The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 7:34 am Based on the studies of memory and recall, they do not expect consistency, and they determine that the witnesses are being truthful about the columns, because of the corroboration.

New 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.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:24 pm ....

Ha. And the real issue with him is not even so much that he is sloppy and a bad researcher. That can be forgiven. It's more the way he's always so quick to shut down the discussion without doing the work.

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.

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.

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.

If you want to prove the witnesses lied and no column used to introduce Zyklon B to the gas chamber existed, you need evidence such as;

- a witness who worked inside the Leichenkeller, who describes it without mentioning metal mesh columns and as having a non-homicidal purpose, such as it was used to store corpses.
- a document that records the construction of metal mesh columns inside the Leichenekeller, that were to improve ventilation, or to act as support for the roof, or other purpose that has no link to gassings.
- Tauber to admit he lied.

Both pieces of evidence would counter the gassing claims, proving the witnesses lied. You cannot produce that evidence based approach and you consistently refuse to explain why your preferred methodology is better.

Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 1:32 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 24, 2026 7:34 am Based on the studies of memory and recall, they do not expect consistency, and they determine that the witnesses are being truthful about the columns, because of the corroboration.

New 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.

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.

Briefly, I asked "is witness inconsistency evidence of lying?". The answer is heavily biased to a legal setting and you are going to be initially thrilled with the answer, but it is not in your favour. My bold;

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.

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.

I then asked for "academic studies on the consistency of memory". The AI response was;

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.

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.

As for the academic studies;

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9016264/

"Consistency of memory for combat-related traumatic events in veterans of Operation Desert Storm"

That level of trauma would be equivalent to being forced to work inside a gas chamber. The result of the study;

"There were many instances of inconsistent recall for events that were objective and highly traumatic in nature. Eighty-eight percent of subjects changed their responses on at least one of the 19 items, while 61% changed two or more items. There was a significant positive correlation between score on the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder at 2 years and the number of responses on the trauma questionnaire changed from no at 1 month to yes at 2 years."

According to you, that would mean they lied and there was no Operation Desert Storm, it was a hoax.