Mr. Raven, please cite your sources
Jamie McCarthy
While preparing my response to your definition switcheroo (in the thread
"Mr. Raven, please explain the contradiction"), I stumbled across the
following text on Mr. Raven's website.
I would like to ask him to give sources for this material and to ask why
he didn't feel it necessary to cite sources on the web page itself.
In particular, I would like to ask him his sources for these three
assertions:
1. Hoess was beaten by Jewish members of the British Field Police
upon capture -- in particular, the fact that they were Jewish.
2. His captors threatened to deport Hoess' wife and children
to Siberia.
3. Moritz Von Schirmeister asked Hoess about his confession and
received the answer that is quoted below.
Since he tells us endlessly that "testimony is not evidence," of course
he would not want to provide us with testimony, much less hearsay
testimony, unless he wants to look inconsistent. But if he doesn't mind
appearing so, he is free to provide testimony as his sources, since the
rest of the world knows that testimony is indeed a valid source of
evidence. We'll be happy to consider it for whatever it's worth.
Mr. Raven writes:
We now know that Hoess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members
of the British Field Police upon capture. His captors threatened to
deport Hoess' wife and children to Siberia, and Hoess himself was
badly mistreated until he gave his "affidavit" and "testimony."
Clarke yelled: "What is your name?"
With each answer of "Franz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into the
face of his prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke
and admitted who he was.
The admission suddenly unleashed the loathing of the Jewish
sergeants in the arresting party whose parents had died in
Auschwitz following an order signed by Hoess.
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjamas ripped from
his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter
tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were
endless. Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: "Call
them off, unless you want to take back a corpse."
The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The
snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and
he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to
his cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement out of
him. But once he started talking, there was no holding him.
One of Hoess' torturers told what happened during those three days:
"We sat in the cell with him, night and day, armed with axe
handles. Our job was to prod him every time he fell asleep to
help break down his resistance," said Mr. Jones. When Hoess was
taken out for exercise, he was made to wear only jeans and a thin
cotton shirt in the bitter cold. After three days and nights
without sleep, Hoess finally broke down and made a full
confession to the authorities.
He also spoke of his mistreatment in his memoir:
I was treated terribly by the [British] Field Security Police. I
was dragged to Heide and, of all places, to the same military
barracks from which I had been released eight months before by
the British. During the first interrogation they beat me to
obtain evidence. I do not know what was in the transcript, or
what I said, even though I signed it, because they gave me liquor
and beat me with a whip. It was too much even for me to bear. The
whip was my own. By chance it had found its way into my wife's
luggage. My horse had hardly ever been touched by it, much less
the prisoners. Somehow one of the interrogators probably thought
that I had used it to constantly whip the prisoners.
After a few days I was taken to Minden on the Weser River, which
was the main interrogation center in the British zone. There they
treated me even more roughly, especially the first British
prosecutor, who was a major. The conditions in the jail reflected
the attitude of the first prosecutor.
Surprisingly, after three weeks I was shaved, my hair was cut,
and I was allowed to wash myself. My handcuffs had not been
opened since my arrest. The next day [March 31-April 1, 1946] I
was taken by car to Nuremberg together with a prisoner of war who
had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritzche's
defense.
That prisoner of war was Moritz von Schirmeister, the personal press
attache of Joseph Goebbels. During their journey together to
Nuremberg, Von Schirmeister asked Hoess about his confession, to
which Hoess replied:
Certainly, I signed [a statement] that I killed two and a half
million Jews. But I could just as well have signed that it was
five million Jews. After all, there are certain methods by which
any confession can be obtained, whether it is true or not.
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/misc/hoess.html
Posted; emailed; please reply publicly.
--
Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/
Greg Raven
Jamie McCarthy wrote:
>
> (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> alt.revisionism)
>
> While preparing my response to your definition switcheroo (in the thread
> "Mr. Raven, please explain the contradiction"), I stumbled across the
> following text on Mr. Raven's website.
>
> I would like to ask him to give sources for this material and to ask why
> he didn't feel it necessary to cite sources on the web page itself.
Your question assumes facts not in evidence. I wanted to provide
citations, but in translating from FrameMaker format to HTML, the
references did not come across. Full citations will be provided in the
print and final HTML versions of this article.
