List of "direct" eyewitnesses to gassings.

[Nessie]

The drawing and museum description do not describe a bone mill. You would not find any other evidence that you did not want to believe, credible. Your default position is to deny.

My default position is to inquire.

Or, to ask others to inquire for you, which I did.

But once a healthy skepticism develops after observing an extraordinary pattern of conspiracy and lies then, yes, you will see that I am more inclined to object to the validity of weak and inadequate evidence for extraordinary claims than, say, you are.

The extraordinary pattern, is the revisionist claim that 100% of the eyewitnesses lied. Nazi and Jew, German, Polish, French, Hungarian and Greeks all conspired together and not one single person who worked at the Kremas, has told the truth.

Your position by necessity is one which has to keep pretending that the pool of witnesses has not "cried wolf" so often as to demonstrate the existence of a coordinated, false narrative with obvious motives and extraordinary [post-war victorious] means.

Your pretend position is to claim that 100% of the eyewitnesses lied, for which you have only your doubts, rather than evidence to prove.

It is you who "wants to believe". This is why your standards for evidence (and critical examination thereof) are so very low.

I apply the same evidencing standard to all historical events, including the Holocaust. You ignore all the studies of witness behaviour, memory and recall, as your agenda is to deny 100% of the eyewitness evidence. Instead of evidencing lying, you allege it with illogical arguments.

[Callafangers]

The extraordinary pattern, is the revisionist claim that 100% of the eyewitnesses lied. Nazi and Jew, German, Polish, French, Hungarian and Greeks all conspired together and not one single person who worked at the Kremas, has told the truth.

Partial response, here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=380

[Nessie]

The extraordinary pattern, is the revisionist claim that 100% of the eyewitnesses lied. Nazi and Jew, German, Polish, French, Hungarian and Greeks all conspired together and not one single person who worked at the Kremas, has told the truth.

Partial response, here: https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=380

That response proves you still do not fully understand the difference between hearsay and eyewitness testimony. You have also shown, that you still do not understand how to go about proving lying.

[pilgrimofdark]

Nessie cited a portion of this list at me in another thread. In that post, he did not disclose it was an unvetted list of sources with inaccurate references compiled by another person.

Giving Nessie the respect I thought he was due, I went looking for some of the sources and discovered they are just wrong. You can read the bewilderment I experienced checking 4-5 of the sources.

This list has numerous problems in the citations.

• incomplete page ranges
• unclear page references ("P56r")
• vague citations ("report 1944")
• pure guesses ("for demjanuk trial ?")

Regardless of whether Nessie posted the "introduction" from Das Prussian, he is using portions of the list without attribution elsewhere on the forum.

This is plagiarism.

The problem with plagiarism is that the plagiarist uses it as a sword and a shield.

> If it's accurate, I agree with it.
> If it's inaccurate, it's not my fault since it's not mine
> If you highlight my plagiarism, you're a Nazi

As recent as today, Nessie defends his use of these sources, indicating this pattern will continue.

In this post, Nessie writes "I have been on forums about denial for many years. I have NEVER seen any so-called revisionist, who accepts the evidence of any person on Das Prussian's list..."

So he admits to spreading this unvetted list for "many years," a list with so many inaccuracies that it is impossible for anyone to check sources to determine whether they "accept the evidence" or not.

Severity

I don't think there's any question this is a Severe case of plagiarism.

Nessie posted this unvetted list, and quotes portions of it in other threads without attribution or verification.

He can not have read the sources from the citations provided, because some simply don't exist and others are incorrect.

It took me several hours to check a handful of the sources he cited and discover their inaccuracies.

Remedies

Immediate expulsion is justified. This is my vote, especially since Nessie responded to my incredulity at the inaccuracy of the list he posted with an insulting dismissal.

However, another option could be considered.

Because Nessie has used this list for a period of 6 months now, he needs to fix it. It is a misleading list, and not even Das Prussian had confidence in it:

Das Prussian claims "300 witnesses" are in this list, although he "cannot claim to be 100% confident" and "the practicalities of providing a link for all 294 names are too difficult and time consuming to produce (for me anyhow)."

He could be placed in quarantine until he does the following for all 300 sources:

• verify the citation
• correct inaccurate references
• remove citations he can not find
• provide working links to an archive, book, journal, or respectable website

This is a bare minimum good faith act to correct this academic dishonesty.

If It's Not Plagiarism, It Still Needs to be Fixed

Even if this list that Nessie posted without verifying any of the sources is not plagiarism (although I believe his continued use of it is), he still needs to do the above work.

