the Rudolph Report?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 18:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

the Rudolph Report?

Post by Despot » 08 Feb 2006 17:30

Has there been anything written refuting it's findings?

nickterry
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 16 Jan 2006 23:20
Location: Bristol

Re: the Rudolph Report?

Post by nickterry » 08 Feb 2006 18:40

Despot wrote:Has there been anything written refuting it's findings?


loads. see

http://www.holocaust-history.org/ especially Richard Green's work and also the pages devoted to Rudolf's multiple personality pseudonym disorder

for further background

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/nsindex.html especially the Pelt report


I'm sure the moderator David Thompson can come up with other references.

n.B. Holocaust denial is not permitted on this forum.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 08 Feb 2006 23:13

Despot -- You asked, in regard to the "Rudolph Report":
Has there been anything written refuting it's findings?

The posters in this section of the forum haven't taken Germar Rudolf's report very seriously (much less as established), so it's only been mentioned here in passing, usually in threads and posts taking up the issue of "blue stains" resulting from Zyklon-B exposure. The "Leuchter Report" has attracted far more attention (see the thread index list below).

nickterry's links make for a very useful start in evaluating the "Rudolf Report." Interested readers can find the report at: The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz
http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/index.html#toc

The most detailed conventional work on the Auschwitz gas chambers available online is Pressac's AUSCHWITZ: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, available at:
http://www.mazal.org/Pressac/Pressac0.htm -- see also viewtopic.php?t=66162

As for the rules of the forum on holocaust denial, see viewtopic.php?t=53962 :

B. Holocaust Denial

Holocaust denial is not permitted by the second rule of this forum. The policy, and the reasons for it, may be seen at:
A note on denial
viewtopic.php?t=10881

The essential aspects of the holocaust are well-known. They have been established through more than fifty years of court proceedings in a large number of countries. The evidence consists of eyewitness testimony from victims and bystanders, the confessions and admissions of perpetrators, photographs, an abundance of documents, physical evidence, forensic studies and judicial findings.

Legitimate questions may be raised about the veracity of individual witnesses or their motives, or isolated items of evidence, or matters of interpretation of policy, etc. These questions do not affect the fact that millions of persons were deliberately murdered, nor does it alter the cumulative and overwhelming evidence of who committed the murders.

The rules of this forum regarding holocaust denial also apply, for example, to the mass murders of Armenians during WWI, and the interwar famine in the Ukraine. It is permissible to question whether these and similar events were the result of a deliberate government policy, and legitimate questions may be raised about the veracity of individual witnesses or their motives, individual items of evidence, or matters of interpretation of policy, but it is not permissible to deny that the events occurred.

Nonconforming posts are subject to deletion without warning. Serious breaches of these rules are punishable by banning the poster.

The forum takes a dim view of WWI denial and WWII denial as well. Our 17,000+ members and many guests patronize the research sections of the forum for sourced information and discussions about historical questions and events, and not for ignorant, bizarre or crackpot notions presented without supporting facts or documentation.

For relatively free-wheeling discussions of the basic premise underlying the Rudolph Report and whether technical considerations render the existence of Nazi gas chambers problematical, see:

Witnesses, Gas Chambers and KL Auschwitz: An Overview
viewtopic.php?p=480103
The Nazi Gas Chambers
viewtopic.php?t=42759
Gas Chambers at Bunker 1, KL Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?t=53472
Gas Chambers at Bunker 2, KL Auschwitz
viewtopic.php?t=54706
Using Sauna for Sonderbehandlung?
viewtopic.php?t=67519
Auschwitz/Birkenau delousing facilities in 1943
viewtopic.php?t=63697

and

The Leuchter Report Vindicated
viewtopic.php?t=1845
Zyklon-B and blue color
viewtopic.php?t=44520
zyklon-b
viewtopic.php?t=4382
Krema 2
viewtopic.php?t=5968
Claims of forged, altered or missing evidence
viewtopic.php?t=14260
Fred Leuchter
viewtopic.php?t=15695
Gas chambers are fake?
viewtopic.php?t=46353
Mass murder in Auschwitz (For Scott and other "sceptics")
viewtopic.php?t=6395
Zyklon-B
viewtopic.php?t=4382

Since we haven't had a thread dedicated to a discussion of the "Rudolph Report," this is as good a time as any to take up the subject. The forum rules on civility and sourcing will be strictly enforced, since discussions on this subject tend to become ridiculously inspecific, deliberately vague, notional, speculative and/or insulting in short order.
Last edited by David Thompson on 09 Feb 2006 01:43, edited 1 time in total.