In point of fact, Mr. McCarthy, it is you who is attempting a
"switcheroo." I agreed to YOUR definition of "Holocaust" for the
purposes of keeping our original discussion on track, that being, what
proof is there of Nazi gas chambers. You failed miserably at providing
any such proof, and ever since then you have been nattering about how I
have changed my definition of "Holocaust." The definition of "Holocaust"
was not important to the discussion of Nazi gas chambers, although given
your "proof" of Nazi gas chambers I can certainly appreciate why you
have attempted time and again to derail the discussion into irrelevant
areas.
--
Greg Raven (ihr...@kaiwan.com)
PO Box 10545, Costa Mesa, CA 92627
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg
Dene Bebbington
In good old revisionist style, perhaps I should point out that the
testimony of Hoess and his torturers are not fully consistent, couple
that with the fact that this is only testimony - then any revisionist
out there would have to conclude that the story of Hoess's torture is a
sham and never happened.
--
Dene Bebbington
"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
Jamie McCarthy
This article is going to meander through various topics but return to its
source. In order, we'll cover:
* MR. RAVEN'S THREE ASSERTIONS AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
* THE TRUTH -- AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
* WHO SHOUTS "LIE"?
* THE DOUBLE STANDARD SHOWS ITS RELEVANCE
* NATTERING
* WHO DERAILS DISCUSSION?
* DA CAPO AL FINE: THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
Here we go.
*** MR. RAVEN'S THREE ASSERTIONS AND THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
Greg Raven (ihr...@kaiwan.com) wrote:
> Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> > alt.revisionism)
> >
> > While preparing my response to your definition switcheroo (in the thread
> > "Mr. Raven, please explain the contradiction"), I stumbled across the
> > following text on Mr. Raven's website.
> >
> > I would like to ask him to give sources for this material and to ask why
> > he didn't feel it necessary to cite sources on the web page itself.
> > (snip)
>
> Your question assumes facts not in evidence. I wanted to provide
> citations, but in translating from FrameMaker format to HTML, the
> references did not come across. Full citations will be provided in the
> print and final HTML versions of this article.
I see. Thank you.
I look forward to seeing your sources for these three assertions:
1. Hoess was beaten by Jewish members of the British Field Police
upon capture -- in particular, the fact that they were Jewish.
2. His captors threatened to deport Hoess' wife and children
to Siberia.
3. Moritz Von Schirmeister asked Hoess about his confession and
received the answer that you quoted.
The reason I focus on these three items, for anyone who's watching, is
that I don't believe Mr. Raven has _any_ evidence to support 1 or 2, and
to support 3 he has only a document allegedly in the possession of one
Robert Faurisson, but which, for unspecified reasons, he is unable to
reveal.
Such invisible evidence (and non-evidence!) would of course be ridiculed
if it supported assertions he did not agree with. But since he _does_
agree with what they say, he does not hesitate to use them.
Maybe I'm wrong about this -- we'll know soon enough -- but in any
event, Mr. Raven will be letting us see what he thinks constitutes proof
of his assertions.
*** THE TRUTH -- AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN
Mr. Raven continues:
> In point of fact, Mr. McCarthy, it is you who is attempting a
> "switcheroo." I agreed to YOUR definition of "Holocaust" for the
> purposes of keeping our original discussion on track, that being, what
> proof is there of Nazi gas chambers.
I'm sorry, but that is simply false. I can't argue with falsehoods
except by printing and reprinting and again reprinting the truth. I've
quoted your own words to you over and over, probably dozens of times in
the last 2.5 years, but apparently my efforts have been in vain. I can
only repeat myself helplessly. This time, I'll quote your entire
article. Please reread it carefully.
As you'll see, you aren't agreeing to my definition or anyone else's.
You're proposing your own and asking if we would agree to it (which we,
generally, did). The below is your complete article, verbatim except
for cleaned up formatting and my underlining:
From: greg...@kaiwan.com (Greg Raven)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Can we talk?