It is incredible that he admits spreading this second-hand list "for many years," without ever checking a single reference for accuracy. I suggest this stops today and he is forced to engage in this elementary task of scholarship.

Is anyone on this forum here to be spammed second-hand hearsay plagiarized inaccurate references that are impossible to verify, and then get told you're a "denier" if you don't agree with a source he's never even tried to read?

[Nessie]

A thread that starts with "A list complied by Das Prussian, who wrote the introduction" and then uses quotation marks, is making it clear, from the start, who compiled the list, who wrote the introduction and that it is a quote. To claim that is plagiarism is clearly false.

A search of "plagiarism" finds;

"AI Overview
Plagiarism is presenting someone else's words, ideas, or work as your own without giving proper credit. It is considered a serious form of academic and professional misconduct that can involve copying, paraphrasing without citation, self-plagiarism, or submitting work created by others. To avoid plagiarism, you must cite all sources and use quotation marks for direct quotes"

I agree, there are issues with the way DP complied the list. I think it was the start of a work in progress, but DP then stopped posting. The original list was on the old RODOH, that I can no longer access and I am not sure if it is there on the latest version of the forum.

[HansHill]

.

Nessie is a low effort, low quality, yet unfortunately high output and high embarrassment poster. While there are numerous issues that his presence causes, I feel its overly harsh to attribute this low quality list squarely on him, as he did cite it as not being his own work.

Lazy yes, corner cutting, yes, dodging your challenge, yes, slop yes.
Plagairism no (in my opinion).

FWIW i agree with the move to place Nessie in quarantine. There is one other poster in there, and Nessie is no less disruptive than he is. In fact Nessie is arguably more disruptive since he continually sh*ts up the board with slop, dodges challenges, blatantly lies, then returns again the next day to wash rinse repeat. I'm sure the two quarantined posters would get a lot of ground covered should they choose to engage each other's high volume output!

[Hektor]

.

Nessie is a low effort, low quality, yet unfortunately high output and high embarrassment poster. While there are numerous issues that his presence causes, I feel its overly harsh to attribute this low quality list squarely on him, as he did cite it as not being his own work.

Lazy yes, corner cutting, yes, dodging your challenge, yes, slop yes.
Plagairism no (in my opinion).

...

She reminds me a bit of the lower quality LLMs / bots nowadays. No good arguments, but laborsome texts written in a pseudological way to be too tiresome to deal with. Test bots for yourself in line with Holocaust arguments. Those prohibited to 'deny the Holocaust' follow the same line of argument.

[Booze]

"The main reason for producing such a list is to highlight the sheer magnitude of witnesses that confirm gassings"

Confirm definition
establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed, suspected, or feared to be the case)

8) Dario Gabbai
9) Morris Venezia -
10) Shlomo Venezia

Would any serious person make the claim that characters like this confirm the alleged gassings?

[Archie]

A little reminder of how this thread went for Nessie.

Hoess's testimony contains inaccuracies and he was proven to have been subjected to coercion. Since his primary admissions, and that the camp was used for mass murders, are corroborated, in that respect he is a generally truthful and due to his role at the camp, a very important eyewitness.

Slop.

>Nessie: Pick one eyewitness
>Archie: Picks one
>Nessie: Well he's rubbish b-b-but what about everybody else?

That little exercise fell apart instantaneously!

[Archie]

Regardless of whether Nessie posted the "introduction" from Das Prussian, he is using portions of the list without attribution elsewhere on the forum.

This is plagiarism.

Since he attributed the post to Das Prussian and he usually links to this thread when he refers to it elsewhere, I don't really see this as plagiarism. I would call this a gish gallop. I do agree that the sourcing is inadequate and of course it's ridiculous for Nessie to spam a copied list of testimonies, most of which he has never read and has no intention of reading.

Nessie's posting in general is obviously not up to par. But there are a limited number of anti-revisionists who are willing to post here, and if we give too many of them the push we open ourselves up to allegations of "censorship." We have been keeping him around essentially as a punching bag. I would love to see some better quality on the Debate board, but the anti-revisionist talent just isn't there, it seems.

Revisionist posters might want to be judicious in how much time they spend replying to Nessie. Those who are greatly annoyed by the tactics of the anti-revisionists might want to consider sticking to Research & Discussion.

> If it's accurate, I agree with it.
> If it's inaccurate, it's not my fault since it's not mine
> If you highlight my plagiarism, you're a Nazi

This is a good point. There is certainly an avoidance of responsibility here. And this was one of the big problems with ConfusedJew and his reliance on AI.

