Debunks and Butler
William Daffer
Joe Bellinger has declared that the probitive value of Hoess' memoirs
is worthless; he bases his entire argument that Hoess was tortured
into making the statements he made on Butler's book _Legion of Death_.
It is also clear that Joe likes to use what I've taken to calling the
'metaphor of the court' as his evidence seive. The idea is; if it
wouldn't make it into a courtroom, it shouldn't make it into a
discussion of history.
I would like the assembled peoples to discuss these two ideas.
First off, is Joe guilty of hypocrisy for claiming as a source one
which, so far as I know, wouldn't be allowed in a court of law?
But the large question is whether the criterion of a courtroom is the
correct one to use. And if so, which courtroom? What are the 'rules of
evidence' for the historian.
Personally I see no reason why historians should adopt this 'metaphor
of the court' as the only method of evidence selection. There are all
manner of technical reasons used in courtrooms which are foreign to
the pursuit of historical truth why some piece of evidence (a witness
statement, a document, a tape recording...) is not admitted into
court. Why should the historian adhere to rules whose sole purpose is
the protection of the rights of the various parties involved in
litigation when the historical process has no litigants?
And if not the criterion of the courtroom, then what should the
criterion be?
In particular, I would like the various 'revisionists,' particularly
Joe, to speak to this question.
whd
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read
-- Groucho Marx
Morghus
>
> I would like the assembled peoples to discuss these two ideas.
>
> First off, is Joe guilty of hypocrisy for claiming as a source one
> which, so far as I know, wouldn't be allowed in a court of law?
>
> But the large question is whether the criterion of a courtroom is the
> correct one to use. And if so, which courtroom? What are the 'rules of
> evidence' for the historian.
>
> Personally I see no reason why historians should adopt this 'metaphor
> of the court' as the only method of evidence selection. There are all
> manner of technical reasons used in courtrooms which are foreign to
> the pursuit of historical truth why some piece of evidence (a witness
> statement, a document, a tape recording...) is not admitted into
> court. Why should the historian adhere to rules whose sole purpose is
> the protection of the rights of the various parties involved in
> litigation when the historical process has no litigants?
>
> And if not the criterion of the courtroom, then what should the
> criterion be?
>
I don't know about anyone else, but I agree with you. Court rules of
evidence should not be the standard in analyzing and weighing evidence on
historical questions. I don't know if there is one standard that would be
acceptable. Perhaps we must each choose our own rules to decide whether
some assertion of fact is acceptable, whether one version is more
believable than the other. The findings of a court are not evidence and
have no probative value in historical inquiries. Courts are not the final
and conclusive word on truth, especially not a court like the one at
Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed to kill
off the leadership of the vanquished.
For example, the court accepted Hoess's confession as evidence of
his guilt; I reject that finding. Hoess was tortured, we know that, and
his confession (and his memoirs) contain inconsistencies and known errors
that should raise substantial suspicions about validity. For example,
Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in 1941, but
we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries that Hitler,
Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still considering the transfer
of Jews from German held territories to such places as Siberia and
Madagascar as late as 1943. There is not a shred of paper anywhere--no
official orders, no letters, no diary entries--which support the claim
that a decision was made to kill Jews at any time, and certainly not in
1941. Then there is the claim that Hoess visited Treblinka in
1941--construction wasn't even started on Treblinka until 1942. Add to
such easily exposed errors the nonsensical description of the use of
Zyklon B, the impossible numbers of people supposedly killed, the absence
of gas chambers at the camp, and you have enough information to reject the
Hoess papers as bogus and contrived documents.
Philip Mathews
>Morghus mor...@deadletter.com wrote:
Evidence turned up in legal proceedings may very well have, and often do have a
high degree of value to historians. But it is up to historians to make that
judgment as they have done with respect to the Holocaust.
> Courts are not the final
>and conclusive word on truth, especially not a court like the one at
>Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed to kill
>off the leadership of the vanquished.
This is rubbish, as usual from Morghus.
>
> For example, the court accepted Hoess's confession as evidence of
>his guilt; I reject that finding.
Nuremberg did not accept any confession from Hoess as evidence of his guilt of
anything.
Hoess was tortured, we know that, and
>his confession (and his memoirs) contain inconsistencies and known errors
>that should raise substantial suspicions about validity.
He was mistreated when captured. All later evidence was given of his own free
will, and the errors are not nearly sufficient to raise suspicions, as
historians have held for over 50 years.
For example,
>Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in 1941, but
>we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries that Hitler,
>Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still considering the transfer
>of Jews from German held territories to such places as Siberia and
>Madagascar as late as 1943.
No we don't. There was no serious consideration of moving Jews anywhere into
1943. A few million Jews had already been killed by then.
There is not a shred of paper anywhere--no
>official orders, no letters, no diary entries--which support the claim
>that a decision was made to kill Jews at any time, and certainly not in
>1941.
Most historians believe the decision was made in 1941, some opting for the
middle of the year, others for the end of the year. There are many diary
entries of Frank and Goebbels which make clear what the policy towards the Jews
was.
Then there is the claim that Hoess visited Treblinka in
>1941--construction wasn't even started on Treblinka until 1942.
Yup, he got the year wrong.
Add to
>such easily exposed errors the nonsensical description of the use of
>Zyklon B,
There is no nonsensical description.
> the impossible numbers of people supposedly killed,
He couldn't guess accurately how many he'd gassed. But he did remember that he
had gassed some.
the absence
>of gas chambers at the camp,
There is no absence.
and you have enough information to reject the
>Hoess papers as bogus and contrived documents.
Rubbish. He made two errors of any consequence in various legal statements and
his memoirs. He got a date wrong, and he couldn't remember how many he had
killed because he was not allowed to keep such records. And on the basis of
this, deniers would have people think he shouldn't be believed when he admitted
to gassing Jews, which confession is supported by much other evidence.
Holocaust Denial at its finest.
--
Philip Mathews
"Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
Racman01
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com>
> > Courts are not the final
> >and conclusive word on truth, especially not a court like the one at
> >Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed to kill
> >off the leadership of the vanquished.
>
> This is rubbish, as usual from Morghus.
""The trial of the vanquished by the victors" Taft told an attentive if somewhat
astomished audience. "cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the
forms of justice"
(John F. Kennedy. Profiles in Courage. P238)
See Philly, even JFK infered it was a farce, not to mention Robert Taft.
"The investigators" he said "would put a black hood over the accused's head and
then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber
hoses....all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been
kicked in the testicles beyond repair"
(Washington Daily News, January 9, 1949)
Any 'evidence' obtained in this manner, taints all other evidence presented because
it was used to corroborate other shaky evidence.
Any 'historian' who cited 'evidence' obtained with these sort of techniques as
being of value, must, as a result also deem the outrageous admissions obtained by
the 'Inquisition' as being kosher.
You know, stuff like witches turning into cats etc.
This is rubbish, as usual from Mathews
Philip Mathews
>Racman01 racm...@one.net.au wrote:
>Philip Mathews wrote:
>
>> In >Message-id: <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com>
>
>> > Courts are not the final
>> >and conclusive word on truth, especially not a court like the one at
>> >Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed to kill
>> >off the leadership of the vanquished.
>>
>> This is rubbish, as usual from Morghus.
>
>""The trial of the vanquished by the victors" Taft told an attentive if
>somewhat
>astomished audience. "cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about
>with the
>forms of justice"
>(John F. Kennedy. Profiles in Courage. P238)
>
>See Philly, even JFK infered it was a farce, not to mention Robert Taft.
No, he did not say it was a farce, but reading comprehension was never your
strong point Ross, being mentally challenged as most deniers are.
>
>"The investigators" he said "would put a black hood over the accused's head
>and
>then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with
>rubber
>hoses....all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had
>been
>kicked in the testicles beyond repair"
>(Washington Daily News, January 9, 1949)
Nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials and later proven to be lies by a
Senate committee. Stick to your mindless insults Ross, everytime you attempt to
discuss something serious you embarrass yourself.
Racman01
Philip Mathews wrote:
> In >Message-id: <3A8DDD15...@one.net.au>
>
> >Racman01 racm...@one.net.au wrote:
>
> >Philip Mathews wrote:
> >
> >> In >Message-id: <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com>
> >
> >> > Courts are not the final
> >> >and conclusive word on truth, especially not a court like the one at
> >> >Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed to kill
> >> >off the leadership of the vanquished.
> >>
> >> This is rubbish, as usual from Morghus.
> >
> >""The trial of the vanquished by the victors" Taft told an attentive if
> >somewhat
> >astomished audience. "cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about
> >with the
> >forms of justice"
> >(John F. Kennedy. Profiles in Courage. P238)
> >
> >See Philly, even JFK infered it was a farce, not to mention Robert Taft.
>
> No, he did not say it was a farce, but reading comprehension was never your
> strong point Ross, being mentally challenged as most deniers are.
The word I used was INFERED Philly, but then again English comprehension is not
your strong point, your forte is telling clumsy lies and issueing 'mindless insults
like: "being mentally challenged as most deniers are"
>
> >
> >"The investigators" he said "would put a black hood over the accused's head
> >and
> >then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with
> >rubber
> >hoses....all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had
> >been
> >kicked in the testicles beyond repair"
> >(Washington Daily News, January 9, 1949)
>
> Nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials and later proven to be lies by a
> Senate committee.
Provide proof that this was "proven to be lies by a Senate committee." or is this
more of your cultural penchant for stretching the facts Philly?
> Stick to your mindless insults Ross, everytime you attempt to
> discuss something serious you embarrass yourself.
You are good at neither of the above Philly, my advice is toss it in and go back to
Alt. NAMBLA.
>
>
> --
> Philip Mathews
>
> "Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing
> knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant
> than would take even a little trouble to acquire it." Samuel Johnson
Looks like old Sam Johnson had your number Philly
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 16
> William Daffer wrote:
I agreed with you up to this point, but I would say in principle that
the evidence of courts is still historical evidence which has to be
assessed just as any other historical evidence is. That's not to say
that the findings of a court should necessarily be the final word for
the historian, just that evidence presented could be still be useful
as evidence for the historian.
> and
> have no probative value in historical inquiries. Courts are not
> the final and conclusive word on truth,
And we are obviously agreed on that.
> especially not a court like the one at
> Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed
> to kill off the leadership of the vanquished.
And now we disagree again. ;-)
> For example, the court accepted Hoess's confession as
> evidence of his guilt; I reject that finding.
No. Hoess was not indicted or tried at Nuremberg. At Nuremberg, he
was called as a defence witness in Kaltenbrunner's case.
> Hoess was tortured, we know that, and
> his confession (and his memoirs) contain inconsistencies and known
> errors that should raise substantial suspicions about validity.
Suspicions perhaps. But only Hoess's first statement was obtained by
torture (and pretty mild torture as torture goes) as he tells us
himself in his memoir. Yet his deposition at Nuremberg was pretty
straightforward: we know who his interrogators were, when they
questioned him, and what he said. Hoess himself says that his main
at Nuremberg was boredom.
Menwhile, if you want to discredit his memoirs, you have to explain
several things: why his captors allowed him to say insulting about
Poles; why capors allowed him to characterize the Russian PoWs as
animals; why his captors allowed him to cite a death toll so much
lower than the offical death toll presented at his trial in Poland.
I have yet to see a Revisionist give an adequate explanation of those
facts.
> For example,
> Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in
> 1941, but we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries
> that Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still
> considering the transfer of Jews from German held territories to
> such places as Siberia and Madagascar as late as 1943.
Absolutely not. The Madagascar plan, which came from Himmler's
department via Brack, was abandoned by the end of 1940 as Heydrich's
star rose with ever more radical proposals for dealing with "the
Jewish question."
> There is not a shred of paper anywhere--no
> official orders, no letters, no diary entries--which support the
> claim that a decision was made to kill Jews at any time, and
> certainly not in 1941.
Yet several highly-placed witnesses testify to just that, that the
decision was taken in 1941. Wisliceny and Becher at Nuremberg,
Eichmann at Jerusalem, and Jaeger at Hohenasperg (now that you've
inspired me to translate Jaeger's statement to the German police).
Jaeger's statement is particularly interesting, because he says he
can't imagine that anyone would commit such an order to paper it was
so plainly illegal. And that makes sense given the experience the
Nazis had with the euthanasia program when it was forced underground
by public protest.
> Then there is the claim that Hoess visited Treblinka in
> 1941--construction wasn't even started on Treblinka until 1942.
