Response to "On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses"

[Nessie]

In response to;

viewtopic.php?t=763

Replying to BA's challenge here. My comments here are a sequel to what I said in this prior thread: viewtopic.php?t=315

bombsaway wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2026 7:24 am
Give me a single transcript from a perpetrator who worked in so called extermination areas but claims to not have known people were being killed there.

Let me raise an initial objection to the challenge, as stated. Why do we need to focus on people who "worked in so called extermination areas"? BA appears to have picked this up from Nessie ("people who worked in the Kremas"), but artificially limiting the pool of evidence to a subset of witnesses is arbitrary and without justification.

A common criticism of revisionists, is their failure to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence. Someone saw what they describe is more reliable and accurate than someone who has been told about what happened and did not see what they describe. Rudolf Vrba's testimony about the gassing process at A-B is hearsay, Henryk Tauber is the eyewitness. Historians, journalists and lawyers understand the difference and indeed, most courts do not allow hearsay, which is why Vrba's status as a hearsay witness was emphasised when he gave evidence at the Ernst Zundell trial in 1985.

It is entirely justified, for that reason, to focus on the witnesses who saw what happened inside the Kremas and to separate their testimony from the hearsay evidence of those who had heard about what was taking place inside the buildings.

Revisionisms failure to find eyewitnesses who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, is evidence that there is no such witness and that there is no alternative narrative for the gassing narrative.

[Nessie]

Archie tries to justify not separating hearsay from eyewitness evidence.

I assume the answer will be to say that the people who shoveled coke and so forth in the Kremas are especially valuable sources as they were nearest to the action and are (supposedly) recounting direct personal experience rather than mere hearsay.

That is wrong for several reasons. For one thing, there are more considerations in source criticism than just hearsay vs not-hearsay. If we are talking about the crematoria at Auschwitz, limiting the pool to people who "worked in the kremas" (like Nessie does) or limiting to "extremination areas" (unclear how broad or narrow BA is interpreting this) in effect selects predominately for Jewish sonderkommandos.

That is wrong. The list of direct witnesses to gassings (excluding the hearsay names that were originally included) is a majority Nazi, for example;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Auschwitz, SS staff 34, Topf & Sons 4, total 38 and Sonderkommandos 26, Jewish doctors 3, total 29. There were another 47 witnesses listed, some who are Jewish, the majority are Polish, none of whom would be Jewish, as they were workers, not prisoners. Chelmno, SS staff 32, Sonderkommandos 4. There are 7 Poles, who worked as van mechanics, listed. Again, they are workers, not Jewish prisoners. TII, SS staff 20, Sonderkommandos 14. Belzec, SS staff 17, Sonderkommandos 2.

It is significant that the majority of the eyewitnesses are Nazi and that they and the Jewish prisoners corroborate each other, describing exactly the same process at each camp. The variations in details are to be expected, when the witnesses give different estimations and remember the details differently. It is also notable that many of the Jewish witnesses came from different countries, speaking different languages.

When such a disparate group of people, with often no or limited connections and made up of victims and perpetrators, agree, that is strong corroborative evidence.

Realistically, if there was a Holocaust going on, all of the staff at Auschwitz would have known about it. Pretty much all high-level Nazis would have known. Frankly, the Allies would have known about it.

That is correct. The staff who did not work at the Kremas, and who could detach themselves from responsibility for operations there, had the opportunity to excuse themselves and claim limited or no knowledge. The Allies also knew, due the reports from escaped prisoners.

All of this must be considered, not just an arbitrary subset of testimonies.

What is not true, is that there are arbitrary subsets to the witnesses. Hearsay and eyewitness are not arbitrary distinctions, they are legally recognised and enforced distinctions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... le#hearsay

"11. Hearsay
This section tells criminal investigators in Immigration Enforcement (IE) and suitably trained and accredited criminal investigators within the Home Office about hearsay and the restrictions on using it as evidence in court.
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003 tells you that hearsay is ‘a statement not made in oral proceedings’. This means it is a statement that has not been given in court. It is effectively second-hand evidence, for example something:
you have overheard
someone has told you
someone has written
In hearsay you are asking the court to believe:
you are telling the truth
the person who told you or whom you overheard was also telling the truth
It is the second assumption which means that hearsay is generally not admissible in court."

