Historians etc do use source criticism and they use corroboration. You have a theme of trying to suggest I act differently to all others, to defect from the truth, which is that it is you who assesses evidence, in particular, witnesses differently from all others.Archie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 02, 2025 3:50 amNessie, 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.Nessie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 29, 2025 4:27 pmWhat 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.
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.
That is why everyone is swerving assessing Krzepicki, because you know how easy it is, for me to point to your mistakes.