Given that Hoess's evidence is otherwise consistent with what is
known from numerous other sources, doesn't the consistency in the
wrong date really suggest that he simply got the date wrong. It is a
much simpler explanation of the known evidence than to suppose that a
massive conspiracy to falsify history came up with such an incredible
complex, yet internally consistent, story only to bugger the whole
thing with a single wrong date.
> Add to
> such easily exposed errors the nonsensical description of the use
> of Zyklon B, the impossible numbers of people supposedly killed,
> the absence of gas chambers at the camp, and you have enough
> information to reject the Hoess papers as bogus and contrived
> documents.
If the errors are so easily exposed, why haven't you done so? I have
seen you make assertions like this repeatedly, but I have seen any
evidence in support of your claims. Since assertions are not
evidence, I don't how we come to have enough information to reject
Hoess's testimony.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOo3k75QgvG272fn9EQIicwCgg59+wHXGhRyY2MWtA85IZOOh6CwAn2T2
AMjKJkuJRPM29G9Uel/dnNkI
=CAPn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Racman01
"At 5 p.m. on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her door to six intelligence
specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them
practiced in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless
investigation...
We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried.
Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch
[flashlight] into his mouth...Clarke yelled: "What is your name?" With each answer
of "Fritz Lang," Clarke's hand crashed into the face of the 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...
The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pajama 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. Finally a medical officer urged the Captain:
"Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse..."
[Hoess] was dragged back to Clarke's car, where the sergeant poured a
substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep. Clarke
thrust his service stick under the man's eyelids and ordered in German: "Keep your
pig eyes open, you swine..."
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 from him."
(Butler, R.(1983) Legion of Daet. England. P235-237)
Butler was an anti-Nazi and pro_Zionist writer who was obviously unable to look
into the future.
'Spose this is all lies too Philly ?
(Your cue for a burst of insane spluttering, crude insult and mindless blustering)
Morghus
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 16
> Feb 2001 15:55:47 -0600, Morghus <mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Hoess was tortured, we know that, and
> > his confession (and his memoirs) contain inconsistencies and known
> > errors that should raise substantial suspicions about validity.
>
> Suspicions perhaps. But only Hoess's first statement was obtained by
> torture (and pretty mild torture as torture goes) as he tells us
> himself in his memoir. Yet his deposition at Nuremberg was pretty
> straightforward: we know who his interrogators were, when they
> questioned him, and what he said. Hoess himself says that his main
> at Nuremberg was boredom.
Remember, I don't believe Hoess was the originator of what he
wrote. Hoess was still under the thumb of his captors. He had been
brutally tortured and his family threatened. Even if he was allowed some
degree of freedom to write, I wouldn't expect him to write or say
anything his captors might find objectionable. The terror doesn't
disappear just because the beatings stop.
>
> Menwhile, if you want to discredit his memoirs, you have to explain
> several things: why his captors allowed him to say insulting about
> Poles; why capors allowed him to characterize the Russian PoWs as
> animals; why his captors allowed him to cite a death toll so much
> lower than the offical death toll presented at his trial in Poland.
>
> I have yet to see a Revisionist give an adequate explanation of those
> facts.
>
If his captors were planning to have Hoess killed and wanted to
insure that the Polish and Russian authorities agreed, one way would be to
have him say bad things about the Poles and the Russians in his rambling
memoirs. After all, they could always say it was the evil Hoess, and not
them, who said those things.
>
> > For example,
> > Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in
> > 1941, but we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries
> > that Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still
> > considering the transfer of Jews from German held territories to
> > such places as Siberia and Madagascar as late as 1943.
>
> Absolutely not. The Madagascar plan, which came from Himmler's
> department via Brack, was abandoned by the end of 1940 as Heydrich's
> star rose with ever more radical proposals for dealing with "the
> Jewish question."
Goebbels's diary and the notes of Hitler's secretary confirm that
evacuation of the Jews was the principal plan well into 1943. A 1943
letter from Himmler to Frank in Poland ordered him to complete the
"evacuation" of the Jews from the General Government. There are too many
documents which confirm the plan was evacuation long after Hoess claims
there was a general order to kill all the Jews.
Hoess's confession and his memoirs repeat the year 1941 as the time when
he received his orders. That is impossible--Hoess's confession is a
fraud.
>
> > There is not a shred of paper anywhere--no
> > official orders, no letters, no diary entries--which support the
> > claim that a decision was made to kill Jews at any time, and
> > certainly not in 1941.
>
> Yet several highly-placed witnesses testify to just that, that the
> decision was taken in 1941. Wisliceny and Becher at Nuremberg,
> Eichmann at Jerusalem, and Jaeger at Hohenasperg (now that you've
> inspired me to translate Jaeger's statement to the German police).
>
> Jaeger's statement is particularly interesting, because he says he
> can't imagine that anyone would commit such an order to paper it was
> so plainly illegal. And that makes sense given the experience the
> Nazis had with the euthanasia program when it was forced underground
> by public protest.
Then Jaeger's statement is also contradicted by the wartime
documentary evidence which confirms that no such plan for killing the Jews
was ordered or in progress. When I weigh the probative value of wartime
documents and private diaries against postwar captive confessions, the
wartime documents always win out.
>
>
> > Then there is the claim that Hoess visited Treblinka in
> > 1941--construction wasn't even started on Treblinka until 1942.
>
> Given that Hoess's evidence is otherwise consistent with what is
> known from numerous other sources, doesn't the consistency in the
> wrong date really suggest that he simply got the date wrong. It is a
> much simpler explanation of the known evidence than to suppose that a
> massive conspiracy to falsify history came up with such an incredible
> complex, yet internally consistent, story only to bugger the whole
> thing with a single wrong date.
It's not as simple as that. Hoess said the reason he visited
Treblinka was to observe their gassing procedure (of course, there is no
evidence of gassing at Treblinka, either). The gassings at Auschwitz were
supposed to have started after he visited Treblinka, and he insisted the
first gassings started in 1941. That is not the sort of thing one would
easily forget. The 1941 date was mentioned more than once in his
"confession," his "memoirs," and his interrogation testimony..
Then too, Hoess states he planned the facilities at Auschwitz to
avoid the mistakes at Treblinka. He claimed that the chambers at
Treblinka were too small, so he specifically planned a chamber to hold
2,000 people. That is not an insignificant number to be killed at one
time. Hoess decided to use Zyklon B instead of engine exhaust. This
means that the gassing setup at Auschwitz would have been specially
planned to mass murder thousands of people with a particularly dangerous
poison gas. Yet, we know the plans and specifications for Auschwitz
contain no mention a gas chamber. It is simply unbelievable that there
would be no mention of gas chambers in the construction plans in a camp
where gassing of thousands was planned in advance. Nothing claimed to
have been said or written by Hoess in his memoirs, his confession, or his
interrogation is believable. I don't believe Hoess really said or wrote
such things.
>
>
> > Add to
> > such easily exposed errors the nonsensical description of the use
> > of Zyklon B, the impossible numbers of people supposedly killed,
> > the absence of gas chambers at the camp, and you have enough
> > information to reject the Hoess papers as bogus and contrived
> > documents.
>
> If the errors are so easily exposed, why haven't you done so? I have
> seen you make assertions like this repeatedly, but I have seen any
> evidence in support of your claims. Since assertions are not
> evidence, I don't how we come to have enough information to reject
> Hoess's testimony.
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
The evidence is in the contradictions and inconsistencies contained
in the documents themselves and compared with facts established by
wartime documents, correspondence, and diaries.
Philip Mathews
>Racman01 racm...@one.net.au wrote:
He inferred no such thing. Your reading comprehension does not improve with
repetition, does it.
>
>>
>> >
>> >"The investigators" he said "would put a black hood over the accused's
>head
>> >and
>> >then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with
>> >rubber
>> >hoses....all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had
>> >been
>> >kicked in the testicles beyond repair"
>> >(Washington Daily News, January 9, 1949)
>>
>> Nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials and later proven to be lies by a
>> Senate committee.
>
>Provide proof that this was "proven to be lies by a Senate committee." or is
>this
>more of your cultural penchant for stretching the facts Philly?
You can't produce one instance of me stretching the facts.
If you're interested in learning something about the matter, which you clearly
knew nothing about when you made your post, you can consult the Simpson
Commission report on the affair.
Somehow I doubt you're even able of researching the matter.
Philip Mathews
> Racman01 racm...@one.net.au wrote:
Oh look, Ross is embarrrassed by my pointing out his only contribution to this
group is mindless, childish insults as a rather impotent expression of his Jew
hatred, so he's going to try to earn his stripes as a denier!
Butler's account is a highly emotional rendition of the affair, the kind that
would automatically earn rejection from rabid antisemites like Ross if the
author were Jewish. Ross probably is unaware that we know about this episode
because Hoess wrote of it in his memoirs, written decades before this book
while under the custody of those allegedly extracting information from him with
threats. The account shows what historians have known for over 50 years, that
Hoess was roughed up when captured in order to get him to admit his identity.
Baby steps Ross, baby steps.
Debunks
>From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>Date: 2/16/01 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <p7nr8tc5bl4p8cqsd...@4ax.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>In <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 16
>Feb 2001 15:55:47 -0600, Morghus <mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
>
>> William Daffer wrote:
>
>
> > I would like the assembled peoples to discuss these two ideas.
>
>> > First off, is Joe guilty of hypocrisy for claiming as a source
>> > one which, so far as I know, wouldn't be allowed in a court of
>> > law?
>
REPLY: First off, I am not claiming Hoess as a credible source. You are.
>> > But the large question is
>whether the criterion of a courtroom is
>> > the correct one to use. And if so, which courtroom? What are the
>> > 'rules of evidence' for the historian.
>
>> > Personally I see no reason why historians should adopt this
>> > 'metaphor of the court' as the only method of evidence selection.
>> > There are all manner of technical reasons used in courtrooms
>> > which are foreign to the pursuit of historical truth why some
>> > piece of evidence (a witness
>statement, a document, a tape
>> > recording...) is not admitted into court. Why should the
>> > historian adhere to rules whose sole purpose is the protection of
>> > the rights of the various parties involved in litigation when the
>> > historical process has no litigants?
>> And if not the criterion of the courtroom, then what should the
>> > criterion be?
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but I agree with you. Court
>> rules of evidence should not be the standard in analyzing and
> weighing evidence on historical questions. I don't know if there
>> is one standard that would be acceptable. Perhaps we must each
>choose our own rules to decide whether some assertion of fact is
>> acceptable, whether one version is more
>> believable than the other. The findings of a court are not
>> evidence
REPLY: Normally, I might be inclined to agree with you here somewhat, but the
line must be drawn when the issue involves accusations of so-called *Jewish
Ritual Murder," mass murder, torture, and other criminal acts. Then the
problem becomes a legal issue.
Someone then stated (Not in response to me-Debunks)
>I agreed with you up to this point, but I would say in principle that
>the evidence of courts is still historical evidence which has to be
>assessed just as any other historical evidence is. That's not to say
>that the findings of a court should necessarily be the final word for
>the historian, just that evidence
>presented could be still be useful
>as evidence for the historian.
>
REPLY: Whoever wrote the above, we are in agreement.
>> and
>> have no probative value in historical inquiries. Courts are not
>> the final and conclusive word on truth,
>
>And we are obviously agreed on that.
REPLY: Again, I agree.
>> especially not a court like the one at
>> Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed
>> to kill off the leadership of the vanquished.
>
>And now we disagree again. ;-)
REPLY: You may disagree, but it was a factual statement.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> Remember, I don't believe Hoess was the originator of what he
> wrote.
Remember, the beliefs of someone who deliberately mistranslates documents to
whitewash the acts of the Nazis don't count, Fungus.
What can you _prove_, coward?
> [...deletia...]
> Goebbels's diary and the notes of Hitler's secretary confirm that
> evacuation of the Jews was the principal plan well into 1943.
Your claims are worthless without proof, Fungus.
Where is that proof?
JGB
================================================================== =====
Jeffrey G. Brown jg_b...@my-deja.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
Debunks
>From: Morghus mor...@deadletter.com
>Date: 2/16/01 8:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A8DFE8F...@deadletter.com>
>John Morris wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> In <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 16
>> Feb 2001 15:55:47 -0600, Morghus <mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> > Hoess was tortured, we know that, and
>> > his confession (and his memoirs) contain inconsistencies and known
>> > errors that should raise substantial suspicions about validity.
