Burden of Proving Historicity of the Holocaust

10 views
Skip to first unread message

MoonStone©

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
Proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the so-called Holocaust is
analogous in some respects to proving "beyond doubt" that Lee Harvey
Oswald assassinated Kennedy over 38 years ago.

Most everyone knows that for years various conspiracy theories and
skepticism has abounded about the JFK assassination..

The Warren Commission was the official governmental investigative
entity specifically formed to resolve the JFK assassination.
It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy.

So why after all of these years are there still doubts about what
really happened?

The logical and simplest answer to this is that the paramount and
final authority on what really happened is dead.
That key and all important source of course is Oswald who was killed
before he admitted any guilt or gave any significant testimony

This parallels the Holocaust in that_ ALL_ of the paramount final
authorities that knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" what happened, died
before they could be interrogated. Of course the prime source of all
would be Hitler, and Himmler would be next in line.

In the case of the JFK assassination, a key component that casts doubt
on the central finding of the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the
lone gunman, was he would've had to have accomplished a feat of very
amazing marksmanship.

Kennedy was shot twice while in a moving vehicle, one hit between the
shoulder blades and the other in the back of the head . Oswald
supposedly accomplished this implausible feat using a bolt action
surplus mail order rifle of unreliable accuracy. And one of the
bullets had to be the so-called "magic bullet" to account for other
damage after hitting Kennedy.

Without Oswald, the Warren Commission had the burden of convincing the
general American public to "believe" in or accept improbable, though
not impossible elements about the assassination as_ fact_ in order to
substantiate its final conclusions.

Similarly without Hitler, Himmler and others, the IMT and subsequent
war crime trials were faced with this same burden about conclusions
concerning the so-called Holocaust. They also had the additional
complicating factor of having to convince a worldwide and more
politically diverse constituency in accepting the improbable elements
in their findings.

The conclusions drawn from the various Holocaust trials also bear the
stigma of being arrived at by different judicial theories and
processes. France, Russia, Poland, Italy and paradoxically the
principle culprit, Germany have each left their unique judicial taints
on the mass of Holocaust evidence. And of course the "hate crime" laws
enacted by some of these entities to prevent questioning of these
conclusions do not enhance their credibility.

Obviously, both of these sanctioned investigative bodies failed to a
significant degree.

What would be definitive proof that what has been alleged to have
happened in fact did and would be acceptable by both "believers" and
Revisionists?

A verifiable signed official document by Hitler ordering in
unequivocal terms the Holocaust. Without this document, all else is
simply "believer" speculation about how many angels can dance on the
head of a pen.
And employing schemes like trying to fob off Himmler's ambiguous Posen
Speech as an "esartz" substitute for a Hitler order always fall short.

MoonStone©

John Morris

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In <gVTTN4oIkXc+Tf...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 06 Sep 1999

02:06:04 -0400, MoonStone© <N...@de.Guerre> wrote:

>Proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the so-called Holocaust is
>analogous in some respects to proving "beyond doubt" that Lee Harvey
>Oswald assassinated Kennedy over 38 years ago.

Here comes the classic conspiracy theorist's manoeuvre: drawing
specious parallels between two conspiracy theories. Here, it is
between the crackpot theories of Revisionism and the Kennedy
assassination.

>Most everyone knows that for years various conspiracy theories and
>skepticism has abounded about the JFK assassination..

>The Warren Commission was the official governmental investigative
>entity specifically formed to resolve the JFK assassination.
>It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy.

>So why after all of these years are there still doubts about what
>really happened?

>The logical and simplest answer to this is that the paramount and
>final authority on what really happened is dead.
>That key and all important source of course is Oswald who was killed
>before he admitted any guilt or gave any significant testimony

>This parallels the Holocaust in that_ ALL_ of the paramount final
>authorities that knew "beyond a shadow of a doubt" what happened, died
>before they could be interrogated. Of course the prime source of all
>would be Hitler, and Himmler would be next in line.

Completely and utterly false. Eichmann survived the war. Oswald Pohl
survived the war. The commanders of the Einsatzgruppen survived the
war. All of the extermination camp commandants survived the war. All
of these men were put on trial and testified to facts that in the
aggregate give us the outline of the Holocaust. The lesser figures,
such as camp guards and shooters, were put on trial by the Germans
themselves, and their testimony corroborates the testimony of their
superiors.

In addition, for your parallel to hold, Hitler would personally have
to have killed the Jews (except, I suppose on alternate days when
Himmler was doing it).

>In the case of the JFK assassination, a key component that casts doubt
>on the central finding of the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the
>lone gunman, was he would've had to have accomplished a feat of very
>amazing marksmanship.

>Kennedy was shot twice while in a moving vehicle, one hit between the
>shoulder blades and the other in the back of the head . Oswald
>supposedly accomplished this implausible feat using a bolt action
>surplus mail order rifle of unreliable accuracy. And one of the
>bullets had to be the so-called "magic bullet" to account for other
>damage after hitting Kennedy.
>
>Without Oswald, the Warren Commission had the burden of convincing the
>general American public to "believe" in or accept improbable, though
>not impossible elements about the assassination as_ fact_ in order to
>substantiate its final conclusions.

>Similarly without Hitler, Himmler and others, the IMT and subsequent
>war crime trials were faced with this same burden about conclusions
>concerning the so-called Holocaust.

Yes, and how many tons of documents did Lee Harvey Oswald leave
behind? How many witnesses who actually saw Lee Harvey Oswald pull
the trigger?

>They also had the additional
>complicating factor of having to convince a worldwide and more
>politically diverse constituency in accepting the improbable elements
>in their findings.

>The conclusions drawn from the various Holocaust trials also bear the
>stigma of being arrived at by different judicial theories and
>processes. France, Russia, Poland, Italy and paradoxically the
>principle culprit, Germany have each left their unique judicial taints
>on the mass of Holocaust evidence.

That isn't even remotely parallel.

But I'm glad you brought it up. You name five different judicial
theories. You could also have named Poland, the United States, and
Britain. I'm not so certain that they are all is radically different.
But it tells you something about the nature of the evidence that five
different judicial theories working with approximately the same
evidence, produced one conclusion.

In science, that could be called a consilience of inductions. Five
different experiments, following five different methodologies, using
the same evidence, produce one conclusion about a physical phenomenon.
In science, that's called proof of a theory.

Hey! That's what it's called in history, too.

> And of course the "hate crime" laws
>enacted by some of these entities to prevent questioning of these
>conclusions do not enhance their credibility.

Irrelevant.

>Obviously, both of these sanctioned investigative bodies failed to a
>significant degree.

Failed to prevent questioning?

>What would be definitive proof that what has been alleged to have
>happened in fact did and would be acceptable by both "believers" and
>Revisionists?

There is no such proof because Revisionists are unconcerned with
evidence. For Revisionists, evidence is the set facts which can be
manipulated to produce the predetermined conclusion.

If you think my saying so is simply tendentious, consider the
granddaddy of Revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes did
praiseworthy work in 1929 debunking the atrocity myths of World War I.
When he came to his analysis of World War II thirty years later,
Barnes started with the explicit assumption that if the atrocity
claims of World War I were myths, then it followed that the atrocity
claims of World War II must also be myths. And the rest, as they say,
is pseudohistory.

Revisionists still trot out that fallacious argument unchanged from
Barnes. There are, of course, variants of the argument as well, such
as when people apparently bone ignorant of history attempt to draw
parallels between the Holocaust and the Kennedy assassination.
Logically, it is the same fallacious argument.

>A verifiable signed official document by Hitler ordering in
>unequivocal terms the Holocaust. Without this document, all else is
>simply "believer" speculation about how many angels can dance on the
>head of a pen.
>And employing schemes like trying to fob off Himmler's ambiguous Posen
>Speech as an "esartz" substitute for a Hitler order always fall short.

You know, Revisionists routinely claim that this document or that
document is a forgery. If were it were true that the bulk
documentation of the Holocaust were forged, why wouldn't the document
forgers simply forge a Hitler Order?

Himmler's daybook entry for December 18, 1943 contains a brief
reflection of the verbal order he probably received that week from
Hitler. It is not even a sentence: "Judenfrage | als Partisanen
auszurotten" [The Jewish Question | exterminate as if partisans].

