Witness Question for Nessie

[Archie]

I did pick a witness to analyse in detail, Krzepicki, but Archie got upset because his testimony is long.

You are referring to a discussion from like three years ago. We asked you to pick a witness to defend in detail. You then cited a long testimony and refused to refer to any specifics, provide any quotes, or make any actual arguments defending the testimony. I called you out for that because you were obviously giving us the runaround. Just like you are doing in this thread. These reason you do this is because you know that any detailed evaluation of these witnesses will not go well for you.

You suggestion that we are somehow dodging you on Krzepicki is hilarious given that K has been a major topic of discussion on the forum of late, including important new information, none of which you have responded to.

https://codoh.com/library/document/comp ... krzepicki/

[Nessie]

What I do or don’t know about a fictional scenario you coined is irrelevant, we are talking about the Holocaust as presented.

The thread is about witness assessment. You do not know how to assess witnesses accurately.

If you are not up to the OP as presented, politely ask the mod team to close the thread.

I don't need to write an essay to say that corroboration determines how truthful, accurate and credible a witness is.

For example, Zabecki estimated that c3 million arrived on transports at TII. However, transport documents and records of arrivals at the camp, suggest it was 800-900,000. Documents, especially the likes of the Hofle Telegram, where someone of in charge of AR lists detailed numbers of arrivals are inherently more accurate the estimations. Studies of people trying to estimate, especially large numbers, find that people are poor and tend not to be that accurate. Therefore, the documents corroborate Krzepiki's claim of mass arrivals, so he is being truthful, but find he is not that accurate, which reduces his credibility as a witness to the mass transports.

No.

What follows is your biased opinion, with no link to any study to prove your various claims.

Anytime someone points out a problem with a number you respond reflexively and without thought that "estimations" are often inaccurate.

No, I have responded based on studies of estimations.

But if that were really all this was we would see a range of estimates with some being high and some being low. We would not get ALL the witnesses giving extremely high numbers and we would not get MULTIPLE witnesses giving the EXACT SAME number.

Why? Why would all the witnesses not overestimate? Why would some not give the same number, when they worked at the same camp and may have discussed how many died, before they gave their evidence.

Check through some of pilgrim's Treblinka threads. Multiple witnesses gave this same exact 3 million figure. This is not "inaccurate estimations." This is people REPEATING a false number.

It could well be people repeating what they heard. How does that prove they lied?

And that demolishes your argument about how these testimonies all supposedly corroborate themselves. You can't see these sorts of things because you are very bad at this. Get a new hobby.

When multiple witnesses all claim that hundreds of thousands, if not millions died in the AR camps or A-B, they are corroborating mass murder. That is the main event. The detail is how many and that is where the disagreement lies. You constantly fail to differentiate the main event, which investigators would expect witnesses to agree upon, from the details, which investigators would expect variations. The eyewitnesses who worked at the AR camps and inside the Kremas, all agree on the main event and process that took place. They then vary in the details. If you read witnesses to the LV festival mass shooting in 2017, you would see that they all agree on the main event. They were at a festival in LV and there was a mass shooting. Thereafter, they would vary in the details, such as how long it lasted or how many shots were fired.

You assert I am bad at this, but you, with no training or expertise and a strong bias, are in no position to accurately critique. It is time you learnt more about this hobby of yours.

[Nessie]

I did pick a witness to analyse in detail, Krzepicki, but Archie got upset because his testimony is long.

You are referring to a discussion from like three years ago. We asked you to pick a witness to defend in detail. You then cited a long testimony and refused to refer to any specifics, provide any quotes, or make any actual arguments defending the testimony. I called you out for that because you were obviously giving us the runaround. Just like you are doing in this thread. These reason you do this is because you know that any detailed evaluation of these witnesses will not go well for you.

Rubbish, I can easily explain my evaluation of the witnesses, based on corroboration, accuracy, credibility, truthfulness, with reference to studies of witnesses, memory and recall.

You cannot do any of that.