Historians are more inclined to use hearsay evidence, when it is corroborated. That is why Rudolf Vrba is widely used as a witness, as the intelligence he gathered was broadly accurate as it is corroborated, but is also why he was challenged in court when giving evidence in the Zundell trial. Zundell's lawyer Doug Chrisitie would routinely challenge witnesses to ensure the evidence they gave was eyewitness, as hearsay would usually be inadmissible and he could get it thrown out.

[Nessie]

Elementary Source Criticism

Certainly, someone who worked in a Kremas should, in theory, know whether thousands of Jews were being gassed and incinerated per day. So I would agree that these people would be in a position to say what happened.

So it is not in theory, it is in practice. Of course those who see what happened, make better witnesses than those who did not and are merely repeating what they have been told. Common sense tells us that.

However, it does not follow that their accounts of events are accurate or honest.

The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

That is correct. Archie is telling us nothing that is not already blindly obvious.

People doing low-level work should in theory be especially reliable in describing the interior layout of the Kremas, the details of the cremations, etc. They would be less qualified to comment on the planning for the construction of the Kremas, the overall extermination plan, and so forth.

A comment like this (from Nessie) is supremely silly.

Himmler did not work at the Kremas, he was not an eyewitness and the senior Nazis, as seen at the Nuremberg trials, relied on plausible deniability. Hence, as a witness, he is of little relevance.

So-called revisionists, when they try to revise the history of the usage of the Kremas, fail to produce a single witness who worked there, to help prove their competing, contradicting claims.

viewtopic.php?p=7906#p7906

To dismiss Himmler as not relevant is blazingly stupid. I would rank Himmler as second only to Hoess as the most relevant Auschwitz witnesses.

I did not dismiss Himmler as a witness. What I did was to differentiate between senior Nazis who will have known about gassing operations and the eyewitnesses who conducted those operations. Himmler is of little relevance, when it comes to details of how the Kremas functioned. To know how they functioned the best witnesses are the Topf & Sons engineers and the Sonderkommandos who emptied the gas chambers and loaded the ovens. The best witness to the planning and operation of the "special action" involving infirm prisoners, Jews and Hungarians, is Hoess. Himmler, if he had written about or was asked to describe the gassing and cremation process, would be a hearsay witness, akin to Vrba. If he described meetings he had with Hoess where they discussed planning for Birkenau to operate as a death camp, he would be an eyewitness to that evidence.

I find it incredible how difficult revisionists find it to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence, when the concepts and terms are so simple and obvious.

[Nessie]

In theory, Jewish SK testimony should be especially valuable on interior details. But they aren't!

That is not true, the eyewitness who worked inside the Kremas are entirely consistent on the process of selections, those not needed for work being sent to the Kremas, being told to undress they were going for showers, the gas chambers and the multiple corpse cremation ovens. There is no deviation from that process, from any eyewitness.

It is the same with the AR camps, with trains arriving, people being told to undress as they were going for showers, the gas chambers and mass graves and cremations. Some of the Sonderkommandos, who did not work at the gas chambers, believed that the cause of death was by a method other than gas, but they still agree the death was inside the chamber. Those who worked at the chambers all agree exhaust fumes from an engine was the cause of death.

They are demonstrably UNRELIABLE on these points! For example, they give wildly inflated figures about the cremations.



Is there really anything else to say here? If they say they were burning 10,000 bodies a day, 4 bodies per retort at a time and nonsense like that, this demolishes the ONLY reason we would have to give these testimonies any weight which would be particular competence on questions related to the interior of the Kremas.

Archie fails to take into account the studies of people's ability to accurately estimate. The witnesses are consistent in as much as the figures are all in their thousands and to vary from 38,000 to 6,800 can be explained by the biggest overestimate compared to underestimate. If you asked 14 people to estimate how many people had been attending football matches at a club they went to, you would likely get 14 different answers and you would certainly get a range of figures. That Tauber and Paisikovic gave different estimations at different times, is also not significant, as people will change their testimony and remember differently over time. They will not have remembered what the first estimation they gave was, when they then estimated again.

Archie is wrong to suggest detail variations such as estimating how many were cremated each day demolishes the witness evidence, especially when they all agree that there were mass cremations of many thousand each day.

