The CODOH Revisionist Forum

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:28 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:12 pm

Chlorine through a hatch becomes engine exhaust, for example.

You have conflated hearsay with eyewitness evidence. No witness said it was chlorine and then engine exhaust.

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.

Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine. They were buried alive.

Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

He will just say it is a 'minor detail' and Wiernik is 'corroborated'...

Never mind the fact he was a literal Soviet Propagandist.

Just look at what he said about the witnesses who say they cleaned up pellets from the floor vs witnesses who say the Kula Column was so the pellets could be extracted so the homicidal gas chamber could be ventilated.

Nessie is somewhat like a black hole. Infinitely dense...

Wetzelrad;

viewtopic.php?p=24966#p24966

Some of the context makes it even worse, especially the sentence just prior to that you quoted, where Kermish wrote that a witness account "might contain occasional mistakes." This is a very casual, lake-monster-esque way of dismissing what can actually be -- as we have often seen -- very substantial differences between witnesses or between a witness and hard evidence. But what makes this worse is that it comes directly prior to all the remarks about "reminding" the witness of facts and events. Is this not a description of witness coaching?

HansHill;

viewtopic.php?p=24998#p24998

A particularly venomous example of "witness coaching" from the Hoess interrogation of April 16th 1946

...

Under interrogation, Hoess flips from it could not be several hundreds to it was likely several hundreds.

When multiple witnesses describe the same event, there will be inconsistencies, as witnesses will make mistakes. That means interviewers will tell witnesses that another witness has said something different. So, if witnesses describe Moll shooting a few hundred people who arrived on the transports and Hoess states he did not think it was as many as that, he will be told that others disagree.

That is not witness coaching. The interviewer is not telling Hoess what to say, he is telling him that other witnesses disagree with him. When Hoess heard that others said it was hundreds, he corrected himself and agreed with them.

Both of you are revealing your ignorance of how witnesses recollect and how interviewers will clarify and challenge inconsistencies and disagreement.

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:36 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:28 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:12 pm

You have conflated hearsay with eyewitness evidence. No witness said it was chlorine and then engine exhaust.

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.

Transports arriving in the evening were killed through a safety hatch, where chlorine gas was poured onto the crowded mass of people. The hatch was closed overnight, and death lasted from 10 to 12 hours. It happened quite often that people were pulled out of the chamber alive. Children were the most resistant to chlorine. They were buried alive.

Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

He will just say it is a 'minor detail' and Wiernik is 'corroborated'...

Never mind the fact he was a literal Soviet Propagandist.

It is an important detail, that three people wrote the manuscript that referred to chlorine and then when it came to Wiernik's own work, he did not.

Just look at what he said about the witnesses who say they cleaned up pellets from the floor vs witnesses who say the Kula Column was so the pellets could be extracted so the homicidal gas chamber could be ventilated.

That difference suggests there were different versions of the columns, one which did result in pellets on the floor and the other which did not. It is also evidence the witnesses did not collude and they were not coached.

Nessie is somewhat like a black hole. Infinitely dense...

Ad hominem, as you are losing the argument.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:51 pm

Stubble wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:36 pm

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:28 pm

Wrong. Wiernik claimed 3 million killed with chlorine in the earliest known version of his account.



Read it and weep.
https://wiki.codohforum.com/pages/index ... Manuscript

He will just say it is a 'minor detail' and Wiernik is 'corroborated'...

Never mind the fact he was a literal Soviet Propagandist.

It is an important detail, that three people wrote the manuscript that referred to chlorine and then when it came to Wiernik's own work, he did not.

Just look at what he said about the witnesses who say they cleaned up pellets from the floor vs witnesses who say the Kula Column was so the pellets could be extracted so the homicidal gas chamber could be ventilated.

That difference suggests there were different versions of the columns, one which did result in pellets on the floor and the other which did not. It is also evidence the witnesses did not collude and they were not coached.

Nessie is somewhat like a black hole. Infinitely dense...

Ad hominem, as you are losing the argument.

There was no 'Wiernik's own work' even according to the 'official' account, a year in Treblinka went through a diet with the judenrat before publication, and a further diet in New York.

It was a collective effort.

Regarding 'losing the argument', you are the one who has pivoted from 'Wiernik's eyewitness account' to 'it was multiple hands' and also introduced the novel but unaccepted 'there was more than one style of Kula Column', you dense, stupid, fuck.

