Request for support from Nessie

[Archie]

Nessie makes repeated but vague claims like the following:

When there is corroborating witness, archaeological, forensic and circumstantial evidence for mass pyres, that logically and evidentially proves, despite revisionist doubts, the pyres happened.

You make great play of some minimal confusion about Malkinia, to deflect from your total lack of evidence, compared to the dozens of witnesses, physical, archaeological, forensic and circumstantial evidence that TII was an AR camp where hundreds of thousands were gassed and their property stolen.

Please provide your support for these claims. Tell us which witnesses you are relying upon. Please explain why you think the statements are reliable. Please cite the archaeological data that you have examined and explain why you think that proves the Holocaust.

[Nessie]

Nessie makes repeated but vague claims like the following:

When there is corroborating witness, archaeological, forensic and circumstantial evidence for mass pyres, that logically and evidentially proves, despite revisionist doubts, the pyres happened.

You make great play of some minimal confusion about Malkinia, to deflect from your total lack of evidence, compared to the dozens of witnesses, physical, archaeological, forensic and circumstantial evidence that TII was an AR camp where hundreds of thousands were gassed and their property stolen.

Please provide your support for these claims.

I complied a list of available online evidence for TII here;

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=32918

Tell us which witnesses you are relying upon.

The names are in the list (2.1 to 2.3), split between Sonderkommando, Nazi and Polish railworkers. Basically, those who worked inside the camp and on the railways going to or nearby.

Please explain why you think the statements are reliable.

They are corroborated, which is the most reliable, commonly used test for witness reliability and truthfulness. For Poles, Jews and Nazi, both Germans and Ukrainians to variously all agree the camp received mass transports, property was stolen and the people gassed, buried and/or cremated on mass pyres, is strong corroboration, because they are people who would not normally cooperate. They are further corroborated by other evidence, such as the documents recording mass transports and archaeological finds of large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated remains.

Please cite the archaeological data that you have examined and explain why you think that proves the Holocaust.

List of online available archaeological evidence for the AR camps and Chelmno here;

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic. ... acbdbc0fb7

That archaeological evidence does not prove the Holocaust. It proves that at the sites there are;

1 - large areas of disturbed ground containing cremated human remains at each site, where witnesses state mass graves had been dug, before exhumations and cremations.
2 - significant finds of personal property, which support the witness claims property was stolen and sorted.
3 - the remains of buildings where witnesses located the gas chambers.
4 - areas which were planted over and buildings demolished, which support witness claims of a cover-up to hide the evidence.

That is corroborating evidence to support the witness claims. Without any witnesses, it would still be evidence that many people had been cremated at the sites, large areas had been dug up and they had then been the subject of a cover-up.

Revisionists cannot produce the name of a witness who worked at the camps, or evidence the ground where witnesses located the mass graves is undisturbed, or documents to prove mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people, back out of the camps to anywhere else.

[Archie]

The names are in the list (2.1 to 2.3), split between Sonderkommando, Nazi and Polish railworkers. Basically, those who worked inside the camp and on the railways going to or nearby.

Let's see.

Yankel Wiernik (!)
Abraham Bomba (!)
Eliahu Rosenberg (!)

Wiernik's pamphlet has been discussed to death. Bomba is the famous barber of Treblinka who claims the gas chamber doubled as a beauty salon (see Denier Bud's One Third of the Holocaust). Rosenberg was totally exposed during the Demjanjuk trial. I would recommend watching the documentary The Devil Next Door which shows footage of that clown testifying in court. Not even the Israelis could go along with this guy's nonsense.

Notice that Nessie will give you a LIST of names but he rarely quotes what the testimonies actually say. (And indeed according to Nessie, the details are totally unimportant as long as they "corroborate" (hardly) the gassing story in some vague way). Here are some samples from Wiernik's pamphlet.