[Nessie]

And if we return to our principles of source criticism, it is really no surprise that these SK testimonies are rubbish because that is in fact exactly what you would expect.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

These are highly biased sources. Many of them are recorded quite late. The earlier ones were invariably collected as part of the Communist investigations. They are also very obviously not independent.

Remember that Archie falsely claimed that using eyewitness evidence only "in effect selects predominately for Jewish sonderkommandos." In fact the majority are Nazi eyewitnesses. The Nazis and the Jewish witnesses will both have motivations and bias, the Jews looking for justice and revenge and the Nazis seeking to justify or excuse their actions.

Jewish testimony was collected under all sorts of conditions, spread over many countries and time. It has remained consistent about the gassing process.

German Statements

Another point that is made is that many SS men made statements going along with gassing, with some giving highly elaborate descriptions of gassings. Oh, so both Nazis and Jews agree! So it must be true! No. This is egregious context denial.

Statements by Germans made during the war would be convincing. Statement made after the war while under occupation and while being interrogated by enemy investigators (often Jewish) is not necessarily convincing.

Let me return to this point: "If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased." The implicit argument here is that statements by Germans at the IMT/NMT etc admitting to knowledge of gassings were against their interests. But that isn't really the case. Butz explains this very well in his book. Quite a few of them did dispute the charges (more on that later) and the ones that went along did have an incentive to "cooperate" with the Allies. Speer did not dispute gassings but he offered the court a carefully crafted story that allowed the court to excuse him personally to a degree. And it actually worked as he got a relatively light sentence. That sort of defense was the best that was possible given the circumstances.

The Nazi statements have also been provided under numerous different circumstances, in courts, to journalists, in secret and in the case of the majority, who were tried by German prosecutors in East, West and unified Germany, with no evidence of any coercion. Like the Jewish eyewitnesses, they have been consistent about the process. Archie makes the mistake, again, of mixing Nazis in authority, who did not work inside the Kremas or the AR camps, with the SS camp staff. Speer is not an eyewitness to what took place inside those places.

It was very much in the interests of the Nazis in 1945 and beyond, to have presented evidence to prove that the mass murder claims were false, wartime atrocity propaganda. People who have evidence an accusation against them is false, do not hide that evidence. That the staff at the AR camps agreed with the process described by the Jewish prisoners, increases the credibility of both groups, as their bias and interests are the opposite to each other.

Revisionists ignore that they are making an incredible claim, that needs incredible levels of evidence. It is quite incredible that none of the SS death camp staff, including those safe in South America, would not come forward with testimony that would revise the history of those camps and prove mass murders did not take place. The Nazis knew they were being accused of murder and if those accusations were false, why did they destroy so much of the evidence that would prove the claim was false?

[Nessie]

The Demand for Contrary Statements

There are actually many statements from Germans disputing what we now call "the Holocaust." Often these deny knowledge, but since it is not possible for them not to have known it amounts to a denial that it happened at all.

Would they have had a bias to say that? Sure. We can't just take their word for it on these things. But like I argued here, the statements by people like Himmler (who is on record as endorsing the revisionist interpretation of the Kremas) is confirmed by a lot of other evidence, like the Krema construction timelines, the typhus outbreaks, the orders to reduce deaths, etc.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=315

In addition to Himmler (and the commonly quoted statements by Goering and Josef Kramer), there were numerous denials by the Nazis. Here are a few non-exhaustive examples.
....

It is common for Holocaust promoters to say that "no Nazi ever denied it," but this is obviously untrue. So bombsaway modifies it by phrasing his demand so as to exclude many statements he doesn't want to address.

We can of course dismiss these statements as lies, which I'm sure is what bombsaway's explanation would be. But as with Himmler, the claimed lack of knowledge is well supported by the documentary evidence and it mirrors the lack of knowledge by the Allies during the war.

It is true to say, that no Nazi who worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema denied their use for gassings. Archie is yet again failing to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence.

The list of Nazis Archie quotes in the spoiler, all deny knowledge, which is plausible, since none worked at an AR camp, A-B Krema, or were at Wannsee and part of the planning for the Final Solution. It is also notable that none of them were subjected to any torture and they still denied knowledge. Obviously the supposed Holocaust conspirators did not feel the need to torture confessions out of them.

[Nessie]

Low-Level Contrary Statements

Okay, then. Now let's get on with bombsaway's "challenge" even though it is somewhat rigged.