Congratulations you have completely missed the point as always. That post you sniped was from a thread about the corroboration question. Hoess's corroboration on the Moll-Hundreds-Death-Toll did not exist until it was engineered to exist.

"He corrected himself"

You've done nothing except show why this corroboration is worthless. Yes, i know you don't understand anything.

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:10 pm Congratulations you have completely missed the point as always. That post you sniped was from a thread about the corroboration question. Hoess's corroboration on the Moll-Hundreds-Death-Toll did not exist until it was engineered to exist.

"He corrected himself"

You've done nothing except show why this corroboration is worthless. Yes, i know you don't understand anything.

How was it engineered to exist?

"Q. Would they add to a few hundred in a period of time?
A. I do not believe that it would amount to that many. As far as I remember
there might be as many as 10 or 12 of that category in one incoming transport
and as I said before, the number varied greatly.
Q. The estimate of a former inmate who saw some of these killings is that Moll
shot several hundred in the neck in these killings. What do you think of that?”

Hoess is asked about the deaths being in the hundreds, to which he replied that he did not believe that. He was then told another witness described it in the hundreds. It is quite normal for an interviewer to put it to a witness that another witness disagrees with them. Hoess then corrects himself and states;

"“Well, of course, if you add up all the years and all the transports that came in
those years, I think it is possible. There may be several hundred distributed
over that period of time.”

Rather than stick to his initial claim, that it was 10 or 12, which was in one transport, he accepts that in total, it was in the hundreds. Only someone who has never been trained how to interview a witness, or who has never conducted witness interviews, would find that exchange suspicious. Hoess has corroborated the other witness that Moll shot hundreds of people from the transports.

"The claims are corroborated when you change what the witnesses say"



Take the L.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:34 pm There was hearsay evidence that chlorine was used, but no eyewitness describes seeing that happen. You are trying to suggest Wiernik stated he saw it happen, but the document you link to has three authors and when it came to Wiernik's book being published, there is no mention of chlorine, which suggests it came from one of the others who wrote the manuscript. I then pointed out that even if Wiernik had written about the use of chlorine, you need context, as the camp had been open for months before he arrived.

No. There are not "three authors." Potentially three scribes. It is a single account, written in FIRST PERSON.

Accounts of a Jewish escapee from Treblinka, Jankel Wiernik, residing in Warsaw at 23 Wołyńska Street, aged 53.

On August 23, 1942, I was taken to Treblinka with a larger transport of Jews from Warsaw. [...]

On August 2, 1943, at 5:30 p.m., the signal was given. Some groups set fire to buildings and gas chambers, while others cut the barbed wire and cleared a path for those escaping. I was part of the group that attacked the SS man.

It says "I did this, I did that" throughout. So STFU with this "three different authors" BS. It's a first person account by Wiernik. And it says chlorine.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:44 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:34 pm There was hearsay evidence that chlorine was used, but no eyewitness describes seeing that happen. You are trying to suggest Wiernik stated he saw it happen, but the document you link to has three authors and when it came to Wiernik's book being published, there is no mention of chlorine, which suggests it came from one of the others who wrote the manuscript. I then pointed out that even if Wiernik had written about the use of chlorine, you need context, as the camp had been open for months before he arrived.

No. There are not "three authors." Potentially three scribes. It is a single account, written in FIRST PERSON.

Why did you miss that vital piece of information out of your first post about Wiernik?

Accounts of a Jewish escapee from Treblinka, Jankel Wiernik, residing in Warsaw at 23 Wołyńska Street, aged 53.

On August 23, 1942, I was taken to Treblinka with a larger transport of Jews from Warsaw. [...]

On August 2, 1943, at 5:30 p.m., the signal was given. Some groups set fire to buildings and gas chambers, while others cut the barbed wire and cleared a path for those escaping. I was part of the group that attacked the SS man.

It says "I did this, I did that" throughout. So STFU with this "three different authors" BS. It's a first person account by Wiernik. And it says chlorine.

Three different handwriting means three different writers contributed to the manuscript. Which one, if any, was Wiernik?

You are such a child! Clearly Wiernik did not write everything in the document, at most he contributed one part. Which part is that? Does it mention chlorine?

HansHill wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:27 pm "The claims are corroborated when you change what the witnesses say"



Take the L.