A German named Zopf was a vile and savage beast, who took special delight in abusing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to desist because of the children, he frequently snatched a child out of a woman's arms and either tore it in half or grabbed it by the legs and smashed its head against a wall and threw the corpse away. Such incidents were by no means isolated and scenes as tragic as that occurred at every turn.

It turned out that women burned easier than men. Accordingly, corpses of women were used for kindling the fires.

When corpses of pregnant women were cremated, the abdomen would burst open, and the burning of the foetus inside the mother's body would become visible. However, this made no impression whatsoever on the German killers, who stood around watching, as if at a badly functioning machine which produced little.

The Germans stood around with satanic smiles on their faces, radiating satisfaction over their foul deeds. They drank toasts with choice liquors, ate caroused and enjoyed themselves near the warm fire. Thus, even after death, the Jew was of some use.

Lol, we want to know if 900,000 people were killed at this camp and the basis for it is STORY TIME.

I will debunk the rest of this another time. No rush.

[Nessie]

The names are in the list (2.1 to 2.3), split between Sonderkommando, Nazi and Polish railworkers. Basically, those who worked inside the camp and on the railways going to or nearby.

Let's see.

Yankel Wiernik (!)
Abraham Bomba (!)
Eliahu Rosenberg (!)

Wiernik's pamphlet has been discussed to death. Bomba is the famous barber of Treblinka who claims the gas chamber doubled as a beauty salon (see Denier Bud's One Third of the Holocaust). Rosenberg was totally exposed during the Demjanjuk trial. I would recommend watching the documentary The Devil Next Door which shows footage of that clown testifying in court. Not even the Israelis could go along with this guy's nonsense.

Unlike most of the Nazis put on trial for their work at the death camps, Demjanjuk denied being there. That allowed his defence to dispute Rosenberg's identification, a defence that worked. Why was Demjanjuk's defence not used by others? If Jews are running a hoax, why was Rosenberg allowed to give evidence?

Notice that Nessie will give you a LIST of names but he rarely quotes what the testimonies actually say.

That is not true, I have thousands of posts on various forums discussing testimony in detail.

(And indeed according to Nessie, the details are totally unimportant as long as they "corroborate" (hardly) the gassing story in some vague way).

Again, not true. Details are important. The issue is that revisionists used a unique to them, flawed method for assessing witness truthfulness, that fails to take into account the multiple studies of how witnesses recollect and relate the details.
Revisionists try to use the details as evidence of lying, when instead, it is normal witness behaviour and what they are claiming, is corroborated by other evidence.

Here are some samples from Wiernik's pamphlet.

Samples of what? Why are you being so vague? Let me assist you (the linked to source of "A Year in Treblinka" is a different translation to the one you use)

https://www.zchor.org/treblink/wiernik.htm

A German named Zopf was a vile and savage beast, who took special delight in abusing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to desist because of the children, he frequently snatched a child out of a woman's arms and either tore it in half or grabbed it by the legs and smashed its head against a wall and threw the corpse away. Such incidents were by no means isolated and scenes as tragic as that occurred at every turn.

That is clearly emotive and likely uses a figure of speech, or is repeating an atrocity rumour, when claiming a child was torn in half. All the Jewish victim testimony is full of emotive descriptions and figures of speech. It is maybe culture and how they spoke, or it is a result of the trauma they suffered. A lot of the descriptives should not be taken literally. It is often not clear if what is being related was seen, or is a rumour being repeated and exaggerated.

Revisionists find it easier to dispute emotive Jewish testimony, over the more matter of fact Nazi. What is important, is whether the general claim, in this case cruelty by a named Nazi towards children. What Zopf (who is called Sepp in the translation I link to) is claimed to have done, is shown cruelty to children. There are many reports of that happening and Josef Hirtreiter, who worked at TII, was found guilty of child murder, at his trial in 1951 at Frankfurt, West Germany.

https://www.zukunft-braucht-erinnerung. ... -prozesse/

" The court considers it proven that Hirtreiter killed at least ten people, including small children, arbitrarily."

Wiernik's claim is possibly hearsay, it is emotive, but in general terms, about Nazi cruelty towards children, it is corroborated.