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 10:45
Location: Australia

Post by alf » 08 Feb 2006 23:37

Nick Terry has actually covered it extremely well. How do you place credibility on a "scienctific" report that uses for references the writer making up names for himself and then cross referencing to them as footnotes for confirmation of his "facts" ?

http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ml#Preface

Which brings me to Germar Rudolf's affidavit. Before I submit its contents to analysis, I note that that Rudolf has confirmed that he has, from time to time, attempted to deceive a court by inventing various personae that could serve as expert witnesses. Here is his own account of what happened.

In spring and summer 1992 I was called by several defence lawyers as an expert witness in several trials imposed on Revisionists in Germany (see footnote 103 of the brochure mentioned). In these trials - as in all trials against Revisionists - the judges refused to accept any evidence presented by the defence, including all expert witnesses. I had to learn that a chemist (me) was being refused because he was neither a toxicologist nor a historian, an engineer (Leuchter) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor a historian, a historian (Prof. Haverbeck) being refused because he was neither a chemist nor an engineer. My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is the background. 9

Thus Rudolf admits to fabricating the existence of various personae with false credentials. This, so I presume, was the origin of the fact that Rudolf has written under his original name Germar Rudolf, under the assumed names of a number of men claiming a doctorate - Dr. Ernst Gauss (engineer?), Dr. Werner Kretschmer (lawyer), Dr. Christian Konrad (historian) - one man claiming no less than two doctorates - Dr. Dr. Rainer Scholz (chemist and pharmacologist) - and under the names of a few individuals without doctorates - Jakob Sprenger, Wilhelm Schlesiger, Manfred Köhler, Lennard Rose, and under his adopted name of Germar Scheerer. Rudolf never obtained his Ph.D. Rudolf has violated the principles of authorship when he actually published under the name of a well-known living writer, Anton Maegerle. He mocks the principles of scholarship when, in the past, he has used these different identities to give his various personae academic authority: Dr. Gauss quotes Mr. Rudolf, Mr. Rudolf co-authors an article with Dr. Gauss, and so on. When challenged about this practice, Rudolf stated that "in all cases when I refer to my own works written under a pen name, I never do it to say: 'look, this expert has the same opinion as I have', but rather to say 'this fact or argument was proven and published there.'" 10 The problem, however, is that he does not tell his rather unconventional view of citation to the readers, who have learned to understand references to the work of others as part of a large conversation amongst peers, and not as a schizoid monologue of one. Rudolf turns the conventions of academia into a burlesque farce - conventions that represent a readiness to adhere to some generally shared standards of truth and accountability.


The one true test for the Report was to be Irving"s Second Appeal, he withdrew the Report before the Hearing. Rather than why is the Rudolf Report not discussed, the question should be Why was it withdrawn before its big day?
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... ntro.shtml

Prior to the oral argument, which began on June 20,2001, Irving filed two affidavits with the court to support Irving's contention that he could demonstrate that Judge Gray's decision was contrary to the weight of the evidence. The first of these was an affidavit from Mrs. Zoe Polanksa-Palmer, a prisoner at Auschwitz, who claimed to have been a prisoner in the Birkenau camp at Auschwitz and had never seen any gas chambers. The second was a long document from Germar Rudolf, a German national trained as a chemist. Setting forth an argument that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. Rudolf had previously volunteered as an expert witness at the trial of this case; David Irving had declined Rudolf's offer. Rudolf's statement can be divided into three main sections. The first was an extended recapitulation and summary of the arguments used by deniers of the Holocaust to challenge the existence of the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The document also included summaries of testimony concerning the gas chambers at Auschwitz adduced in other litigation and Rudolf's comments on it and an extended history of Rudolf's "persecution" as a result of his denial of the Holocaust. It was, in summary, a comprehensive statement of the arguments made by those who deny that mass murder took place in the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