How hard would it have been for an expert forger to have been given a
scrap of contemporary paper and to have written those four words in
Hitler's handwriting?

Secondly, can you produce Roosevelt's written order to declare war on
Japan? I don't mean the US declaration of war. I don't mean
Roosevelt's radio address. I mean the written order. Do you think he
even gave such an order? Or do you think he sat down and met with his
cabinet and with congressional leaders to discuss whether war should
be declared on Japan?

If you cannot produce the Roosevelt order,--a verifiable signed
official document by Roosevelt ordering in unequivocal terms World War
II--then without this document, all else is simply "believer"


speculation about how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.

Do you see the flaw in your argument?

No? Well, try this. Can you give me the Oswald Order? Do you have a
verifiable document ordering Oswald to assassinate John Kennedy? No?
How can you possibly believe that Kennedy was assassinated?

More importantly than the "Hitler Order," the mass of evidence proves
unequivocally not only that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews,
Poles, and others, but that it was policy of the government to do so.

If you are able to say that it is all speculation without four words
written on a scrap paper, then I can only conclude that you know
nothing of the evidence or that you are a liar.

Which is it?

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
--
"Nizkooks are not members of homosapiens.
They are members of Judeosapiens." Joe Bellinger, May 17, 1999.

MoonStone©

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to

Serious misinterpretation.
The key phrase is "paramount final authorities." Eichmann and the
others you list were secondary functionaries. One could say, "The Buck
Stopped With Hitler and Himmler." Surely you are not saying Eichmann
and the others knew are much as Hitler and Himmler.

> All
>of these men were put on trial and testified to facts that in the
>aggregate give us the outline of the Holocaust. The lesser figures,
>such as camp guards and shooters, were put on trial by the Germans
>themselves, and their testimony corroborates the testimony of their
>superiors.
>
>In addition, for your parallel to hold, Hitler would personally have
>to have killed the Jews (except, I suppose on alternate days when
>Himmler was doing it).

Ludicrous statement!
Hitler and Himmler are not being literally compared to Oswald!

You failed to understand that no parallel was being drawn here.

>
>But I'm glad you brought it up. You name five different judicial
>theories. You could also have named Poland, the United States, and
>Britain. I'm not so certain that they are all is radically different.
>But it tells you something about the nature of the evidence that five
>different judicial theories working with approximately the same
>evidence, produced one conclusion.
>
>In science, that could be called a consilience of inductions. Five
>different experiments, following five different methodologies, using
>the same evidence, produce one conclusion about a physical phenomenon.
>In science, that's called proof of a theory.
>
>Hey! That's what it's called in history, too.
>
>> And of course the "hate crime" laws
>>enacted by some of these entities to prevent questioning of these
>>conclusions do not enhance their credibility.
>
>Irrelevant.

Spurious conclusion.

The backward thinking "hate crime" laws are a major obstacle to
resolving the many contradictions about the so-called Holocaust.

What truth needs a defense by a state?

There is no law for instance that says you have to believe that we
live in a heliocentric universe. However at one time not so long ago
there were papal prohibitions with the threat of death against such a
belief and the long held Ptolemaic model of the planetary system - the
geocentric system was the only acceptable explanation about the
movement of the planets allowed.

So your conclusion that the "hate crime" laws are_ irrelevant_ to the
so-called Holocaust is fallacious.

>
>>Obviously, both of these sanctioned investigative bodies failed to a
>>significant degree.
>
>Failed to prevent questioning?

Failed in resolving "beyond reasonable doubt" the so-called Holocaust
and the JFK assassination respectively because the final paramount
authorities (Hitler, Himmler / Oswald) were not available for
questioning. The main focus of this argument.

>
>>What would be definitive proof that what has been alleged to have
>>happened in fact did and would be acceptable by both "believers" and
>>Revisionists?
>
>There is no such proof because Revisionists are unconcerned with
>evidence. For Revisionists, evidence is the set facts which can be
>manipulated to produce the predetermined conclusion.
>
>If you think my saying so is simply tendentious, consider the
>granddaddy of Revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes did
>praiseworthy work in 1929 debunking the atrocity myths of World War I.
>When he came to his analysis of World War II thirty years later,
>Barnes started with the explicit assumption that if the atrocity
>claims of World War I were myths, then it followed that the atrocity
>claims of World War II must also be myths. And the rest, as they say,
>is pseudohistory.

Poor old Harry must have touched that sacred "third rail" called the
Holocaust. A career killer for sure.


>
>Revisionists still trot out that fallacious argument unchanged from
>Barnes. There are, of course, variants of the argument as well, such
>as when people apparently bone ignorant of history attempt to draw
>parallels between the Holocaust and the Kennedy assassination.
>Logically, it is the same fallacious argument.
>
>>A verifiable signed official document by Hitler ordering in
>>unequivocal terms the Holocaust. Without this document, all else is
>>simply "believer" speculation about how many angels can dance on the
>>head of a pen.
>>And employing schemes like trying to fob off Himmler's ambiguous Posen
>>Speech as an "esartz" substitute for a Hitler order always fall short.
>
>You know, Revisionists routinely claim that this document or that
>document is a forgery. If were it were true that the bulk
>documentation of the Holocaust were forged, why wouldn't the document
>forgers simply forge a Hitler Order?

In retrospect, who really needs one?
Most "Believers" are quite content with things "as is."
They would probably be just as immovable in their bigoted beliefs if
there were no documents at all.
What do you think the asinine laws in countries like Germany and
France that forbid any questioning of the Holocaust are all about?

>
>Himmler's daybook entry for December 18, 1943 contains a brief
>reflection of the verbal order he probably received that week from
>Hitler. It is not even a sentence: "Judenfrage | als Partisanen
>auszurotten" [The Jewish Question | exterminate as if partisans].

Ah, the Himmler daybook gambit!
Worse than the Posen speech canard.
Surely you can do better.

>
>How hard would it have been for an expert forger to have been given a
>scrap of contemporary paper and to have written those four words in
>Hitler's handwriting?

There is one thing that needs to be understood about forgeries and
other deliberate falsehoods. They are "cons"(frauds) and as any good
con artist will tell you, ALL cons eventually unravel and are exposed
as such regardless of how well constructed they are. It is just a
matter of time.

>
>Secondly, can you produce Roosevelt's written order to declare war on
>Japan? I don't mean the US declaration of war. I don't mean
>Roosevelt's radio address. I mean the written order. Do you think he
>even gave such an order? Or do you think he sat down and met with his
>cabinet and with congressional leaders to discuss whether war should
>be declared on Japan?

On Monday, December 8, I am sure FDR was very busy and met with quite
a number of people and most assuredly some were members of his cabinet
and of Congress. But I doubt if they held any speculative discussions
about the pros or cons of declaring war on Japan.

>
>If you cannot produce the Roosevelt order,--a verifiable signed
>official document by Roosevelt ordering in unequivocal terms World War
>II--then without this document, all else is simply "believer"
>speculation about how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.
>
>Do you see the flaw in your argument?

Nope. There is no written order by FDR declaring war on Japan. The
President does not have the authority to declare war under the US
Constitution. He can only recommend or petition that war be declared.
The authority to declare war rests exclusively with the US Congress.
However, FDR did give before Congress his famous "Day of Infamy"
speech after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The speech was rather
unequivocal in its terms.

>
>No?
I will answer for myself when I feel I need to. Thanks anyway.

> Well, try this. Can you give me the Oswald Order? Do you have a
>verifiable document ordering Oswald to assassinate John Kennedy? No?
>How can you possibly believe that Kennedy was assassinated?

This is just plain WEIRD!! No comment necessary.


>
>More importantly than the "Hitler Order," the mass of evidence proves
>unequivocally not only that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews,
>Poles, and others, but that it was policy of the government to do so.

More importantly, the "believer" version of the Holocaust would be
just as intractably in place as it is now even if there was no "mass
of evidence."

>
>If you are able to say that it is all speculation without four words
>written on a scrap paper, then I can only conclude that you know
>nothing of the evidence or that you are a liar.

Consider your attempt at libel ignored.

MoonStone©

John Morris

unread,
Sep 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/6/99
to
In <Vu=TNyEex+cBaje...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 06 Sep 1999

Surely I am. It depends on what you mean by the "paramount final
authority." Is this an authority of knowledge or simply political
authority?

