The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 2:09 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 7:19 am

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 8:06 pm You have asserted.

You have 'evidenced' literally nothing.

How would you evidence if someone had been somewhere or not?

Nessie, the above post is clutter. Provide some kind of specific argument about why you believe the testimony, if you please.

I think you are struggling to understand evidencing.

You say 'he is corroborated', outline where. What are the strong points of this argument?

Corroboration is widely used by historians, journalists, criminal investigators, the courts and even scientists, as a reliable method of determining truthfulness and accuracy. If a witnesses claims, are matched by other evidence, then we know the witness is being truthful. For example, Krzepicki describes mass transports arriving at TII. Nazi documents are found that record mass arrivals and transports. Krzepicki is corroborated and he is truthful about the mass transports.

You say 'it is established he was at the camp'. Fine, show me anyone who has established that. Their work.

I do not have access to how Rachel Auerbach, the journalist who interviewed Krzepicki, or the historians who have cited him, established he was at the camp. I can show you the various ways it can be done, through specialist knowledge and potentially documents. He may also have been named as being at the camp, by another who was there. That he was the first person to escape, means that his specialist knowledge is the most likely way he was evidenced to have been inside TII.

Do you not understand this information is required?

Of course, I understand, four times I explained to you how it will have been evidenced he was at TII.

In your opening you already established that you would not engage with critique by me of the testimony. Since that is the case, you will have to provide review.

You refuse, you assert, you strawman and you copy paste...

I will happily engage with your critique. I have told you already, the mistakes you will make. Now, please start with telling me how you would determine if Krzepicki was in TII?

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 2:39 pm ...


....

Nessie, this picture was found in a buried milk jug stapled to a notebook (basically). Chain of custody and legitimacy are, questionable.

At this point I can't even be sure the picture is of the fellow I'm told is in it...

You love to criticise, but you are poor at saying what you would do. How would you research and found out if it was his picture?

Nessie, I'm not the one who finds this particular testimony convincing, you are.

Explain why.

Also, thank you for again affirming that your personal threshold for 'evidencing' is blind faith without any source criticism.

You had initially berated me for this observation about you, and yet, again, I observe the same.

You don't even know how the veracity of the report was 'corroborated' or 'evidenced'.

Your attack on my rigor, while insulting, are something with which I will not engage as you try to derail this thread and make it about me and revisionism in general.

Stick to the testimony if you please Sir.

Say, anything, literally anything about the source.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 4:02 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 2:39 pm ...


....

Nessie, this picture was found in a buried milk jug stapled to a notebook (basically). Chain of custody and legitimacy are, questionable.

At this point I can't even be sure the picture is of the fellow I'm told is in it...

You love to criticise, but you are poor at saying what you would do. How would you research and found out if it was his picture?

I'm currently looking for any other picture of him by checking out the members of his family and seeing if they have published anything.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 4:04 pm Nessie, I'm not the one who finds this particular testimony convincing, you are.

Explain why.

I have been doing so, repeatedly.

Also, thank you for again affirming that your personal threshold for 'evidencing' is blind faith without any source criticism.

I am just going to call you out as lying, since I have repeatedly told you how Krzepicki's testimony is critiqued. How many times do I need to explain corroboration and evidencing?

You had initially berated me for this observation about you, and yet, again, I observe the same.

You don't even know how the veracity of the report was 'corroborated' or 'evidenced'.

I have already provided an example of how it was corroborated. Both Krzepicki and Wiernik mention Katyn as the reason why the Nazis started to exhume and cremate the corpses and that both noted female corpse burned better than male. To expand that further, the history of what happened at Katyn, chronologically fits with the timing of the first cremations and there is evidence of the widespread exhumation and cremation of corpses, under Sonderaction 1005. That circumstantial evidence further corroborates Krzepicki's claims about the exhumations and cremations. Then there is the physical evidence of cremated remains and mass graves at the camp. That means Krzepicki is corroborated by eyewitness, physical and circumstantial evidence. It also means that there is evidence the exhumations and cremations began earlier than many, including me, originally thought.

Your attack on my rigor, while insulting, are something with which I will not engage as you try to derail this thread and make it about me and revisionism in general.

Stick to the testimony if you please Sir.

Say, anything, literally anything about the source.

