Witness Krzepicki Debate Thread

[Nessie]

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

Remarkable.

No I am not claiming that. Strawman.

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'.

No, I have explained how historians etc, analyse witness evidence.

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

Meaning, you do not want to believe it.

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

It is compelling, because of how well corroborated it is.

[Stubble]

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.

Nessie

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

Remarkable.

No I am not claiming that. Strawman.

Also Nessie....

Back in the ignore bucket you go...

The leaders of the ghetto underground archives (under the historian Emanuel Ringelblum) entrusted Rachel Auerbach with the task of recording the testimony given by Krzepicki

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/holocau ... GQG9Ge6XXQ

[Nessie]

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.

Nessie

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

Remarkable.

No I am not claiming that. Strawman.

Also Nessie....

Back in the ignore bucket you go...

She worked with Oyneg Shabes, a Jewish group, gathering intelligence and recording what the Nazis were doing to Jews. Did you think that the only intelligence gathering in Poland during the war was for the Government in Exile? If she had been caught, especially after escaping the ghetto and hiding her Jewish identity, interviewing an escapee from TII, she would have been shot as a spy.

No one here wants to discuss Krzepicki, taking into account the studies of witnesses and using corroboration to assess their truthfulness and accuracy. I wonder why?

[Stubble]

Nessie,

It is surprising to me that you don't want to talk about any part of this testimony that is corroborated. Instead you want to make a blanket statement and talk about platitudes. What part is corroborated? That's not legitimately discussed.

Part of the reason you create a problem on the board is that you are an empty cart. There is literally nothing to your argument, or you would present it.

I have asked you, repeatedly, to show me corroboration with regard to this testimony, and you refuse. You have not cited any tract from it and you have made absolutely 0 effort here. You simply say the same crap over and over, empty and hollow as it is, smugly.

That you accept 'found in a buried bucket' almost a decade after the fact as acceptable provenance is disturbing enough. To then point at it as strong evidence 'because it is corroborated' without citing anything in it is just ridiculous.

This is why you stay in my ignore bucket.

I simply can not talk to you, because you are incapable of thinking or of rationally defending your position.

Accusing me of straw manning you for asking you if your statements conclusion was supported was simply repugnant as well. You are resolved to never admit an error. You made a gross error and just try to gloss over it and shift the conversation to platitudes while attempting not to engage with the testimony that you yourself claimed was 'the best'.

You think the best testimony regarding the alleged of events at Treblinka II is a notebook found in a buried milk bucket in the 1950's written by multiple hands, expanded to the point of being barely recognizable, and then spoon fed to you by people who said it was legit.

Look, if you gave an 8 page testimony, and 70 pages were entered into evidence, should the court be concerned?

You refuse to engage with that, just as you refuse to engage with the content of the testimony itself, simply saying the word 'corroborated' over and over. You gloss over the patently absurd in it that I pointed out, without engaging with it, and you just say the word 'corroborated'.

The witnesses that saw Martha riding her broomstick and engaging in sexual intercourse with the devil all corroborated each other Nessie, so, I suppose you believe them too, no matter how ridiculous and absurd that is. One thing about witch trials testimony that is stronger than this one is that the testimonies weren't buried in a bucket for a decade, after initially being written by multiple people, and then expanded to 10x their original content.

[Nessie]

Nessie,

It is surprising to me that you don't want to talk about any part of this testimony that is corroborated. Instead you want to make a blanket statement and talk about platitudes. What part is corroborated? That's not legitimately discussed.

Quotes from me, where I discuss what parts of Krzepicki's statements are corroborated;

"That his descriptions of how the camp functioned, the mass transports arriving, the sorting of the property stolen and its transportation back out of the camp and the gassings are corroborated, mean his claims are verified as truthful."

"Both he and Wiernik describe cremations as being prompted by the Nazi discovery of the Katyn mass graves, which was not until 1943. But, there were rumours already circulating since 1940, that the Soviets had massacred Polish soldiers at Katyn and a grave had been found by Poles in 1942."

"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."

"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."

"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."

Part of the reason you create a problem on the board is that you are an empty cart. There is literally nothing to your argument, or you would present it.

I have asked you, repeatedly, to show me corroboration with regard to this testimony, and you refuse. You have not cited any tract from it and you have made absolutely 0 effort here. You simply say the same crap over and over, empty and hollow as it is, smugly.

As I have just proven, I have discussed how Krzepicki is corroborated, throughout this thread. It is clearly your problem that you do not understand that.