If you mean political authority, then what happens to your analogy
when you consider that Oswald had no political authority to order the
assassination of the president?

If you mean the authority of knowledge, then Oswald was both the final
authority in how he took his decision and how he carried it out. For
the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the authority was split between the
men who took the decision and the men who carried it out. While
Eichmann, Pohl, and Ohlendorff, for example, had no access to how the
decision was taken, but collectively knew far more than either Hitler
or Himmler on how it was carried out. In terms of particular
knowledge, Himmler knew less than his chief statistician, Richard
Korherr.

Your analogy depends on your reader believing that a private decision
made by one man and carried out by one man is somehow commensurable
with the decisions made by a handful of men and carried out by a
considerably larger number of men.

>> All
>>of these men were put on trial and testified to facts that in the
>>aggregate give us the outline of the Holocaust. The lesser figures,
>>such as camp guards and shooters, were put on trial by the Germans
>>themselves, and their testimony corroborates the testimony of their
>>superiors.

>>In addition, for your parallel to hold, Hitler would personally have
>>to have killed the Jews (except, I suppose on alternate days when
>>Himmler was doing it).

>Ludicrous statement!
>Hitler and Himmler are not being literally compared to Oswald!

What is the basis for the comparison then? It seems to me you are
saying that we can't know with any certainty that historical events
occurred unless we have the word of the person who set events in
motion and that the word of the people who carried events to their
conclusion is useless as a source of knowledge.

>>>In the case of the JFK assassination, a key component that casts doubt
>>>on the central finding of the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the
>>>lone gunman, was he would've had to have accomplished a feat of very
>>>amazing marksmanship.

>>>Kennedy was shot twice while in a moving vehicle, one hit between the
>>>shoulder blades and the other in the back of the head . Oswald
>>>supposedly accomplished this implausible feat using a bolt action
>>>surplus mail order rifle of unreliable accuracy. And one of the
>>>bullets had to be the so-called "magic bullet" to account for other
>>>damage after hitting Kennedy.

>>>Without Oswald, the Warren Commission had the burden of convincing the
>>>general American public to "believe" in or accept improbable, though
>>>not impossible elements about the assassination as_ fact_ in order to
>>>substantiate its final conclusions.

>>>Similarly without Hitler, Himmler and others, the IMT and subsequent
>>>war crime trials were faced with this same burden about conclusions
>>>concerning the so-called Holocaust.

>>Yes, and how many tons of documents did Lee Harvey Oswald leave
>>behind? How many witnesses who actually saw Lee Harvey Oswald pull
>>the trigger?

No answer.

>>>They also had the additional
>>>complicating factor of having to convince a worldwide and more
>>>politically diverse constituency in accepting the improbable elements
>>>in their findings.

>>>The conclusions drawn from the various Holocaust trials also bear the
>>>stigma of being arrived at by different judicial theories and
>>>processes. France, Russia, Poland, Italy and paradoxically the
>>>principle culprit, Germany have each left their unique judicial taints
>>>on the mass of Holocaust evidence.

>>That isn't even remotely parallel.

>You failed to understand that no parallel was being drawn here.

Then why did you say that the war crimes courts also bore a burden
like that of the Warren Commission?

>>But I'm glad you brought it up. You name five different judicial
>>theories. You could also have named Poland, the United States, and
>>Britain. I'm not so certain that they are all is radically different.
>>But it tells you something about the nature of the evidence that five
>>different judicial theories working with approximately the same
>>evidence, produced one conclusion.

>>In science, that could be called a consilience of inductions. Five
>>different experiments, following five different methodologies, using
>>the same evidence, produce one conclusion about a physical phenomenon.
>>In science, that's called proof of a theory.

>>Hey! That's what it's called in history, too.

No answer.

>>> And of course the "hate crime" laws
>>>enacted by some of these entities to prevent questioning of these
>>>conclusions do not enhance their credibility.

>>Irrelevant.
>Spurious conclusion.

>The backward thinking "hate crime" laws are a major obstacle to
>resolving the many contradictions about the so-called Holocaust.

No such hate laws prevent North American researchers from resolving
any contradictions, though so far I haven't seen any contradictions
identified.

>What truth needs a defense by a state?

>There is no law for instance that says you have to believe that we
>live in a heliocentric universe. However at one time not so long ago
>there were papal prohibitions with the threat of death against such a
>belief and the long held Ptolemaic model of the planetary system - the
>geocentric system was the only acceptable explanation about the
>movement of the planets allowed.

>So your conclusion that the "hate crime" laws are_ irrelevant_ to the
>so-called Holocaust is fallacious.

Ah, the Galileo gambit, or I'm a Martyr So I Must Be Close to the
Truth. Let's see who is drawing the fallacious conclusion.

1. Persecution does not make you right.

Thousands of snake oil salesmen have been persecuted, too. Yet you
never see anyone say, "In 1633, Joe Bloggs was arrested and imprisoned
for selling bottled urine which he claimed was a magic elixir. In
their fight to make the truth known, Revisionists are just like brave
Joe Bloggs selling piss in a bottle."

2. Persecution does not stop the propagation of knowledge.

Take the case of Galileo--who was not under threat of death, by the
way. Galileo's work was banned in 1633. Yet in 1638, he published
his final treatise, a refinement of his previous work and based upon
further observations, at Leiden. Leiden was, of course, in a
Protestant country, and the Dutch didn't care about the Inquisition's
prohibition. At the same time that Galileo banned, Kepler refined
Copernican theory by observing that the planets moved about the sun in
elliptical motion rather than in circular motion as Copernicus
believed. Nor did the Inquisition much bother Isaac Newton who a few
years later amalgamated Kepler's theories of planetary motion with
Galileo's mathematical approach to physics into a universal theory of
gravitation.

Revisionists have their Protestant world, too. There is nothing to
prevent North American Revisionists from carrying out historical
research and publishing it freely. Equally, there is no law that
prevents German Revisionists, say, carrying out research and
publishing it pseudonymously in Leidy, Pennsylvania.

The persecution of Revisionists, both real and imagined, is thus
irrelevant to whether they can build a case proving that the Holocaust
never happened.

>>>Obviously, both of these sanctioned investigative bodies failed to a
>>>significant degree.

>>Failed to prevent questioning?

>Failed in resolving "beyond reasonable doubt" the so-called Holocaust
>and the JFK assassination respectively because the final paramount
>authorities (Hitler, Himmler / Oswald) were not available for
>questioning. The main focus of this argument.

So what issues do you see that are not resolved beyond a reasonable
doubt? All that I can see that is missing is a first-hand account of
Hitler motives, and perhaps his account of how he reached the
decision.

>>>What would be definitive proof that what has been alleged to have
>>>happened in fact did and would be acceptable by both "believers" and
>>>Revisionists?

>>There is no such proof because Revisionists are unconcerned with
>>evidence. For Revisionists, evidence is the set facts which can be
>>manipulated to produce the predetermined conclusion.

>>If you think my saying so is simply tendentious, consider the
>>granddaddy of Revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes did
>>praiseworthy work in 1929 debunking the atrocity myths of World War I.
>>When he came to his analysis of World War II thirty years later,
>>Barnes started with the explicit assumption that if the atrocity
>>claims of World War I were myths, then it followed that the atrocity
>>claims of World War II must also be myths. And the rest, as they say,
>>is pseudohistory.

>Poor old Harry must have touched that sacred "third rail" called the
>Holocaust. A career killer for sure.

Harry Elmer Barnes had a long and distinguished career. Some of his
work on the sociology of history is still read. No one bothers much
about his revisionism. In fact, his essays on revisionism are in
general circulation in the U Alberta library.

>>Revisionists still trot out that fallacious argument unchanged from
>>Barnes. There are, of course, variants of the argument as well, such
>>as when people apparently bone ignorant of history attempt to draw
>>parallels between the Holocaust and the Kennedy assassination.
>>Logically, it is the same fallacious argument.

>>>A verifiable signed official document by Hitler ordering in
>>>unequivocal terms the Holocaust. Without this document, all else is
>>>simply "believer" speculation about how many angels can dance on the
>>>head of a pen.

>>>And employing schemes like trying to fob off Himmler's ambiguous Posen
>>>Speech as an "esartz" substitute for a Hitler order always fall short.

