Why the "Diesel Issue" is Relevant

[Archie]

... Reder was a "big outlier", he was spectacularly wrong with his estimation. ... he is not presented as an accurate, reliable on the details, eyewitness.

It take Reder as accurate about the type of engine...

[Nessie]

... Reder was a "big outlier", he was spectacularly wrong with his estimation. ... he is not presented as an accurate, reliable on the details, eyewitness.

It take Reder as accurate about the type of engine...

Your lack of experience with eyewitnesses, is why it must be puzzling to you, that a witness can be regarded as both inaccurate and accurate.

Reder is inaccurate, when it comes to the grave dimensions. I know that because archaeological surveys have identified graves far smaller than he estimated. Reder is corroborated by the archaeology, that graves were dug, he got the dimensions wrong.

Reder is accurate when it comes to the type of engine used for gassings. I know that, because Erich Fuchs who helped to instal the engine, also said it was petrol. Reder is corroborated by Fuchs.

If you learned about witnesses, you would understand them better.

[Archie]

Reder is accurate when it comes to the type of engine used for gassings. I know that, because Erich Fuchs who helped to instal the engine, also said it was petrol. Reder is corroborated by Fuchs.

If you learned about witnesses, you would understand them better.

Fuchs was not at Belzec. He is not even purported to be a hearsay-level witness with respect to Belzec. You just grasp onto anything you can in the moment. If revisionists tried to pass off Fuchs as a Belzec witness you would rightly object to that. If you want to make this argument you need to establish the premise that there was some coordination to use the same engines in all three camps (as opposed to the witnesses who say, for example, that they just scrounged up old tank engines or whatever was lying around).

And I like how your rock solid "corroboration" is just some other witness. While most of the Belzec witnesses contradict him. Real corroboration would be, you know, if you had documents for the ordering/installation of the engine. Or photographs. Or they dug up an actual engine. Something concrete. Something other than just what somebody said years after the war.

The witnesses are at best inconclusive on this matter. (Again, there was no gassing engine, so all of this is fantasy.)

[Nessie]

Reder is accurate when it comes to the type of engine used for gassings. I know that, because Erich Fuchs who helped to instal the engine, also said it was petrol. Reder is corroborated by Fuchs.

If you learned about witnesses, you would understand them better.

Fuchs was not at Belzec. He is not even purported to be a hearsay-level witness with respect to Belzec. You just grasp onto anything you can in the moment. If revisionists tried to pass off Fuchs as a Belzec witness you would rightly object to that. If you want to make this argument you need to establish the premise that there was some coordination to use the same engines in all three camps (as opposed to the witnesses who say, for example, that they just scrounged up old tank engines or whatever was lying around).

Fuchs, like many AR staff, was at more than one of the camps. If he evidences TII and Sobibor used a petrol engine, then Belzec would have done so as well. The staff there would not have laboured away with a diesel engine, wondering why it was not working as expected.

And I like how your rock solid "corroboration" is just some other witness.

Ask any lawyer, if a victim and an accused, agree on something, is that weak, average or strong corroboration. Ask any historian, the same question, about a Jew and a Nazi agreeing. What level of corroboration do you think it is?

While most of the Belzec witnesses contradict him.

Do they? I doubt that you have read most of them.

Real corroboration would be, you know, if you had documents for the ordering/installation of the engine. Or photographs. Or they dug up an actual engine. Something concrete. Something other than just what somebody said years after the war.

Agreed, that would also be strong corroboration.

The witnesses are at best inconclusive on this matter. (Again, there was no gassing engine, so all of this is fantasy.)

Yes, there is explainable confusion over the type of engine used. That does not prove there was no gas chamber and Reder lied.