Date: 20 Apr 1994 04:11:30 GMT
Message-ID: <2p2a1i$f...@kaiwan.kaiwan.com>
Dear Fellow alt.revisionists:
I have only just got my Internet connection up and running, so
perhaps I am judging the discussions I have seen on
alt.revisionism too harshly, but the discussion does not seem to
be up to the level for which I was hoping. I saw a post in which
Ken Mcvay denigrated the GEnie discussion of the Holocaust which
took place several months ago, but this forum seems to be
providing a lower quality discussion of the Holocaust than GEnie
did, and the GEnie discussion was pretty poor.
If you will allow me to make a modest suggestion, I would like to
get this discussion back on track, at least as far as Holocaust
revisionism is concerned (I assumed that the less said about the
Armenians-vs. Turks, the better). To this end, I would like to
make a few simple statements concerning my position, and then ask
for a fairly specific response, in order to prevent a splintering
of discussions and energies.
First, I do not deny the Holocaust happened. Let me repeat that. I
do not deny the Holocaust happened. For the purposes of this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
discussion, I am using a fairly generic definition of the word
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Holocaust," which is "the murder of six million Jews as a central
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
act of state by the Nazis during the Second World War, many in gas
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
chambers." If anyone has a problem with this definition, I invite
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you to provide your version.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Second, here is what Holocaust revisionists REALLY say: The Jews
of Europe suffered a great tragedy before and during the Second
World War. Many were mistreated, and many died under horrific
conditions. However, a) there is no evidence that the Nazis had a
plan or policy of exterminating the Jews, b) there is no evidence
that there were homicidal gas chambers for murder Jews, and c) the
figure of six million Jewish victims is an exaggeration.
I imagine that some of you will take exception to at least some of
these statements. What I ask from those who do is simply this:
Provide me with what you think is the one or two best pieces of
evidence that the Nazis had a plan to exterminate millions of Jews
in homicidal gas chambers. Once you provide what you think is the
best evidence, I will respond.
You will note that I do not want long collages consisting of
snippets of speeches, fragments of documents, etc. I want one or
two pieces of evidence. I will not consider personal attacks,
discussions of race, discussions about the meta-meaning of
Holocaust "denial," or other non-substantive, off-topic posts to
address the issue at hand. I look forward to hearing from all who
have something to say.
P.S. I do not have a lot of time to put into this discussion, but
I will do the best I can. I hope you understand, and try not to
get too surly with me if I skip a day or two while I attempt to
meet my many deadlines.
Greg Raven
greg...@kaiwan.com
*** WHO SHOUTS "LIE"?
DThomas, take note: I'm not calling the above a lie. So far, it may
merely be a very sloppy memory, failure to research, and utter disregard
for what I have been saying to him over and over again for the last two
and a half years.
I am charitably assuming Mr. Raven doesn't clearly remember his own
words from 2.5 years ago (despite my quoting them to him again and again
over the last two years, and quoting them with two full paragraphs of
context on the very web page he recently denounced). I'm also
charitably assuming Mr. Raven hasn't accessed our web site to review his
complete article in context. In short, I'm giving him every possible
benefit of the doubt and then some.
Compare this to Mr. Raven's characterization, in his interview for the
L.A. Times, printed Oct. 28:
"We do not deny the existence of the Holocaust," he said. "That's
a lie put forth by our opposition."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nevertheless, DThomas, I suspect you will continue to insist that it is
I and my colleagues who shout "lie" and "liar," and that Raven and his
colleagues are innocent of this heinous sin.
*** THE DOUBLE STANDARD SHOWS ITS RELEVANCE
Mr. Raven continues:
> You failed miserably at providing
> any such proof,
We went over that quite thoroughly in 1994 -- the end result was that
you failed miserably at telling us what "proof" meant, except of course
that you hadn't seen any.
This is why it is so important that we contrast your gullibility when it
comes to evidence allegedly _against_ the Holocaust, such as your
swallowing Faurisson's invisible document without a gulp, to your
absolute refusal to accept evidence _for_ the Holocaust, such as your
stating that Himmler's line "the Jewish people is being exterminated"
doesn't count because Himmler doesn't mention gas chambers.
It is of the utmost importance that this contrast be plainly laid out,
so that the reader can judge for him- or herself whether you are a
reliable judge of evidence relating to the Holocaust.