In response to these two affidavits, the defense prepared several reports by experts. The first of these was a report from Harry Mazal, O.B.E. challenging the credibility of Mrs. Polanska-Palmer. Mazal demonstrated that, on previous occasions including her autobiography, Mrs. Polanska-Palmer had written that when she was a prisoner in the main camp at Auschwitz the existence of the gas chambers was well known to her.

The other two expert statements were related to our current state of knowledge about the mass murder at Auschwitz. The first of these is a report prepared by Prof. Robert Jan Van Pelt. In addition to a detailed refutation of Rudolf's arguments, Dr. van Pelt summarizes the evidence for the gas chambers of Auschwitz. This includes two appendices setting forth evidence which had not been available at the time of the trial. This included an examination of the ruins of Crema II at Auschwitz identifying the holes on the roof of Crema II where poison gas had been introduced and the other digital analysis of contemporary photographic evidence. At the trial of this matter Irving had claimed that these holes did not exist. The second was authored by Richard Green, Ph.D., exploring the chemistry of the mass murders at Auschwitz and exposing the scientific mistakes Rudolf made in his report.

All of these documents were filed with the court prior to the hearing. All of these reports were made available to David Irving prior to the hearing.

The hearing on Irving's petition for permission to appeal lasted for four days. During his oral argument David Irving - without notice to either the court or the opposing parties and without any explanation whatsoever - withdrew both of the documents he had previously filed with the Court and abandoned his attempt to introduce more evidence about the Holocaust.

The final judgment of the Court was announced on July 20, 2001. Lord Justice Pill, in rejecting Irving permission to appeal enthusiastically adopted the written opinion of the trial court stating: " The judgment of Gray J can only be admired for its comprehensiveness and style." Lord Justice Pill did not ignore the two documents that Irving withdrew so suddenly or the response we are publishing here:

We also mention at this point that there were before the Court two applications to call fresh evidence in support of the application. The first, made well before the hearing, was to call evidence from Mr. Germar Scheerer (born Rudolf), who holds a diploma in chemistry, and Mrs. Zoe Polanska-Palmer, who was detained in Birkenau Camp. The respondents had prepared voluminous evidence in reply. In the event, that application to call fresh evidence was not pursued. We express our dismay at this combination of events; the preparation of very detailed evidence (exposing the respondents to great expense in preparing a reply and the members of the Court to considerable pre-hearing reading) and the withdrawal of the application.

The reports filed by the defense are far more than a detailed refutation of the arguments currently being made by those who deny the Holocaust. These reports demonstrate the unreliable statements, faulty science, and distorted history that lie behind the claims that the Holocaust did not happen. At the same time they are an excellent starting point for examining the state of our knowledge about Auschwitz. Prof. van Pelt sets forth the irrefutable evidence clearly and concisely directing the reader to the specific source material which support his arguments. The Holocaust History Project is proud to make these available to the public at: http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/vanpelt
Last edited by alf on 08 Feb 2006 23:41, edited 1 time in total.

nickterry
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 16 Jan 2006 23:20
Location: Bristol

Post by nickterry » 08 Feb 2006 23:39

Since we haven't had a thread dedicated to a discussion of the "Rudolph Report," this is as good a time as any to take up the subject. The forum rules on civility and sourcing will be strictly enforced, since discussions on this subject tend to become ridiculously inspecific, deliberately vague, notional, speculative and/or insulting in short order.