It took me several hours to check a handful of the sources he cited and discover their inaccuracies.

This is what he wants you to do. He wants to shift the work over to you while he sits on his duff. He wants to waste your time. He hasn't checked these, and you should feel no obligation to do his work for him.

Rather than play his game, I prefer to turn the tables: Okay, you say you have 300 rock solid gas chamber witnesses. In that case, it should be extremely easy for you to show me the best ones. So let's see 'em. Of course he can't do it, in which case we can be confident that the whole list is a bluff, just like the 50 Olympic swimming pools of ash, and all the other crap he says.

The obscure witnesses aren't going to be any better than the scores of famous ones that have already been analyzed in excruciating detail. Have the good witnesses been hiding somewhere super secret all these decades? No. The ones nobody's read are just more of the same. The Holocaust must stand or fall on the sources that formed the basis for the myth to begin with.

He could be placed in quarantine until he does the following for all 300 sources:

• verify the citation
• correct inaccurate references
• remove citations he can not find
• provide working links to an archive, book, journal, or respectable website

The likelihood of Nessie providing the above is zero. He doesn't have the research skills, and he is too lazy in any case.

That we leave a lot of Nessie's nonsense up on site is in no way an endorsement. Rather our thinking is that we want people to see what the other side has to offer and what sort of tactics they must resort to to defend their myth. We leave it on display and let people see it for what it is. The people with some sense will see through it.

[Stubble]

Did Nessie list the one who's name was called while she was being gassed? Or the one who 'found an eyeball in her soup'?

I'll push 'show post' in the OP later and check.

Going through 'radio islam' with this list might be a hoot. When you see scat, cannibalism or a naked bicycle race in the gas chamber, drink.

Edit: looked. Unfortunately, Eva Olsson does not appear on the list. He should add her #trustallwomen

I will say, I commend our 4 flippered friend for linking this post to 'x' at least 3 times a day...

(Get on nitter and check, I'm, not kidding)

https://nitter.net/Nessieisreality

[Archie]

A little reminder of how this thread went for Nessie.

Hoess's testimony contains inaccuracies and he was proven to have been subjected to coercion. Since his primary admissions, and that the camp was used for mass murders, are corroborated, in that respect he is a generally truthful and due to his role at the camp, a very important eyewitness.

Slop.

>Nessie: Pick one eyewitness
>Archie: Picks one
>Nessie: Well he's rubbish b-b-but what about everybody else?

That little exercise fell apart instantaneously!

Just to add, two years ago on the old forum, Nessie showed up and started spamming the board (we didn't have the Debate board back then). He was derailing nearly every thread, so we limited him to one thread (it was called "Nessie's tar pit," IIRC; unfortunately it has been lost). We told him it was his thread and to show us everything he had. He trotted out this exact list of 300 gas chamber witnesses. We called him out for his gish gallop and told him to pick his favorite one to analyze in detail. He picked Abraham Krzepicki. It's no accident that the testimony he picked was 70 pages long. His goal was to do everything possible to avoid actually discussing the substance of the testimonies. This is what they do. We linked him to prior threads on Krzepicki whose description of the gas chamber of course does not match the standard version of the story. So that didn't go well for him. After face-planting on Krzepicki, Nessie picked a second "star witness." I forget the name, but the testimony was clearly hearsay (in the text it said things like, "others told me ..." etc). That was his second best witness.

[Callafangers]

Just to add, two years ago on the old forum, Nessie showed up and started spamming the board (we didn't have the Debate board back then). He was derailing nearly every thread, so we limited him to one thread (it was called "Nessie's tar pit," IIRC; unfortunately it has been lost). We told him it was his thread and to show us everything he had. He trotted out this exact list of 300 gas chamber witnesses. We called him out for his gish gallop and told him to pick his favorite one to analyze in detail. He picked Abraham Krzepicki. It's no accident that the testimony he picked was 70 pages long. His goal was to do everything possible to avoid actually discussing the substance of the testimonies. This is what they do. We linked him to prior threads on Krzepicki whose description of the gas chamber of course does not match the standard version of the story. So that didn't go well for him. After face-planting on Krzepicki, Nessie picked a second "star witness." I forget the name, but the testimony was clearly hearsay (in the text it said things like, "others told me ..." etc). That was his second best witness.

This is interesting. Is there any other major operation in history (particularly where witnesses saw the alleged processes day-in and day-out), where there aren't at least a handful of truly exemplary -- or at least objective, believable -- witnesses?