*** NATTERING
> and ever since then you have been nattering about how I
> have changed my definition of "Holocaust."
Huh? Ever since 1994?
No, I first became aware of your changing your definition when you
emailed me the URL to your web page in which you meandered on about
definitions.
If you think I'm mistaken, please find an instance of my nattering about
your changing your definition, prior to last week.
*** WHO DERAILS DISCUSSION?
> The definition of "Holocaust"
> was not important to the discussion of Nazi gas chambers, although given
> your "proof" of Nazi gas chambers I can certainly appreciate why you
> have attempted time and again to derail the discussion into irrelevant
> areas.
Small problem: you've got it backwards. _You're_ the one who uses the
semantic difference of "Holocaust-denier" vs. "revisionist" as a
mechanism to derail discussion.
In December 1995 I posted an article asking how you and your colleagues
explained the testimony of Ribbentrop, with the subject line "How do
Holocaust-deniers explain Ribbentrop?"
Rather than discuss Ribbentrop's testimony, you responded as follows:
> How do Holocaust-deniers explain Ribbentrop? How should I know? Why
> not find a "Holocaust-denier" and ask him?
Tell me again who "derails the discussion into irrelevant areas" like
the meaning of the term "Holocaust-denier."
*** DA CAPO AL FINE: THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE
In that post nearly a year ago, Mr. Raven went on to say that no one had
ever found a Nazi gas chamber, which offers me a splendid opportunity to
bring this article of mine full circle.
In asking for his sources on those three assertions, I am seeking to
demonstrate that he has a double standard when it comes to evidence,
that he believes what he wants to believe and nothing else. As I
responded to him back in December 1995:
Raven simply has no clue about what would constitute proof that a
particular room was used or intended to be used to kill people with
gas.
As Michael Shermer says,
Could [any revisionist] please tell me what constitutes proof of
homicidal gas chambers, short of a gas chamber with a large sign
hanging on the wall that says: "Here we gas Jews to death."
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/s/shermer.michael/open-letter
He hasn't gotten an answer to that question, nor is he likely to,
because the core tenet of revisionism is dishonesty, and dishonest
hypocrisy about standards of proof is the first and most important
bylaw.
So, Mr. Raven, I look forward to your evidence for the three assertions
I've outlined, because that will give us some examples of what you
accept as proof.
Posted to alt.revisionism; courtesy copy emailed to Mr. Raven and CODOH;
Mark Van Alstine
> Jamie McCarthy wrote:
> >
> > (A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
> > alt.revisionism)
> >
> > While preparing my response to your definition switcheroo (in the thread
> > "Mr. Raven, please explain the contradiction"), I stumbled across the
> > following text on Mr. Raven's website.
> >
> > I would like to ask him to give sources for this material and to ask why
> > he didn't feel it necessary to cite sources on the web page itself.
> > (snip)
>
> Your question assumes facts not in evidence. I wanted to provide
> citations, but in translating from FrameMaker format to HTML, the
> references did not come across. Full citations will be provided in the
> print and final HTML versions of this article.
Translated: Mr Raven's computer ate his "homework."
Yeah, sure. :-/
> In point of fact, Mr. McCarthy, it is you who is attempting a
> "switcheroo." I agreed to YOUR definition of "Holocaust" for the
> purposes of keeping our original discussion on track, that being, what
> proof is there of Nazi gas chambers. You failed miserably at providing
> any such proof, and ever since then you have been nattering about how I
> have changed my definition of "Holocaust." The definition of "Holocaust"
> was not important to the discussion of Nazi gas chambers, although given
> your "proof" of Nazi gas chambers I can certainly appreciate why you
> have attempted time and again to derail the discussion into irrelevant
> areas.
Yeah, sure. :-/
For evidence of Mr. Raven's scurrilous Nazi apologia and lies, please visit:
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg/deny-holocaust.01
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg/myopia.0195
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg/lies-damn-lies.01
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg/lies-damn-lies.02
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg/physical-evidence.01
http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/r/raven.greg/raven-quote-doctoring.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swiss bank billions
>In good old revisionist style, perhaps I should point out that the
>testimony of Hoess and his torturers are not fully consistent, couple
>that with the fact that this is only testimony - then any revisionist
>out there would have to conclude that the story of Hoess's torture is a
>sham and never happened.