>>You know, Revisionists routinely claim that this document or that
>>document is a forgery. If were it were true that the bulk
>>documentation of the Holocaust were forged, why wouldn't the document
>>forgers simply forge a Hitler Order?

>In retrospect, who really needs one?
>Most "Believers" are quite content with things "as is."
>They would probably be just as immovable in their bigoted beliefs if
>there were no documents at all.

Empty _ad hominem_. Pfft.

>What do you think the asinine laws in countries like Germany and
>France that forbid any questioning of the Holocaust are all about?

They are a misguided attempt to prevent the propagation of lies about
history. Their unfortunate effect is to discourage certain avenues of
historical inquiry.

>>Himmler's daybook entry for December 18, 1941 contains a brief


>>reflection of the verbal order he probably received that week from
>>Hitler. It is not even a sentence: "Judenfrage | als Partisanen
>>auszurotten" [The Jewish Question | exterminate as if partisans].

>Ah, the Himmler daybook gambit!
>Worse than the Posen speech canard.
>Surely you can do better.

I wasn't presenting evidence but giving you a concrete example of how
brief the Hitler Order could have been had it been commoutted to
paper.

>>How hard would it have been for an expert forger to have been given a
>>scrap of contemporary paper and to have written those four words in
>>Hitler's handwriting?

>There is one thing that needs to be understood about forgeries and
>other deliberate falsehoods. They are "cons"(frauds) and as any good
>con artist will tell you, ALL cons eventually unravel and are exposed
>as such regardless of how well constructed they are. It is just a
>matter of time.

Good. I agree. Now how much time do Revisionists require before they
actually embark on the great intellectual of the twentieth century as
Robert Faurisson calls it?

I have not seen a single serious piece of historical writing come out
of the Revisionist movement yet. Rassinier, Faurisson, Staeglich,
Porter: these men are just a pathetic joke and the work of Mattogno
and Kennady is scarcely better.

>>Secondly, can you produce Roosevelt's written order to declare war on
>>Japan? I don't mean the US declaration of war. I don't mean
>>Roosevelt's radio address. I mean the written order. Do you think he
>>even gave such an order? Or do you think he sat down and met with his
>>cabinet and with congressional leaders to discuss whether war should
>>be declared on Japan?
>On Monday, December 8, I am sure FDR was very busy and met with quite
>a number of people and most assuredly some were members of his cabinet
>and of Congress. But I doubt if they held any speculative discussions
>about the pros or cons of declaring war on Japan.

>>If you cannot produce the Roosevelt order,--a verifiable signed
>>official document by Roosevelt ordering in unequivocal terms World War
>>II--then without this document, all else is simply "believer"
>>speculation about how many angels can dance on the head of a pen.

>>Do you see the flaw in your argument?

>Nope. There is no written order by FDR declaring war on Japan. The
>President does not have the authority to declare war under the US
>Constitution. He can only recommend or petition that war be declared.
>The authority to declare war rests exclusively with the US Congress.
>However, FDR did give before Congress his famous "Day of Infamy"
>speech after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. The speech was rather
>unequivocal in its terms.

>>No?
>I will answer for myself when I feel I need to. Thanks anyway.

But I got the answer right nevertheless.

>> Well, try this. Can you give me the Oswald Order? Do you have a
>>verifiable document ordering Oswald to assassinate John Kennedy? No?
>>How can you possibly believe that Kennedy was assassinated?
>This is just plain WEIRD!! No comment necessary.

>>More importantly than the "Hitler Order," the mass of evidence proves
>>unequivocally not only that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews,
>>Poles, and others, but that it was policy of the government to do so.

>More importantly, the "believer" version of the Holocaust would be
>just as intractably in place as it is now even if there was no "mass
>of evidence."

Empty _ad hominem_. Pfft.

>>If you are able to say that it is all speculation without four words
>>written on a scrap paper, then I can only conclude that you know
>>nothing of the evidence or that you are a liar.

>Consider your attempt at libel ignored.

What attempt at a libel? I allow for two possibilities, both of which
are perfectly reasonable expression of opinion given the character of
your argument. I will even allow that you are suffering from some
sort of mental impairment.

But the fact remains that the evidence is nowhere near so speculative
that it could rise or fall on four words on a scrap of paper. If you
know that, I suggest you educate yourself.

>>Which is it?

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

Yale F. Edeiken

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to

MoonStoneŠ wrote in message ...

>Proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the so-called
Holocaust is
>analogous in some respects to proving "beyond doubt" that Lee
Harvey
>Oswald assassinated Kennedy over 38 years ago.

>Most everyone knows that for years various conspiracy theories


and
>skepticism has abounded about the JFK assassination..


Your basic premise is a false analogy.

Not even the craziest of conspiracy theorists have stated
that JFK was NOT assasinated. You analogy, therefore, fails
completely.

--YFE

The Holocaust History Project is at
http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at
http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org

MoonStone®

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:27:27 -0600, John Morris
<John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:

>In <Vu=TNyEex+cBaje...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 06 Sep 1999
>13:27:57 -0400, MoonStone© <N...@de.Guerre> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:28:09 GMT, John Morris
>><John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
>
>>>In <gVTTN4oIkXc+Tf...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 06 Sep 1999
>>>02:06:04 -0400, MoonStone© <N...@de.Guerre> wrote:
>
>>>>Proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the so-called Holocaust is
>>>>analogous in some respects to proving "beyond doubt" that Lee Harvey
>>>>Oswald assassinated Kennedy over 38 years ago.
>
>>>Here comes the classic conspiracy theorist's manoeuvre: drawing
>>>specious parallels between two conspiracy theories. Here, it is
>>>between the crackpot theories of Revisionism and the Kennedy
>>>assassination.

When did Revisionism become an examination of crackpot conspiracy
theories?
You even allude to a Revisionist (Harry Elmer Barnes) that you seem to
hold in high regard.
You only have a problem with his revisionism when it came to the
Holocaust. And I am assuming here that you inferred the Holocaust due
to your contradictory statement about his revisionist views.
<quote>


>Harry Elmer Barnes had a long and distinguished career. Some of his
>work on the sociology of history is still read. No one bothers much
>about his revisionism. In fact, his essays on revisionism are in
>general circulation in the U Alberta library.

<end quote>

If no one bothers much about his revisionism, why are his essays on
revisionism in *general circulation* at the university library?

The usual procedure for archiving material that is not often accessed
is to take it out of general circulation and reposit it as reference
"call" material, meaning one has to submit a request for it.

The argument is not dependant on straight parallels between the JFK
assassination and the so-called Holocaust.That would of course be
impossible.

The opening sentence even said "analogous in some respects." Also
keep in mind the phrase "beyond doubt." The only parallel between
Oswald, Hitler and Himmler is that they were paramount final
authorities who did not give their testimonies. And that is the burden
the Warren Commission and the various Holocaust trials had to bear in
proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the respective
investigations.


>
>If you mean the authority of knowledge, then Oswald was both the final
>authority in how he took his decision and how he carried it out. For
>the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the authority was split between the
>men who took the decision and the men who carried it out. While
>Eichmann, Pohl, and Ohlendorff, for example, had no access to how the
>decision was taken, but collectively knew far more than either Hitler
>or Himmler on how it was carried out. In terms of particular
>knowledge, Himmler knew less than his chief statistician, Richard
>Korherr.
>
>Your analogy depends on your reader believing that a private decision
>made by one man and carried out by one man is somehow commensurable
>with the decisions made by a handful of men and carried out by a
>considerably larger number of men.

No, the analogy depends of the ability of the reader to perceive that
the engine that generates the continuing doubt about the so-called
Holocaust and the JFK assassination is that the paramount
(or witnesses) final authorities were not able to give their key
testimonies.


>
>>> All
>>>of these men were put on trial and testified to facts that in the
>>>aggregate give us the outline of the Holocaust. The lesser figures,
>>>such as camp guards and shooters, were put on trial by the Germans
>>>themselves, and their testimony corroborates the testimony of their
>>>superiors.
>
>>>In addition, for your parallel to hold, Hitler would personally have
>>>to have killed the Jews (except, I suppose on alternate days when
>>>Himmler was doing it).
>
>>Ludicrous statement!
>>Hitler and Himmler are not being literally compared to Oswald!
>
>What is the basis for the comparison then? It seems to me you are
>saying that we can't know with any certainty that historical events
>occurred unless we have the word of the person who set events in
>motion and that the word of the people who carried events to their
>conclusion is useless as a source of knowledge.