Are there "low-level" statements supporting the revisionist thesis? Or are there zero as BA (and Nessie) have implied?

No implication from me, there is zero eyewitness evidence from anyone who worked at an AR camp, Chelmno or inside an A-B Krema who provides any testimony that describes a different process from mass transports, selections, undressing, gassing, cremation and/or burials.

This is in no way a trivial request. The witness statements we have available are overwhelmingly from war-crimes trials and other published sources which are of course biased toward orthodox accounts.

The Nazi and Jewish eyewitness have opposing, conflicting biases, yet they agree with each other.

Even worse, the accounts of those who "worked in the Kremas" are tilted toward Soviet and Polish "investigations." Do you really think the Extraordinary State Commission was looking for statements contradicting their narrative? Do you think any witnesses would have been foolish enough to give such testimony to the ESC? If such testimony had been given, do you think these statements would have been given any publicity or would have been featured in published sources? Please be serious.

In fact the majority of the SS camp staff tried for their work at A-B, the AR camps or Chelmno, were tried by German prosecutors in a series of trials, primarily, but not exclusively, in West Germany. It was the perfect time, for a revised history of activities in those places to be forthcoming, especially since West Germany was at the forefront of the Cold War with the Warsaw Pact. The West would have benefitted greatly, by those West Germans exposing the lies of the Poles and Soviets.

Once we start talking about obscure sources, you can't just assume that X, Y, Z doesn't exist, especially on the revisionist side. On the orthodox side, an army of Jews have gone over pretty much everything, many times over. The same is not the case for revisionists as we have very limited resources. "Mattogno would have mentioned it." That's foolish. Mattogno is one man and his efforts, though laudable, are meager compared to the collective efforts of scores of paid professional researchers. Mattogno has not been through everything. Not even close. The Nuremberg prosecution alone was an extraordinary effort that revisionists will never be able to match (pending major technological breakthroughs).

If such testimonies do exist, they are likely to be unpublished and/or extremely obscure.

There are multiple revisionists who have had access to archives such as the documents at the A-B archive. Many archives are being digitised and can new be accessed. Yet, over the decades, revisionists have failed to find a single eyewitness who supports their various claims such as the Leichenkellers only ever stored corpses or that TII was a transit camp.

That said, there are a number of low-level statements that I think do support the revisionist thesis (usually accidentally). Here are a few and these are just ones I happened to be aware of. I have never actually looked for them since I think this whole exercise is misguided to begin with for reasons already explained.

Interesting that Archie acknowledges accidents, as that is what makes the hoaxing of the Holocaust so incredibly unlikely, as someone, somewhere, will accidentally blow it. Whether that is an eyewitness revealing what really happened, or an archivist making evidence public.

-Dr. Nyiszli accidentally admits that the LKs were in fact used as air raid shelters. Nyiszli is rubbish but this particular detail is an admission against interest and he would not have had any reason to make it up. Nor can it be well explained as a false rumor. If there was a "rumor" it would like be true. To say it other words, Nyizsli's statemnts about the gassings are not credible. His accidental reference to air raids is credible. No, that isn't inconsistent.

That was not an accident. It is what happened. It made sense for those working inside the Kremas, to shelter in the most secure part of the building. He is an eyewitness who describes sheltering inside the gas chambers.

-Walter Schreiber was an engineer at Huta.

L.: What did the Huta Corporation build?

S.: Among other things, crematoria II and III with the large morgues.

L.: The prevalent opinion (considered to be self-evident) is that these large morgues were allegedly gas chambers for mass killings.

S.: Nothing of that sort could be deduced from the plans made available to us. The detailed plans and provisional invoices drawn up by us refer to these rooms as ordinary cellars.

L.: Do you know anything about introduction hatches in the reinforced concrete ceilings?

S.: No, not from memory. But since these cellars were also intended to serve as air raid shelters as a secondary purpose, introduction holes would have been counterproductive. I would certainly have objected to such an arrangement. (HH #42, pg. 77-78)

The special action at A-B was to be kept as secret as possible. Not involving someone who was part of the original design of the Kremas, in subsequent modifications and operation, makes sense. Hence, Schrieber likely did not know, or he was lying. He is not an eyewitness to the operation of the Kremas, 1943-4.

This statement was recorded late (1999) and it can be critiqued on various grounds. But I share just to point out that it is false to say there are "zero" contrary witnesses.