As much as I've been witness to Nessie's shenanigans, I am actually surprised to find out he has a lack of confidence in specific witnesses. I suppose I just haven't given this question much thought.

Nessie, is this true? Are there not at least 3-4 witnesses per camp you could point to, supporting your position effectively?

It would be a very short essay to simply capture the exact statements of just 3-4 people, highlighting their integrity and consistency between one another.

[Nessie]

A little reminder of how this thread went for Nessie.

Hoess's testimony contains inaccuracies and he was proven to have been subjected to coercion. Since his primary admissions, and that the camp was used for mass murders, are corroborated, in that respect he is a generally truthful and due to his role at the camp, a very important eyewitness.

Slop.

>Nessie: Pick one eyewitness
>Archie: Picks one
>Nessie: Well he's rubbish b-b-but what about everybody else?

That little exercise fell apart instantaneously!

That is a typical misrepresentation you use to try to discredit the genuine way witnesses should be assessed, the way used by all investigators, except so-called deniers. You use the logical fallacy straw man, far too often.

Hoess is not rubbish, lets look at everyone else. Hoess is a very important eyewitness, who is corroborated. I tend not to use him, because of the evidence he was coerced, which is out of principle.

[Nessie]

...

> If it's accurate, I agree with it.
> If it's inaccurate, it's not my fault since it's not mine
> If you highlight my plagiarism, you're a Nazi

This is a good point. There is certainly an avoidance of responsibility here.

Straw man. That is a misrepresentation. If a claim is corroborated I accept it. If it is not, I do not. That is standard practice in investigations. I am doing nothing unusual. The last claim about being a Nazi, is a straight up lie.

It took me several hours to check a handful of the sources he cited and discover their inaccuracies.

This is what he wants you to do. He wants to shift the work over to you while he sits on his duff. He wants to waste your time. He hasn't checked these, and you should feel no obligation to do his work for him.

I love the way you think you can call them all liars, whilst you admit you do not know what most of the said.

Rather than play his game, I prefer to turn the tables: Okay, you say you have 300 rock solid gas chamber witnesses. In that case, it should be extremely easy for you to show me the best ones. So let's see 'em. Of course he can't do it, in which case we can be confident that the whole list is a bluff, just like the 50 Olympic swimming pools of ash, and all the other crap he says.

The issue is availability of the testimony, online, to then link to and quote here, so it can be discussed. The best witnesses, are the ones with the best knowledge and most detailed statements. I was usually asked to pick one, which is a very poor way to assess a witness and I would discourage such a shoddy way to investigate. As for the best, examples would be the Topf & Sons Engineers, you lot hate discussing their evidence.

The obscure witnesses aren't going to be any better than the scores of famous ones that have already been analyzed in excruciating detail. Have the good witnesses been hiding somewhere super secret all these decades? No. The ones nobody's read are just more of the same. The Holocaust must stand or fall on the sources that formed the basis for the myth to begin with.

He could be placed in quarantine until he does the following for all 300 sources:

• verify the citation
• correct inaccurate references
• remove citations he can not find
• provide working links to an archive, book, journal, or respectable website

The likelihood of Nessie providing the above is zero. He doesn't have the research skills, and he is too lazy in any case.

That we leave a lot of Nessie's nonsense up on site is in no way an endorsement. Rather our thinking is that we want people to see what the other side has to offer and what sort of tactics they must resort to to defend their myth. We leave it on display and let people see it for what it is. The people with some sense will see through it.

For example, Morris Venezia. His presence at A-B is confirmed by camp prisoner lists and others who were there, some of whom he was related to. He has a short Wiki entry and his testimony is available to watch on You Tube and at USHMM, but registration is required.

Jerzy Fojcik. Virtually nothing can be found online, and many search results are in Polish and it cannot be confirmed if they relate to the Jerzy Fojcik in the list of witnesses. I did find another reference as to where is testimony can be found "interrogation of Jerzy Fojcik of 6 July 1945, AIPN GK 165/271, volume 3, p. 221" It is a collection of dozens of Polish witnesses to what happened at and around Chelmno. AIPN is the Archives of the Institute of National Remembrance in Warsaw.

Historians have collated and checked the statements, unlike so-called revisionists. So, it is interesting how so-called revisionists have the confidence to criticise others, who have done the work, they have not bothered to do. That misplaced confidence, in their ability to assess testimony, is why they mistakenly believe 100% of them lied about seeing mass murders.