New rule for you, Nessie. If you are going to rely on "studies of memory and recall," going forward, you must
You have failed to explain why the inconsistencies between the eyewitness descriptions of the column, is evidence they lied about it and no such column existed. I have spent a lot of time explaining how corroboration works and how Tauber, Mueller and Erber, and the inventory corroborate.
They are describing more than something vaguely similar. They are describing something very specific, that was found in only two buildings. Nothing else like it, has been reported, or evidenced to exist, anywhere else, ever. Your dismissal of corroboration is done without explanation or an alternative way to prove something happened. Nazi and Jew describe the same object, which is also described in a document. You have provided no rational reason why that is not proof the columns existed. If you want to question the evidence, you need to do so with evidence, or else all you have is your opinionated argument.These witnesses say something vaguely similar, so they corroborate each other. Ergo columns were real. End of discussion. If you question this hasty conclusion, you are doing fallacies.
Why is there no corresponding rule for you? When you claim that witness inconsistency is evidence of lying, you should produce evidence to back that claim up.Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:32 pmNew rule for you, Nessie. If you are going to rely on "studies of memory and recall," going forward, you must
-cite the specific research papers you are relying on
-where possible, quantify the error ranges that have been estimated empirically
-attempt to account for variables such familiarity with the thing being described, e.g., brief interaction vs deep and/or extensive interaction
If you want to claim your assertions are backed by "science" you need to be specific.
You will remember my refusal to steel man revisionisms best arguments. You ignored when I pointed out that your strongest claim was that certain witnesses lacked credibility, which in a legal setting, means they are dismissed. That does not mean they are dismissed as lying, instead they are dismissed as evidence that is not reliable enough to convict. The AI overview concentrates on that, saying that inconsistency reduces credibility, but it does not prove lying.AI Overview
Yes, witness inconsistency is considered evidence that can be used to prove a witness lied, but it is not absolute proof of lying. In legal settings, inconsistencies are primarily treated as evidence that a witness is unreliable or lacking credibility.
Here is a breakdown of how inconsistency is evaluated:
1. Inconsistency vs. Lying
Inconsistency does not automatically equal perjury: Courts recognize that human memory is fallible, especially over time or during stressful events. Minor inconsistencies (e.g., discrepancies in time or minor details) are often viewed as normal human error, rather than deliberate deception.
Material differences: Inconsistencies become evidence of lying when they relate to significant, core facts of the case, suggesting a witness has changed their story to hide the truth.
Previous Inconsistent Statements: If a witness says one thing in a statement and another in court, the earlier statement can often be used as evidence to contradict them and suggest they are now lying (e.g., s.119 Criminal Justice Act 2003).
2. How Courts Evaluate Inconsistencies
Credibility vs. Honesty: A witness can be entirely honest but completely wrong. Judges/juries look at whether the inconsistency indicates a dishonest attempt to mislead.
Content analysis: If witnesses support the same story, inconsistencies in their accounts can suggest to the court that someone is not just mistaken, but lying.
Collusion check: Ironically, too much consistency in details among several witnesses can sometimes suggest collusion (coached lying) rather than truth.
3. Consequence of Inconsistency
Weight of Evidence: The presence of inconsistencies allows the court to reduce the weight they give to that testimony, or reject it entirely.
"False in one, false in all": While not a hard rule, if a witness is proven to have lied about one material point, the credibility of their entire testimony is brought into question.
Disclaimer: Legal standards and rules of evidence vary by jurisdiction (e.g., UK law vs. US law). Always consult a legal professional.
AI backs up something I have said on multiple occasions, that the witnesses are consistent about the main events, and vary more on the details. For example, every single witness who worked inside a Krema, describes the same process of undressing, gassing and multiple corpse cremation. Some may only describe part of that process, but none describe a different process. They then disagree on details, such as how many people fitted inside the gas chamber and how long the gassings took.AI Overview
Academic studies show that memory consistency is generally high for central details of significant events but often poor for peripheral details, as memory is reconstructive rather than a fixed recording. Research indicates that emotional events can show high consistency over time, though they are also susceptible to distortions. Even in traumatic cases, memory is not always indelible, with studies finding 88% of subjects changed details upon re-interviewing.