Hoess corroborated the other witness about the main event, which was that Moll shot people who were on the transports. Hoess and the other witness initially disagreed on the detail of how many were shot. When Hoess was informed of that disagreement, he clarified by saying his lower total was referring to one transport and that the total for all the transports was likely as the other witnesses claims.

The more you post, the more you reveal your ignorance of witness evidence. It would be best if you dropped out of a topic your understanding of, is limited.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:52 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 11:42 am According to the Jewish astronomer Carl Sagan, corroboration ("that many people tell the same story") would be "the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence" anyway...

He explains that the witness evidence is not supported by any other evidence, and that there is evidence that alien abduction is not possible and that is why the corroborating witnesses in this case, as not good evidence.

Nope, he explained that the witness "evidence" is not real evidence because anyone can tell untrue things and that there is no tangible evidence (i.e. real evidence) that alien abduction is a real thing.

And he certainly didn't say that there is evidence that alien abduction is not possible. Alien abduction is possible, but real and possible are 2 different things and there's no real evidence (i.e. tangible evidence) that alien abduction is a real thing. That's why the statements of so-called witnesses are not good evidence and even not evidence at all. In other words, Carl Sagan said that several people saying the same untrue thing don't make that thing real and proven as long as there is no unimpeachable tangible evidence that it's real. In short, he said that only strong tangible evidence is real evidence and that testimonial "evidence" is not real evidence, as any scientist of the modern era would say.

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 4:05 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 1:52 pm

Eye of Zyclone wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 11:42 am According to the Jewish astronomer Carl Sagan, corroboration ("that many people tell the same story") would be "the clearest evidence for it not being good evidence" anyway...

He explains that the witness evidence is not supported by any other evidence, and that there is evidence that alien abduction is not possible and that is why the corroborating witnesses in this case, as not good evidence.

Nope, he explained that the witness "evidence" is not real evidence because anyone can tell untrue things and that there is no tangible evidence (i.e. real evidence) that alien abduction is a real thing.

And he certainly didn't say that there is evidence that alien abduction is not possible. Alien abduction is possible, but real and possible are 2 different things and there's no real evidence (i.e. tangible evidence) that alien abduction is a real thing. That's why the statements of so-called witnesses are not good evidence and even not evidence at all. In other words, Carl Sagan said that several people saying the same untrue thing don't make that thing real and proven.

If you and a friend witnesses another friend being assaulted, would your evidence not be real evidence, because you might be lying that your friend was assaulted?

If witness evidence is not real evidence, how come it is the most commonly used evidence in courts and with journalists and historians?

Alien abduction is not possible, because there is nowhere inhabitable, that is near enough to earth to get here. There is also the issue of why, if some alien could travel the many light years it would take to get here, why they would abduct a random person and not make themselves known to any government? If we could travel to another planet inhabited by intelligent, advanced beings, we would announce our arrival to that world. It is a false analogy to compare witness to alleged alien abductions to Germans building gas chambers.

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:53 pm Clearly Wiernik did not write everything in the document, at most he contributed one part. Which part is that? Does it mention chlorine?

You said you aren't suggesting forgery, but now you say you think these "other authors" invented material and attributed it to Wiernik. That's forgery.

If that account is not Wiernik, then it is a forgery.

Different handwriting doesn't mean it's not Wiernik. Statements are often dictated and transcribed.

Gentlemen, Nessie is about to stumble upon the Fermi Paradox! Please continue, this should be good.

Archie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 4:20 pm

Nessie wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2026 3:53 pm Clearly Wiernik did not write everything in the document, at most he contributed one part. Which part is that? Does it mention chlorine?

You said you aren't suggesting forgery, but now you say you think these "other authors" invented material and attributed it to Wiernik. That's forgery.

If that account is not Wiernik, then it is a forgery.

Different handwriting doesn't mean it's not Wiernik. Statements are often dictated and transcribed.

In his defense, he is in line with the revisionist thesis, is he not? So he isn't treading new ground.

He is however pissing on his witness and the 'accepted' historiography that says it was dictated because he was 'unaccustomed to using a pen'. That is of course bullshit as he was an educated communist propagandist.

How the Einsatzgruppe didn't track him down and shoot him, I do not know. In my opinion his survival is proof that they were neither indiscriminately murdering jews en masse, or, targeting the intelligencia effectively and thoroughly. They used 'kid gloves' on the jews of Warsaw.