In the real world, when there is an allegation of police brutality,
there is at least an internal investigation. In this case there was
no such investigation of the allegation.
As such, you have no basis for claiming it was a sham and never
happened. All you are doing is giving your opinion of the allegation.
You do not have complete access to those involved, you had no
opportunity to question them under oath and no one else did either.
That is one of the real reasons the police hold such
investigations, to get the people on record and come to a conclusion
based upon the investigation. When such an investigation does not
occur, then situations like this arise, where there is no basis for
rejecting the allegation other than opinion.
=====
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/welcome.html Zundelsite
http://194.243.91.7/ISLAM/ to the light
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~lpauling/ Student Revisionist Resource Site
http://www.eskimo.com/~ralphj/ Revisionist Productions
http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/index.html Reflections upon the Holocaust
http://flashback.se/~rislam/ Radio Islam
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/LEUCHTER/leuchtertoc.html The Leuchter Report
http://www.hoffman-info.com/ The Hoffman Report
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ Greg Raven's Website
http://www.codoh.com/irving/irving.html David Irving
http://www.codoh.com/ Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (Bradley Smith)
http://www.pixi.com/~bewise/ Be Wise as Serpents
http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/index.html L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerre et
d'Holocauste (also in English)
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/ Arthur R. Butz
http://www.air-photo.com/ Air Photo Evidence (John Ball)
http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins.html Adelaide Institute
Dene Bebbington
Swiss bank billions <impove...@shtetl.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:28:13 +0000, Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In good old revisionist style, perhaps I should point out that the
>>testimony of Hoess and his torturers are not fully consistent, couple
>>that with the fact that this is only testimony - then any revisionist
>>out there would have to conclude that the story of Hoess's torture is a
>>sham and never happened.
>
>happened. All you are doing is giving your opinion of the allegation.
Hey, look out Matt, there's some irony that just passed right by your
head without you spotting it.
> You do not have complete access to those involved, you had no
>opportunity to question them under oath and no one else did either.
And Mr Raven is in the same situation.
> That is one of the real reasons the police hold such
>investigations, to get the people on record and come to a conclusion
>based upon the investigation. When such an investigation does not
>occur, then situations like this arise, where there is no basis for
>rejecting the allegation other than opinion.
And therefore no basis for accepting it other than opinion.
But the point I was making was not really about this incident, but was
just a comment about the spurious methodology and inconsistency of
revisionists. We constantly hear hysterical cries against the Holocaust
because much of it is based on testimony, but it's amazing how the
revisionists use testimony when it suits them - ie. to try and cast
doubt on an event which ironically they think testimony is not good
enough for. Haven't you spotted the fickleness of this revisionist
method yet, or is that beyond you as well?
Using your revisonist tactics we can just as easily dismiss anything
such as the article regarding the supposed torture of Hoess. In fact the
problem with these revisionist tactics is that we can totally reject
almost any history, or accept it, simply based on our own bias.
rblac...@juno.com
ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) writes:
While preparing my response to your definition switcheroo (in the thread
at Heide. Some of them, among them former commandant Bothmann,
who was an alleged "suicide". There were conveniently a number of
alleged suicides:
Himmler
Pruetzmann
Globocnik
Dr. Conti
And dozens of others.....Am I suggesting that perhaps they were
not really suicides? Apparently revisionists are now being requested
to furnish the names of all Jewish interrogaters and occupiers during the second world
war. If and when this is done, it will only work in favor of revisionists, of
that one may be sure. Off hand a number of names may be given beginning with
Henry Kissinger, know as henry Asskissinger among his friends at the time.
Treblinka Veggie Garden
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:00:04 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
wrote:
> Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
> ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/
I have a serious question for you "Co-Webmaster". How does it feel
do discover you have been working nothing for a synagogue and McVay
was lying to you all along? Or did you know it all along and were
lying to us?
It would be desirable for you to answer both questions but one or
the other will be sufficient.