It turned out that women burned easier than men. Accordingly, corpses of women were used for kindling the fires.

That is referenced by a number of witnesses, including Tauber when describing the ovens at A-B and he explains why;

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=82890

" I know from the experience gained by observing cremation in Krematorien II and III that the bodies of fat people burn very much faster. The process of incineration is accelerated by the combustion of human fat which thus produces additional heat."

The female body has a higher fat content than the male, and fat is a fuel that burns. Wiernik's claim is corroborated and explained.

When corpses of pregnant women were cremated, the abdomen would burst open, and the burning of the foetus inside the mother's body would become visible. However, this made no impression whatsoever on the German killers, who stood around watching, as if at a badly functioning machine which produced little.

Wiernik is describing the cremation process of corpses that had been exhumed. The cremation of many, partially decomposed corpses, is unique to the AR camps. There is no other example of that happening, to get further details as to what happens during the process. That the partially decomposed corpse of a pregnant woman would split during cremation, is entirely possible. The description is emotive, which is not surprising. That the Nazis remained impassive and uncaring, is entirely likely. The Nazis working at the AR camps came from the T4 euthanasia project, selected because they were so used to death.

This claim could also be hearsay atrocity rumour, and it is not specifically corroborated, but it is not evidence Wiernik is lying. His claim is plausible.

The Germans stood around with satanic smiles on their faces, radiating satisfaction over their foul deeds. They drank toasts with choice liquors, ate caroused and enjoyed themselves near the warm fire. Thus, even after death, the Jew was of some use.

Again, that fits with the selection of staff for the AR camps. That they coped easily with the task in hand, is corroborated by their own matter of fact testimony. They were there to do a job and like all soldiers, kill the enemy. Photographs of the staff at TII and Sobibor, show them to be relaxed, eating and drinking and clearly happy at their work.

That Wiernik claims they drank whilst the pyres burned, which is entirely plausible. Whether they ate and danced is not certain and may be hearsay atrocity, or a one-off, or exaggerated incident. That Wiernik's testimony is full of emotive descriptions, is not evidence to prove he lied.

Lol, we want to know if 900,000 people were killed at this camp and the basis for it is STORY TIME.

I will debunk the rest of this another time. No rush.

You have not debunked anything. All you have done is quote emotive descriptions of events that are largely corroborated and claimed, because of your personal incredulity, that it is evidence of lying, which is a logical fallacy.

[MrOlonzo]

You have not debunked anything. All you have done is quote emotive descriptions of events that are largely corroborated and claimed, because of your personal incredulity, that it is evidence of lying, which is a logical fallacy.

Pure gish gallop. There is no figure of speech here. The man is quite specific;

Wiernick claimed children were pulled apart by one German soldier on numerous occasions. He further claims that not only Zopf but other soldiers were capable of this and did so.

If this is possible. Then he perhaps was not lying. If not, then he was.

It clearly falls in the realm of possibility that this man is a liar as are so many people regarding events where they see their interests held. The recent reports about babies and women's breasts in the October 7th attack being a case in point.

[Archie]

Nessie claims that credibility doesn't matter, but at some level he must know that it does or he wouldn't be defending this ABSURD story about a guard that would "frequently" (lol) rip children in half with his bare hands. Why can't he just admit that this story is total BS? Because he knows that it would diminish Wiernik's credibility to admit that and this in turn would undermine the whole thing.

[Nazgul]

Nessie claims that credibility doesn't matter, but at some level he must know that it does or he wouldn't be defending this ABSURD story about a guard that would "frequently" (lol) rip children in half with his bare hands. Why can't he just admit that this story is total BS? Because he knows that it would diminish Wiernik's credibility to admit that and this in turn would undermine the whole thing.

When discussing many years ago the possibility of cremations described, Nessie postulated that Spontaneous Human Combusion could be a feasible factor and stuck to that story for months.