That you accept 'found in a buried bucket' almost a decade after the fact as acceptable provenance is disturbing enough. To then point at it as strong evidence 'because it is corroborated' without citing anything in it is just ridiculous.

I DID CITE EXAMPLES!!!! SEE MY QUOTES ABOVE

This is why you stay in my ignore bucket.

I simply can not talk to you, because you are incapable of thinking or of rationally defending your position.

Accusing me of straw manning you for asking you if your statements conclusion was supported was simply repugnant as well. You are resolved to never admit an error. You made a gross error and just try to gloss over it and shift the conversation to platitudes while attempting not to engage with the testimony that you yourself claimed was 'the best'.

You think the best testimony regarding the alleged of events at Treblinka II is a notebook found in a buried milk bucket in the 1950's written by multiple hands, expanded to the point of being barely recognizable, and then spoon fed to you by people who said it was legit.

Look, if you gave an 8 page testimony, and 70 pages were entered into evidence, should the court be concerned?

You refuse to engage with that, just as you refuse to engage with the content of the testimony itself, simply saying the word 'corroborated' over and over. You gloss over the patently absurd in it that I pointed out, without engaging with it, and you just say the word 'corroborated'.

The witnesses that saw Martha riding her broomstick and engaging in sexual intercourse with the devil all corroborated each other Nessie, so, I suppose you believe them too, no matter how ridiculous and absurd that is. One thing about witch trials testimony that is stronger than this one is that the testimonies weren't buried in a bucket for a decade, after initially being written by multiple people, and then expanded to 10x their original content.

The secret work of Oyneg Shabes, and its collection of intelligence, is well documented. That is why I do not have an issue with the provenance of the statements from Krzepicki.

Otherwise, you need to be able to explain why you think I have not provided examples of how he was corroborated, when I clearly have.

[Nessie]

Contrary to Stubble's false claims, I have given examples of where Krzepicki is corroborated. That corroboration proves he was being truthful and accurate.

[Stubble]

- assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

Nessie claims that he judges testimonies on "truthfulness," but he does not. When the Holocaust witnesses FAIL verification (which is frequently) he says it doesn't matter. In Nessieland, the abundant, major errors in the accounts of key witnesses do not cast any doubt on the Holocaust, as long as they were in the camp and refer to gassing in some vague way.

If they say "gas chamber," of whatever design, that's a bullseye. If they say steam, close enough. Near bullseye. If there was one chamber, or three, or six, or eight, or ten, whatever. Bullseye. If it took two minutes or two hours, whatever. If they used a diesel engine or a tank engine or a submarine engine or chlorine, close enough. If they buried the bodies and dug them up months later or immediately burned them in a ten meter deep pit, this is not a contradiction. Imaginary visits from Himmler? No big deal! These are just normal, very minor inconsistencies. Only "deniers" would notice that these stories are contradictory and make no sense.

For more on how Nessie judges truthfulness, see here.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

The Nessie approach to witness testimony is to be so generous in excusing blunders that the statements become unfalsifiable.

Archie, you are a wise man.

You called this on page 2.

[Archie]

- assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

Nessie claims that he judges testimonies on "truthfulness," but he does not. When the Holocaust witnesses FAIL verification (which is frequently) he says it doesn't matter. In Nessieland, the abundant, major errors in the accounts of key witnesses do not cast any doubt on the Holocaust, as long as they were in the camp and refer to gassing in some vague way.

If they say "gas chamber," of whatever design, that's a bullseye. If they say steam, close enough. Near bullseye. If there was one chamber, or three, or six, or eight, or ten, whatever. Bullseye. If it took two minutes or two hours, whatever. If they used a diesel engine or a tank engine or a submarine engine or chlorine, close enough. If they buried the bodies and dug them up months later or immediately burned them in a ten meter deep pit, this is not a contradiction. Imaginary visits from Himmler? No big deal! These are just normal, very minor inconsistencies. Only "deniers" would notice that these stories are contradictory and make no sense.

For more on how Nessie judges truthfulness, see here.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

The Nessie approach to witness testimony is to be so generous in excusing blunders that the statements become unfalsifiable.

Archie, you are a wise man.

You called this on page 2.

It’s almost like I’ve heard Nessie’s lame spiel six million times already and know exactly what he’s going to say.

[Nessie]

...

It’s almost like I’ve heard Nessie’s lame spiel six million times already and know exactly what he’s going to say.

What you call "lame spiel" is how historians, journalists, lawyers and criminal investigators have been assessing witness evidence for decades, if not centuries. Corroboration is the most reliable, credible and accurate way of assessing a witness. You have failed to show how that is wrong and a better way to assess witnesses.

