Junk Folder for Derails

[Nessie]

Bombsaway is having to take HansHill by the hand and tell him which of the witnesses are eyewitnesses!

viewtopic.php?p=23611#p23611

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 4:14 pm

bombsaway wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2026 10:25 pm

If an eyewitness claims to have seen the device firsthand or worked on it, like Kula, they are eyewitness.

How about Tauber?

Yeah Tauber is an eyewitness.

How can HansHill not work out that by himself? The clue is in the term, eyewitnesses. If someone saw something with their own eyes, they are an eyewitness. Kula saw the columns when he was in the workshop that constructed them. Tauber saw them in the Kremas where he worked.

[HansHill]

Reported.

[Nessie]

Reported.

How are you unable to work out who is an eyewitness or not? It is relevant to this thread, that you requested assistance, as it further proves the poverty of revisionist methodology.

[Nessie]

HansHill, why do you need help identifying who is an eyewitness?

viewtopic.php?p=23609#p23609

What is it that you don't understand about what makes someone an eyewitness? Then bombsaway explains why eyewitness incompatibility is not evidence to prove they all lied;

viewtopic.php?p=23620#p23620

I feel like you're misunderstanding something very basic

Picture a car accident at an intersection:

Witness 1: “I saw a car run a red light.”
Witness 2: “I saw a driver on their phone.”
Witness 3: “I heard a loud crash but didn’t see anything.”

These accounts are:

Partial (incomplete)
Focused on different details

They don’t contradict unless someone says:

“The light was green."
or “No crash happened".

So long as it is proved that the people were at the scene of the accident when it happened and there is evidence of a car crash, then it is proven that the three witnesses are not lying, despite the partial and inconsistent details.

There is corroborating evidence from multiple eyewitnesses and documentation that gas chambers existed inside the Kremas. There is also evidence from camp documents and identification, that the witnesses were at the Kremas. That is evidence to prove the eyewitnesses are not lying, despite the partical and inconsistent details, such as the Kula columns.

As with the car crash analogy, contradiction only happens if a witness says the Kremas only ever functioned as crematoriums, or they were used for mass showering. The contradiction has to be something very different from what other witnesses say.
Every single eyewitness from the Kremas in 1943-4, states that they were used for mass gassings. No one diverges from that.

Your attempt to prove they all lied, is reliant on the details, but I have already linked to studies of witnesses that prove people are often inconsistent and they do not recollect everything correctly. Your methodolgy is flawed, because you fail to take that into account. Your treatment of witness evidence, has many issues.

[Archie]

HansHill, why do you need help identifying who is an eyewitness?

Nessie, stop trying to bait people into replying to you.

[Nessie]

A reminder of the forum rule "Sourcing: Formal citations are not required, but, as a basic courtesy, you are encouraged to put in some effort to source your posts, and you should be ready to supply references upon request." My request was that you comply with your own rule.

Is this the new standard for the forum? If I make a claim someone said something, do I only have to provide a link and you then need to search for the quote?

That would be a real step up from Nessie refusing to provide links at all or suggesting other people do Google searches to check the sources he bases "his claims" on.

If it's the new standard for the forum, it's one Nessie helped establish.

I have provided links to the studies that prove witnesses have poor memory for details, are poor at many estimations and other issues that revisionists use to claim they all lied. I have suggested revisionists do more reading and learning themselves, on the subject.

My claim is in relation to the witnesses who worked at TII. List of witnesses to TII here;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Requesting accurate citations for the entirety of this list again.

Every single one. With links where available. Citations in any standard style: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

What do you mean by "accurate citation"?

Google search any of the names and "Auschwitz" and you will find plenty of details.

I will not spent time changing how DP listed the witnesses, to one you prefer.

You are trying to deflect and bog me down with a ton of work, as you avoid the topic. You join the list of revisionist failures, who cannot summarise and justify the methodology you use to determine the history of the Holocaust.

[Nessie]

A reminder of the forum rule "Sourcing: Formal citations are not required, but, as a basic courtesy, you are encouraged to put in some effort to source your posts, and you should be ready to supply references upon request." My request was that you comply with your own rule.

Is this the new standard for the forum? If I make a claim someone said something, do I only have to provide a link and you then need to search for the quote?

That would be a real step up from Nessie refusing to provide links at all or suggesting other people do Google searches to check the sources he bases "his claims" on.

If it's the new standard for the forum, it's one Nessie helped establish.

My claim is in relation to the witnesses who worked at TII. List of witnesses to TII here;

viewtopic.php?t=372

Requesting accurate citations for the entirety of this list again.

Every single one. With links where available. Citations in any standard style: APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.

What do you mean by "accurate citation"?

Google search any of the names and "Auschwitz" and you will find plenty of details.

I will not spent time changing how DP listed the witnesses, to one you prefer.

From Archie;

"I would also point you to this part of the rules:

"The right to request sources should not be abused or employed as a tactic to waste people's time.""

Historians can produce hundreds of eyewitnesses to the use of certain camps for mass murder. Revisionists can produce none. Instead, they try to suggest people who were not inside the places of mass killing, who say they saw nothing, which is not surprising, since they were never there, are eyewitnesses.

Historians can produce documents proving mass transports to the death camps. Revisionists can produce no documents recording mass departures.

Archaeologists can produce evidence of disturbed ground containing cremated remains. Revisionists cannot produce any evidence that ground is undisturbed. At best, all they can do is dispute the disturbances can amount to the mass graves of hundreds of thousands of corpses.

In terms of evidence gathering, revisionism is an epic fail.

[Nessie]

Stubble ignores corroboration;

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=24302#p24302

The fact that there is a document indicating that Blobel had a flame thrower, and later Hoess claimed to have seen one does not undo the many other impossibilities and errors that rolled out of the man's mouth.

The document and witness corroborate each other, proving the use of a flamethrower. Stubble ignores that normal standard for verifying claims and instead prefers to use his opinion on the witness. When he has assessed Hoess's "impossibilities and errors" he has not taken into account any studies about witnesses, memory and recall that can account for him making such claims.

Blobel himself is a poor witness to use to build an idea of what transpired during 'the war years'. Having tried 'the Blobel method' with rat carcasses, I can tell you that it plays out exactly as you would expect. Had he actually done at Babi Yar what he claims, the top layer of bodies would have been partially destroyed and the lower tiers of the mass grave would have been untouched, because of the lack of airflow.

Stubble now uses the argument from incredulity. Because he cannot work out how it would be possible for the Blobel method to work, he claims that means Blobel lied about how he went about the mass cremation of corpses.

Just because Mary claimed to have ridden a broomstick and had intercourse with the devil, and later someone else claimed to have seen it, and a receipt surfaced for a broomstick doesn't mean the devil is real and she could fly on one.

For fuck's sake.

Another fallacy, this time false analogy. Stubble uses a claim that is proven to be false, and compares it to the claims about mass cremations. He ignores that the claims about mass cremations are supported by corroborating sources of evidence.

[Archie]

Stubble now uses the argument from incredulity. Because he cannot work out how it would be possible for the Blobel method to work, he claims that means Blobel lied about how he went about the mass cremation of corpses.

No more "argument from incredulity." Consider this a warning.