As Nilsson says many times, the Table talks within a source critical perspective by his own standard can be used if corroborated by other sources. Why? Because these are utterances by Hitler as Nilsson himself says, not stenographic. Nilsson stressed that his book is not to be interpreted "as meaning that the table talks are not authentic." (p.388) so the authenticity is not particularly in question, more so the reliability of Hitler's utterances found within the notes.

"So, what does this mean for the table talks as a historical source material? Well, in fact, what we have are only representations and recollections of Hitler’s utterances. This means that they are not Hitler’s words and that they cannot, and should not, be quoted as such. We can still use them, of course, but the way in which historians have often used them thus far has been as ad verbatim sources. This is why they have been so frequently cited in the literature. Since we know that Hitler often misrepresented matters, either knowingly or unbeknownst to himself, as studies of, for example, Mein Kampf have shown, as historians we are in the position that we cannot know if what Hitler is purported as having said is true or not unless it can be verified by independent sources. Just like scholars are always aware that they are quoting Goebbels’s recollection of Hitler’s statements when they cite Goebbels’s diaries, they should be equally aware that they are quoting Heim’s or Picker’s or Bormann’s or Müller’s recollections when they cite Tischgespräche and Monologe."

— Hitler Redux, p.384-385

Now, what are examples of the notes being corroborated by other independent sources that report identical utterances from Hitler?

The dates within the sources are something to keep note of being that it confirms being a witness at the event firsthand. Nilsson mentions a few of these corroborations, however what is shown here show's way more which confirms Hitler's anti-Christian attitude found through what he is documented to have uttered (click on the dates):

(14.12.1941), (25. 10. 1941), (11/12. 7. 1941), (21. 10. 1941), (10. 10. 1941), (23. 9. 1941), (24. 10. 1941), (13. 12. 1941)

Finally, the historical illiteracy from the other side shines brightly when you realize they're citing the admittedly FORGED "The Testament of Adolf Hitler" as a way to show the Table Talks are not authentic. Nilsson stresses this distinction between the German edition of the monologues from 1941-1944 from the fake 1945 notes. Indeed, the notes to the completely separate 1945 edition does not exist. However, they want to portray it as onto the actual authentic notes from Picker/Jochmann's book:

"Then we have The Testament of Adolf Hitler, a text that has already been questioned by critical scholars. This text is said to be a continuation of the first table talk notes, supposedly taken down in Hitler’s bunker in Berlin in February and April 1945. This text was also published by Genoud, first in French in 1959 and then in English and German in 1961 and 1981, respectively, all with the active collaboration of Trevor-Roper. [...] The table talks thus differ from the notes dated February and April 1945 published as The Testament of Adolf Hitler in 1961. This text has been shown to be, with a great amount of certainty, a forgery."

— Hitler redux, from the preface and conclusions section

Important context was specifically cut out from Ian Kershaw's book to frame his denial of the "The Testament of Adolf Hitler" as denial of the actual table talks from the 1940's.

Onto what Nilsson calls Heim's "proof pages". The article references the proof pages (which are original notes) that's within the Bundesarchiv. What again the author fails at is reading Nilsson's 'Hitler redux' for further context. In 2016 (when the article was published) Nilsson did not examine the authenticity of the stack of Heim's 40 pages. However, in his later book on the table talks published in 2021, does Mikael Nilsson examine them and states firmly that:

"The evidence suggests, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Heim’s proof pages are genuine."

— Hitler redux, p.195

Hence the original Heim notes which are approximately 40 pages, dated January 1942, that were initially stored at the Library of Congress in Washington that since returned to the Bundesarchiv are indeed verified. They can be viewed by anyone to this day in the Bundesarchiv at "BArch NS 6/819".

Are the table talks the literal word of Hitler in the same sense of Zweites Buch or Mein Kampf? No. They are instead his utterances as Nilsson puts it. When we look at a plethora of other sources we can come to a simple conclusion that not only are the documents (1941-1944) are authentic, (leaving out the "Bormann Vermerke" later a fraud by Genoud) but also the contents of it are valid.

"Heim's notes are in fact just as much a literary product as Picker’s. They are both based on real utterances by Hitler, but since we are in no position to be able to sort out the “original” and ad verbatim from the literary creations, the whole text is, and must indeed be treated as, problematic and as, at best, a summarizing memorandum of what was said."

— Hitler redux, p.200

It is indeed a problematic source if one were to fall for the pretense that they are stenographic. Not even Picker claimed they were stenographic. The documents themselves prove that as Nilsson puts it when Heim writes that the "Chief" I.e. Hitler is expressing a thought. Much of history is based on the records of the past. Such records can be in the form of recollected memories or contemporary notes of what is happening at the moment. This too would also include memoirs. This is very normal. Many Germans at the time (including high ranking NSDAP members) had personal diaries. All of the evidence points to the contents of the table talks to be legit through cross examination of contemporary sources that report the same thing every time.

Hitler's table talk I.e. the German editions/documents are valid to use. The distorted French/English editions should not be used for the sake of accuracy.