My first penn'orth is the following quote from the Almighty Germar himself:

My conclusions were that one obviously had to be at the same time an engineer, a chemist, a toxicologist, a historian and a perhaps even an barrister to be accepted as an expert witness at a German court. The legal process being so perverted in Germany, we decided to mock it by inventing a person with all these features, but then we realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many.


as Juergen Langowski wrote

[...]Germar Rudolf is one of the most productive authors of the "revisionist" quoting cartel. Under at least half a dozen pseudonyms he writes and quotes - preferably himself. This becomes especially bizarre when Ernst Gauss (Germar Rudolf) edits a book with a contribution by Manfred Koehler (Germar Rudolf), who in turn dutifully thanks Ernst Gauss (Germar Rudolf) for material made available and a few footnotes later refers to Germar Rudolf (Germar Rudolf).[...]


http://www.h-ref.de/ar/rudolf/werke.shtml

Thus, motion one is to ignore everything Rudolf has to say on the grounds that he seems to suffer from multiple personality disorder.

Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 18:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: the Rudolph Report?

Post by Despot » 09 Feb 2006 04:44

nickterry wrote:
Despot wrote:Has there been anything written refuting it's findings?


loads. see

http://www.holocaust-history.org/ especially Richard Green's work and also the pages devoted to Rudolf's multiple personality pseudonym disorder

for further background

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/nsindex.html especially the Pelt report


I'm sure the moderator David Thompson can come up with other references.

n.B. Holocaust denial is not permitted on this forum.


That site doesn't come off a being very credible at all. At least from a few of the Articles I read. The "Bolshevik Canard", seemed to personify exactly what he was supposedly refuting i.e. apologist. When in fact this same topic has been documented by various endowed historians, including Shapoval and Slezkine. The entire piece appeared to be very disingenuous, first he quotes a Bolshevik party census describing the numbers of Jewish members then goes onto say "perhaps there were some Jewish senior members", but then follows that say, even if there was how can the holocaust deniers justify the Holocaust because of the Bolsheviks. As if something that absurd was an actual belief presented by holocaust deniers. Another one laden in ad hominen and straw men was the "why revisionism isn't", which doesn't even appear to belong on a site of refutation, if thats what they're supposedly motivated by. Another thing I notices was that they labeled Rudolphs work as "pseudoscience", when in fact it's obvious he has a far greater understanding of chemistry than they. The theorizing, the straw men, the suggesting of malevolent motives and various other unseemly fallacious arguments, to me, is nothing more than propaganda. So why is this considered trustworthy? It's obvious they spend more time reading Leo Strauss than they do compiling refutation evidence.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 09 Feb 2006 05:35

Despot -- You wrote:
That site doesn't come off a being very credible at all.

(1) In the quote you repeated from nickterry, he gives links to two different sites. Which one is "that site" you're talking about?

(2) Which pages on that site did you read that made specific reference to Germar Rudolf and his report? This will give us something to discuss. From your post (there are no links or page references), it's difficult for the readers to figure out what you're referring to.

Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 18:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Despot » 09 Feb 2006 07:48

http://www.holocaust-history.org/bolshevik-canard/ was is response to the so-called "Bolshevik canard" which is unfair and deceptive. He starts off by saying:

"The implication is that even though the Holocaust did not happen, the Jews deserved it and/or the fact that Stalinists committed mass murder somehow diminishes the fact that the Nazis and their accomplices committed mass murder."

Which is a quizzical thing to add to a so called "refutation". I have heard of Jews as playing an important role in Bolshevism, however have yet to hear anybody make a claim about Jewish holocaust victims "deserving it". That's ad hominen and appealing to peoples emotions by characterizing their opponents as "evil" miscreants. He never post anything proving this was said by an individual person, let alone proof that this is somehow a mutual agreement among everybody who postulates that Jewish persons played an influential role in Bolshevism.

Apart form the ad hominen, he has scant else to say. And even though scant was still willfully being deceptive. He quotes a census of the party, showing, rightly that Jewish proportions were not all that unequal. However, this isn't the bone of contention, and the author knows that, yet willfully withholds the actual postulation, which relates to Jewish involvement at the highest levels of the organization, including funding and leadership roles. Which he evades. He says "perhaps" there might have been a few jews with leadership roles. Which begs the question: Why would he say "perhaps" after he just quoted the party census?