-Anonymous 1944 Account

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. (HH#36, pg 92)

The only reason I know about this is because Graf cites it for other reasons. He seems to have missed the significance of the air raid shelter.

Bombsaway will of course say this doesn't count because it is anonymous. However, it's also from Feb 1944 which is very early (and therefore preferred) and it says the source is someone directly involved in the construction. Imo, this is a far better source that ESC witnesses or Jewish memoirists.

What is interesting about it is that the source has apparently heard rumors about "gas chambers" yet he has no idea where these were located. Which is funny since he was building them! The people building the gas chambers didn't know they were building gas chambers. Interesting. And I think it's because it wasn't one. And then the point about it being similar in design to an air-raid shelter, though not conclusive by any means, gives some support to the arguments of Butz and Crowell.

Only someone desperate, would introduce hearsay evidence of a claim the Kremas had gas chambers, as evidence they had an alternative function. Schreiber stated that holes in the roof would be contrary to an air raid shelter design, and the anonymous Polish worker speaks about the chimney. A chimney next an air raid shelter risks it being hit and landing on the shelter, hence Krema I's chimney was demolished in 1944.

The examples given are not mistakes whereby eyewitness blow the actual purpose of the Kremas.

[Nessie]

Archie concludes;

Conclusion

-There is no justifiable reason to focus exclusively on low-level people

The justification is focusing on eyewitness over hearsay evidence.

-We should expect recorded witness statements to skew heavily in favor of orthodoxy since the trials were rigged to produce that result and all incentives were in that direction

Why would the West Germans support a Polish/Soviet hoax during the Cold War? It was in their interests to blow such a hoax. It would have greatly improved Western public opinion about Germans, to know the Holocaust was a Communist plot.

-Germans and others who had contrary accounts undeniably had a strong disincentive not to come forward. Staeglich was forced into early retirement and had his pension docked for making revisionist statements, and that was relatively light retaliation. If you were at Auschwitz, the smart move was to keep your head down after the war. To do otherwise would in many cases have been to invite prosecutorial attention.

That is arguing all Nazis are cowards and none was brave enough to blow the whistle, including those in South America.

-If such statements are produced, guys like Nessie and bombsaway will dismiss them as worthless using arbitrary, post hoc criteria, just as they do with all the denials by high-level people.

Courts are legally required to differentiate between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and in the most part discount hearsay evidence. Historians also understand the difference, which is not arbitrary. It is a simple distinction between those who saw what they describe and those who were told about what they describe. The higher the rank of the Nazi, the less likely it was that they worked inside an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B Krema, which makes their evidence hearsay about the day to day operations and eyewitness about any planning.

[Nessie]

HansHill enters the debate. Does he produce an eyewitness? Er, no.

viewtopic.php?p=22897#p22897

Very good post. Just to add some thoughts and double down on one key point. This sort of fetishization of what is claimed over what is possible exposes itself heavily here, especially the biases of Anti-Revisionists. We have examples (three that I can name - Mueller, Chazan, Phlishko) of sources inside the Kremas who describe a process inside the gas chamber in a way that is completely inoperable and undermines the process later claimed by experts such as Van Pelt.

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16604#p16604

"I claim that I personally handled and removed the murder weapon after the murders" does not work here. Because this doesn't work, these exact same Anti-Revisionists who demand a source inside the gas chamber, scramble over themselves to correct, ignore or discard these impossibilities as minor or inconsequential.

If the details of what is claimed to have happened inside the Krema can be so easily discarded due to inconvenience, demanding the same from Revisionists is illogical and dishonest.

The suggestion that because eyewitnesses describe a process HansHill finds to be "inoperable", therefore they lied and there was no gas chamber, assumes that a truthful eyewitness will accurately recollect and recall the details, and a dishonest one will not. That I find the witness descriptions of the gassing process to be believable and plausible, is also not evidence there were gassings. Neither HansHill, nor my, opinion on the operability or possibility of the gas chambers as described by the witnesses is a substitute for evidence.

Eyewitnesses who help to dispose of the corpses after the murder, are key eyewitnesses. Their testimony is accurately assessed by determining if their claims are corroborated or not, rather than opinion on operability or possibility of the murder method. In the case of Germans building gas chambers and multiple corpse ovens, utilising an existing design for a crematorium, is entirely possible. It was work that was well within their engineering and design capabilities.

