The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 1:40 pm - assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

Nessie claims that he judges testimonies on "truthfulness," but he does not. When the Holocaust witnesses FAIL verification (which is frequently) he says it doesn't matter. In Nessieland, the abundant, major errors in the accounts of key witnesses do not cast any doubt on the Holocaust, as long as they were in the camp and refer to gassing in some vague way.

If they say "gas chamber," of whatever design, that's a bullseye. If they say steam, close enough. Near bullseye. If there was one chamber, or three, or six, or eight, or ten, whatever. Bullseye. If it took two minutes or two hours, whatever. If they used a diesel engine or a tank engine or a submarine engine or chlorine, close enough. If they buried the bodies and dug them up months later or immediately burned them in a ten meter deep pit, this is not a contradiction. Imaginary visits from Himmler? No big deal! These are just normal, very minor inconsistencies. Only "deniers" would notice that these stories are contradictory and make no sense.

For more on how Nessie judges truthfulness, see here.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

The Nessie approach to witness testimony is to be so generous in excusing blunders that the statements become unfalsifiable.

Archie, that's all very true.

I just find it remarkable that the four flippered fellow refuses to take 'step 1' by his own standard and 'establish' the 'witness' was present at the camp.

pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 5:03 pm
Both the Yiddish and Polish versions have additions in square brackets/parentheses. The Polish translators attribute these additions to Rachel Auerbach.

Donat removes at least some of these insertions. Some are completely inappropriate editorializations.

So unless we're missing something, Auerbach may have expanded the account significantly. Based on the length, it's more her words than Krzepicki's.

In the Donat book, there is a text by Auerbach, "In the Fields of Treblinka," about 60 pages long, based on interviews, supposedly. This was originally published as a pamphlet in 1947. It precedes the "eyewitness" accounts. She probably should have been listed as coauthor on the "Krzepicki" story.

In general, my impression is that the Oyneg Shabes group was very loose with attribution and were not concerned with maintaining the integrity of individual accounts. Normally, you would keep accounts separate. You'd say who was making the statement, when it was taken. If it needs to be revised you take another statement. Etc. Not so with these Oyneg Shabes people. I was reading some early Chelmno accounts a while ago, and there would be multiple versions of things, often varying substantially in length, some seemingly mixing together multiple accounts without explanation. This makes sense if we are to understand this as a group literary project. It makes no sense if we are pretending this was a legitimate historical project. And indeed if you read Auerbach's text, the literary character of it is unmistakable.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 5:10 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Nov 23, 2025 1:40 pm - assessing credibility, rather than truthfulness. Someone can be a liar and credible and vice versa, so truthfulness is the better test.

Nessie claims that he judges testimonies on "truthfulness," but he does not. When the Holocaust witnesses FAIL verification (which is frequently) he says it doesn't matter.

What do you mean by verification? Where have I said that it does not matter if a witness fails?

In Nessieland, the abundant, major errors in the accounts of key witnesses do not cast any doubt on the Holocaust, as long as they were in the camp and refer to gassing in some vague way.

You say "Nessieland" as if I am using a unique to me assessment method. I am not. I am doing what anyone with any training in witness evidencing does, based on the decades of study of witnesses. What you claim to be abundant and major errors, are mostly explainable errors. For example, over estimating how many people fitted inside the gas chambers, or underestimating how much wood was used on the pyres, or exaggerating how far they ran whilst they worked.

If they say "gas chamber," of whatever design, that's a bullseye.

Every witness who saw the chambers in action, said that gas was used. That is eyewitness evidence. They are consistent.

If they say steam, close enough. Near bullseye.

Steam came from people who did not see the chambers in use and secondary reports. That is hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is less reliable and where inconsistencies lie.

If there was one chamber, or three, or six, or eight, or ten, whatever. Bullseye.

There were two buildings used, which had different numbers of chambers and some witnesses got a better view of inside the buildings and how many chambers there were, hence the inconsistencies.

If it took two minutes or two hours, whatever.

The inconsistencies are due to people estimating different times. Studies prove we are poor at estimating duration. If you gather 10 people, get them to watch something and then ask them to estimate how long the event took, you will get inconsistent estimations.

If they used a diesel engine or a tank engine or a submarine engine or chlorine, close enough.

Again, inconsistencies are explained by the different witnesses having different levels of knowledge of the operation of the chambers. Chlorine comes from hearsay evidence. The eyewitnesses who saw the engine, say it was petrol, or did not say what fuel it was used. They also gave evidence often decades later, so they may just misremember. As well as the engine used for gassings, there was another used as a generator for the camp. Witnesses may have got the engines mixed up.

If they buried the bodies and dug them up months later or immediately burned them in a ten meter deep pit, this is not a contradiction.

It is a contradiction, explained most likely by memory fading, and mixing up when burials happened and when the cremations started and whether some gassings did go straight to cremation.

Imaginary visits from Himmler? No big deal!

That is likely a rumour, or a mix up. It would be odd, when there were so many witnesses, working at a camp that was open for 2 years, for there not to be rumours and mix ups as to who came to visit.

These are just normal, very minor inconsistencies. Only "deniers" would notice that these stories are contradictory and make no sense.

To you, with zero training, no attempt to learn about witnesses and witness evidence and a desire to disbelieve them, of course they appear all over the place and incredible. To people with training, who are used to dealing with witnesses and who have learned about the studies, it is normal.

For more on how Nessie judges truthfulness, see here.
https://codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=69

The Nessie approach to witness testimony is to be so generous in excusing blunders that the statements become unfalsifiable.

The witnesses, all of them, Nazi, Jew, local Pole, whether they saw gassings happened, or they only worked nearby to the camp, are all consistent in the main events. Between them, they all agree, mass transports of people arrived on trains, they got off, had all of their property stolen from them, they were sent to gas chambers and then buried and then cremated.

The SS German staff witnesses, saw the whole process and speak to the lot.

The SS Ukrainians, some were guards and said they did not see the gassings, others worked at the gas chambers.

The Jewish camp worker witnesses such as Krzepicki, did not see the entire process, he left before cremations started and he did not see the gas chambers in action. Other workers only saw the arrivals and property sorting. Others saw the gassings, the mass graves and cremations.

Local Poles saw people on the trains arriving at the camp and some speak to empty trains leaving, or carrying goods. They variously speak to smells and burning coming from, and seeing excavators in the camp.

That shows a total consistency when it comes to the camp's operation and main events. Krzepicki's evidence is entirely consistent with the other witnesses, from arriving on a mass transport, to working sorting property and seeing the graves and the gas chamber, but not when it was in operation, to not seeing the cremations, as he had escaped before they started.

Since we aren't going to talk about how it was established that the fellow was ever actually at Treblinka II, how about we talk about his description of cremations?

Is that a better sidetrack for you than just spitting out more graffiti claiming that you don't do exactly what you do do as clearly explained by Archie?

Come now fellow, let's at least try to at some point engage with the topic of the thread, I'm eager to learn how I have made all of the errors you allege...