[Nessie]

Nessie claims that credibility doesn't matter, but at some level he must know that it does or he wouldn't be defending this ABSURD story about a guard that would "frequently" (lol) rip children in half with his bare hands. Why can't he just admit that this story is total BS? Because he knows that it would diminish Wiernik's credibility to admit that and this in turn would undermine the whole thing.

Again, I do not say that credibility does not matter. I do say that your exclusive attachment to credibility is flawed. It makes you vulnerable to credible liars, and prone to dismiss truthful testimony just because you do not want to believe it.

If you only assess credibility and the person you are assessing is credible, but lying through their teeth, you will fall for their lies. Incidentally, that makes you at risk from being conned. You need to ALSO assess truthfulness and the most reliable method for that is corroboration.

Wiernik does not come across as particularly credible. He exaggerates, mixes hearsay with what he saw, uses odd expressions, is very emotive and he describes incredible scenes. You therefore dismiss him. But you have failed to determine if he is being truthful about the general events he describes. Were children physically assaulted and killed at the camps?

Why don't you admit that ripping a child in half reads like a figure of speech, “a word or phrase used in a different way from its usual meaning in order to create a particular mental picture or effect.”? Like to "tear a strip off" someone, it is not literal, it is an expression. Wiernik has no doubt exaggerated, he has likely repeated hearsay atrocity propaganda, as if he saw the events he describes. His credibility is very poor. But, does that mean he lied? I have shown you corroborating evidence that children were singled out for particular cruelty by some SS guards, and Joseph Hirtreiter was convicted for such. The claim that children were ripped in half is bullshit, but it is based on actual child cruelty and murder that is proven to have taken place at the camps. Because you erroneously only assess credibility, you dismiss something that is bullshit, but which also emotively and exaggerating describes true events.

[Nessie]

Nessie claims that credibility doesn't matter, but at some level he must know that it does or he wouldn't be defending this ABSURD story about a guard that would "frequently" (lol) rip children in half with his bare hands. Why can't he just admit that this story is total BS? Because he knows that it would diminish Wiernik's credibility to admit that and this in turn would undermine the whole thing.

When discussing many years ago the possibility of cremations described, Nessie postulated that Spontaneous Human Combusion could be a feasible factor and stuck to that story for months.

That is not true. SHC does not explain how the pyres worked. They worked like a BBQ works.

[Nessie]

You have not debunked anything. All you have done is quote emotive descriptions of events that are largely corroborated and claimed, because of your personal incredulity, that it is evidence of lying, which is a logical fallacy.

Pure gish gallop. There is no figure of speech here. The man is quite specific;

Wiernick claimed children were pulled apart by one German soldier on numerous occasions. He further claims that not only Zopf but other soldiers were capable of this and did so.

If this is possible. Then he perhaps was not lying. If not, then he was.

It clearly falls in the realm of possibility that this man is a liar as are so many people regarding events where they see their interests held. The recent reports about babies and women's breasts in the October 7th attack being a case in point.

It clearly falls into the realm of possibility Wiernik is using a figure of speech, or he is repeating atrocity propaganda, or he is outright lying about children actually being torn in half.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220309084 ... iernik.htm

"One of the Germans, a man named Sepp, was a vile and savage beast, who took special delight in torturing children. When he pushed women around and they begged him to stop because they had children with them, he would frequently snatch a child from the woman's arms and either tear the child in half or grab it by the legs, smash its head against a wall and throw the body away. Such incidents were by no means isolated. Tragic scenes of this kind occurred all the time."

Why are you taking the part of what he said, about tearing a child in half, literally? On what basis do you think that claim should be taken literally? We do not even know if Wiernik is repeating what he was told, when he describes that scene. Fact is, no German physically tore a child in half, that is not true.

Does that therefore mean everything Wiernik said is a lie and nothing he describes happened? The answer is no. From all the studies of witness behaviour, the claim about a child being torn in half can be simply explained by the use of figures of speech, or repeating atrocity hearsay and it does not mean that therefore Wiernik made everything up.

