Comments on other threads.

[Keen]

You clearly have beliefs and now want to craft evidence to support those beliefs, as you claim a survey that found no pits is the same as a survey that found 11.

"Krege’s team also carried out visual soil inspections, and used an auger to take numerous soil core samples... his team found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes, or wood ashes."

[Keen]

It is perfectly reasonable to question a claim and ask it to be evidenced.

It is also perfectly reasonable to ask what the evidentiary value of the so-called "evidence" that is proffered is.

The same goes for the standard of proof.

But that is why roberto has to hide behind his "nessie" alias - so he can dodge all such requests.

[Nessie]

Stubble;

viewtopic.php?p=23545#p23545

f you would entertain a question from me, if the people describing the event that occurred all witnessed the event, how do you explain all of the holes in the narrative?

The answer to that question lies in all the studies on and tests of witnesses, memory and recall.

"AI Overview
Inconsistency in witness testimony is a strong indicator of unreliable evidence or a potential lie, but it is not absolute proof of dishonesty. While inconsistent statements are a major factor in assessing credibility, they often arise from honest mistakes, memory failure, or the stress of giving evidence, particularly in traumatic scenarios or when a witness is subjected to intense cross-examination...
The Role of Context: Inconsistencies regarding core elements of an event (e.g., who was involved) are more likely to indicate fabrication than discrepancies in peripheral details (e.g., what someone was wearing).
Memory Limitations: Human memory is incomplete. Gaps in recollection are normal, and a highly detailed account of a stressful event is sometimes more suspicious than one with gaps."

I mean, people who say they worked with the murder weapon for a year have wildly divergent descriptions of how it was constructed and how it operated.

They are clearly describing the same thing, the divergence is in the details.

It is analogous to someone telling you they operated a piece of equipment for a year, but not being able to turn it on or operate it. Then half a dozen other people telling you they ran it for a year and also not being able to operate it. Then having the group disagree about how the machine operates as well...

It is nothing like that. One witness saw it being made, but not in operation. Those who saw it in operation were more consistent, but they were working under very stressful circumstances. Your biased opinion is not based on any real comparison (my bold);

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 5#abstract

"Among both laypeople and law-enforcement personnel, the modal belief is that a lack of consistency across repeated statements signals that a testimony is fabricated. However, inconsistencies also occur in reports of events that have actually been experienced...
The assumption that mnemonic consistency indicates truthfulness is theoretically embedded in the cognitive-load hypothesis (Walczyk et al., Citation2009, Citation2012). According to this hypothesis, lying is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. Liars may therefore lose track of what they have and have not reported. However, the cognitive-load hypothesis is incompatible with the results of several studies showing either no difference in consistency between liars and truth-tellers (Granhag & Strömwall, Citation2002; Hudson et al., Citation2019; Mac Giolla & Granhag, Citation2015) or the exact opposite pattern of what is predicted by the cognitive-load hypothesis, namely that liars are more consistent in their statements than those who tell the truth (Granhag et al., Citation2003, Citation2013, Citation2015; Strömwall & Granhag, Citation2005). In fact, it seems reasonable to assume that inconsistencies occur naturally in experience-based statements. This is so because human memory is subject to forgetting and reconstruction, leaving repeated recall susceptible to omission, change and addition of information over time (Baddeley, Citation2013; Loftus et al., Citation1978; Tulving, Citation2000)."

[Stubble]

Nessie,

It is just like that. They describe different constructions, different methods of operation, and different results.

They can't agree if the column distributed he pellets like a seed spreader across the room,or collected them in a contrivance or dumped them if a fucking pile on the floor, you dense mother fucker.

[Nessie]

Nessie,

It is just like that. They describe different constructions, different methods of operation, and different results.

They can't agree if the column distributed he pellets like a seed spreader across the room,or collected them in a contrivance or dumped them if a fucking pile on the floor, you dense mother fucker.

They all describe columns, made of metal, only for Kremas II and III, to introduce and remove the Zyklon B pellets. That is the core narrative, on which they are all consistent. They then vary on details, about how the column was constructed and worked. You have never produced anything to prove that inconstancy is evidence they all lied and there was no such column.