That's not just it, he also goes into the "terrible" Stalin myth, and, unbelievably, portrays Trotsky as some kind of an anti-Stalinist hero...[!] When in fact Stalin wasn't all that unique, and had Lenin not died prematurely or had Trotsky assumed power, theres nothing to make someone believe the deaths would have been any less. In fact according to the latter's ideologue, the casualties could've easily greatly surpassed Stalins.

This guy is the very definition of an apologist and a bad one at that. IMO Rudolph is more trustworthy than these propagandists. Who rely on the the Strauss' philosophy of deception and completely unwarranted defamation against their opponents, rather than facts.

nickterry
Member
Posts: 523
Joined: 16 Jan 2006 23:20
Location: Bristol

Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer

Post by nickterry » 09 Feb 2006 14:11

IMO Rudolph is more trustworthy than these propagandists.


It would help our trust of your understanding of the whole issue if you would spell Germar's surname right. :wink:


Who rely on the the Strauss' philosophy of deception and completely unwarranted defamation against their opponents, rather than facts.


wtf does Leo Strauss have to do with anything? Because he was Jewish and taught a number of neo-conservatives, most of whom went into government not Holocaust studies?!?

The piece of work you want to look for on the holocaust-history website is Dr Richard Green's affidavit, available in pdf format. That was the piece of work which was put together to 'counter' the possible submission of the Rudolf Report as an affidavit for David Irving during his unsuccessful libel case

But, Irving decided against submitting it. I forget what excuses he offered. But many believe it was to avoid having the Rudolf Report torn to shreds in a court of law, thus undermining one of the leading 'proofs' that denialists offer for the non-existence of gas chambers. Much like the Krege ground penetrating radar scan study has yet to be published :lol:

Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 18:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: Rudolf the red-nosed reindeer

Post by Despot » 09 Feb 2006 23:23

nickterry wrote:
IMO Rudolph is more trustworthy than these propagandists.


It would help our trust of your understanding of the whole issue if you would spell Germar's surname right. :wink:


It's interchangable spelling, same with Adolf and Adolph.... Not that it matters anyways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph

wtf does Leo Strauss have to do with anything? Because he was Jewish and taught a number of neo-conservatives, most of whom went into government not Holocaust studies?!?


Absolutely nothing. It has to do with the deceptive and fallacious rhetoic that that website uses to influence the reader.

The piece of work you want to look for on the holocaust-history website is Dr Richard Green's affidavit, available in pdf format. That was the piece of work which was put together to 'counter' the possible submission of the Rudolf Report as an affidavit for David Irving during his unsuccessful libel case

But, Irving decided against submitting it. I forget what excuses he offered. But many believe it was to avoid having the Rudolf Report torn to shreds in a court of law, thus undermining one of the leading 'proofs' that denialists offer for the non-existence of gas chambers. Much like the Krege ground penetrating radar scan study has yet to be published :lol:


I've heard some other more provocative reasons. But, even if it would be torn to shreds, why would they invest so heavilly in ad hominen? Certainly the kind of defamation used would destroiy the reputation and any possible ineffectuality of the assailant, had it been any other contended issue.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23121
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 10 Feb 2006 00:10

Despot -- You wrote:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/bolshevik-canard/ was is response to the so-called "Bolshevik canard" which is unfair and deceptive.

Rudolf isn't even mentioned on the page you're objecting to, so your digression is off-topic. nickterry directed you to the Green and Van Pelt reports for the discussion of Rudolf's theories. You asked for references, you got them, and now you're going off about material that has nothing to do with your question, nor this thread.

Since you were the one who asked about any refutation of the "Rudolph Report," please stay focused on the subject you raised.

alf
Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: 09 Oct 2003 10:45
Location: Australia

Post by alf » 10 Feb 2006 00:20

Wow, there has been a quick side track, attacking the site on a completely unrelated article.

If people bothered to look at the relevant information, it would be shown that the foot notes cross reference to Rudolf's own statements in VHO http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving ... l#note-009

So the site is extremely fair.

