The CODOH Revisionist Forum

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.

Reported.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Mar 29, 2026 4:33 pmReported.

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.

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.

Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Mar 30, 2026 6:43 am HansHill, why do you need help identifying who is an eyewitness?

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