=====
http://www.alquds.org:80/www/zionism/zionism.html The Dark Web
Pages of Zionism
Treblinka Veggie Garden
>Swiss bank billions <impove...@shtetl.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:28:13 +0000, Dene Bebbington
>><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In good old revisionist style, perhaps I should point out that the
>>>testimony of Hoess and his torturers are not fully consistent, couple
>>>that with the fact that this is only testimony - then any revisionist
>>>out there would have to conclude that the story of Hoess's torture is a
>>>sham and never happened.
>>
>> As such, you have no basis for claiming it was a sham and never
>>happened. All you are doing is giving your opinion of the allegation.
>
>Hey, look out Matt, there's some irony that just passed right by your
>head without you spotting it.
Better writers than you have failed at irony. Perhaps you would
care to underline it next time to make it obvious.
>> You do not have complete access to those involved, you had no
>>opportunity to question them under oath and no one else did either.
>
>And Mr Raven is in the same situation.
Precisely BUT the allegation was made and you have only your
personal opinion on the allegation as there was no investigation of
the allegation. So we have an allegation, confession if you will, by
one of the torturers and your opinion of the allegation. As such, you
are at a supreme disadvantage.
Had there been an investigation and the "confession" retracted
under oath you would be in fat city. If he had sustained it under
oath I would be in fat city. As it is we have a clear statement by
one of the torturers.
Thus we are left with a reasonable answer to the question as to why
Hoess would sign his own death warrant with that testimony. It is not
reasonable to suggest a man like Hoess would suddenly be stricken with
remorse particularly if guilty.
>> That is one of the real reasons the police hold such
>>investigations, to get the people on record and come to a conclusion
>>based upon the investigation. When such an investigation does not
>>occur, then situations like this arise, where there is no basis for
>>rejecting the allegation other than opinion.
>
>And therefore no basis for accepting it other than opinion.
Precisely but it does explain why Hoess would sign his own death
warrant without any reason to do so.
>But the point I was making was not really about this incident, but was
>just a comment about the spurious methodology and inconsistency of
>revisionists. We constantly hear hysterical cries against the Holocaust
>because much of it is based on testimony, but it's amazing how the
>revisionists use testimony when it suits them - ie. to try and cast
>doubt on an event which ironically they think testimony is not good
>enough for. Haven't you spotted the fickleness of this revisionist
>method yet, or is that beyond you as well?
It is fine with me if you are interested in discussing this matter
without reference to any testimony. Any time you are ready. But when
holohuggers insist upon using testimony then testimony is a legitimate
response.
By responding with testimony holohuggers are forced for face
(honest ones at least) that testimony can not be considered absolute.
>Using your revisonist tactics we can just as easily dismiss anything
>such as the article regarding the supposed torture of Hoess. In fact the
>problem with these revisionist tactics is that we can totally reject
>almost any history, or accept it, simply based on our own bias.
And if we continue rejecting testimony we can reject Hoess's and
all the rest of the testimony.
Testimony is either in or it is out. If out, lets go from there.
If it is in, then we test all testimony against the ultimate sounding
board of physical law, then of common experience and finally of likely
human behavior.
rblac...@juno.com
> him...@strasse.org (Treblinka Veggie Garden) writes:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 20:00:04 -0500, ja...@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
> wrote:
>
> > Jamie McCarthy http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
> > ja...@voyager.net Co-Webmaster of http://www.nizkor.org/
>
> I have a serious question for you "Co-Webmaster". How does it feel
> do discover you have been working nothing for a synagogue and McVay
> was lying to you all along? Or did you know it all along and were
> lying to us?
>
> It would be desirable for you to answer both questions but one or
> the other will be sufficient.