Archie;I'm a frequent poster on a Holocaust Revisionism board, you can bet your bottom shekel I want to know. So enlighten us - Who opened the slots? Were they operated via chain? Rod? Pulley? Gears? Did the same person close / release the slots? How? Via release pin? Reversing the gears? Raising a pulley? Was it all manual? Was it mechanized? Motorized? Did it consume fuel? Was it heavy? Did it require lubricant? Was it a one man job? Or 4-man job?
Neither HansHill, nor Archie are able to explain what evidential value, not knowing exactly how the Kula columns worked, has. Why is their operation not making sense to them, evidence to prove that the columns did not exist? If someone does not understand how an engine works, does that prove there is no engine? Of course not.No, it doesn't make sense.
Kula (supposedly) built these things and he says nothing about any of that shit.
The gaps in the evidence around the operation of the Kula columns are nothing compared to gaps in the evidence around the alleged Nazi resettlement programme.When you say Kula "says nothing about any of that shit" ( again the derision here is barely masked) as if it is evidence that the story is BS, you neglect to grapple with the fact that this a minor detail (how the pellets got into the basket). The Nazis had plenty of opportunity while in power to say that resettlement in USSR was happening, Himmler had a chance to say it in his "denial" to Masur, and yet not a word of this population transfer, probably the largest in history, was spoken of by him or of anyone else, except in the Korherr report, a deeply suspect document which Himmler himself called into question with his mention of it being great camouflage. I think that you cannot use this line of reasoning - the absence - unless you address the far greater absence of enormous elements in the revisionist narrative. I refuse to humor such reasoning.
I'm going to make a suggestion to the mod team and they can review and accept or reject it as they see fit.Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 7:36 am HansHill;
viewtopic.php?p=23464#p23464
Archie;I'm a frequent poster on a Holocaust Revisionism board, you can bet your bottom shekel I want to know. So enlighten us - Who opened the slots? Were they operated via chain? Rod? Pulley? Gears? Did the same person close / release the slots? How? Via release pin? Reversing the gears? Raising a pulley? Was it all manual? Was it mechanized? Motorized? Did it consume fuel? Was it heavy? Did it require lubricant? Was it a one man job? Or 4-man job?
viewtopic.php?p=23471#p23471
Neither HansHill, nor Archie are able to explain what evidential value, not knowing exactly how the Kula columns worked, has. Why is their operation not making sense to them, evidence to prove that the columns did not exist? If someone does not understand how an engine works, does that prove there is no engine? Of course not.No, it doesn't make sense.
Kula (supposedly) built these things and he says nothing about any of that shit.
The approach HansHill and Archie use, is unique to revisionism. Any other investigation would not conclude that the witnesses lied and there were no columns, because the investigators were unable to work out how the columns functioned. Instead, they would conclude, since there is corroboration from multiple sources the columns existed and there was destruction of evidence at the place the columns were reported, that the exact operation of the columns remains unknown.
However he should now strengthen this position to positively assert it's operation does not matter. I think Nessis has stated this position enough times that his own words can be inserted naturally and without altering the intended meaning. He should have no reason to object to this, and this is in fact an "updating" of his essay since he recently said:There are bound to be inconsistencies in the details, such as how many were gassed and how long cremations took, as people are proven to poor at many estimations and memory fades.
It is not a new gambit. It is something I have been asking for some time now, as part of my criticism of the use of a certain logical fallacy. Just because you cannot work out how something operated to your satisfaction, is not evidence to prove it did not exist.HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 10:57 amI'm going to make a suggestion to the mod team and they can review and accept or reject it as they see fit.Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2026 7:36 am HansHill;
viewtopic.php?p=23464#p23464
Archie;I'm a frequent poster on a Holocaust Revisionism board, you can bet your bottom shekel I want to know. So enlighten us - Who opened the slots? Were they operated via chain? Rod? Pulley? Gears? Did the same person close / release the slots? How? Via release pin? Reversing the gears? Raising a pulley? Was it all manual? Was it mechanized? Motorized? Did it consume fuel? Was it heavy? Did it require lubricant? Was it a one man job? Or 4-man job?
viewtopic.php?p=23471#p23471
Neither HansHill, nor Archie are able to explain what evidential value, not knowing exactly how the Kula columns worked, has. Why is their operation not making sense to them, evidence to prove that the columns did not exist? If someone does not understand how an engine works, does that prove there is no engine? Of course not.No, it doesn't make sense.