[pilgrimofdark]

That is wrong. The list of direct witnesses to gassings (excluding the hearsay names that were originally included) is a majority Nazi, for example;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Requesting accurate citations for the entirety of this list again.

Every single one. With links where available. Citations in any standard style: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

Continuing to spam out a stolen list of unverifiable sources is the definition of a "controversial claim."

Forum rule:

If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support.

[Nessie]

That is wrong. The list of direct witnesses to gassings (excluding the hearsay names that were originally included) is a majority Nazi, for example;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Requesting accurate citations for the entirety of this list again.

Every single one. With links where available. Citations in any standard style: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

What do you mean by "accurate citation"? Citation of what? For example, "Franz Hofmann Frankfurt - 1965
SS camp leader." Hofmann was a senior officer at A-B who was tried and convicted in Frankfurt in 1965. Are you disputing that?

Continuing to spam out a stolen list of unverifiable sources is the definition of a "controversial claim."

Forum rule:

If you make a controversial claim without support, others have the right to request support.

How are the sources, by which I presume you mean witnesses, unverifiable? Google search any of the names and "Auschwitz" and you will find plenty of details.

[Nessie]

Point from Sanity Check;

viewtopic.php?p=22908#p22908

Contrary witnesses need not necessarily be found within the environs of the AR camps or A-B Kremas. Police or SS transport guards, who speak to mass transports of Jews back out of the camps. Germans stationed in Eastern Europe, speaking to mass arrivals of Jews for resettlement. Such testimony could come in the form of diaries or letters, not just official records.

A resettlement action would be resource intensive, so it is a very high potential source of evidence that would prove mass murders did not take place. Revisionists cannot even name the department responsible for resettlement, let along who ran and staffed it. Eichmann was posted to Hungary in 1944, to ensure the enforcement of the Nuremberg Race Laws and arrange mass transports of Jews. If a witness like him had any information that supported the revisionist resettlement hypothesis, where is it?

[pilgrimofdark]

That is wrong. The list of direct witnesses to gassings (excluding the hearsay names that were originally included) is a majority Nazi, for example;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Requesting accurate citations for the entirety of this list again.

Every single one. With links where available. Citations in any standard style: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

What do you mean by "accurate citation"? Citation of what? For example, "Franz Hofmann Frankfurt - 1965
SS camp leader." Hofmann was a senior officer at A-B who was tried and convicted in Frankfurt in 1965. Are you disputing that?

You could try using the same citation methodology used by historians all over the world.

Citation Styles: APA, MLA, Chicago, Turabian, IEEE

"Frankfurt - 1965" is not an accurate citation for a court case. Is this a partial reference to a JuNSV court case? With no reference to the relevant document (transcript?) and page number containing "gassing eyewitness" testimony.

Bluebook Citation for Legal Materials

Do that one, then do the other 300. Whether they are court cases, books, journals, diaries, etc., historians have an established citation methodology that you can follow.

Are you disputing that?

Yes, I'm disputing every single one one, because the references are not clear and unverifiable as spammed. The burden is on you -- as the spammer of the stolen content -- to provide support for every single one.

Can you explain to me, why I should dump the citation methodology used by historians all over the world, to locate particular sources and switch to your and Das Prussian's citation method?

[HansHill]

Pilgrim, your request to the Slop poster is obviously merited, however I feel the request is likely lost on him. He's an Anti-Revisionist after all, everything he says is self-evident and beyond reproach.

In the spirit of keeping this thread and Pilgrim's request on track... Nessie, please review my original post that you are in fact responding to, which contains adequate citations and use them as a template to respond to Pilgrim's request

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16604#p16604

Yes yes yes, we all know you don't understand what any of this means or why it's important but please do try, because Pilgrim's request does have merit.

[Keen]

Revisionisms failure to find eyewitnesses who worked inside the AR camps, Chelmno and the A-B Kremas, is evidence that there is no such witness and that there is no alternative narrative for the gassing narrative.

When an entire murder case stands or falls on physical evidence, and there is virtually ZERO physical evidence to substantiate an obviously fraudulent allegation, all the "eyewitness evidence" in the world has no evidentiary value.

NONE.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

nesserta:

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

I can point to them in the ground.

What are you waiting for nesserta?