>
> http://www.alquds.org:80/www/zionism/zionism.html The Dark Web
> Pages of Zionism
> http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/welcome.html Zundelsite
> http://194.243.91.7/ISLAM/ to the light
> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~lpauling/ Student Revisionist Resource Site
> http://www.eskimo.com/~ralphj/ Revisionist Productions
> http://home1.gte.net/mgiwer/index.html Reflections upon the Holocaust
> http://flashback.se/~rislam/ Radio Islam
> http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/LEUCHTER/leuchtertoc.html The Leuchter Report
> http://www.hoffman-info.com/ The Hoffman Report
> http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg/ Greg Raven's Website
> http://www.codoh.com/irving/irving.html David Irving
> http://www.codoh.com/ Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (Bradley Smith)
> http://www.pixi.com/~bewise/ Be Wise as Serpents
> http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/index.html L'Association des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerre et
> d'Holocauste (also in English)
> http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/ Arthur R. Butz
> http://www.air-photo.com/ Air Photo Evidence (John Ball)
> http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins.html Adelaide Institute
>
>>>>
Dene Bebbington
Treblinka Veggie Garden <him...@strasse.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 19:32:56 +0000, Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Swiss bank billions <impove...@shtetl.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 19:28:13 +0000, Dene Bebbington
>>><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In good old revisionist style, perhaps I should point out that the
>>>>testimony of Hoess and his torturers are not fully consistent, couple
>>>>that with the fact that this is only testimony - then any revisionist
>>>>out there would have to conclude that the story of Hoess's torture is a
>>>>sham and never happened.
>>>
>>> As such, you have no basis for claiming it was a sham and never
>>>happened. All you are doing is giving your opinion of the allegation.
>>
>>Hey, look out Matt, there's some irony that just passed right by your
>>head without you spotting it.
>
> Better writers than you have failed at irony. Perhaps you would
>care to underline it next time to make it obvious.
By the same token, worse readers than you have spotted it. But I won't
underline it next time, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to spot it,
after all improving your skills requires some effort on your part.
>>> You do not have complete access to those involved, you had no
>>>opportunity to question them under oath and no one else did either.
>>
>>And Mr Raven is in the same situation.
>
> Precisely BUT the allegation was made and you have only your
>personal opinion on the allegation as there was no investigation of
>the allegation.
Actually, I don't have enough knowledge of the background to the Hoess
issue to make any allegations. What you've failed to grasp (yet again,
sigh) is that I was making a point about the inconsistencies in
revisionist views and methods.
> So we have an allegation, confession if you will, by
>one of the torturers and your opinion of the allegation. As such, you
>are at a supreme disadvantage.
But you earlier on seemed to admit that I'd attempted to be ironic, so
what makes you think I had a serious opinion of the allegation?
>>> That is one of the real reasons the police hold such
>>>investigations, to get the people on record and come to a conclusion
>>>based upon the investigation. When such an investigation does not
>>>occur, then situations like this arise, where there is no basis for
>>>rejecting the allegation other than opinion.
>>
>>And therefore no basis for accepting it other than opinion.
>
> Precisely but it does explain why Hoess would sign his own death
>warrant without any reason to do so.
Huh. It explains the reason why Hoess would sign his "own death warrant"
without him having any reason to do so. Interesting gobbledegook Matt.
>>But the point I was making was not really about this incident, but was
>>just a comment about the spurious methodology and inconsistency of
>>revisionists. We constantly hear hysterical cries against the Holocaust
>>because much of it is based on testimony, but it's amazing how the
>>revisionists use testimony when it suits them - ie. to try and cast
>>doubt on an event which ironically they think testimony is not good
>>enough for. Haven't you spotted the fickleness of this revisionist
>>method yet, or is that beyond you as well?
>
> It is fine with me if you are interested in discussing this matter
>without reference to any testimony. Any time you are ready. But when
>holohuggers insist upon using testimony then testimony is a legitimate
>response.
Sorry, but some revisionists insist that testimony is not reliable, so
how can they use it as part of a debunking methodology if they don't
believe testimony.
>>Using your revisonist tactics we can just as easily dismiss anything
>>such as the article regarding the supposed torture of Hoess. In fact the
>>problem with these revisionist tactics is that we can totally reject
>>almost any history, or accept it, simply based on our own bias.
>
> And if we continue rejecting testimony we can reject Hoess's and
>all the rest of the testimony.
Quite, if the revisionists reject testimony then there is no point to
the posting regarding the alleged torture of Hoess, because even though
others may give it some credence, the professed unbelievers in testimony
cannot.
> Testimony is either in or it is out. If out, lets go from there.
Good point, do you revisionists accept testimony or don't you? Because
if I remember correctly you have made statements in the past that
testimony is not to be believed.