The two key question for me still are:

How do you place credibility on a "scienctific" report that uses for references the writer making up names for himself and then cross referencing to them as footnotes for confirmation of his "facts" ?


The one true test for the Report was to be Irving"s Second Appeal, he withdrew the Report before the Hearing. Rather than why is the Rudolf Report not discussed, the question should be Why was it withdrawn before its big day?


So, no more side tracking, Rudolf admits he makes up false names for himself to support his "work" . A link is given to him boasting of that fact. And why did Irving withdraw his Report without warning?

The questions do need to be answered, and not evaded by side stepping.

Oh well, you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink I suppose

User avatar
lisset
Member
Posts: 339
Joined: 10 Oct 2002 23:13
Location: U.K

Post by lisset » 10 Feb 2006 01:07

And why did Irving withdraw his Report without warning?

Which was why I started a recent thread on the subject of Irving's withdrawl of the Rudolf Report.
Its worth reading Lipstadt's QC Ramptons words on the sudden withdrawl of the "Rudolf Report" , he told one of his clients researchers who complained that their time and energy had been wasted.
" Wasted energy ? You've sunk their case without firing a shot".
Irving stated that it was a matter of legal procedure which prevented Rudolf being placed before the court.
This is utter tripe as without "Rudolf" as " new evidence" Irving would never have had his final appeal , the fact that the defendents had a rebuttal ready to counter would seem to undermine any excuse which Iriving has made on his website.

I find it amusing that Leuchter and Rudolf are still looked upon as smoking guns which killed the Holocaust when one had its day in court presented as evidence by "revisionist historians" , it was comprehensively torn apart , as were the credentials of its author.
Rudolf didn't even get that far , such was the faith which Irving placed on it. If it is the powerful study which it is claimed to be Mr. Irving would have been on the pig's back.
It does seem to frame the "revisionist" case for what it is , a work of fiction supported by pseudo science and distorted "facts".
Last edited by lisset on 10 Feb 2006 01:14, edited 2 times in total.

Brumbar
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 11 Jun 2005 12:35
Location: USA

Post by Brumbar » 10 Feb 2006 01:11

In so far as Mr. Rudolf's claim to have used multiple aliases it seems that writing under one nom de plume might be regarded as reasonable in consideration of the anti-Holocaust denial laws currently on the books in Germany and elsewhere. Having said that, the use of multiple aliases coupled with the fact that attached to these are multiple academic backgrounds/disciplines and implying expertise in them is patently fraudulent and certainly no less repugnant than people who lie on resumes. On that basis alone Mr. Rudolf's claims should be approached with all due caution. Reasonable people don't like being played for fools no matter the justification.

Despot
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 18:07
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Despot » 10 Feb 2006 01:29

David Thompson wrote:Despot -- You wrote:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/bolshevik-canard/ was is response to the so-called "Bolshevik canard" which is unfair and deceptive.

Rudolf isn't even mentioned on the page you're objecting to, so your digression is off-topic. nickterry directed you to the Green and Van Pelt reports for the discussion of Rudolf's theories. You asked for references, you got them, and now you're going off about material that has nothing to do with your question, nor this thread.

Since you were the one who asked about any refutation of the "Rudolph Report," please stay focused on the subject you raised.


It was written by the same author. It seems that only they, the holocaust deniars, are allowed to have their credibility attacked. After all thats what they are doing to Germar. Attacking his credibility over using pseudonyms etc. That site is propagandized. I was asking for refutation, not ad hominen, from people that are so obviously resentful and bias.

How do you place credibility on a "scientific" report that uses for references the writer making up names for himself and then cross referencing to them as footnotes for confirmation of his "facts" ?


Thats paradoxical. Indeed it was a scientific report, which is something that can be objectively analyzed. So if indeed he had malicious intent his self referenced evidence would have to be false, which makes clear his motivation. So test the data from his pseudonyms. If Albert Einstein referenced himself would that make his theories any less tangible?

They are doing things back wards. First prove the lies, than judge the liar.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”