You suggestion that we are somehow dodging you on Krzepicki is hilarious given that K has been a major topic of discussion on the forum of late, including important new information, none of which you have responded to.

https://codoh.com/library/document/comp ... krzepicki/

I don't go into much of the forum, as you have censored me from replying. It makes no sense that you criticise me for picking Krzepicki, as his testimony is too long and then you claim there has been a lot of discussion about him. If that is the case, you should be able to discuss his testimony. As for a "detailed evaluation", you are not capable of doing that, since your methodology is so flawed, for reason you got so annoyed about, that is why I am so restricted to where I can post.

https://codoh.com/library/document/comp ... krzepicki/

" But what happens when a single testimony exists in multiple versions, bears clear traces of editorial intervention, and resists secure dating? This article argues that such problems are not merely factual inconveniences. They reveal something more fundamental about the collaborative and iterative nature of Holocaust testimony production, where the boundaries between witness, recorder and editor are frequently blurred – boundaries that historians have rarely attempted to clarify."

When a witness is interviewed on multiple occasions, they will not say the same thing each time. They will, especially when asked different questions, recollect different details. Memory fades and gets corrupted as a witness finds out new facts. A court testimony, which bans hearsay, will be different to an interview with a journalist, which does not. Historians are not going to go into detail, for their readers, why they think a witness said different things at different times.

"The Krzepicki case also demonstrates the risks of treating Holocaust testimony as a transparent and fixed record divorced from its conditions of production.[70] Questions of mediation, revision, editorial intervention and external motivations are not secondary to the testimony itself, but part of the historical evidence historians must account for when interpreting such texts."

That critique applies to ALL witnesses, who give multiple statements. A witness who gives an interview to a journalist, and a statement to a police officer and then gives evidence in court, will exhibit the same variances and progression as Krzepicki's testimony. That article has raised various valid points about witness evidence in general, not specific to Krzepicki, or Holocaust witnesses. It does not say anything that is evidence Krzepicki lied about his experiences as a prisoner in TII. There is no "important new information", as what the article discusses has been known about witnesses for a long time already. It appears new to you, because of your lack of training and experience.

[Keen]

You do not know how to evidence the Holocaust was faked.

LIAR.

BELZEC, CHELMNO, PONARY, SOBIBOR and TREBLINKA II

Are the remains of 2.145 million Jews really buried in the 100 alleged “scientifically proven” mass graves?

(The labeling of asking this legitimate adjudicable question as “hate / antisemitic” is your first clue that they do not want you to know what the answer is.)

OPENING / FUNDAMENTAL STATEMENT OF FACT: It is alleged in orthodox historiography that; during WW II, the bodies and burnt remains of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Jews were buried in numerous “huge mass graves” at Belzec, Chelmno, Ponary, Sobibor and Treblinka II. However, despite all the deceptive, unsubstantiated allegations to the contrary, the truth is, the largest (in terms of quantity of remains) of the 100 graves in question that are fraudulently alleged to have been “scientifically proven” to currently exist at these five sites, in which verified human remains have been uncovered / tangibly located via bona fide, verifiably honest and conclusively documented archaeology, contained the remains of - ONLY SIX PEOPLE.

Note: Using the information presented on this website and applying legal standards used in U.S. courts, the above opening / fundamental statement of fact, which is written as, and can be defined as - a rebuttable presumption - can be - LEGALLY - ACCEPTED - AS - TRUE - in a U.S. court.

Foundational scientific question: Can archaeologists prove, with 100% certainty, if millions of pounds of bones and tens of millions of teeth actually exist in a precisely known location?

Foundational legal question: Is it reasonable to doubt that the remains of 2.145 million Jews are actually buried in the 100 specifically and precisely identified locations in question?

Foundational legal principles that easily expose this transparent archaeological hoax: BURDEN OF PRODUCTION & BURDEN OF PERSUASION & BURDEN OF PROOF.

If the physical evidence for an alleged crime that - HAS TO EXIST - for the crime to have

actually happened - DOES NOT EXIST - then the alleged crime obviously - DID NOT HAPPEN.

Ergo: The orthodox “pure extermination center” story is - A PROVEN, NONSENSICAL BIG-LIE.

http://thisisaboutscience.com/

[Keen]

When multiple witnesses all claim that hundreds of thousands, if not millions died in the AR camps or A-B, they are corroborating mass murder.

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration" - do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

con·firm

to establish the truth or correctness of something previously believed, suspected, or feared to be the case

"Corroboration" without substantiation does not "confirm" a thing, and has ZERO evidentiary value.

[Archie]

I don't go into much of the forum, as you have censored me from replying.

Your commentary, due to its extremely poor quality, is not welcome on the main forums. But there is nothing preventing your from reading all of the forums.

It is telling that you see a forum solely as a receptable for your own verbal diarrhea and have no interest in reading what anyone else has to say.