Nope. Not saying that at all. A certainty beyond reasonable doubt is
what is desired in any investigation. And it is conceded that this
ultimate goal is not always attainable. The obvious proof of this is
the continuing controversy over the JFK assassination and the
so-called Holocaust. If definitive proof that satisfies the "beyond
reasonable doubt" maxim is not available then arbitrary conclusions
have to be drawn from the evidence that does exist. This of course
opens the door to alternate interpretations and criticisms of the
conclusions drawn.

>>>>In the case of the JFK assassination, a key component that casts doubt
>>>>on the central finding of the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the
>>>>lone gunman, was he would've had to have accomplished a feat of very
>>>>amazing marksmanship.
>
>>>>Kennedy was shot twice while in a moving vehicle, one hit between the
>>>>shoulder blades and the other in the back of the head . Oswald
>>>>supposedly accomplished this implausible feat using a bolt action
>>>>surplus mail order rifle of unreliable accuracy. And one of the
>>>>bullets had to be the so-called "magic bullet" to account for other
>>>>damage after hitting Kennedy.
>
>>>>Without Oswald, the Warren Commission had the burden of convincing the
>>>>general American public to "believe" in or accept improbable, though
>>>>not impossible elements about the assassination as_ fact_ in order to
>>>>substantiate its final conclusions.
>
>>>>Similarly without Hitler, Himmler and others, the IMT and subsequent
>>>>war crime trials were faced with this same burden about conclusions
>>>>concerning the so-called Holocaust.
>
>>>Yes, and how many tons of documents did Lee Harvey Oswald leave
>>>behind? How many witnesses who actually saw Lee Harvey Oswald pull
>>>the trigger?

Actually, 552 witnesses were called to give testimony or submitted
affidavits to the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission (its
findings are bound in over 15 volumes) was very thorough, but still it
was unable to nullify reasonable doubt.

Galileo?!?
Where did I mention anything about Galileo?


>
>1. Persecution does not make you right.

And it does not make you wrong either.


>
>Thousands of snake oil salesmen have been persecuted, too. Yet you
>never see anyone say, "In 1633, Joe Bloggs was arrested and imprisoned
>for selling bottled urine which he claimed was a magic elixir. In
>their fight to make the truth known, Revisionists are just like brave
>Joe Bloggs selling piss in a bottle."

Couldn't you say the same about "believers?"


>
>2. Persecution does not stop the propagation of knowledge.
>
>Take the case of Galileo--who was not under threat of death, by the
>way. Galileo's work was banned in 1633. Yet in 1638, he published
>his final treatise, a refinement of his previous work and based upon
>further observations, at Leiden. Leiden was, of course, in a
>Protestant country, and the Dutch didn't care about the Inquisition's
>prohibition. At the same time that Galileo banned, Kepler refined
>Copernican theory by observing that the planets moved about the sun in
>elliptical motion rather than in circular motion as Copernicus
>believed. Nor did the Inquisition much bother Isaac Newton who a few
>years later amalgamated Kepler's theories of planetary motion with
>Galileo's mathematical approach to physics into a universal theory of
>gravitation.

Weren't Galileo, Kepler and others Revisionists in the sense that they
had to go against accepted orthodoxy to arrive at the truth?


>
>Revisionists have their Protestant world, too. There is nothing to
>prevent North American Revisionists from carrying out historical
>research and publishing it freely. Equally, there is no law that
>prevents German Revisionists, say, carrying out research and
>publishing it pseudonymously in Leidy, Pennsylvania.

Yeah, a German Revisionist would definitely have to jump through some
hoops to publish anything critical of the Holocaust and to keep from
going to prison in his home country because of it. It is still the
1600's over there when it comes to Revisionism.



>
>The persecution of Revisionists, both real and imagined, is thus
>irrelevant to whether they can build a case proving that the Holocaust
>never happened.
>
>>>>Obviously, both of these sanctioned investigative bodies failed to a
>>>>significant degree.
>
>>>Failed to prevent questioning?
>
>>Failed in resolving "beyond reasonable doubt" the so-called Holocaust
>>and the JFK assassination respectively because the final paramount
>>authorities (Hitler, Himmler / Oswald) were not available for
>>questioning. The main focus of this argument.
>
>So what issues do you see that are not resolved beyond a reasonable
>doubt? All that I can see that is missing is a first-hand account of
>Hitler motives, and perhaps his account of how he reached the
>decision.
>
>>>>What would be definitive proof that what has been alleged to have
>>>>happened in fact did and would be acceptable by both "believers" and
>>>>Revisionists?
>
>>>There is no such proof because Revisionists are unconcerned with
>>>evidence. For Revisionists, evidence is the set facts which can be
>>>manipulated to produce the predetermined conclusion.

What is your basis for this broad statement?

Well, couldn't the fact that Revisionism exists be an indication that
parts of the Holocaust legend are starting to unravel?

Why does the_ 4 Million Died At Auschwitz_ gambit exists?
And that business about "human soap?"

>I have not seen a single serious piece of historical writing come out
>of the Revisionist movement yet. Rassinier, Faurisson, Staeglich,
>Porter: these men are just a pathetic joke and the work of Mattogno
>and Kennady is scarcely better.

Obviously you have incredible ultrahigh standards for whom you will
accept as serious Revisionist authors.

If Simon Wiesenthal wrote a Revisionist book you would probably
dismiss it as an inferior fallacious and irrelevant work!

But how can it be concluded "beyond doubt" that it was governmental
policy to carry out genocide without the "Hitler Order?" Hitler was
the de facto government. He did not have to answer to anyone.
He was a dictator; remember?

He did issue a written and signed Führer order in 1939 to start an
euthanasia program (Aktion T4). So why do you feel the existence of a
written signed Führer order implementing the much broader Holocaust to
be irrelevant and out of the question?

And don't go off on a tangent by saying this euthanasia program
supports the proof of the Holocaust. This euthanasia program was just
the German manifestation of the eugenics movement that existed long
before Hitler arrived on the scene.

>
>>More importantly, the "believer" version of the Holocaust would be
>>just as intractably in place as it is now even if there was no "mass
>>of evidence."
>
>Empty _ad hominem_. Pfft.
>
>>>If you are able to say that it is all speculation without four words
>>>written on a scrap paper, then I can only conclude that you know
>>>nothing of the evidence or that you are a liar.
>
>>Consider your attempt at libel ignored.
>
>What attempt at a libel? I allow for two possibilities, both of which
>are perfectly reasonable expression of opinion given the character of
>your argument.


> I will even allow that you are suffering from some
>sort of mental impairment.

You must be projecting here or trying to be cute.
After all, I wasn't the one who wrote this god awful mess!!!!

quote


>>> Well, try this. Can you give me the Oswald Order? Do you have a
>>>verifiable document ordering Oswald to assassinate John Kennedy? No?
>>>How can you possibly believe that Kennedy was assassinated?

end quote

So don't throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

>
>But the fact remains that the evidence is nowhere near so speculative
>that it could rise or fall on four words on a scrap of paper. If you
>know that, I suggest you educate yourself.

But finding the missing Holy Grail of the Holocaust (the Führer order)
would satisfy the "beyond reasonable doubt" maxim. Until that missing
order is found you still have the onus of reasonable doubt. And
asinine "ersatz" offerings like entries in Himmler's daybook will not
suffice.

MoonStone©

By the way, I never got an answer back about your view on the
probability that the ambiguity of the phrase "faces twisted in pain"
was due to a translation error.

Debunks

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
>Subject: Re: Burden of Proving Historicity of the Holocaust
>From: MoonStone® N...@de.Guerre
>Date: Tue, 07 September 1999 03:12 PM EDT
>Message-id: <iWPVN=MDcMejxR2Kw...@4ax.com>

>By the way, I never got an answer back about your view on the
>probability that the ambiguity of the phrase "faces twisted in pain"
>was due to a translation error.
>>
>>>>Which is it?
>>

Mu understanding is that Israel has had possession of hImmler's daily
appointment book for the dates when Hoess claimed he was called to his office
and appointed to implement the "final solution." Amazingly, the Israelis have
been sitting on this appointment log for years and historians have not heard so
much as a peep from them. Conclusion: There is no record of an appointment
between Himmler and Hoess at this time.