Kula (supposedly) built these things and he says nothing about any of that shit.
The approach HansHill and Archie use, is unique to revisionism. Any other investigation would not conclude that the witnesses lied and there were no columns, because the investigators were unable to work out how the columns functioned. Instead, they would conclude, since there is corroboration from multiple sources the columns existed and there was destruction of evidence at the place the columns were reported, that the exact operation of the columns remains unknown.
I propose that Nessie's "best case for the Holocaust" essay is retrospectively amended to include this new gambit of his, ideally in the introduction section or somewhere prominent. Using his own words, to conclusively say that the technique and operation of the gas chambers at Auschwitz is irrelevant to the overall veracity of the story.
How about you defend and explain your position? How do your doubts and disbelief, over the claimed operation of the Kula columns prove there were no such columns?I think Nessie should stand on business and own this new gambit, and proudly state this in his essay. The closest he gets to this position is the following:
However he should now strengthen this position to positively assert it's operation does not matter. I think Nessis has stated this position enough times that his own words can be inserted naturally and without altering the intended meaning. He should have no reason to object to this, and this is in fact an "updating" of his essay since he recently said:There are bound to be inconsistencies in the details, such as how many were gassed and how long cremations took, as people are proven to poor at many estimations and memory fades.
The majority of the disbelief expressed by revisionists, revolves around how the columns were described. As for being about the evidence, you produce none and instead you just raise objections to the evidence gathered by historians.
How do you know that? None of the interior of Kream III and very little of Krema II can be examined. How do you know that there are no traces of how the columns were attached, inside the ruins?There are no points of attachment around the proposed holes for example, meaning if these columns existed, they were not attached.
That is based on you assuming the columns were installed, with no attachment to floor and ceiling.This leads in to how they were 'panic proofed'. They could not have been, thus they would have required frequent repair and for purpose would have been unsuitable, as the zyklon would have ended up in the floor periodically.
Again, that is an assumption, since the Nazis destroyed so much of the evidence, that a full physical examination is not possible. Tauber described how the doors were reinforced, so there is evidence of that.This is of course ignoring the lack of panic proofing of the door or the dividing wall with the vestibule.
viewtopic.php?p=23569#p23569None of the shower testimonies are from direct witnesses. The majority of direct witnesses do say there were columns, according to the table you linked to.
When revisionists struggle with the basic concept of hearsay and eyewitness evidence, it is no wonder that they cannot describe, let alone defend their methodology.Why is it that only the witnesses that weren't eyewitness spoke of gas coming out of the shower heads? I think this is where you can see that a conspiracy around the witness statements doesn't make much sense. The eyewitnesses are MUCH MUCH better than the ones reporting hearsay. If the entire event was faked, you would expect parity between these groups.
It is quite the double standard.The descriptions of the columns are incomplete, not inaccurate in any substantial way. It's completely fair for me to question how such incompleteness can be so problematic when the far greater incompleteness about the things revisionists believe in isn't.
The assumption is constantly made by revisionists, that no Jew, accidentally or deliberately, would reveal that the evidence they gave about working at the Kremas and seeing gassing, is false and there was no gas chamber. Any Jew who doubted or denied gassing took place, certainly never worked at the Kremas, and so is not a witness. They are people who have been influenced by the Holocaust denial hoax.But if there were no gassings, I would also expect to find the odd Jew who asserted that exterminations never happened, or that the crematoria were not for gassings. Do they exist? Did any Germans at Auschwitz make such an assertion?
Morgen admitted he knew about gassing at A-B and that he saw inside a gas chamber;Yes. There is a recent thread here at the CODOH forum on two: Richard Baer and Konrad Morgen.
There are two more that I know of: Wilhelm Stäglich and Thies Christophersen.
Whenever I try to engage a revisionist as to how they have proved the witness is lying about what they claimed, the inevitable result is either abuse from the revisionist, or they disengage from the conversation, or I get somehow censored to end that discussion.Michel Kula was a liar. He’s a rather classic lie-witness eye-witness.
