts made of sheet metal, about 25 mm from the edges of the post. A finely meshed net (one mesh was about 1 sq mm) was spread on the metal bars. The net ended at the base of the cone. From there upwards, it transitioned into a sheet metal frame that reached the top of the cone. The contents of the Zyklon can were dumped from above onto the distribution cone."

You have to be in denial to suggest they are not describing the same thing. The key parts are identical. They were metal pillars installed inside the gas chambers, made up of layers of mesh, to pour Zyklon B into. You nit-pick over differences in details, as if that somehow proves they both lied, when in fact they corroborate. If you had any experience of taking witness descriptions, or listening to them in court, you would not expect them to come out with similar details and it would be suspicious if they did. They are further corroborated by the document;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... ce-on.html

"Transfer inventory of 31 March 1943 on “4 wire mesh slide in devices” and “wooden covers” in the crematorium 2 basement [Pressac, Technique, p. 430]"