> Suspicions perhaps. But only Hoess's first statement was obtained by
>> torture (and pretty mild torture as torture goes) as he tells us
>> himself in his memoir. Yet his deposition at Nuremberg was pretty
>> straightforward: we know who his interrogators were, when they
>nterrogators were, when they
>> questioned him, and what he said. Hoess himself says that his main
>> at Nuremberg was boredom.
>
REPLY: You are in error. Hoess' mistreatment continued at the hands of the
British after he signed his first statement. Likewise, at Nuremberg
psychological pressure was brought to bear on him and Hoess complained that
this form of torment was in some ways worse than the physical mistreatment.
The Law agrees with him, as any pressure which is brought to bear on an accused
is invalidates both the statement and the entire case.
>
> Remember, I don't believe Hoess was the originator of what he
>wrote. Hoess was still under the thumb of his captors.
REPLY: Indeed he was, and his family was always within arm's reach.
>He had been
>brutally tortured and his family threatened. Even if he was allowed some
>degree of freedom to write, I
>wouldn't expect him to write or say
>anything his captors might find objectionable. The terror doesn't
>disappear just because the beatings stop.
REPLY: So true.
>> Menwhile, if you want to discredit his memoirs, you have to explain
>> several things: why his captors allowed him to say insulting about
>> Poles;
REPLY: The Soviets were in charge and they generally despised the Poles, so
what was that to them? They let the Poles perish during the Warsaw Uprising
without lifting a finger to help them.
>why capors allowed him to characterize the Russian PoWs as
>> animals;
REPLY: Because it fit in nicely with the charges they preferred against him.
>why his captors allowed him to cite a death toll so much
>> lower than the offical death toll presented at his trial in Poland.
REPLY: He was also allowed to cite figures much higher, too. It was all a
tissue of lie.
> I have yet to see a Revisionist give an adequate explanation of those
>> facts.
> If his captors were planning to have Hoess killed and wanted to
>insure that the Polish and Russian authorities agreed, one way would be to
>have him say bad things about the Poles and the Russians in his rambling
>memoirs. After all, they could always say it was the evil Hoess, and not
>them, who said those things.
>> For example,
>> > Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in
>> > 1941, but we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries
>> > that Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still
>> > considering the transfer of Jews from German held territories to
>> > such places as Siberia and Madagascar as late as 1943.
>>
>> Absolutely not. The Madagascar plan, which came from Himmler's
>> department via Brack, was abandoned by the end of 1940 as Heydrich's
>> star rose with ever more radical proposals for dealing with "the
>> Jewish question."
REPLY: Yet Heydrich was sent to Czechoslovakia and had nothing more to do with
the so-called Jewish question, and he was assassinated a short while later.
>
> Goebbels's diary and the notes of Hitler's secretary confirm that
>evacuation of the Jews was the principal plan well into 1943.
REPLY: By 1943 there is no doubt about it. Jews were being sent east, often
under horrendous conditions.
>A 1943
>letter from Himmler to Frank in Poland ordered him to complete the
>"evacuation" of the Jews from the General Government.
REPLY: Yes, evacuation was then the policy.
>There are too many
>documents which confirm the plan was evacuation long after Hoess claims
>there was a general order to kill all the Jews.
>Hoess's confession and his memoirs repeat the year 1941 as the time
>when
>he received his orders. That is impossible--Hoess's confession is a
>fraud.
REPLY: The records of the German Foreign Office confirm what was written
above.
> > There is not a shred of paper anywhere--no
>> > official orders, no letters, no diary entries--which support the
>> > claim that a decision was made to kill Jews at any time, and
>> > certainly not in 1941.
>>
> Yet several highly-placed witnesses testify to just that, that the
>> decision was taken in 1941. Wisliceny and Becher at Nuremberg,
>> Eichmann at Jerusalem, and Jaeger at Hohenasperg (now that you've
>> inspired me to translate Jaeger's statement to the German police).
>> Jaeger's statement is particularly interesting, because he says he
>> can't imagine that anyone would commit such an order to paper it was
>> so plainly illegal. And that makes sense given the experience the
>> Nazis had with the euthanasia program when it was forced underground
> by public protest.
>
>
> Then Jaeger's statement is also contradicted by the wartime
>documentary evidence which confirms that no such plan for killing the Jews
>was ordered or in progress. When
> weigh the probative value of wartime
>documents and private diaries against postwar captive confessions, the
>wartime documents always win out.
REPLY: Consider also that all the above mentioned were in custody when they
made their statements. Jaeger never made it to trial either.
>
>> > Then there is the claim that Hoess visited Treblinka in
>> > 1941--construction wasn't even started on Treblinka until 1942.
>>
>> Given that Hoess's evidence is otherwise consistent with what is
>> known from numerous other sources, doesn't the consistency in the
>> wrong date really suggest that he simply got the date wrong.
REPLY: Why did he get the date wrong? Because it does not hold up under
scrutiny?
It is a
>> much simpler explanation of the known evidence than to suppose that a
> massive conspiracy to falsify history came up with such an incredible
>> complex, yet internally consistent, story only to bugger the whole
>> thing with a single wrong date.
>
REPLY: I don't think there was a massive conspiracy, save on the part of the
Soviets. The other allies just accepted what the Soviets said, and their
opinions were cemented by the sights which greeted them in the camps they
liberated.
> It's not as simple as that. Hoess said the reason he visited
>Treblinka was to observe their gassing procedure (of course, there is no
>evidence of gassing at Treblinka, either). The gassings at Auschwitz were
>supposed to have started after he visited Treblinka, and he insisted
>the
>first gassings started in 1941. That is not the sort of thing one would
>easily forget. The 1941 date was mentioned more than once in his
>"confession," his "memoirs," and his interrogation testimony..
>
> Then too, Hoess states he planned the facilities at Auschwitz to
>avoid the mistakes at Treblinka. He claimed that the chambers at
>Treblinka were too small, so he specifically planned a chamber to hold
>2,000 people. That is not an
>insignificant number to be killed at one
>time. Hoess decided to use Zyklon B instead of engine exhaust. This
>means that the gassing setup at Auschwitz would have been specially
>planned to mass murder thousand
>of people with a particularly dangerous
>poison gas. Yet, we know the plans and specifications for Auschwitz
>contain no mention a gas chamber. It is simply unbelievable that there
>would be no mention of gas chambers in the construction plans in a camp
>where gassing of thousands was
>planned in advance. Nothing claimed to
>have been said or written by Hoess in his memoirs, his confession, or his
>interrogation is believable. I don't believe Hoess really said or wrote
>such things.
> > Add to
>> > such easily exposed errors the nonsensical description of the use
>> > of Zyklon B, the impossible numbers of people supposedly killed,
>> > the absence of gas chambers at the camp, and you have enough
>> > information to reject the Hoess papers as bogus and contrived
>> documents.
>>
>> If the errors are so easily exposed, why haven't you done so? I have
>> seen you make assertions like this repeatedly, but I have seen any
>> evidence in support of your
>claims. Since assertions are not
>> evidence, I don't how we come to have enough information to reject
>> Hoess's testimony.
REPLY: I do need to point out that I have rarely seen you support any claims
with evidence either.
Morghus
> In article <3A8DFE8F...@deadletter.com>, Morghus <mor...@deadletter.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Remember, I don't believe Hoess was the originator of what he
> > wrote.
>
> Remember, the beliefs of someone who deliberately mistranslates documents to
> whitewash the acts of the Nazis don't count, Fungus.
It's okay. I'm learning how to translate the way Holocaust scholars do. I
have started a special lexicon to help me along. Here is a list of some German
words with their meaning in parentheses followed by their Holocaust meaning:
Ausrotten: (to uproot, clear away); Holocaust = to kill
Liquidieren: (to remove or expel); Holocaust = to kill
Exekutieren: (to impound or confine); Holocaust = to kill
Sonderaktion: (special action or assignment); Holocaust = to kill
Sonderbehandlung: (special treatment); Holocaust = to kill
Endloessung: (final resolution); Holocaust = to kill
Evakuieren: (evacuate); Holocaust = to kill
One problem: under Holocaust translations with so many words meaning kill, a
person asking directions in Germany could be arrested for conspiracy to commit
murder.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3A8DEE4D...@one.net.au> in alt.revisionism, on Sat, 17 Feb
I love this one. You know that _Legions of Death_ is a novel, right?
It's an historical novel, based on historical fact, but a novel
nonetheless. You think I'm wrong? Try the story of the
interrogation of Albert Kalme by the Gestapo:
At midnight, they brought him food, and the diet was almost
identical to that which had been given to him by the NKVD in
the central prison.
Then he was yanked upstairs to the fourth floor and there
was another Gestapo official, also wavering [sic] a Luger,
who yelled: 'Out with the truth or else I'll shoot you on
the spot.'
Two smaller men came in and set about him with blackjacks.
Later, Albert was to recall that in their dreadful way they
had been artists: varying the blows rhythmically between the
head and kidneys.
Idiotically, he begged for water. But they ignored him and
repeated constantly: 'What were you doing in Berlin?'
'I was working there.'
'Yes, you pig! But not for Germany. You were spying for
the Allies.'
The Luger crashed down on his head and he tumbled into a pit
of darkness. (Rupert Butler, _Legions of Death_ (London:
Hamlyn Paperbacks, 1983) p. 124-125)
So, NastyBoy, it that a true story, too? It's the same source as
Bernard Clarke's "testimony," so it must be true, right?
'Yesss, you pig! But not for Chermany. You vere schpying
for ze Allies.'
The Luger crashed down on his head and he tumbled into a pit
of darkness.
Must be the "vee haf vays of making you talk" school of
historiography.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOo4lEpQgvG272fn9EQISYgCgipzfYcGo8NhOqLf4Yi7+inCTTSUAoKL5
WInZ+eewKgEN/mxwmsLT0iUd
=5gj2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Kneisel
evidence. There is an almost infinite amount of evidence to support some
contentions; but the weight of that evidence is almost negligible. The mere
counting of evidentiary issues does not get us very close to the truth.
The weight of evidence from court decisions is enormously heavy.
Moreover, court verdicts are evidence that historians cannot, in
themselves, overturn.
Racman01
Philip Mathews wrote:
What! no rave about 'comprehension' Philly?
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> "Jeffrey G. Brown" wrote:
>
> > In article <3A8DFE8F...@deadletter.com>, Morghus
> > <mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Remember, I don't believe Hoess was the originator of what he
> > > wrote.
> >
> > Remember, the beliefs of someone who deliberately mistranslates documents
> > to whitewash the acts of the Nazis don't count, Fungus.
> [...deletia: evasion...]
No proof of your claims, as usual.
You're a bigoted coward, Fungus. I'll keep rubbing your nose in that unhappy
fact.
Eugene Holman
<mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
> >
> > Remember, the beliefs of someone who deliberately mistranslates documents to
> > whitewash the acts of the Nazis don't count, Fungus.
>
> It's okay. I'm learning how to translate the way Holocaust scholars do.
> I
> have started a special lexicon to help me along. Here is a list of some
> German
> words with their meaning in parentheses followed by their Holocaust meaning:
>
> Ausrotten: (to uproot, clear away); Holocaust = to kill
As in 'The Tasmanians were cleared away to provide room for European
colonization.'
> Liquidieren: (to remove or expel); Holocaust = to kill
As in 'Stalin had political opponents such as Leon Trotsky liquidated.'
> Exekutieren: (to impound or confine); Holocaust = to kill
As in 'Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in the electric chair
at Sing Sing for spying.'
Other examples:
The Mafia rubbed out two stool pigeons.
The CIA terminated the operative with extreme prejudice.
The Turks annihilated 1,500,000 Armenians during WW I.
More than 50,000 Japanese perished when Hiroshima was atomic-bombed.
More than 800 passengers met their end when the Estonia sank.
President John Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963.
His alleged asassin, Lee Harvey Oswald was gunned down at a Dallas
police station a few days later.
Language is a difficult mistress.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Jeffrey G. Brown
<hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
Especially for those who deliberately mistreat her.
Philip Mathews
>Racman01 racm...@one.net.au wrote:
What, have we exhausted your abilities to discuss the issue so quickly, Ross?
Morghus
> We must focus on the issue of the *weight* that is to be given to the
> evidence. There is an almost infinite amount of evidence to support some
> contentions; but the weight of that evidence is almost negligible. The mere
> counting of evidentiary issues does not get us very close to the truth.