There are people who repeated October 7th atrocity claims, thinking they were true. They maybe even further exaggerated stories that they had heard. Some will have lied about what happened, knowing their claim was false. Does that therefore mean they all lied and nothing of note happened on October the 7th? Obviously not, as there is significant evidence to prove great cruelty and brutality took place that day.

Many of Wiernik's claim should be considered suspect. His credibility is at times very poor. By only assessing him on his credibility, you risk coming to a false conclusion. Like assessing witness credibility to the events on October 7th and concluding every single witness lied and there was no attack.

[Nazgul]

Does that therefore mean everything Wiernik said is a lie and nothing he describes happened? The answer is no. From all the studies of witness behaviour, the claim about a child being torn in half can be simply explained by the use of figures of speech, or repeating atrocity hearsay and it does not mean that therefore Wiernik made everything up.

This is not witness behaviour, this is in his book. It is all carefully planned, contrived atrocity propaganda without a shred of evidence.

[Nessie]

Does that therefore mean everything Wiernik said is a lie and nothing he describes happened? The answer is no. From all the studies of witness behaviour, the claim about a child being torn in half can be simply explained by the use of figures of speech, or repeating atrocity hearsay and it does not mean that therefore Wiernik made everything up.

This is not witness behaviour, this is in his book. It is all carefully planned, contrived atrocity propaganda without a shred of evidence.

It is normal witness behaviour to use figures of speech, repeat atrocity stories and lie.

People claimed babies were beheaded during the 7th October attack in Israel. They either repeated atrocity stories they thought were true, or they lied as they knew the stories were not true. That does not therefore mean there was no attack on the 7th of October. In the same way, if Wiernik is repeating atrocity stories he thinks to be true, or knows are not true, about children torn in half, that does not mean TII was not a death camp where mass gassings took place. It reduces Wiernik's credibility as a witness.

If it turns out that tearing someone in half is a figure of speech used by Jewish Poles, like the figure of speech to tear a strip of someone, then that does not reduce Wiernik's credibility. Instead, it is just a figure of speech, not to be taken literally and to take it literally, would be obviously wrong.

Revisionists do not bother with that level of analysis of witness evidence, as it opens the witnesses up to be more credible and more likely to be telling the truth. I don't even think revisionists are capable of that level of analysis, due to their ignorance of witness behaviour. Instead, they rely only on credibility and their opinion as to what is believable and what is not. When they cannot be so incredulous about witness claims, such as when Nazis claim gassings, revisionists have to switch tactic and instead claim those witnesses were intimidated into lying.

Revisionism's reliance on credibility makes them vulnerable to being fooled, since, if someone is credible, they will believe them, without bothering to check if they are lying.

[Nazgul]

Revisionism's reliance on credibility makes them vulnerable to being fooled, since, if someone is credible, they will believe them, without bothering to check if they are lying.

A crass statement with no basis in fact. This is pure ad hominem and speculation; this content adds nothing to the alleged holocaust events. Considering you consider every person who disagrees with your mental process a "revisonist", the psychological process is almost narcissistic, self delusional.
The moderators at RODOH may tolerate this nonsense, but they have no authority here. Consider carefully your posts Nessie to stop the "groundhog day" eventuality on both forums. I am sure the intellectual curiosities at skeptics will still embrace you, if and when the final whistle blows.

[Nessie]

Revisionism's reliance on credibility makes them vulnerable to being fooled, since, if someone is credible, they will believe them, without bothering to check if they are lying.

A crass statement with no basis in fact. This is pure ad hominem and speculation; this content adds nothing to the alleged holocaust events. Considering you consider every person who disagrees with your mental process a "revisonist", the psychological process is almost narcissistic, self delusional.
The moderators at RODOH may tolerate this nonsense, but they have no authority here. Consider carefully your posts Nessie to stop the "groundhog day" eventuality on both forums. I am sure the intellectual curiosities at skeptics will still embrace you, if and when the final whistle blows.

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.

[Archie]

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