The study I quoted above proves your belief about inconsistency proving lying is wrong;

"According to this hypothesis, lying is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. Liars may therefore lose track of what they have and have not reported. However, the cognitive-load hypothesis is incompatible with the results of several studies showing either no difference in consistency between liars and truth-tellers (Granhag & Strömwall, Citation2002; Hudson et al., Citation2019; Mac Giolla & Granhag, Citation2015) or the exact opposite pattern of what is predicted by the cognitive-load hypothesis, namely that liars are more consistent in their statements than those who tell the truth (Granhag et al., Citation2003, Citation2013, Citation2015; Strömwall & Granhag, Citation2005)"

That will be why you are getting angry and abusive. It would be more constructive, if you produced evidence that the inconsistency between the witnesses is evidence to prove they all lied. However, I know you cannot do that, which removes one of your primary beliefs, which will cause you stress.

https://www.lawscot.org.uk/members/jour ... the-facts/

"Contradiction and inconsistency. The intended conflict between the adversaries’ stories is best described as contradiction. Often, by itself, either version might be plausible. But inconsistency denotes unintended, internal differences about significant facts in the evidence of one or more witnesses who support the same story. If they must know the real facts the court may conclude that someone is lying, not mistaken. If so, all or part of the inconsistent evidence, and even consistent evidence, from these sources may be rejected. However, minor differences between eyewitnesses often arise from the normal fallibility of observation and memory rather than lying. Also, too much consistency, especially about details, in the evidence of several witnesses who support the same story may sometimes suggest collusion and falsehood."

[Stubble]

No, I'm agitated because your head is an empty vessel and you prattle on about how the descriptions are the same when they are anything but.

https://encyclopedia.historiography-pro ... index.html

They can't even agree if the murder instrument was thrown into the floor or collected in a contrivance. That's not just some detail, that's a fundamental issue.

[bombsaway]

They can't even agree if the murder instrument was thrown into the floor or collected in a contrivance. That's not just some detail, that's a fundamental issue.

Can you do what others have failed to do and produce a testimony which makes clear the pellets were poured through the roof without use of columns?

[Stubble]

You are in my ignore bucket again.

I would however still like to take this opportunity to point to a witness with a rather interesting description of the gassing procedure at Auschwitz Birkenau.

Tabeau, Jerzy
https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/tabeau-jerzy/875/

Spoiler

Jerzy Tabeau (born Wesołowski, 18 Dec. 1918 – 11 May 2002) was a Polish medical student who joined the Polish underground army in 1939. He was arrested in March 1942 and sent to Auschwitz Main Camp, where he fell ill with pneumonia but was nursed back to health in the inmate infirmary. After that, he became a male nurse, in which role he contracted typhus. Although again seriously sick and unfit for labor, he again got nursed back to health.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resou ... l00523.pdf

Everythin~t.· was hermeti cal bombs through the ventilation ope~ings. After about 10
minutes the doors were opened and e special squad composed
exclusively of Jews,

This guy was a home army insurgent, a propagandist, and a partisan. He was not killed. He was given health care, repeatedly.

What does he describe? Hydrogen cyanide bombs thrown into the ventilation system.

He doesn't describe a Kula Column, or the pellets on the floor though, so, I guess that doesn't count.

If I recall correctly, the pivot when presented with comments from Muller or other SK about the pellets on the floor is to say 'well, they didn't explicitly say that the contrivance dropped them'...

With Muller, this is especially underhanded as he describes the columns as operating like a seed spreader to distribute the pellets evenly throughout the room, and pellets under bodies at the door necessitating a hose down as soon as ths door opened.

Regarding a witness saying the pellets went from the hatch to the ground without a column, I've got a Greek jew that says potassium cyanide powder was put down and the showers were turned on to activate it. You're probably going to say that doesn't count though.

Maybe a net on the ceiling is varied enough;

https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/marcus-kurt/

[Nessie]

No, I'm agitated because your head is an empty vessel and you prattle on about how the descriptions are the same when they are anything but.

https://encyclopedia.historiography-pro ... index.html

They can't even agree if the murder instrument was thrown into the floor or collected in a contrivance. That's not just some detail, that's a fundamental issue.

The list of names you linked to, fails to identify which Krema the witness is describing and whether they saw what they report, or they are describing what they were told.

Those who worked inside Kremas II and III, the only ones to use the column, are clearly describing the same thing.

All the witnesses agree that Zyklon B was used and it was thrown or poured into the chamber, so they all agree on the murder weapon and how it was used.

I have proved that inconsistency is to be expected. You have not proved they all lied.

[Nessie]

You are in my ignore bucket again.

I would however still like to take this opportunity to point to a witness with a rather interesting description of the gassing procedure at Auschwitz Birkenau.