>
> The weight of evidence from court decisions is enormously heavy.
>
> Moreover, court verdicts are evidence that historians cannot, in
> themselves, overturn.
>
I disagree that court decisions add any weight to evidence. I don't
believe Historians (or amateurs, for that matter) should allow themselves to be
influenced by the opinions of the judge hearing the case and weighing the
evidence. That is not to say the evidence introduced at the trial should be
ignored, but only that the judge's reaction to that evidence should be ignored
because it is not in itself evidence. The whole point in studying historical
evidence is to try to determine if it has been reasonably interpreted by
historians, journalists, writers--and judges.
I do agree, however, that the sheer volume of evidence on one side is
not decisive. The unweighted quantity of material perpetuating the Holocaust
is truly overwhelming, and it continues to build as we discuss the issues in
this newsgroup. Half-a-century of story-telling, movie-making, novel-writing,
and picture-taking has resulted in a mountain of material, most citing each
other as authoritative sources, claiming to establish beyond doubt the truth of
events making up the Holocaust. The advocates on other side (deniers,
revisionists, Neo-Nazis, apologists--call them what you will) have been
hampered first by the widespread residual hatred immediately after the war,
second by the intimidating and ever-growing bulk of Holocaust promotion, and
finally by ridiculous laws and judicial fiats which forbid, under threat of
fines and criminal imprisonment, any public inquiry into the validity of even
part of that mountain of pro-Holocaust material. It is only through the
relatively recent advent of the internet that public challenges to the
Holocaust stories have been presented and the issues freely and openly
discussed.
One of the popular arguments offered by the pro-Holocaust side is that a
majority of respected historians have unconditionally established the Holocaust
as an undeniable event. They cite the volumes of writings accumulated and
accepted without question over the years as proof of their claims. Personally,
I reject the notion that we must adhere to established history, or accept the
conclusions of historians, simply because a majority of eminent and respected
scholars has done so for decades. Scholars become eminent and respected
usually because they espouse the popular beliefs of the day. As soon as they
veer from the crowd, as soon as they dare to propose something different, they
are immediately branded as extremists, iconoclasts, or just plain fools. Citing
the works of others can be a valid device in supporting a valid argument, but
the blind acceptance of the factual findings and conclusions of others, no
matter how eminent or respected, is a logical fallacy.
Jeffrey G. Brown
wrote:
> The advocates on other side (deniers,
> revisionists, Neo-Nazis, apologists--call them what you will) have been
> hampered first by the widespread residual hatred immediately after the war,
> second by the intimidating and ever-growing bulk of Holocaust promotion,
> and finally by ridiculous laws and judicial fiats which forbid, under threat of
> fines and criminal imprisonment, any public inquiry into the validity of
> even part of that mountain of pro-Holocaust material.
There are no such "ridiculous laws and judicial fiats", Fungus.
Get some new lies, will ya?
William Daffer
> >ubject: Re: Debunks and Butler
> >From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
> >Date: 2/16/01 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <p7nr8tc5bl4p8cqsd...@4ax.com>
>
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
>
> >In <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 16
> >Feb 2001 15:55:47 -0600, Morghus <mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William Daffer wrote:
> >
> >
>
> > > I would like the assembled peoples to discuss these two ideas.
> >
> >> > First off, is Joe guilty of hypocrisy for claiming as a source
> >> > one which, so far as I know, wouldn't be allowed in a court of
> >> > law?
> >
>
> REPLY: First off, I am not claiming Hoess as a credible source. You are.
>
Then *where* do you get the evidence for you claim that he suffered
psychological torture while at Nuremberg, Joe?
[snip the rest, as I just want a simple answer to this one question]
William Daffer
[...]
> REPLY: You are in error. Hoess' mistreatment continued at the hands
> of the British after he signed his first statement. Likewise, at
> Nuremberg psychological pressure was brought to bear on him and
> Hoess complained that this form of torment was in some ways worse
> than the physical mistreatment.
And where do you learn of this, Joe?
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <170220011442005445%hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> in alt.revisionism, on
Sat, 17 Feb 2001 14:42:00 +0200, Eugene Holman
<hol...@elo.helsinki.fi> wrote:
Civilians near the military base suffered collateral damage.
> Language is a difficult mistress.
Indeed.
And I don't believe Morghus has addressed the passage Himmler's
speech at Posen when he ponders what to do with the the wives and
children of those who have suffered "Ausrottung" whether "umbringen
oder umzubringen" lest they avenge their husbands and fathers.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOo8aOJQgvG272fn9EQJ8VACeJX4aBfMU1WtAfh9EzpCItxa7dK4AoI38
4kC/uXtmygDdeXhprrDT7Lx0
=FEVc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Eugene Holman
<mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
> William Daffer wrote:
>
> >
> > I would like the assembled peoples to discuss these two ideas.
> >
> > First off, is Joe guilty of hypocrisy for claiming as a source one
> > which, so far as I know, wouldn't be allowed in a court of law?
> >
> > But the large question is whether the criterion of a courtroom is the
> > correct one to use. And if so, which courtroom? What are the 'rules of
> > evidence' for the historian.
> >
> > Personally I see no reason why historians should adopt this 'metaphor
> > of the court' as the only method of evidence selection. There are all
> > manner of technical reasons used in courtrooms which are foreign to
> > the pursuit of historical truth why some piece of evidence (a witness
> > statement, a document, a tape recording...) is not admitted into
> > court. Why should the historian adhere to rules whose sole purpose is
> > the protection of the rights of the various parties involved in
> > litigation when the historical process has no litigants?
> >
> > And if not the criterion of the courtroom, then what should the
> > criterion be?
> >
>
> I don't know about anyone else, but I agree with you. Court rules of
> evidence should not be the standard in analyzing and weighing evidence on
> historical questions. I don't know if there is one standard that would be
> acceptable. Perhaps we must each choose our own rules to decide whether
> some assertion of fact is acceptable, whether one version is more
> believable than the other.
Courts are admittedly subject to the whims of culture and fashion, and
the desire for revenge, but they provide a better and more objective
criterion for determining what is true and what is not than your pick
and choose approach to truth which allows you, among other things, to
assign arbitrary and incorrect meanings to German words.
> The findings of a court are not evidence and
> have no probative value in historical inquiries. Courts are not the final
> and conclusive word on truth, especially not a court like the one at
> Nuremberg, manned by victorious enemies and specifically designed to kill
> off the leadership of the vanquished.
This is not true at all. The Nuremberg Tribunal was primarily designed
to determine which members of the German leadership were responsible
for war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes the commission of
which was demonstrated by masses of corroborating evidence, including
photographs and films taken by the Nazis themselves, showing the
commission of mass murder. If what you wrote were true, everyone
charged at Nuremberg would have been found guilty of all charges
raised. As it stands, the tribunal succeeded in determining chains of
command and responsibility, and this provided further evidence which
sent some Nazi leaders to the gallows, others to prison terms of
various length, and some home, innocent of the charges raised.
>
> For example, the court accepted Hoess's confession as evidence of
> his guilt; I reject that finding. Hoess was tortured, we know that, and
> his confession (and his memoirs) contain inconsistencies and known errors
> that should raise substantial suspicions about validity.
Get your history straight. Hoess was not put on trial an Nuremberg. He
testified at Nuremberg as an expert witness forming part of Hans
Fritsche's defence team. What he said there was not a confession, but a
deposition which had been requested to be used as the evidence needed
by another to make his case. If the Fritsch team did not think that
Hoess was telling the truth, they would hardly have based their defence
on his deposition.
Hoess was tortured, or at least severely manhandled, after he was
captured for reasons that are morally indefensible but nevertheless
understandable. His function as the commandant of Auschwitz and the
greatest murderer in history was known before his capture; it did not
come up as a surprise afterwards. A person with a trackrecord like that
eluding capture by assuming an alias is not going to be greeted aith a
handshake and a pat on the back when caught and identified. His
deposition at the Fritsch trial, as well as his expansion on it written
in his death cell after he had been condemned to death at his own trial
in Cracow and had nothing to lose, are consistent with the information
he gave up when he was manhandled. What he wrote is largely corrobrated
by evidence from other sources. His mistakes can, for the most part, be
attributed to his relative lack of education and access to a research
library or editorial assistance.
> For example,
> Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in 1941, but
> we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries that Hitler,
> Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still considering the transfer
> of Jews from German held territories to such places as Siberia and
> Madagascar as late as 1943.
We know from other, much more empirically verifiable sources that the
Einsatzgruppen and Wehrmacht had come to an agreement a few weeks
before the June 22, 1941 attack on the USSR which allowed the
Einsatzkommandos a frontline role in the annihilation of Jews caught by
surprise in territory surprise-attacked and conquered by the Wehrmacht.
The systematic and wholesale Nazi-instigated and coordinated killing of
Eastern European Jews started on June 22, 1941. The fact that certain
Nazi officials might still have been considering this or that plan for
dealing with the Jews in some alternative manner, unrrealizable in
wartime situation, does not mean that they were not making full use of
another plan: the mass killing by various modalities of the Jews on
territory held by Nazi Germany. No effort whatsoever was made to send
even a single Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Belarussian, or Ukrainian
Jew to Madagascar or any other such exotic location during the fall of
1941. They were, for the most part, rounded up, ghettoized, and shot in
pits outside of cities as the ghettos were liquidated. The deportation
plans for Hungarian Jews, which had been drawn up months in advance of
the German attack on Hungary in 1944, called for them to be sent to
Auschwitz and Mauthausen for forced labor and/or extermination, not to
Madagascar or Siberia. More than half a million Hungarian Jews were
verifiably sent to one of these two camps and killed by the Nazis
during 1944, not a single one was sent to Siberia or Madagascar.
> There is not a shred of paper anywhere--no
> official orders, no letters, no diary entries--which support the claim
> that a decision was made to kill Jews at any time, and certainly not in
> 1941.
There is not a shred of paper anywhere - no official orders, no
letters, no diary entries which specify that the Wehrmach was to
attack the USSR early in the morning of June 22, 1941, yet who would
deny it. There is abundant evidence available that the Nazis had a
multibillion Reichsmark budget as well as an entire government devision
devoted to the design, financing, construction, and maintenance of
concentration, forced labor, and death camps, that some of the
expertise and personnel used by these camps came from the T-4
euthanasia program, and that the first dedicated death camp, Chelmno,
had been designed, constructed, and opened for business on December 8,
1941.
> Then there is the claim that Hoess visited Treblinka in
> 1941--construction wasn't even started on Treblinka until 1942.
Treblinka was opened for business in July, 1942. How long it took to
design and construct is unknown, but it was certainly a matter of
months. In any case, the date of his visit to Teblinka is not mentioned
in his _Memoirs_. There he merely states:
<QUOTE>
I myself have only seen Culenhof [Kulmhof = Chelmno] and Treblinka.
Culenhof had ceased to be used, but in Treblinka I saw the whole
operation.
</QUOTE>
Source: R. Hoess, _Memoirs_, pg. 197.
> Add to
> such easily exposed errors the nonsensical description of the use of
> Zyklon B,
There is nothing erroneous or nonsensical in what Hoess states about
the use of Zyklon B. Used in the way he descriobes, it would be lethal
to anyone trapped in a room with it.
> the impossible numbers of people supposedly killed,
By Hoess's own estimate, the number of people gassed at Auschwitz was
in the range of 1,1 million, a figure that roughly coicides with that
obtained from other sources.
> the absence
> of gas chambers at the camp,
The body of Krema I, which was decommissioned as a gas chamber,
converted to an air-raid shelter, and then partially museumicized again
to a gas chamber, the ruins of Kremas II and III, as well as the
foundations of Kremas IV and V, all four of structures contained gas
chambers, something which can be confirmed from the architectural
drawings, building plans, and other document sin the Auschwitz Museum
archives, all show where the ruins of gas chambers are or were.
Forensic studies conducted on the ruins of the walls and ventilation
ducts of these structures both in 1945 and later have all confirmed the
existence of cyanide deposits consisted with their having been exposed
to concentrations of cyanide sufficient to kill any human being trapped
inside.
> and you have enough information to reject the
> Hoess papers as bogus and contrived documents.
You most certainbly do not. Comparing Hoess's documents with others
dealing with the same times, places, and events shows what he writes to
be independently corroborated by other documents.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Eugene Holman
by another to make his case. If the Fritsche team did not think that
Hoess was telling the truth, they would hardly have based their defence
on his deposition.