You are dodging applying your critique, because you know it will be full of the flaws I listed here;

https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=19118#p19118

Back in the ignore bucket you go...

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 4:20 pm Back in the ignore bucket you go...

I have repeatedly explained how I, historians, journalists, criminal investigators and the courts, establish the truthfulness of witnesses. Step one, find evidence to prove the witness was where they say they were and they saw what they saw. Step two, look for evidence independent of the witness, to see if they corroborate, or contradict. Steps one and two are how witnesses are critiqued. I have shown you how that methodology has been applied to Krzepicki and given you specific examples, as to how it is proven he was at the camp and claims he made are corroborated.

Sorry, you do not like that and are reluctant to show me your methodology and critiquing. I think you know it will be riddled with the flaws I listed.

Here I will lay out a few key points with regard to this 'eyewitness report' and its 'providence'.

Points;

• 1) This report was said to have been collected in 1942. It however appears no where from any contemporary sources that were publishing all manner of 'testimony' at the time. Instead, we get 'anonymous report' 1, 2 etc and 'A Year in Treblinka' basically.
  
  2) This report instead was found in a milk jug buried in the 1950's and then trotted out 20 years after that.
  
  3) I can't find any effort by any historian who has cited it to prove up the patents and veracity of it. It is simply taken uncritically and given the benefit of being considered 'authentic'. This is an especially poor way to approach history and is more akin to how religious texts are added (Dead Sea scrolls anyone?)
  
  4) It is apparent when looking at the source archive that the project in which they were engaged was 'creative writing', 'publishing propaganda' etc and not 'archiving' or 'collecting history'. Of all the newspapers printed and circulated by this group, no reference to this man or his report appears. Assuming this report was actually taken from whom it is claimed it was taken and when, it is simply remarkable that it was never published. Not in the 'Polish Black Book', not in any of the serialized publications in the ghetto, no where.
  
  5) This fellow helped, build the crematoria at Treblinka II? This will of course be hand waved away, but, it merits further study...
  
  6) His description of the gas chambers is, unique.
  Apparently, the gas was directed in from 'pipes on the roof'.
  
  7) His description of the camp. He describes bodies littering the ground and having to be collected and taken to the burial pits. There are other things in there that don't make much sense, but his description of people having to climb over bodies to get to the barracks to strip before walking up 'the road to heaven' is, odd.
  
  8) his description of processing is unique. One of his first jobs he describes is cleaning up 'garbage' on the road to heaven. This 'garbage' is bank notes and gold coins and jewelry. That's right, after telling us about the property window, the disrobing etc, he then tells us 'angry jews who had figured out what has happening, in a final act of defiance, tore up their money and threw it on the ground on the way to the gas chamber'. Reflect on that...

I could go on, as this 'eyewitness' does, but for now, I will park this here, as I have rat killing to go and do.

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 5:00 pm Here I will lay out a few key points with regard to this 'eyewitness report' and its 'providence'.

Points;

• 1) This report was said to have been collected in 1942. It however appears no where from any contemporary sources that were publishing all manner of 'testimony' at the time. Instead, we get 'anonymous report' 1, 2 etc and 'A Year in Treblinka' basically.
  
  2) This report instead was found in a milk jug buried in the 1950's and then trotted out 20 years after that.
  
  3) I can't find any effort by any historian who has cited it to prove up the patents and veracity of it. It is simply taken uncritically and given the benefit of being considered 'authentic'. This is an especially poor way to approach history and is more akin to how religious texts are added (Dead Sea scrolls anyone?)

Some details about provenance here;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=61650

Krzepicki wrote an account and Auerbach interviewed him. Both were then hidden and published after the war.

4) It is apparent when looking at the source archive that the project in which they were engaged was 'creative writing', 'publishing propaganda' etc and not 'archiving' or 'collecting history'. Of all the newspapers printed and circulated by this group, no reference to this man or his report appears. Assuming this report was actually taken from whom it is claimed it was taken and when, it is simply remarkable that it was never published. Not in the 'Polish Black Book', not in any of the serialized publications in the ghetto, no where.

Are you saying that you would expect to find the Polish Jewish underground, in 1942, would have publicised a prisoner had escaped?

5) This fellow helped, build the crematoria at Treblinka II? This will of course be hand waved away, but, I merits further study...

