Roberto wrote:
As the philosopher well knows, I was referring to his statement that goes
Erik wrote:
Is your argument about the accuracy of the D photocopy,”but not about the authenticy of the original itself”.?
So, now, aren’t you "tarring yourself with the same brush”?
And Hans wrote:
Erik,
Neither I understand what your point is.
Well, as I said – I may have a language problem.
May I requote that old fuddy-duddy from an earlier posting above?
It’s from the same Epistle to the Reader in Locke’s Essay :
There are few, I believe, who have not observed in themselves or others, that what in one way of proposing was very obscure, another way of expressing it has made very clear and intelligible; though afterwards the mind found little difference in the phrases, and wondered why one failed to be understood more than the other. But everything does not hit alike upon every man's imagination. We have our understandings no less different than our palates; and he that thinks the same truth shall be equally relished by every one in the same dress, may as well hope to feast every one with the same sort of cookery: the meat may be the same, and the nourishment good, yet every one not be able to receive it with that seasoning; and it must be dressed another way, if you will have it go down with some, even of strong constitutions.
I will refrain from repeating too much. But let’s take it from this quote:
"I expressed the view that doubt about the authenticity of the document is justified. There are several reasons for this, above all the existence of three different facsimile versions."
(Meyer)
Meyer thinks they are different.
Hans proves mathematically that they are alike.
So there are some different facsimiles of the document made by archivists and book authors, but what Meyer completely ignores is that there is only one - ONE - original (no facsimile) of the document, thus Meyer's argument against the authenticy of the document ("there are different versions") is bunk.
(My emphases).
Different facsimiles do not mean that there are different versions, necessarily.
The fact that 99 different post-war facsimiles exist of this original is completely irrelevant when we have the original. However, Meyer has based his reasoning on exactly this irrelevant fact.
Here Hans says that they are different.
But they are similar, just the same! Since they are the same “version” of the original?
Since D is the same as B, “we have the original”?? Is that it?
Or, Erik, what do you think, which would be relevant for a document assessment, the original document or the 99 post-war facsimiles of this original or all together?
There is no “difference” in that quote, is there?
Hans doesn’t write “…or the 99 DIFFERENT post-war facsimiles of this original”, does he?
But he did above!
“Semantics”, as Mr. Kaschner is wont to say.
“What’s in a difference?”
Here is a note that Hans “highlights”(if I understand the emoticon
rightly):
Note the following: identical and "=" means here only that the actual text of the document, the spaces between each words and handwritten notes, addings and corrections by the SS are indical, what is legitmate to ignore for now are the rubber stamps put on the documents by the Archives.
(I take “indical” to mean “identical”. Or is it a juridical term? “Index,indicis”?)
Maybe that is the clue to the “difference”? They aren’t different after all, if you ignore the differences?
Hans wrote :
Isn't it irrelevant how many different post-war facsimile he has seen? There is only one relevant version for the document assessment, the original. Period.
Hans concludes:
In conclusion, everything speaks for it that D is a correctly scanned photocopy of the Moscow document!
But Meyer argued, according to Hans:
In short, his argument is about the accuracy of the post-war facsimiles of the original, but not about the authenticy of the original itself.
Now Hans argues “about the accuracy of the post-war facsimiles of the original, but not about the authenticy of the original itself.”
Doesn’t he?Respectively,"does he"?
Then isn’t Hans “tarring himself with the same brush” he is using against Meyer?
I paraphrase quotes from Hans:
"Isn't it irrelevant how many
similar post-war facsimile he has seen? There is only one relevant version for the document assessment, the original. Period".
"The fact that 99
similar post-war facsimiles exist of this original is completely irrelevant when we have the original. However,
Hans has based his reasoning on exactly this irrelevant fact".
(see originals(!) above.
Emphasized parts are falsifications!!)
And a “re-quote” from the above(authentic!!unfalsified!!):
Or, Erik, what do you think, which would be relevant for a document assessment, the original document or the 99 post-war facsimiles of this original or all together?
Note: the “difference”!!
And the questions "of relevance" remain unanswered : how do we “know” we have the original? From Mattogno? Pressac? Van Pelt? How do THEY know? From internal evidence? How do they debunk Gerner?