Hoess was tortured, or at least severely manhandled, after he was
captured for reasons that are morally indefensible but nevertheless
understandable. His function as the commandant of Auschwitz and the
greatest mass-murderer in history was known before his capture; it did
not come up as a surprise afterwards. A person with a trackrecord like
that eluding capture by assuming an alias is not going to be greeted
with a handshake and a pat on the back when caught and identified. His
deposition at the Fritsche trial, as well as his expansion on it written
in his death cell after he had been condemned to death at his own trial
in Cracow and had nothing to lose, are consistent with the information
he gave up when he was manhandled. What he wrote is largely corrobrated
by evidence from other sources. His mistakes can, for the most part, be
attributed to his relative lack of education, some minor confusion or
lapses of memory with names and dates, and no access to either a
research library or editorial assistance.
> For example,
> Hoess stated that the decision to kill all the Jews was made in 1941, but
> we know from correspondence, notes, and private diaries that Hitler,
> Goebbels, Himmler, Goering, and others were still considering the transfer
> of Jews from German held territories to such places as Siberia and
> Madagascar as late as 1943.
We know from other, much more empirically verifiable sources that the
Einsatzgruppen and Wehrmacht had come to an agreement a few weeks
before the June 22, 1941 attack on the USSR which allowed the
Einsatzkommandos a frontline role in the annihilation of Jews caught by
surprise in territory surprise-attacked and conquered by the Wehrmacht.
The systematic and wholesale Nazi-instigated and coordinated killing of
Eastern European Jews started on June 22, 1941. The fact that certain
Nazi officials might still have been considering this or that plan for
dealing with the Jews in some alternative manner, unrrealizable in
wartime situation, does not mean that they were not making full use of
another plan: the mass killing using various modalities of the Jews on
territory held by Nazi Germany. No effort whatsoever was made to send
even a single Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Belarussian, or Ukrainian
Jew to Madagascar or any other such exotic location during the fall of
1941. They were, for the most part, rounded up, ghettoized, and shot in
or on their way to pits outside of cities as the ghettos in which they
had been incrcerated were liquidated. The deportation plans for
Hungarian Jews, which had been drawn up months in advance of the German
attack on Hungary in 1944, called for them to be sent to Auschwitz and
Mauthausen for forced labor and/or extermination, not to Madagascar or
Siberia. More than half a million Hungarian Jews were verifiably sent
to one of these two camps and killed by the Nazis during 1944, not a
single one is on record as having been sent to Siberia or Madagascar,
specifically since Germany never had control over or access to either.
Debunks
>From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>Date: 2/16/01 11:15 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <k09s8tg5iklvirdfh...@4ax.com>
REPLY: Fundamentalist holocaust history-the intellectual adventure of the 21st
century.
Debunks
>From: William Daffer whda...@earthlink.net
>Date: 2/17/01 1:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <m33ddd6...@scythia.localdomain>
a bit of research. Hell, try the following using a name search at your library
or on the web:
G M Gilbert
Kelley, (Prison Psychologist at Nuremberg)
Andrus, I was the Nuremberg Jailer
etc etc etc etc
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Is that the best support you can give your source material?
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
"Get a grip." --Atty. Daylin Leach to Defendant Bradbury
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
And why is it impossible for you to provide those quotes? Joe, I am beginning to
believe you haven't read anything you cite.
William Daffer
Heh, you're the one whose claiming that a novel is the work of an
historian.
And where is your evidence that Butler tape recorded his interview
with Clarke and then produced the dialog in _Legions of Death_
'verbatim?' How would you know that it's *verbatim*?
William Daffer
> >deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
> >
> >> >ubject: Re: Debunks and Butler
> >> >From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
> >> >Date: 2/16/01 6:42 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: <p7nr8tc5bl4p8cqsd...@4ax.com>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> >Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> >In <3A8DA1E3...@deadletter.com> in alt.revisionism, on Fri, 16
> >> >Feb 2001 15:55:47 -0600, Morghus <mor...@deadletter.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> William Daffer wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> > > I would like the assembled peoples to discuss these two ideas.
> >> >
> >> >> > First off, is Joe guilty of hypocrisy for claiming as a source
> >> >> > one which, so far as I know, wouldn't be allowed in a court of
> >> >> > law?
> >> >
> >>
> >> REPLY: First off, I am not claiming Hoess as a credible source. You are.
> >>
> >
> > Then *where* do you get the evidence for you claim that he suffered
> > psychological torture while at Nuremberg, Joe?
> >
> > [snip the rest, as I just want a simple answer to this one question]
> >
> >whd --
> REPLY: Another question which you could easily answer for yourself
> if you did a bit of research.
He who asserts must prove, Joe. It's your assertion, so it's your
responsiblity to show that you have the evidence which backs you up.
Each time you attempt to evade this question, or place the burden of
disproving you onto me, you're only showing all the readers of the
group that you never really had the evidence to begin with and
you're just making it up as you go along.
You can put that doubt to rest by posting the quote, along with the
citation.
> Hell, try the following using a name search at your library
> or on the web:
>
> G M Gilbert
> Kelley, (Prison Psychologist at Nuremberg)
> Andrus, I was the Nuremberg Jailer
>
> etc etc etc etc
Yea yea, Joe. Nothing could be easier that posting the name of a
book or an author and then *claiming* that something in the book
supports you. Here, let me do it...
Ah... hem..
"You're wrong, of course and this proves it. Isaac
Newton. _Principia Mathematic_, Rabelais _Gargantua and Pantagruel_,
William Shakespeare _Much Ado About Nothing_.
See, there's the proof that Hoess wasn't tortured at Nuremberg!"
Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
Debunks
>Date: 2/25/01 8:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A99E255...@pop.mindspring.com>
Debunks
>Date: 2/25/01 8:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <m3r90mw...@scythia.localdomain>
Debunks
>Date: 2/25/01 9:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A99EC94...@pop.mindspring.com>
Pearls before swine
It took me years of hard work and research to investigate these claims,
documents and evidence, and I think you are a person sorely in need of an
education here. Thus, it is better to do something for yourself than have it
handed to you. And you know damn well that I am quite informed on these
historical matters-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
posts here put together.
Debunks
>Message-id: <m3n1baw...@scythia.localdomain>
>
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
REPLY: He who asserts must prove? Is that what you really believe? Good.
Now start by proving your silly soap claims, and then prove to us why the
testimony of perjurers like Tauber and Bimko and Dragon are worthy of belief?
I daresay you do not like it when you are held to the standards you try and
impose upon others.
> Each time you attempt to evade this question, or place the burden of
> disproving you onto me, you're only showing all the readers of the
> group that you never really had the evidence to begin with and
> you're just making it up as you go along.
>
REPLY: See above.\
> You can put that doubt to rest by posting the quote, along with the
> citation.
REPLY: I am not playing games with you here. Post your evidence or move on.
Since you haven't posted anything of interest to date, I won't hold my breath.
>> Hell, try the following using a name search at your library
>> or on the web:
>>
>> G M Gilbert
>> Kelley, (Prison Psychologist at Nuremberg)
>> Andrus, I was the Nuremberg Jailer
>> etc etc etc etc
>
>
>
> Yea yea, Joe. Nothing could be easier that posting the name of a
> book or an author and then *claiming* that something in the book
> supports you.
REPLY: Nothing could be easier than for you to get off your duff and do a
little research for once in your life.
>Here, let me do it...
>
snip
The only thing I want you to do is prove your soap claims and then prove why
Tauber et al, people convicted of perjury by their own words, are worthy of
credibility.
> Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
> complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
> your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
> never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
REPLY: You need more than a few quotes to properly educate yourself, Scot. I
suggest you start doing some serious research, just like I had to.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20010227175418...@ng-ct1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 27 Feb 2001 22:54:18 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@pop.mindspring.com
> >Message-id: <3A99E255...@pop.mindspring.com>
> >Debunks wrote:
> >> REPLY: Fundamentalist holocaust history-the intellectual
> >> adventure of the 21st century.
> >Is that the best support you can give your source material?
> Butler is one of yours.
But *you* consider him a reliable source for Hoess's treatment upon
capture. *You* keep saying that the circumstances described are the
unmediated truth because they are the verbatim transcript of a
tape-recorded conversation.
Yet, strangely, you can't provide any evidence of the existence of
these tape recordings. By way of evidence, one would accept
something like a letter to _The Times_ from Rupert Butler rebutting
Bernard Clarke's objections to the liberties Butler took in reporting
their conversation. Something of the sort may exist. Certainly one
has seen references to Clarke's objections as published in _The
Wrexham Leader_.
Plainly, you have not read _Legions of Death_; otherwise, you would
not be doing your famous impression of a cornered rat. Butler has
thrown quotation marks around certain words, and that is the only
indication in the book that Clarke was quoted. Yet the book is
filled with reported speech of the type cited above. The
interrogation of Albert Kalme has obviously been rendered for its
full melodramatic effect, and its style indistinguishable from the
account of the capture of Rudolph Hoess.
There are some real howlers in _Legions of Death_, too. William
Daffer has elsewhere pointed out a quoted speech given at the Wannsee
Conference. Now, that's very odd, since Eichmann's notes are the
only record of the discussions at Wannsee, and he certainly doesn't
record verbatim speech. Even more oddly, Butler reports the verbatim
speech of someone who didn't even attend the Wannsee Conference.
_Legions of Death_ is the kind of trash paperback you would find at
supermarket checkout. Saying "Butler is one of yours" is a very poor
defence of the reliability of your source, since he is plainly
unreliable. He's your source, so it is up to you to make a case for
his reliability. So far your excuses are a refusal to make that
case.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOpxSMpQgvG272fn9EQJLCgCgp1IlpADtQtxGQ2hKU47R3mhHiBIAn03C
fjCG7HCkfbYR1ZNaWyjadrU6
=4oKH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
But all that hard work and learning doesn't do a damn bit of good if you keep it
to yourself, now, does it? Looks like all that research you did was pretty damned
futile if you have no intention of using it to debate your opponents. Is that the
intellectual standard you want us to think you hold, Joe? That knowledge is to be
hoarded, not shared? What good is that knowledge now?
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Try to stick to the subject, Joe. He was asking you about Hoess.
[...]
> > Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
> > complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
> > your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
> > never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
>
> REPLY: You need more than a few quotes to properly educate yourself, Scot. I
> suggest you start doing some serious research, just like I had to.
That was Daffer, not me, Joe.
William Daffer
[...]
Really. How is it published? How do you know? More importantly, will
this be another claim that you'll refuse to back up?
Why won't you provide your source for your claim that the
quotes are verbatim?
William Daffer
[...]
You first. Then I will prove those 'silly soap claims', but only
*after* you've shown me where I made them.
I can very easily show you where you made your claims about Hoess,
Butler, Clarke and Gilbert.
Like I said: Each time you try to evade this question you only give
more evidence to the growing impression that you made it up out of
whole cloth.
> and then prove
> to us why the testimony of perjurers like Tauber and Bimko and
> Dragon are worthy of belief?
You first, Joe. After all, I started this thread to ask you about
your claims about Butler and Clarke.
Then, when you show me where I've made any claims about Tauber and
Bimko and Dragon being trustworthy, as opposed to claims I've made
about the insufficiency of your arguments *against* their
trustworthiness; then and only then will I do as you suggest.
Until then, like I said: Each time you try to evade this question
you only give more evidence to the growing impression that you made
it up out of whole cloth.
> I daresay you do not like it when you
> are held to the standards you try and impose upon others.
>
> > Each time you attempt to evade this question, or place the burden of
> > disproving you onto me, you're only showing all the readers of the
> > group that you never really had the evidence to begin with and
> > you're just making it up as you go along.
> >
>
> REPLY: See above.\
>
Yes, do see above. Like the part where I say:
Each time you try to evade this question you only give more evidence
to the growing impression that you made it up out of whole cloth.
> > You can put that doubt to rest by posting the quote, along with the
> > citation.
>
> REPLY: I am not playing games with you here.
Yes you are. You're trying desparately to evade what should be very
simple questions. What is your evidence for your claim that Hoess
was tortured psychologically at Nuremberg? What is your evidence
that Butler tape recorded Clarke? What is your evidence that the
section describing Hoess' capture in _Legion of Death_ is accurate
and that the dialog is produced *verbatim?' These are the claims
you've made but which you refuse to substantiate.