Who is going to hand wave that away?

6) His description of the gas chambers is, unique.
Apparently, the gas was directed in from 'pipes on the roof'.

He accessed the gas chamber once, do not expect his memory of what it looked like, to match others, when it comes to details like where the gas came from.

7) His description of the camp. He describes bodies littering the ground and having to be collected and taken to the burial pits. There are other things in there that don't make much sense, but his description of people having to climb over bodies to get to the barracks to strip before walking up 'the road to heaven' is, odd.

8) his description of processing is unique. One of his first jobs he describes is cleaning up 'garbage' on the road to heaven. This 'garbage' is bank notes and gold coins and jewelry. That's right, after telling us about the property window, the disrobing etc, he then tells us 'angry jews who had figured out what has happening, in a final act of defiance, tore up their money and threw it on the ground on the way to the gas chamber'. Reflect on that...[/list]

I could go on, as this 'eyewitness' does, but for now, I will park this here, as I have rat killing to go and do.

How do the issues you find with Krzepicki's descriptions, fit with the scientific study of witnesses, memory and recall? How do the issue you find, evidence and so prove he lied?

Nessie, you are in my ignore bucket.

I will reiterate, the testimony is from a notebook found in a buried bucket in the 1950's, and is uncritically taken as authentic.

So far as the original 'interview' goes, it is written in multiple hands...

That is neither 'self written', nor 'dictated'. It's a collaborative effort by multiple persons...

Stubble wrote: ↑Mon Nov 24, 2025 5:28 pm Nessie, you are in my ignore bucket.

I will reiterate, the testimony is from a notebook found in a buried bucket in the 1950's, and is uncritically taken as authentic.

Where is your evidence that is has never been checked for authenticity?

So far as the original 'interview' goes, it is written in multiple hands...

That is neither 'self written', nor 'dictated'. It's a collaborative effort by multiple persons...

How does that evidence it is faked?

When Krzepicki's testimony is analysed, as historians, journalists, the police and lawyers normally analyse witness evidence, his testimony is truthful and accurate. Most of what he describes, he appears to have seen with his own eyes, rather than what he was told, so his is primarily eyewitness evidence, rather than hearsay. His description of the main events in TII, are corroborated and consistent with all the others who worked inside the camp. The variations in detail, are to be expected, as his experience was different to others and standard issues with memory, recall and estimations, will all play their part.

I think a fact that may be getting missed here is that a bulk of this 'witness' account was written after his death. What is said to have been written during his life is written by multiple hands.

The individual who wrote the bulk of this 'eyewitness' account had all manner of 'witness accounts' to draw from to compile their 'novelized' work.

I don't care how many people unironically take this tripe seriously, the account is heavily contaminated.

That our 4 flippered friend here chose this account as the most compelling is strange to me, and the reason for this will remain a mystery I suppose as they adamantly refuse to talk about the content and simply resort to general platitudes.

Stubble wrote: ↑Thu Nov 27, 2025 4:41 pm I think a fact that may be getting missed here is that a bulk of this 'witness' account was written after his death. What is said to have been written during his life is written by multiple hands.

The individual who wrote the bulk of this 'eyewitness' account had all manner of 'witness accounts' to draw from to compile their 'novelized' work.

I don't care how many people unironically take this tripe seriously, the account is heavily contaminated.

It was the first account, he was the first person to escape and he was then interviewed by people working for the Polish intelligence services, gathering evidence as to what the Nazis were doing.

That our 4 flippered friend here chose this account as the most compelling is strange to me, and the reason for this will remain a mystery I suppose as they adamantly refuse to talk about the content and simply resort to general platitudes.

You are lying that I refuse to discuss the content. What you call general platitudes, is how witness evidence is assessed by historians, journalists, the police and courts. So-called revisionists are unique in the way they assess witness evidence.

Nessie, are you claiming Auerbach wasn't just an archivist, but was an intelligence officer for the Polish Government in Exile?

Remarkable.

With regard to general platitudes, I stress, you have not quoted a single tract from any of the various versions of the 'witness' accounts. You have merely parroted 'but-but, muh historians'.

Look, this particular bit of history is weaponized, and this particular 'testimony' is heavily contaminated.

Why exactly you find it particularly compelling is a mystery to me.