Keep trying to spin it as a victory. Pesye Schloss was brought up as an example of one single credible Jewish eyewitness to the holocaust.
I am not trying to spin anything as a victory. As I have said repeatedly, I do not engage in one witness, one at a time games playing; I offered Pesye Schloss (and originally with Yudis Trojak by the way) to open a discussion about the evidence, of which her recorded testimony is one strand, for a single act of mass murder carried out by the Nazis. So far, you refuse to engage in that discussion. That is a pity - and puts you, rather than the multiple strands of evidence for the murders at Ponar in early September 1941, in a bad light.
That her holocaust experiences mesh with that of other witnesses is a given.
No it isn't. That is established by examining her recorded testimony and other evidence. That her testimony matches with other sources is absolutely not a given but something that has to be shown, based on available sources. In fact, your saying this now shows that the discussion hasn't been a total waste of time.
Her credibility must be assessed by looking at other aspects of her testimony or what is known about her. Does she also say she swallowed and defecated diamonds repeatedly? If yes, then her credibility takes a hit. Does she also say she was among a line of Jews slowly shuffling toward a flaming pit and then falling in? If yes, then her credibility takes a hit. Does she also say she was one of the Lebensborn children who was operated on by Dr. Mengele at Dachau? If yes, then her credibility takes a hit.
She is not recorded as having said anything like any of this. Thus, on this score, her credibility cannot be said to take a hit. It is intact.
Is the only reference to this person found in the diary where she is quoted telling about her holocaust experiences? If yes, then her credibility takes a hit.
This assumption makes no sense. Her testimony is recorded in Kruk's diary with other testimony, from named and unnamed sources, all of it meshing. Kruk is shown to be a reliable reporter. In turn, the testimony recorded by Kruk meshes with the diary of Polish journalist Sakowicz, made independently. All this meshes with other diaries and memoirs and with post-war trial testimony. These all mesh with Jaeger's report. Is the testimony in Kruk definitive, perfect, iron-clad? No. Does its alignment with so many other sources make it valuable in determining what happened - in a word, credible? Yes.
(And, to be fair, you will have to acknowledge that Saggy's game was not about credibility - he made a positive charge that every single Jewish witness was a degenerate liar. You are rewording Saggy's game to try to make a point, I realize, but you are failing on both scores - fidelity to the game Saggy was playing and the larger question of how we can determine what happened at Ponar the first week of September.)
It might help you if you read Mischa and noted everything she says she experienced that can be corroborated by other "witness" testimony.
This irrelevant tangent has no bearing on what we are discussing here, as you cannot show anything in the specific passages under discussion in Kruk - summarizing three witnesses and some unnamed witnesses - comparable to what you are trying to claim. You are really desperate and flailing about at this point.