You certainly cannot do that with Krzepicki.

[Nessie]

...

Archie, you are a wise man.

You called this on page 2.

I am still waiting for you to explain why you said I have not provided examples of where Krzepicki is corroborated, when I clearly had.

[Nessie]

Nessie,

It is surprising to me that you don't want to talk about any part of this testimony that is corroborated....

A further request for you to explain why you said that, when I have clearly exampled where Krzepicki is corroborated.

[Stubble]

This should be patently obvious Nessie.

You have talked only in platitudes.

You have cited nothing specific.

His 'description' of the 'homicidal gas chambers' is both novel and unique. That is not corroboration. His description is not corroborated.

[Nessie]

This should be patently obvious Nessie.

You have talked only in platitudes.

You have cited nothing specific.

How is citing that both Krzepicki and Wiernik stated that cremations began after talk about Katyn, not a specific example of corroboration?

His 'description' of the 'homicidal gas chambers' is both novel and unique. That is not corroboration. His description is not corroborated.

How so? Be specific.

Then show me evidence from studies of witness recollection and memory, that if two people describe the same thing, but give different details, that proves they both lied. For example, two people both say they saw a car crash, but one said it was a blue Toyota and the other said it was a black Nissan. How would that prove they both lied and neither of them saw a car crash?

[Archie]

This witness is very poor even judging by the standards of current orthodoxy. K's gas chamber descriptions do not match the current mythology.

From the central square a road through the woods leads to the bathhouse [do łaźni]. It is a small building hidden in the thickets, concealed by a green net placed on the roof. […]

They let 800-1000 people enter into the bathhouse. None of us, workers, knew exactly how death was administered. However, there seemed to be a barely perceptible smell of chlorine around the bathhouse. I never worked on the evacuation of the bodies from the chamber, I did know, however, that it involved nearby pits, where they were then burned [spalane] along with all the camp waste. But before that, in a small hut located next to the bathhouse, the corpses have their gold teeth removed. (quoted in HH #28, pg. 122)

Note that he says " none of us, workers, knew exactly how death was administered." And then he mentions the "smell of chlorine." According to the official story, K would have seen the first gas chamber building. This had three chambers and the source of gas was an engine. K knows nothing about this engine. He's instead speculating about chlorine. Objectively speaking, this is not an accurate account of the gas chamber.

The later, longer statement attributed to K adds considerable embellishment. He's no longer talking about chlorine. He still knows nothing about any engine. He does give us a very detailed description of the interior of the gas chamber ("nickel plated metal faucets") though he still has the layout wrong.

Most of the buildings in the camp were made of wood. The gas chamber and the new building–which was in the process of being built at the time and to which we were assigned as construction helpers-were made of brick.

The walls of the building were covered with concrete. The gas chamber had not been operating for a week. I was able to look inside through one of the two strong whitewashed iron exits which happened to be open.

I saw before me a room which was not too large. It looked like a regular shower room with all the accoutrements of a public bathhouse. The walls of the room were covered with small, white tiles. It was very fine, clean work. The floor was covered with orange terra cotta tiles. Nickel plated metal faucets were set into the ceiling.

That was all. A comfortable, neat little bathhouse set in the mid­dle of a wooded area. There was nothing more to see. But as one stood in front of the entrance to this “bathhouse” one could see hills of lime, and beneath them the giant, still-open mass graves where tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of “bathers” lay in eternal rest. Later on, I was told that here, too, they had begun to cremate the bodies in the ditches.

I'll score this a 15/100. I think that's more than fair.

[Archie]

...

It’s almost like I’ve heard Nessie’s lame spiel six million times already and know exactly what he’s going to say.

What you call "lame spiel" is how historians, journalists, lawyers and criminal investigators have been assessing witness evidence for decades, if not centuries. Corroboration is the most reliable, credible and accurate way of assessing a witness. You have failed to show how that is wrong and a better way to assess witnesses.

You certainly cannot do that with Krzepicki.

Nessie, it is poor form to assert that your posts are representative of exemplary professional practice when in reality it seems nobody endorses much of anything you say. The PhD people who have posted here by and large have not only declined to endorse your posts, they generally seem to go out of their way to distance themselves from you. That is the opposite of endorsement. You claiming to represent the best in historical practice is sheer delusion.

Historians evaluate sources using source criticism. Sources are given greater or lesser weight depending on various criteria. What Nessie does bears no relation at all to competent historical analysis. Nessie simply defends his precious Holocaust at all costs and defends the witnesses as needed, usually by grading them so leniently that failure is impossible.