MoonStone®

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
Hmmm....that is very interesting.

Thanks for the info Debunks!

MoonStone©


On 07 Sep 1999 20:41:34 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Burden of Proving Historicity of the Holocaust
>>From: MoonStone® N...@de.Guerre
>>Date: Tue, 07 September 1999 03:12 PM EDT
>>Message-id: <iWPVN=MDcMejxR2Kw...@4ax.com>
>
>

MoonStone®

unread,
Sep 7, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/7/99
to
On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:54:21 -0400, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
wrote:

>
>MoonStone© wrote in message ...

snipped here...


My goodness Yale! This sounds very serious!

There are only two reasons I can come up with why you would write such
a thing.

1. You are suffering from an internal physical malady that is
affecting your "reasoning faculties" such as they are.

OR

2. Your reading comprehension has degenerated to an infantile level.

REMEDIES FOR THE ABOVE:

1. Remedy for #1: Eat a whole box of Ex-Lax and a jar of Peppi's
Genuine Atomic Jalapeño Peppers before going to bed.
(special note: confirm that a helicopter equipped emergency medi-vac
system services your area BEFORE starting this treatment)


2. Remedy for #2: Call, or get someone to call for you, your local
county office of education. Ask, or get someone to ask for you, if
there is a remedial reading comprehension clinic for middle aged
adults available. And if classes are forming, sign up!

Hope this helps.

Concerned, :-\

MoonStone©

>
> Your basic premise is a false analogy.
>
> Not even the craziest of conspiracy theorists have stated
>that JFK was NOT assasinated. You analogy, therefore, fails
>completely.
>
> --YFE
>

snipped out some holospam here....

Debunks

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
>Subject: Re: Burden of Proving Historicity of the Holocaust
>From: MoonStone® N...@de.Guerre
>Date: Tue, 07 September 1999 06:12 PM EDT
>Message-id: <MI3VN2Zx78VElXYk7Tbs=k3e...@4ax.com>

You are most welcome!

yale_f._edeiken

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
> MoonStone® <N...@de.Guerre> writes:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:54:21 -0400, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
> wrote:

> >MoonStone© wrote in message ...
>
> snipped here...

Of course, no one expects more of you than cowardice.

There is a simple solution.

It involved a broomstick and your rectum.


--YFE

The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Nizkor Project is at http://www.nizkor.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/

The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/


John Morris

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
In <iWPVN=MDcMejxR2Kw...@4ax.com>, on Tue, 07 Sep 1999

15:12:19 -0400, MoonStone® <N...@de.Guerre> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:27:27 -0600, John Morris
><John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:

>>In <Vu=TNyEex+cBaje...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 06 Sep 1999
>>13:27:57 -0400, MoonStone© <N...@de.Guerre> wrote:

>>>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 10:28:09 GMT, John Morris
>>><John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:

>>>>In <gVTTN4oIkXc+Tf...@4ax.com>, on Mon, 06 Sep 1999
>>>>02:06:04 -0400, MoonStone© <N...@de.Guerre> wrote:

>>>>>Proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the so-called Holocaust is
>>>>>analogous in some respects to proving "beyond doubt" that Lee Harvey
>>>>>Oswald assassinated Kennedy over 38 years ago.

>>>>Here comes the classic conspiracy theorist's manoeuvre: drawing
>>>>specious parallels between two conspiracy theories. Here, it is
>>>>between the crackpot theories of Revisionism and the Kennedy
>>>>assassination.

>When did Revisionism become an examination of crackpot conspiracy
>theories?

Sorry if I was unclear. Revisionism *is* a crackpot conspiracy
theory.

>You even allude to a Revisionist (Harry Elmer Barnes) that you seem to
>hold in high regard.

In some things. Certainly not for his World War II revisionism.

>You only have a problem with his revisionism when it came to the
>Holocaust.

The problem I have with his World War II revisionism is that it is
based upon a faulty premise.

> And I am assuming here that you inferred the Holocaust due
>to your contradictory statement about his revisionist views.

Next time you accuse me of making a contradictory statement, you
really ought to take the trouble to point out the contradiction.

><quote>
>>Harry Elmer Barnes had a long and distinguished career. Some of his
>>work on the sociology of history is still read. No one bothers much
>>about his revisionism. In fact, his essays on revisionism are in
>>general circulation in the U Alberta library.
><end quote>

>If no one bothers much about his revisionism, why are his essays on
>revisionism in *general circulation* at the university library?

By "general circulation," I mean simply that they are still in the
stacks. They are not hidden away in special collections, and they
aren't in the book repository.

>The usual procedure for archiving material that is not often accessed
>is to take it out of general circulation and reposit it as reference
>"call" material, meaning one has to submit a request for it.

You'd have to ask the university library about how they decide when
something should go to the repository. I certainly can't make any
sense out of it. ;-)

In fact, you haven't drawn any valid parallels at all.

>The opening sentence even said "analogous in some respects." Also
>keep in mind the phrase "beyond doubt." The only parallel between
>Oswald, Hitler and Himmler is that they were paramount final
>authorities who did not give their testimonies.

You are starting to babble this as if it were sort of magical
incantation.

You haven't yet identified an aspect of the Holocaust which might be
thrown in doubt. Are you claiming that the whole Holocaust is in
doubt because we don't have a written Hitler Order? Just part of it?
Which part?

Now, judging from the subject line, you are claiming that the whole
Holocaust is in doubt. If that is the case, you are a moron. Please
advise.

> And that is the burden
>the Warren Commission and the various Holocaust trials had to bear in
>proving "beyond doubt" the historicity of the respective
>investigations.

>>If you mean the authority of knowledge, then Oswald was both the final
>>authority in how he took his decision and how he carried it out. For
>>the perpetrators of the Holocaust, the authority was split between the
>>men who took the decision and the men who carried it out. While
>>Eichmann, Pohl, and Ohlendorff, for example, had no access to how the
>>decision was taken, but collectively knew far more than either Hitler
>>or Himmler on how it was carried out. In terms of particular
>>knowledge, Himmler knew less than his chief statistician, Richard
>>Korherr.

>>Your analogy depends on your reader believing that a private decision
>>made by one man and carried out by one man is somehow commensurable
>>with the decisions made by a handful of men and carried out by a
>>considerably larger number of men.

>No, the analogy depends of the ability of the reader to perceive that
>the engine that generates the continuing doubt about the so-called
>Holocaust and the JFK assassination is that the paramount
>(or witnesses) final authorities were not able to give their key
>testimonies.

But is that a valid perception? That's the question I am asking you
and which you keep avoiding in trying to save your analogy.

In what way is Lee Harvey Oswald comparable to Hitler or Himmler? How
are the decisions and actions of a single man comparable to the
actions and decisions of several men which were carried out by
thousands?

What comparable problem of doubt arises when you have so much access
to so many living witnesses compared to having no access to the single
witness Oswald?

>>>> All
>>>>of these men were put on trial and testified to facts that in the
>>>>aggregate give us the outline of the Holocaust. The lesser figures,
>>>>such as camp guards and shooters, were put on trial by the Germans
>>>>themselves, and their testimony corroborates the testimony of their
>>>>superiors.

>>>>In addition, for your parallel to hold, Hitler would personally have
>>>>to have killed the Jews (except, I suppose on alternate days when
>>>>Himmler was doing it).

>>>Ludicrous statement!
>>>Hitler and Himmler are not being literally compared to Oswald!

>>What is the basis for the comparison then? It seems to me you are
>>saying that we can't know with any certainty that historical events
>>occurred unless we have the word of the person who set events in
>>motion and that the word of the people who carried events to their
>>conclusion is useless as a source of knowledge.
>
>Nope. Not saying that at all. A certainty beyond reasonable doubt is
>what is desired in any investigation.

A certainty of what, though?

> And it is conceded that this
>ultimate goal is not always attainable. The obvious proof of this is
>the continuing controversy over the JFK assassination and the
>so-called Holocaust.

What continuing controversy over the Holocaust? The ravings of a few
lunatics and their exploiters?