Tabeau, Jerzy
https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/tabeau-jerzy/875/

Spoiler

Jerzy Tabeau (born Wesołowski, 18 Dec. 1918 – 11 May 2002) was a Polish medical student who joined the Polish underground army in 1939. He was arrested in March 1942 and sent to Auschwitz Main Camp, where he fell ill with pneumonia but was nursed back to health in the inmate infirmary. After that, he became a male nurse, in which role he contracted typhus. Although again seriously sick and unfit for labor, he again got nursed back to health.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resou ... l00523.pdf

Everythin~t.· was hermeti cal bombs through the ventilation ope~ings. After about 10
minutes the doors were opened and e special squad composed
exclusively of Jews,

This guy was a home army insurgent, a propagandist, and a partisan. He was not killed. He was given health care, repeatedly.

Most political prisoners, criminals and POWs, imprisoned at one of the 40 Auschwitz camps, were not gassed when they fell ill.

What does he describe? Hydrogen cyanide bombs thrown into the ventilation system.

He doesn't describe a Kula Column, or the pellets on the floor though, so, I guess that doesn't count.

He did not work or otherwise see inside Kremas II or III. Your link has him in the camp in March 1942, though it does not say when he was released. Kremas II and III did not become operational until March 1943, so did he even know about them?

If I recall correctly, the pivot when presented with comments from Muller or other SK about the pellets on the floor is to say 'well, they didn't explicitly say that the contrivance dropped them'...

With Muller, this is especially underhanded as he describes the columns as operating like a seed spreader to distribute the pellets evenly throughout the room, and pellets under bodies at the door necessitating a hose down as soon as ths door opened.

Regarding a witness saying the pellets went from the hatch to the ground without a column, I've got a Greek jew that says potassium cyanide powder was put down and the showers were turned on to activate it. You're probably going to say that doesn't count though.

Maybe a net on the ceiling is varied enough;

https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/marcus-kurt/

What you call a pivot, is when you fail to notice that the likes of Mueller saw gassings at Krema I as well as at Krema II, and only Krema II had the columns, so his descriptions will vary. A-B had a total of 8 gas chambers, variously in operation 1941-4. None of them operated for that entire time period. Only those who worked at Kremas II and III, 1943-4, would be expected to describe columns. Everyone else would describe a different means of throwing the Zyklon B inside.

You have failed to show that understand hearsay and chronology, hence your confusion.

[Nessie]

Stubble;

viewtopic.php?p=23560#p23560

It would appear the head of internal security for many departments was unaware of the Holocaust. He was also part of Einsatzgruppe A, and was unaware of the Holocaust of Bullets.

Interview mit Dr. Martin Sandberger, ehemaliger SS-Angehöriger und Leiter für innere Sicherheit

https://lupocattivoblog.com/2023/05/15/ ... icherheit/

Martin Sandberger, former SS member and head of various internal security departments, including Sonderkommando 1a of Einsatzgruppe A, as well as the Security Police and the SD.

We never intended to harm the Jews who were to be relocated east; the order was to ensure that they were removed, but with compassion. I can't imagine this could have happened any other way. I blame the Allies for the deaths because they deprived us of the opportunity to care for them. Belsen was a prison camp full of sick people that was hit by a severe typhus epidemic in the last month of the war that we could not stop. I should add that in some areas, detainees released by the Allies took out their anger on the civilian population, killing and raping many without being punished. We don't hear anything about that today.

I'm sure I will be informed that since he didn't work in the Krema, he was in no position to know, right?...

Since he did not work in an AR camp, Chelmno or A-B, he would not necessarily know about the gas chambers and anything he had to say would be hearsay. It is staggering that after all this time, you still do not understand that.

He was convicted for his role and responsibility for mass murder with the Einsatzgruppen. I note that you fail to quote him providing any evidence of mass resettlement, or that he spoke about the Hitler order to eliminate Jews, gypsies and communists.

[Nessie]

I would like Stubble to evidence the following claims, with regards to the trials conducted in West and then unified Germany, of SS death camp staff;

viewtopic.php?p=23582#p23582

Regarding Germans saying that the event didn't happen in court, after the Homicidal Gassings were 'established legal fact' the defense was no longer allowed to use the defense of no Homicidal Gassings.

Inside the court system, the defense was not allowed to introduce evidence. They had to run their evidence past the prosecution and the judge. They would determine what was allowed and what wasn't.

If any of those accused had evidence to prove no gas chambers and what really happened, where is the law, or court procedure, under German Law, that prevented them from producing that evidence to the court?