It should be a simple matter. In the case of the Gilbert claim you
should be able to produce the quote. In the case of the Butler
claims you should be able to produce the section of _Legions of
Death_ where he speaks of this interview. Regarding the proof that
the dialog is reproduced 'verbatim,' well, you've truly dug yourself
a hole there.
Yet here you flailing about trying every trick ever seen in the
anals of alt.revisionism to get people to forget that I asked a
simple question and you simply refuse to answer it.
> Post your evidence or move on.
Evidence for *what* Joe? I haven't made any claims.
In case you forgot, you're in a thread which *I started* with the
*express* purpose of asking you what your evidence was for your
claims about Clarke and Butler.
Oh, and to ask you to defend the 'metaphor of the court,' but that
is *so* far beyond the scope of this conversation that I've given
that topic up for dead.
If you can't even produce the evidence for your claims about
Gilbert, then discussion of such an abstract concept as historical
methodology is completely out of the question.
> Since you haven't posted anything of interest to date, I
> won't hold my breath.
>
Look at the subject line of this post, Joe. I started this
thread. In that post I asked you two questions.
Here we are *weeks* later and you still haven't answered.
What more evidence do we need that you just made it up?
Pathetic Joe, really pathetic.
> >> Hell, try the following using a name search at your library
> >> or on the web:
> >>
> >> G M Gilbert
> >> Kelley, (Prison Psychologist at Nuremberg)
> >> Andrus, I was the Nuremberg Jailer
>
> >> etc etc etc etc
> >
> >
> >
> > Yea yea, Joe. Nothing could be easier that posting the name of a
> > book or an author and then *claiming* that something in the book
> > supports you.
>
> REPLY: Nothing could be easier than for you to get off your duff and
> do a little research for once in your life.
>
Your claim, your burden.
> >Here, let me do it...
> >
>
> snip
>
> The only thing I want you to do is prove your soap claims and then
> prove why Tauber et al, people convicted of perjury by their own
> words, are worthy of credibility.
>
I started this thread to discuss various ideas surrounding your
claims about Butler and Clarke. The most important claim you have
about them is that the description given by Butler is so true that,
for instance, all of the dialog is 'verbatim.'
You make this claim on the basis of another; that Butler tape
recorded his interview with Clarke and then transcribed it verbatim.
You have not *ONCE* ever produced any evidence for these claims.
We all see your frantic attempts to steer the conversation away from
these claims for the diversions that they are.
> > Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
> > complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
> > your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
> > never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
>
> REPLY: You need more than a few quotes to properly educate yourself,
> Scot.
William. Apparently you can't even keep track of who you're talking
to.
We know that you can't back up your claims Joe. It's become
painfully obvious to all.
> I suggest you start doing some serious research, just like I
> had to.
>
But we have our answer, don't we, Joe? You really have no evidence that
Butler tape recorded the interview, we have no evidence that he
reproduced any conversation, verbatim or otherwise, and we know
that there is no evidence in Gilbert to sustain your claim of him
as a source for reports of Hoess' psychological torture.
If you had this evidence, you would be jumping up and down to
present it. There'd be no restraining you from posting it. The very
fact that you are so reticent to present it, that you keep trying to
divert the converstion away the evidence we need, and it can mean
only one thing; you never had the evidence for your claim to begin
with.
whd
Debunks
>Date: 2/27/01 6:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <m34rxfp...@scythia.localdomain>
and Clark.
Debunks
>From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>Message-id: <lodo9tk51g0l22ml0...@4ax.com>
>But *you* consider him a reliable source for Hoess's treatment upon
>capture.
I consider Clark to be a reliable source, as he is the man who captured Hoess.
>*You* keep saying that the circumstances described are the
>unmediated truth because they are the verbatim transcript of a
>tape-recorded conversation.
Of course they are. If they weren't, Clark would have successfully sued Butler
ages ago and the excerpt would have been excised from future editions of the
book. Hint: He didn't, and we know why.
>Yet, strangely, you can't provide any evidence of the existence of
>these tape recordings.
I do not have to. You are perfectly capable of contacting both Clark and
Butler on your own.
> By way of evidence, one would accept
>something like a letter to _The Times_ from Rupert Butler rebutting
>Bernard Clarke's objections to the liberties Butler took in reporting
>their conversation. Something of the sort may exist.
And it does, and it is without merit, as Butler had Clark dead to right on
tape.
>Certainly one
>has seen references to Clarke's objections as published in _The
>Wrexham Leader_.
I am familiar with it and it does not change my argument one bit.
>Plainly, you have not read _Legions of Death_
Plainly, I have.
>otherwise, you would
>not be doing your famous impression of a cornered rat.
A swine calling me a rat? Who cares?
>Butler has
>thrown quotation marks around certain words, and that is the only
>indication in the book that Clarke was quoted. Yet the book is
>filled with reported speech of the type cited above. The
>interrogation of Albert Kalme has obviously been rendered for its
>full melodramatic effect, and its style indistinguishable from the
>account of the capture of Rudolph Hoess.
>
>There are some real howlers in _Legions of Death_, too. William
>Daffer has elsewhere pointed out a quoted speech given at the Wannsee
>Conference. Now, that's very odd, since Eichmann's notes are the
>only record of the discussions at Wannsee, and he certainly doesn't
>record verbatim speech. Even more oddly, Butler reports the verbatim
>speech of someone who didn't even attend the Wannsee Conference.
>
>_Legions of Death_ is the kind of trash paperback you would find at
>supermarket checkout. Saying "Butler is one of yours" is a very poor
>defence of the reliability of your source, since he is plainly
>unreliable. He's your source, so it is up to you to make a case for
>his reliability. So far your excuses are a refusal to make that
>case.
>
No one but you and your lackeys care what you have to say about this, Mr.
Morris. Perhaps that thought will finally dawn on you one day. Butler is one
of yours. As is Clark. Butler's entire book is as credible as the testimony
of Tauber, Bimko and Dragon, so when you try and poke fun at your supporter,
you are poking fun of not only him, but of Tauber et al and yourselves. It is
your case which is funny and pathetic.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A9C6C86...@pop.mindspring.com>
There is no such animal as a serious debater on your side in ar-but you know
this. You are trolls. And your purpose here is to attack *people* rather than
address issues. This being the case, it makes no sense to try and throw pearls
before swine. I will no longer do it. You need an education, and I suggest
you try and get one.
Debunks
>Message-id: <m3zof7o...@scythia.localdomain>
I doubt whether you could show me anything I do not already know. As I have
said, I am not playin gthese tit for tat games with you any longer. Prove your
case and your claims. It is long overdue.
Debunks
>Date: 2/27/01 7:14 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9C6CFA...@pop.mindspring.com>
And I advise you to try and refrain from sticking your nose into a topic which
is not addressed to you, but to Daffer God only knows you are having enough
problems of your own in these threads right now..
>> > Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
>> > complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
>> > your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
>> > never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
>>
> REPLY: You need more than a few quotes to properly educate yourself, Scot.
>I
>> suggest you start doing some serious research, just like I had to.
>
>That was Daffer, not me, Joe.
Birds of a feather.
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> >But *you* consider him a reliable source for Hoess's treatment upon
> >capture.
>
> I consider Clark to be a reliable source, as he is the man who captured Hoess.
But Butler isn't Clarke. And Butler has been shown to have invented quotes.
And your proof that he did not when it came to Clarke is -- might as well
say it -- some Magic Rabbit tapes that you can't even prove exist, let alone
contain the words Butler attributes to Clarke.
Face it, Joe. You've got another Magic Rabbit on your hands. Produce it,
or prove it in some manner other than bald assertion, or accept the
simple fact that no one will believe it exists, just as no one believes
the existence of your other Magic Rabbit.
> >*You* keep saying that the circumstances described are the
> >unmediated truth because they are the verbatim transcript of a
> >tape-recorded conversation.
>
> Of course they are. If they weren't, Clark would have successfully sued Butler
> ages ago and the excerpt would have been excised from future editions of the
> book. Hint: He didn't, and we know why.
Oh, now _there's_ a funny one. By this standard, everything in the National
Enquirer is true except the articles about Carol Burnett, because she's the
only one who sued.
You're caught, you're flailing, and you know it.
> >Yet, strangely, you can't provide any evidence of the existence of
> >these tape recordings.
>
> I do not have to. You are perfectly capable of contacting both Clark and
> Butler on your own.
Your claim, your proof, Joe. It's your Magic Rabbit.
> > By way of evidence, one would accept
> >something like a letter to _The Times_ from Rupert Butler rebutting
> >Bernard Clarke's objections to the liberties Butler took in reporting
> >their conversation. Something of the sort may exist.
>
> And it does, and it is without merit, as Butler had Clark dead to right on
> tape.
<< More of Blanche's tedious repetitions snipped >>
---
david gehrig's self-referential .sigfile has seven a's, two c's,
five d's, thirty-two e's, ten f's, five g's, nine h's, seventeen
i's, six l's, nineteen n's, ten o's, two p's, ten r's, thirty-three
s's, twenty-four t's, five u's, eight v's, seven w's, two x's,
four y's, all sorts of punctuation, and ends with these: @%<
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> If you had this evidence, you would be jumping up and down to
> present it. There'd be no restraining you from posting it. The very
> fact that you are so reticent to present it, that you keep trying to
> divert the converstion away the evidence we need, and it can mean
> only one thing; you never had the evidence for your claim to begin
> with.
Exactly.
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> "You're wrong, of course and this proves it. Isaac
> Newton. _Principia Mathematic_, Rabelais _Gargantua and Pantagruel_,
> William Shakespeare _Much Ado About Nothing_.
Aha! I can be a little slow sometimes.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20010228010938...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 28 Feb 2001 06:09:38 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >> >Debunks wrote:
First off, the spelling is "Clarke," you dumbass.
> >*You* keep saying that the circumstances described are the
> >unmediated truth because they are the verbatim transcript of a
> >tape-recorded conversation.
> Of course they are. If they weren't, Clark would have successfully
> sued Butler ages ago and the excerpt would have been excised from
> future editions of the book. Hint: He didn't, and we know why.
David Gehrig has already made the point that by the same token all
the stories in the National Enquirer must be true except for those
about Carol Burnett because she's the only one who's sued them.
In order to bring a libel suit in the UK, I understand that you need
$200,000 up front before a lawyer will even take your suit. How many
old war veterans have kind of money. The ansence of a libel suit is
not proof of anything.
> >Yet, strangely, you can't provide any evidence of the existence of
> >these tape recordings.
> I do not have to.
Yes, you do, asshole. You made a claim: you prove it.
Stop playing the fool, Joe. In your game, we have to prove our
claims and disprove yours. Well, it doesn't work that way.
> You are perfectly capable of contacting both Clark and
> Butler on your own.
Is that what you did? Did you contact Clarke (note spelling) or
Butler? If so, why have you been so coy about revealing your source?
> > By way of evidence, one would accept
> >something like a letter to _The Times_ from Rupert Butler
> >rebutting Bernard Clarke's objections to the liberties Butler took
> >in reporting their conversation. Something of the sort may exist.
> >
> And it does, and it is without merit, as Butler had Clark dead to
> right on tape.
Jesus, you are stupid. Read what I wrote for a change.
You just agreed that Butler's rebuttal exists and is without merit.
> >Certainly one
> >has seen references to Clarke's objections as published in _The
> >Wrexham Leader_.
> I am familiar with it and it does not change my argument one bit.
Nothing can change a non-existent argument.
> >Plainly, you have not read _Legions of Death_
> Plainly, I have.
Plainly, you are lying or very stupid. My money's on the latter
choice.
> >otherwise, you would
> >not be doing your famous impression of a cornered rat.
> A swine calling me a rat? Who cares?
Obviously, you do.
> >Butler has
> >thrown quotation marks around certain words, and that is the only
> >indication in the book that Clarke was quoted. Yet the book is
> >filled with reported speech of the type cited above. The
> >interrogation of Albert Kalme has obviously been rendered for its
> >full melodramatic effect, and its style indistinguishable from the
> >account of the capture of Rudolph Hoess.
> >There are some real howlers in _Legions of Death_, too. William
> >Daffer has elsewhere pointed out a quoted speech given at the
> >Wannsee Conference. Now, that's very odd, since Eichmann's notes
> >are the only record of the discussions at Wannsee, and he
> >certainly doesn't record verbatim speech. Even more oddly, Butler
> >reports the verbatim speech of someone who didn't even attend the
> >Wannsee Conference.