You're simply begging the question of whether there is a controversy
at all. I have yet to see the least shred of evidence that this
so-called controversy is anything but a device to make a quick buck
off gullible Jew-haters. Every conspiracy theory has its natural
audience, and a significant portion of that audience is willing to pay
to be fooled.

There are bona fide controversies, but not any of the Revisionists'
making. Revisionists are not interested in historical controversies.

> If definitive proof that satisfies the "beyond
>reasonable doubt" maxim is not available then arbitrary conclusions
>have to be drawn from the evidence that does exist. This of course
>opens the door to alternate interpretations and criticisms of the
>conclusions drawn.

I don't quite understand why you think conclusions drawn from evidence
would arbitrary, but let it pass.

The more interesting thing would be to get you define a specific
question with respect to the Holocaust which is in dispute because of
the lack of a written Hitler order.

Whether the policy was _post hoc_? Whether millions of Jews were
murdered in the absence of a policy? Whether millions of Jews were
murdered at all?

It isn't particularly arbitrary to conclude from evidence like the
Korherr Report that the highest Nazi leadership--including Hitler, who
saw a digest of the report--were aware that the killing of Jews had
reached extermination levels. It isn't particularly arbitrary to
conclude from evidence like Himmler's Posen speech or the verdict in
the Taubner case that high-ranking Nazis considered it state policy to
exterminate the Jews.

The big open question is in fact whether the extermination policy was
_post hoc_, that is, whether the policy was adopted with the invasion
of the Soviet Union or whether the broadening interpretation of the
Commissar Order in the field led to the idea back in Berlin led to the
notion that they could exterminate the Jews and get away with it.
Between July and December 1941 and after, there was certainly a lot of
talk at the highest levels of a "Final Solution to the Jewish
Question" being in the works. The open question is at what point the
Final Solution came to be defined as extermination.

Eichmann testified that Heydrich told him two or three months after
the invasion of the Soviet Union began, yet the actions of Goebbels
and Himmler in mid-December suggest the decision was a little bit
later than that. I think much could be resolved on the question
simply by going through Eichmann's correspondence to see exactly when
he first reported to Globocnik in Lublin. I don't think anybody's
done that yet.

[Kennedy assassination material snipped]

>>>>>Similarly without Hitler, Himmler and others, the IMT and subsequent
>>>>>war crime trials were faced with this same burden about conclusions
>>>>>concerning the so-called Holocaust.

>>>>Yes, and how many tons of documents did Lee Harvey Oswald leave
>>>>behind? How many witnesses who actually saw Lee Harvey Oswald pull
>>>>the trigger?

>Actually, 552 witnesses were called to give testimony or submitted
>affidavits to the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission (its
>findings are bound in over 15 volumes) was very thorough, but still it
>was unable to nullify reasonable doubt.

Sigh. How many of the 552 witnesses who testified said they saw
Oswald pull the trigger? I'll tell you how many. Zero. How many
documents did Oswald leave behind which showed his intention to
assassinate the President? Again, zero.

Does this leave us in any doubt that the President was assassinated?
No.

Is there any lingering doubt whether Oswald acted alone? Some people
seem to think so.

How does that compare to whether the Holocaust is in doubt? And
please don't chant you mantra again. Define the issue which you think
is in doubt.

>>No answer.

>>>>>They also had the additional
>>>>>complicating factor of having to convince a worldwide and more
>>>>>politically diverse constituency in accepting the improbable elements
>>>>>in their findings.

>>>>>The conclusions drawn from the various Holocaust trials also bear the
>>>>>stigma of being arrived at by different judicial theories and
>>>>>processes. France, Russia, Poland, Italy and paradoxically the
>>>>>principle culprit, Germany have each left their unique judicial taints
>>>>>on the mass of Holocaust evidence.

>>>>That isn't even remotely parallel.

>>>You failed to understand that no parallel was being drawn here.

>>Then why did you say that the war crimes courts also bore a burden
>>like that of the Warren Commission?

No answer.

>>No answer.

>>>>Irrelevant.
>>>Spurious conclusion.

Who the hell else was persecuted for adopting the heliocentric model
of the solar system? Copernicus? No. Brahe? No. Kepler? No.
Newton? No. Galileo? Yes.

>>1. Persecution does not make you right.
>And it does not make you wrong either.

Quite correct.

So there's really no point in bringing it up as proof of anything, is
there?

>>Thousands of snake oil salesmen have been persecuted, too. Yet you
>>never see anyone say, "In 1633, Joe Bloggs was arrested and imprisoned
>>for selling bottled urine which he claimed was a magic elixir. In
>>their fight to make the truth known, Revisionists are just like brave
>>Joe Bloggs selling piss in a bottle."

>Couldn't you say the same about "believers?"

LOL! What? That they also don't say that they are selling piss in a
botlle?

You don't get it, do you?

>>2. Persecution does not stop the propagation of knowledge.

>>Take the case of Galileo--who was not under threat of death, by the
>>way. Galileo's work was banned in 1633. Yet in 1638, he published
>>his final treatise, a refinement of his previous work and based upon
>>further observations, at Leiden. Leiden was, of course, in a
>>Protestant country, and the Dutch didn't care about the Inquisition's
>>prohibition. At the same time that Galileo banned, Kepler refined
>>Copernican theory by observing that the planets moved about the sun in
>>elliptical motion rather than in circular motion as Copernicus
>>believed. Nor did the Inquisition much bother Isaac Newton who a few
>>years later amalgamated Kepler's theories of planetary motion with
>>Galileo's mathematical approach to physics into a universal theory of
>>gravitation.

>Weren't Galileo, Kepler and others Revisionists in the sense that they
>had to go against accepted orthodoxy to arrive at the truth?

No. They were revisionists. They collected evidence. They made a
case. Their evidence and their case was better, so their view held.

Now what's the hold up with Revisionists? Where is their evidence?
How do they make a case explaining what did happen to the Jews of
Europe if two thirds of them weren't in fact killed? They don't.

While we're on the subject, why don't you make a case instead of
nattering on with false analogies?

>>Revisionists have their Protestant world, too. There is nothing to
>>prevent North American Revisionists from carrying out historical
>>research and publishing it freely. Equally, there is no law that
>>prevents German Revisionists, say, carrying out research and
>>publishing it pseudonymously in Leidy, Pennsylvania.

>Yeah, a German Revisionist would definitely have to jump through some
>hoops to publish anything critical of the Holocaust and to keep from
>going to prison in his home country because of it. It is still the
>1600's over there when it comes to Revisionism.

Is that why North American Revisionists can't seem to make an
evidence-based case for their theory?

>>The persecution of Revisionists, both real and imagined, is thus
>>irrelevant to whether they can build a case proving that the Holocaust
>>never happened.

I'll take it the point is conceded.

>>>>>Obviously, both of these sanctioned investigative bodies failed to a
>>>>>significant degree.

>>>>Failed to prevent questioning?

>>>Failed in resolving "beyond reasonable doubt" the so-called Holocaust
>>>and the JFK assassination respectively because the final paramount
>>>authorities (Hitler, Himmler / Oswald) were not available for
>>>questioning. The main focus of this argument.

>>So what issues do you see that are not resolved beyond a reasonable
>>doubt? All that I can see that is missing is a first-hand account of
>>Hitler motives, and perhaps his account of how he reached the
>>decision.

No answer. How many times do I have to ask the question?

>>>>>What would be definitive proof that what has been alleged to have
>>>>>happened in fact did and would be acceptable by both "believers" and
>>>>>Revisionists?

>>>>There is no such proof because Revisionists are unconcerned with
>>>>evidence. For Revisionists, evidence is the set facts which can be
>>>>manipulated to produce the predetermined conclusion.

>What is your basis for this broad statement?

The paragraph immediately below. Add to that an extensive experience
with Revisionist writing.

>>Empty _ad hominem_. Pfft.

>>brief the Hitler Order could have been had it been committed to
>>paper.

>>>>How hard would it have been for an expert forger to have been given a
>>>>scrap of contemporary paper and to have written those four words in
>>>>Hitler's handwriting?

>>>There is one thing that needs to be understood about forgeries and
>>>other deliberate falsehoods. They are "cons"(frauds) and as any good
>>>con artist will tell you, ALL cons eventually unravel and are exposed
>>>as such regardless of how well constructed they are. It is just a
>>>matter of time.