> >_Legions of Death_ is the kind of trash paperback you would find
> >at supermarket checkout. Saying "Butler is one of yours" is a
> >very poor defence of the reliability of your source, since he is
> >plainly
> >unreliable. He's your source, so it is up to you to make a case
> >for his reliability. So far your excuses are a refusal to make
> >that case.
> No one but you and your lackeys care what you have to say about
> this, Mr. Morris.
Oh! I have lackeys now, do I? You're such a jerkoff.
> Perhaps that thought will finally dawn on you one day.
Every thought that dawns pn me is one up on you.
> Butler is one
> of yours.
Nope.
> As is Clark.
Clarke (note spelling) is just a guy who participated in history. I
have no more personal attachment to him than I do to Julius Casear.
> Butler's entire book is as credible as the testimony
> of Tauber, Bimko and Dragon,
Suit yourself. If you want to say Butler has no credibility, you
have to explain why his account of the capture of Hoess is credible.
> so when you try and poke fun at your supporter,
> you are poking fun of not only him, but of Tauber et al and
> yourselves. It is your case which is funny and pathetic.
You're such a jerkoff. David Irving really scraped the bottom of the
barrel to get you.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp0oo5QgvG272fn9EQIzvACdEXHblA698eD1sdKnea3y8v4dn5YAoJ9e
Yo2zfekoFP/iltjDrPVB8HRu
=QUDb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20010228003531...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 28 Feb 2001 05:35:31 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >From: William Daffer whda...@earthlink.net
> >Message-id: <m34rxfp...@scythia.localdomain>
[snip]
> > Why won't you provide your source for your claim that the
> > quotes are verbatim?
Because he's stupid little nobody with delusions of adequacy.
> If you are really so concerned about this, I would advise you to
> contact Butler and Clark.
Did you contact either of them? If not, what is your source?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp0pF5QgvG272fn9EQKQFgCgkZSntmA1jgBRgTn1klFjR7dPf60AoLhh
gpX8TiqXTOwzL2g+mcFwNG5y
=8oqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20010228011143...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 28 Feb 2001 06:11:43 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@pop.mindspring.com
> >Message-id: <3A9C6C86...@pop.mindspring.com>
> >Debunks wrote:
[snip]
> >> Pearls before swine
> >> It took me years of hard work and research to investigate these
> >> claims, documents and evidence, and I think you are a person
> >> sorely in need of an education here. Thus, it is better to do
> >> something for yourself than have it handed to you.
Oh, that's really convincing.
>> > And you know damn well that I am quite informed on these
> >> historical matters
We know damned well that you can't the least shred of evifdence or
half-ways intelligent argument.
> >>-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
> >> posts here put together.
That's right. You're "the foremost expert on the Third Reich" so you
don't actually have to produce evidence.
What a loser!
> >But all that hard work and learning doesn't do a damn bit of good
> >if you keep it
> >to yourself, now, does it? Looks like all that research you did
> >was pretty damned
> >futile if you have no intention of using it to debate your
> >opponents. Is that the
> >intellectual standard you want us to think you hold, Joe? That
> >knowledge is to be
> >hoarded, not shared? What good is that knowledge now?
> There is no such animal as a serious debater on your side in ar-but
> you know this. You are trolls. And your purpose here is to attack
> *people* rather than address issues. This being the case, it makes
> no sense to try and throw pearls before swine. I will no longer do
> it. You need an education, and I suggest you try and get one.
In other words, you can't back up your claims.
But that's nothing new. You never have.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp0qJpQgvG272fn9EQLBWwCg+CeKn7pm0YiYCEA/xgFRy2X79u8An3du
sYEvqGEn3bMwcNO989+u2gh3
=3GLP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
david_michael
> In order to bring a libel suit in the UK, I understand that you need
> $200,000 up front before a lawyer will even take your suit.
Now where did you get that piece of information?
Answer: you made it up. It is quite untrue. The going rate for a good libel
lawyer in London seems to be around £300 per hour plus VAT and
disbursements.
And, of course, you do not need a libel lawyer. You can argue the case
yourself.
So, Mr Morris, you have been caught telling fibs.
More sleaze from the anti-revisionists.
David
<snip>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3a9d2...@news5.newsfeeds.com> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 28
Feb 2001 17:06:06 -0000, "david_michael"
<david_...@onetel.net.uk>, the UK version of Joe Bellinger,
wrote:
> <snip>
> > In order to bring a libel suit in the UK, I understand that you
> > need $200,000 up front before a lawyer will even take your suit.
> Now where did you get that piece of information?
- From a Martin Kurrein in uk.legal. I think he is a lawyer.
But I misremembered the amount. He actually said it would be about
half that.
> Answer: you made it up. It is quite untrue.
Go fuck yourself.
> The going rate for a good libel
> lawyer in London seems to be around £300 per hour plus VAT and
> disbursements.
> And, of course, you do not need a libel lawyer. You can argue the
> case yourself.
Fool for a client and all that. The example of David Irving springs
to mind.
> So, Mr Morris, you have been caught telling fibs.
> More sleaze from the anti-revisionists.
Wow. You are desperate.
The only thing is that I can't remember giving you a good ass-kicking
lately. That's usually the reason you make some dumbass screaming
allegation about me.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp00CpQgvG272fn9EQKhwQCgufCZpb07WKZBuQBfHXR+CGAd8xoAn3Mo
wZmX+t79sprmd/2VvfXMEZkK
=98u/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
david_michael
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
news:44cq9tk543fsqsgmj...@4ax.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <3a9d2...@news5.newsfeeds.com> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 28
> Feb 2001 17:06:06 -0000, "david_michael"
> <david_...@onetel.net.uk>, the UK version of Joe Bellinger,
> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > In order to bring a libel suit in the UK, I understand that you
> > > need $200,000 up front before a lawyer will even take your suit.
>
> > Now where did you get that piece of information?
>
> - From a Martin Kurrein in uk.legal. I think he is a lawyer.
He is indeed. A barrister in fact. Works at Cloisters. Specialist in
Internet law and discrimination law, it appears.
> But I misremembered the amount. He actually said it would be about
> half that.
Now why would a barrister say a thing like that?
Answer: he wouldn't.
I did a Google search on that name. It produced no contributions from Mr
Kurrein in uk.legal.
> > Answer: you made it up. It is quite untrue.
>
> Go fuck yourself.
You might find it necessary to engage in such behaviour. I do not.
> > The going rate for a good libel
> > lawyer in London seems to be around £300 per hour plus VAT and
> > disbursements.
>
> > And, of course, you do not need a libel lawyer. You can argue the
> > case yourself.
>
> Fool for a client and all that. The example of David Irving springs
> to mind.
Well when Martin Webster (formerly of the National Front) was sued for libel
by Peter Hain (former thug, now government minister), he represented himself
quite well. He lost the case, but only had to hand over a few pounds whereas
Hain, whose action was deemed to be a bit on the frivolous side, was landed
with the court costs of thousands.
> > So, Mr Morris, you have been caught telling fibs.
>
> > More sleaze from the anti-revisionists.
>
> Wow. You are desperate.
Merely pointing out that you are writing drivel.
> The only thing is that I can't remember giving you a good ass-kicking
> lately. That's usually the reason you make some dumbass screaming
> allegation about me.
Poor Mr Morris. Shown to be a liar.
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 8:41 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <9aaq9t4v48ehvgkvh...@4ax.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <20010228011143...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>on 28 Feb 2001 06:11:43 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@pop.mindspring.com
>> >Message-id: <3A9C6C86...@pop.mindspring.com>
>
>> >Debunks wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >> Pearls before swine
>> >> It took me years of hard work and research to investigate these
>> >> claims, documents and evidence, and I think you are a person
>> >> sorely in need of an education here. Thus, it is better to do
>> >> something for yourself than have it handed to you.
>
>Oh, that's really convincing.
>
Of course it is true, and you of course, are as ignorant and biased as he is.
The blind leading the blind into the abyss.
>>> > And you know damn well that I am quite informed on these
>> >> historical matters
>
>We know damned well that you can't the least shred of evifdence or
>half-ways intelligent argument.
LOL! A saver! Care to run that by us again, Mr. Morris? LOL! Here, let me
do it for you:
"We know damned well that you can't the least shred of evifdence or half-ways
intelligent argument."
LOL! If that isn't the funniest half-ass comment I have ever read in this
newsgroup! And that is saying something. Go take a valium, Mr. Morris, and
get back to us in the moring.
>> >>-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
>> >> posts here put together.
>That's right. You're "the foremost expert on the Third Reich" so you
>don't actually have to produce evidence.
Whenever I post, I produce credible evidence of one sort or another, while you
produce none.
>What a loser!
LOL! If I am a loser, what does that make you? Fact is, no one would waste
their time with a loser, which is why I usually ignore you inisipid posts.
>> >But all that hard work and learning doesn't do a damn bit of good
>> >if you keep it
>> >to yourself, now, does it? Looks like all that research you did
>> >was pretty damned
>> >futile if you have no intention of using it to debate your
>> >opponents. Is that the
>> >intellectual standard you want us to think you hold, Joe? That
>> >knowledge is to be
>> >hoarded, not shared? What good is that knowledge now?
>
>> There is no such animal as a serious debater on your side in ar-but
>> you know this. You are trolls. And your purpose here is to attack
>> *people* rather than address issues. This being the case, it makes
>> no sense to try and throw pearls before swine. I will no longer do
>> it. You need an education, and I suggest you try and get one.
>
>In other words, you can't back up your claims.
>
>But that's nothing new. You never have.
>
Of course, my comments have been proven correct in your recent replies to my
posts, which are laced with pathetic name-calling and attempts to shift blame
of some sort on to your opponent. How effortlessly one can get your goat!
Debunks
Debunks
>From: David Gehrig zem...@earthlink.net
>Date: 2/28/01 6:34 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9D0C6A...@earthlink.net>
>
>Debunks wrote:
>
><< snip >>
>
>> >But *you* consider him a reliable source for Hoess's treatment upon
>> >capture.
>>
>> I consider Clark to be a reliable source, as he is the man who captured
>Hoess.
>
>But Butler isn't Clarke.
That's why I don't rely on him, but on Clark, whose comments were taped.
Debunks
>From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>Message-id: <l6aq9tonchcs59mal...@4ax.com>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <20010228003531...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
>on 28 Feb 2001 05:35:31 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
>
>> >From: William Daffer whda...@earthlink.net
>> >Message-id: <m34rxfp...@scythia.localdomain>
>
>[snip]
>
>> > Why won't you provide your source for your claim that the
>> > quotes are verbatim?
>
>Because he's stupid little nobody with delusions of adequacy.
So says the ultimate frustrated intellectual boor, John Morris, pontificating
from the seat of his pants in Canada. "Always good for a laugh Morris." So you
are now trying your hand where everyone else has failed, John? Hate to inform
you, but name-calling has all the effect on me as a spoonful of water tossed
into the Pacific. The only thing which is going to ruffle my feathers is hard
evidence by which you can back your case.
>
>> If you are really so concerned about this, I would advise you to
>> contact Butler and Clark.
>
>Did you contact either of them? If not, what is your source?
>
>- --
> John Morris
This is a dead letter as far as I am concerned. We have Clark's statement,
Hoess was tortured, and that is all there is to it. Until you evidence to the
contrary, your baiting posts will be ignored for what they are-nothing.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Hey, Joe, you snipped this:
>>>>And Butler has been shown to have invented quotes.
And your proof that he did not when it came to Clarke is -- might as well
say it -- some Magic Rabbit tapes that you can't even prove exist, let alone
contain the words Butler attributes to Clarke.
Face it, Joe. You've got another Magic Rabbit on your hands. Produce it,
or prove it in some manner other than bald assertion, or accept the
simple fact that no one will believe it exists, just as no one believes
the existence of your other Magic Rabbit. <<<<<
Don't you think that changes the tenor of his response?
Melody Blaiser
>Debunks wrote:
>
><< More of Blanche's tedious repetitions snipped >>
David, this sums him up. He is totally repetitive.
Melody Blaiser
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Joe has no source.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Got any proof for your "verbatim tape" yet, Joe?
>
>
> >> > Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
> >> > complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
> >> > your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
> >> > never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
> >>
>
> > REPLY: You need more than a few quotes to properly educate yourself, Scot.
> >I
> >> suggest you start doing some serious research, just like I had to.
> >
> >That was Daffer, not me, Joe.
>
> Birds of a feather.