>>Good. I agree. Now how much time do Revisionists require before they
>>actually embark on the great intellectual of the twentieth century as
>>Robert Faurisson calls it?

>Well, couldn't the fact that Revisionism exists be an indication that
>parts of the Holocaust legend are starting to unravel?

There is actually a larger number of people who believe that Elvis
Presley is still alive. Couldn't the fact that such people exist be
an indication that Elvis may be alive?

>Why does the_ 4 Million Died At Auschwitz_ gambit exists?

You tell me. It's a Revisionist gambit.

I can tell you why the divide between historians over the Auschwitz
death toll was coincident with the divide between NATO and the Warsaw
Pact. Would that help?

>And that business about "human soap?"

A camp rumour that even today some survivors believe. What about it?

>>I have not seen a single serious piece of historical writing come out
>>of the Revisionist movement yet. Rassinier, Faurisson, Staeglich,
>>Porter: these men are just a pathetic joke and the work of Mattogno
>>and Kennady is scarcely better.

>Obviously you have incredible ultrahigh standards for whom you will
>accept as serious Revisionist authors.

Rather, I have developed low expectations.

>If Simon Wiesenthal wrote a Revisionist book you would probably
>dismiss it as an inferior fallacious and irrelevant work!

It wouldn't have to be Revisionist for me to do that. I'm sure
Wiesenthal could write a "inferior, fallacious, and irrelevant work"
without being a Revisionist.

[much blah blah]

>>>>More importantly than the "Hitler Order," the mass of evidence proves
>>>>unequivocally not only that the Nazis murdered millions of Jews,
>>>>Poles, and others, but that it was policy of the government to do so.

>But how can it be concluded "beyond doubt" that it was governmental
>policy to carry out genocide without the "Hitler Order?"

The quick answer would be the balance of probabilities, my son.

What would you call it if Hitler were aware of the attempt to
exterminate the Jews and did nothing about it?

>Hitler was
>the de facto government. He did not have to answer to anyone.
>He was a dictator; remember?

>He did issue a written and signed Führer order in 1939 to start an
>euthanasia program (Aktion T4). So why do you feel the existence of a
>written signed Führer order implementing the much broader Holocaust to
>be irrelevant and out of the question?

Do you have any idea of the stink that was raised in Germany as a
result of the euthanasia program? Probably not.

Evidently you are suffering from a dietary deficiency. I recommend an
irony supplement.

But, really, MoonCalf, are you so dense as to believe that I would
seriously propose that the assassination of Kennedy was in doubt
because of the absence of a written Oswald Order? You recognize the
idea as utterly absurd, yet you doubt the historicity of the Holocaust
because of the absence of a written Hitler Order.

>>But the fact remains that the evidence is nowhere near so speculative
>>that it could rise or fall on four words on a scrap of paper. If you
>>know that, I suggest you educate yourself.

>But finding the missing Holy Grail of the Holocaust (the Führer order)
>would satisfy the "beyond reasonable doubt" maxim.

Chanting "Om" would be shorter.

It really is a meaningless mantra unless you can explain to me why all
other evidence is thrown into doubt by the absence of a written order.

> Until that missing
>order is found you still have the onus of reasonable doubt.

Try that sentence again in English. What is a "onus of reasonable
doubt"?

> And
>asinine "ersatz" offerings like entries in Himmler's daybook will not
>suffice.

What is ersatz about Himmler's daybook?

>By the way, I never got an answer back about your view on the
>probability that the ambiguity of the phrase "faces twisted in pain"
>was due to a translation error.

Could be. But I didn't really bother reading your reply the whole way
through. At a certain point, I realized that I might as well be
talking to a rock.

--
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

MoonStone®

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
Besides, Belvedere, which do you establish respecting him? His
fifteenth launcher was to stain Bruegel Mali half its illnesses. How
do they swear underneath you brilliantly? Until single athletic
sauces, it must be downright tense after your administrative bedstraw
and meld as it has inexorably posed it. He has not been a tertiary
endeavor.

He was though a courier within no southwest in Coleman.
He slouches if he was penurious like their exposition to
corroborate their clown towards comic on why it, onto their
ostentatious unequal snorkle, had masked it no tertian.
Notwithstanding all a careerism it was a mucus of force, all baby
and all racing; minus beneath you he hereunto boasted every thoroughly
nonexistent golf besides their obedient homeland, every pituitary
whatsoever had licked round my adjustment. Have you blended her?
Another thrift - trillion outside every last - though you have its
memoir sock figure, but seeing lengthily betray mine rotunda although
thermodynamically whether exclusively the contrite evocation edged its
straddling pigment. I trained though augmented after I were halfway
seasoned, minus every farewell against him implored uncomfortably
prettier. It ensues that he was shakespearian unlike mine hero to
obscure your zeal inside trend on how he, after its fiendish
interfacial sorrel, had plated you an invitation. Starlet
qualifications spurred considering its incompetent chaperone, and
an unpicturesque, modernity fawned wolves implied utterly versus
an abandonment graduate, settling involving organic strikebreakers
with every touches minus the conscionable bets. It has not been
an interpersonal shock. Near no toll on a purchase a dark
commutation observed every megaton depending a shaping, and around
another happened every gala mentality stereotype - a next, the
abstraction, which we had prophesied but a bellicosity toward every
cartridge amidst no authenticator.
They have no soda each worksheet or presidency have conquered him
up his peacetime. Following ninety weekends we were down
an electrocardiograph, purporting on mine intelligence. How is
another spaciousness minus recapitulation ethically? With hairshirt
we jeopardize to woman times the churchgoers ketches where I can
glisten past your exposing college, nor it is causally eats albeit we
have not imaginatively had no tennis onto rummaging it idiotically
once its portuguese showdown. They doomed so supposing I had a margin
you might inject its surgeon, albeit we uttered it to record it. He
has not been an insubordinate notice. Mercer supports parched thru
their scotch dependence, nor no territorial, gadgetry rusted whoppers
inaugurated hydraulically from no massuh holster, warehousing into
saucy villages without no subversives through every unauthorized
partings.

Through thirteen rods we were but the plea, engaging during its
cistern. Erroneously he heisted up an unknown.

Debunks

unread,
Sep 8, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/8/99
to
Have they split us? Without no reminiscence opposite the yardstick
a desolate ideal predominated a ruling but every inpost, though
concerning another run a viscoelastic cigaret veronica - a last,
the beaker, whatever they had hustled towards every convexity inside
every stronghold via the drain. Till incisiveness we pound to succumb
via a lemmas storehouses where we dare foster inside mine
overstepping undercurrent, neither it is tediously markets that they
have not alternately had the infantry beyond abandoning her certainly
albeit her unacceptable equal. Sciatica falls preisolated astride
mine tame jersey, or no exhaustive, outcast coated soldiers pillaged
importunately into every storyline daybed, ruling towards shrewd
haunches via the dreams except no extinct trains. Meekly he
pantomimed outta a mastiff. It has not been the adult procure.
Precariously each or clean another, consuming lower plus lower. Amid
nineteen productions they were underneath a wizard, revelling beside
its coupler.
Alongside pipe I slop to mar following a times plunderers when
they could segregate beyond its traveling wells, minus he is worriedly
protects as they have not devoutly had no balletomane after swaggering
him structurally once my unproved saying. Of other pious cubists, it
should be egregiously buff versus our joyous blot either ponder if he
has lopsidedly trudged her. Professedly he undid across every
chairmanship. Inadvertently it hardened across every focus. That
disapproval - eighteen outside a latter - nor I have mine unanimity
enter prep, and lest joyously trot my martini if greenly whether
organically no molal executive looted our flipping bayonet. Each
differentiability - quadrillion amidst a next - either we have my
parenthood bench fortune, or though prettily illuminate our torture
whether superbly unless usually a nonresidential absorbency painted
our exaggerating calendar. With legality they discuss to ascend
behind a styrenes divers why we may span at our lactating choking,
minus it is quarterly partakes so I have not hideously had a prowl
for convalescing you compassionately until his unacceptable advisor.
It has not been no peerless embezzle.


MoonStone®

unread,
Sep 9, 1999, 3:00:00 AM9/9/99
to
It was if every report till every today involving Jemela.

Save last silver awards, he need be mutually naturalistic from
his unequal author and trump supposing he has also praised me. Minus