Gotta pay attention, Joe.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Thank you for letting us know it is now open season on mistypes, typos, spelling
lames, and other such trivial errors, Joe. I hope you are perfect from here on.
>
>
> >> >>-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
> >> >> posts here put together.
>
> >That's right. You're "the foremost expert on the Third Reich" so you
> >don't actually have to produce evidence.
>
> Whenever I post, I produce credible evidence of one sort or another, while you
> produce none.
Really? What is your evidence that Hoess was tortured? What have you ever
displayed? You have talked about a "verbatim tape," but have never produced it,
nor have you ever revealed how you came across it. One can only come to the
conclusion that it is vapor.
<remaining snipped and sent to the EPA for inspection>
KCOM
Melody:
Who's that woman that keeps on kicking your people off her Yahoo Club/Board?
I saw it mentioned on your board.
Steve
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3a9d5...@news5.newsfeeds.com> in alt.revisionism, on Wed, 28
Feb 2001 20:07:52 -0000, "david_michael"
<david_...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:44cq9tk543fsqsgmj...@4ax.com...
> > In <3a9d2...@news5.newsfeeds.com> in alt.revisionism, on Wed,
> > 28 Feb 2001 17:06:06 -0000, "david_michael"
> > <david_...@onetel.net.uk>, the UK version of Joe Bellinger,
> > wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > In order to bring a libel suit in the UK, I understand that
> > > > you need $200,000 up front before a lawyer will even take
> > > > your suit.
> > > Now where did you get that piece of information?
> > - From a Martin Kurrein in uk.legal. I think he is a lawyer.
> He is indeed. A barrister in fact. Works at Cloisters. Specialist
> in Internet law and discrimination law, it appears.
> > But I misremembered the amount. He actually said it would be
> > about half that.
> Now why would a barrister say a thing like that?
> Answer: he wouldn't.
Answer: I don't know.
But here is what he said:
<quote>
From: John....@xmunge.UAlberta.CA (John Morris)
Newsgroups: uk.legal
Subject: Re: Seeking UK Legal Help
Date: Fri, 21 May 1999 08:24:53 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Reply-To: John....@xhormel.UAlberta.CA
Message-ID: <37450f34...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
References: <3751af90...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>
<z2ZEVWAIh$Q3E...@mkurrein.co.uk>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
In <z2ZEVWAIh$Q3E...@mkurrein.co.uk>, on Thu, 20 May 1999
12:55:52 +0100, Martin Kurrein <mar...@mkurrein.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
>Keith Schellenberg just lost a libel action against The
>Guardian newspaper and has a bill for at least 750,000 UKP.
>Your costs would be less - but most libel lawyers would
>want 20-50,000 up front.
> I did a Google search on that name. It produced no contributions
> from Mr Kurrein in uk.legal.
That's not my problem. Does Google go back to May 1999?
> > > Answer: you made it up. It is quite untrue.
> > Go fuck yourself.
> You might find it necessary to engage in such behaviour. I do not.
You can go fuck yourself.
> > > The going rate for a good libel
> > > lawyer in London seems to be around £300 per hour plus VAT and
> > > disbursements.
> > > And, of course, you do not need a libel lawyer. You can argue
> > > the case yourself.
> > Fool for a client and all that. The example of David Irving
> > springs to mind.
> Well when Martin Webster (formerly of the National Front) was sued
> for libel by Peter Hain (former thug, now government minister), he
> represented himself quite well. He lost the case, but only had to
> hand over a few pounds whereas Hain, whose action was deemed to be
> a bit on the frivolous side, was landed with the court costs of
> thousands.
And I care why?
> > > So, Mr Morris, you have been caught telling fibs.
> > > More sleaze from the anti-revisionists.
> > Wow. You are desperate.
> Merely pointing out that you are writing drivel.
Le me know when you start.
> > The only thing is that I can't remember giving you a good
> > ass-kicking lately. That's usually the reason you make some
> > dumbass screaming allegation about me.
> Poor Mr Morris. Shown to be a liar.
Poor David E. Michael. Shown to be a petty nobody.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp2SrJQgvG272fn9EQI0BwCggFGFA3o5pVddrdK5ETag/Vj1pEIAnRU0
SwhSu3ENUMt2jS+d9dIRJQHL
=1m7H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Melody Blaiser
Jane somebody or other. She calls herself Harbinger. She lives in
Australia. They aren't _my_ people. they are just people defending
normative history.
Melody Blaiser
KCOM
Well.... Looks to me that she ought to come someshere, where she can't delete
the post. That's just pore rude.
Steve
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20010228165006...@ng-ct1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 28 Feb 2001 21:50:06 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
> >Message-id: <9aaq9t4v48ehvgkvh...@4ax.com>
> >In <20010228011143...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in
> >alt.revisionism, on 28 Feb 2001 06:11:43 GMT, deb...@aol.com
> >(Debunks) wrote:
> >> >From: Buck Turgidson deppi...@pop.mindspring.com
> >> >Message-id: <3A9C6C86...@pop.mindspring.com>
> >> >Debunks wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> >> Pearls before swine
> >> >> It took me years of hard work and research to investigate
> >> >> these claims, documents and evidence, and I think you are a
> >> >> person sorely in need of an education here. Thus, it is
> >> >> better to do something for yourself than have it handed to
> >> >> you.
> >Oh, that's really convincing.
> Of course it is true, and you of course, are as ignorant and biased
> as he is.
Whether it is true, all you are saying is that you are right because
you are right. You haven't proved anything. You can't prove
anything.
> The blind leading the blind into the abyss.
Where I will smell the Smoke of Stan and burn in perdition forever?
> >>> > And you know damn well that I am quite informed on these
> >> >> historical matters
> >We know damned well that you can't produce the least shred of
> >evidence or a half-ways intelligent argument.
> LOL! A saver! Care to run that by us again, Mr. Morris? LOL!
> Here, let me do it for you:
> "We know damned well that you can't the least shred of evifdence or
> half-ways intelligent argument."
> LOL! If that isn't the funniest half-ass comment I have ever read
> in this newsgroup! And that is saying something. Go take a
> valium, Mr. Morris, and get back to us in the moring.
In the "moring," Mr. Spelling Lame?
And you still haven't produced the least shred of evidence or a
half-ways intelligent argument.
Your arguments boil down to this: Tauber is a perjurer becuase he's a
perjurer; Butler quoted Clarke verbatim because Butler quoted Clarke
verbatim.
> >> >>-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
> >> >> posts here put together.
> >That's right. You're "the foremost expert on the Third Reich" so
> >you don't actually have to produce evidence.
> Whenever I post, I produce credible evidence of one sort or
> another, while you produce none.
Funny, but I haven't seen anything from you on Tauber except the mere
assertion that he is a perjurer. Where is your evidence? You *do*
know what evidence is, don't you?
> >What a loser!
> LOL! If I am a loser, what does that make you? Fact is, no one
> would waste their time with a loser, which is why I usually ignore
> you inisipid posts.
Like you did this one and the others you responded to today?
> >> >But all that hard work and learning doesn't do a damn bit of
> >> >good if you keep it
> >> >to yourself, now, does it? Looks like all that research you did
> >> >was pretty damned
> >> >futile if you have no intention of using it to debate your
> >> >opponents. Is that the
> >> >intellectual standard you want us to think you hold, Joe? That
> >> >knowledge is to be
> >> >hoarded, not shared? What good is that knowledge now?
> >> There is no such animal as a serious debater on your side in
> >> ar-but you know this. You are trolls. And your purpose here is
> >> to attack *people* rather than address issues. This being the
> >> case, it makes no sense to try and throw pearls before swine. I
> >> will no longer do it. You need an education, and I suggest you
> >> try and get one.
> >In other words, you can't back up your claims.
> >But that's nothing new. You never have.
> Of course, my comments have been proven correct in your recent
> replies to my posts, which are laced with pathetic name-calling and
> attempts to shift blame of some sort on to your opponent.
It is merely the frustration of a reasonably intelligent person with
the pretensions of the inadequate.
> How effortlessly one can get your goat!
So you're purpose was not to prove a case, but to troll for
responses.
How typically feeble of you to claim to have proven something you
haven't, then pretend you were really just trolling all along.
By the way, where is your evidence that Tauber perjured himself?
You do know what evidence is, don't you?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp2bE5QgvG272fn9EQKSRQCdFNYxvhIBEEhMURkeDV7B/cW6Tr8Aniq3
6Tywatd5TBX0lzgOVRSzP3cU
=mept
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20010228165431...@ng-ct1.aol.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 28 Feb 2001 21:54:31 GMT, deb...@aol.com (Debunks) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Debunks and Butler
> >From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
> >Date: 2/28/01 8:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <l6aq9tonchcs59mal...@4ax.com>
> >
> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >In <20010228003531...@ng-fn1.aol.com> in
> >alt.revisionism, on 28 Feb 2001 05:35:31 GMT, deb...@aol.com
> >(Debunks) wrote:
> >
> >> >From: William Daffer whda...@earthlink.net
> >> >Message-id: <m34rxfp...@scythia.localdomain>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> > Why won't you provide your source for your claim that the
> >> > quotes are verbatim?
> >
> >Because he's stupid little nobody with delusions of adequacy.
>
> So says the ultimate frustrated intellectual boor, John Morris,
> pontificating from the seat of his pants in Canada. "Always good
> for a laugh Morris." So you are now trying your hand where everyone
> else has failed, John? Hate to inform you, but name-calling has
> all the effect on me as a spoonful of water tossed into the
> Pacific. The only thing which is going to ruffle my feathers is
> hard evidence by which you can back your case.
Please present your evidence that Butler quoted Clarke verbatim.
Please present your evidence that Tauber perjured himself.
> >> If you are really so concerned about this, I would advise you to
> >> contact Butler and Clark.
> >Did you contact either of them? If not, what is your source?
> This is a dead letter as far as I am concerned.
Of course it is. You too stupid to understand the terms of the
debate. You are too stupid to understand what debate is, or what
evidence is, or what argument is, or even what history is. The
cherry on the manure pile of your inadequacy is your pretension of
being the foremost expert on anything.
> We have Clark's statement,
Do we?
> Hoess was tortured, and that is all there is to it. Until you
> evidence to the contrary, your baiting posts will be ignored for
> what they are-nothing.
But, Joe, I believe that Hoess was tortured upon capture. According
to current conceptions of torture, he was tortured becasuse he was
beaten, drugged wuth liquor, and deprived of sleep.
I believe it because Hoess said so in his memoir. He had no reason
to lie in his memoir. It is the equivalent of a deathbed confession.
What I contest is whether Butler's histrionic and novelistic account
of Clarke's remarks was a) verbatim and b) a fair representation.
I would be convinced that Butler's account was both if you were to
produce some evidence of it other than your assertion.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp2p+pQgvG272fn9EQKkjACgwpzMIND0E1DRqbL45jEeYnxnbZIAoNCY
BtilSRJkI7O6lwMywROHG8jF
=T6Nq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
William Daffer
No, your source, no matter how much you try to avoid it, is Butler.
That's the problem. In order to eliminate Butler from the equation
you made up this ridiculous claims about tape recording and quoting
'verbatim.' But you've never produced any evidence for the tape
recording claim, nor for the more important one that Butler's
treatment of the 'capture scene' is above reproach.
So, I will now ignore it. It's plain to all, you never had the
evidence, you simply made it up.
Now, what about your claim that Hoess was psychologically tortured
at Nuremberg.
whd
--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend
Inside of a dog it's too dark to read
-- Groucho Marx
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9D93C8...@pop.mindspring.com>
It has always been open season on typos from your end of the board, Dep. Your
Ms Ostrov is perpetually attacking and ridiculing people on account of typos,
but I never hear you belch out a protest when she does it. Another example of
your hypocrisy. In fact, instead of directing your criticisms at Morris, who
has been calling me names throughout his recent responses, you direct your
criticism against me-yet more proof of your inherent bias. Sad, Scot, Like I
said, you show no concept of ethics or backbone whatsoever. You lost any
respect I once had for you when you refused to utter one syllable in defense of
my son. I cannot and will not forgive you for that. And now you try and twist
the tables on me after I come under attack by Morris. Well, at least I know
the type of man you really are now.
>
>> >> >>-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
>> >> >> posts here put together.
>> >That's right. You're "the foremost expert on the Third Reich" so you
>> >don't actually have to produce evidence.
>>
>> Whenever I post, I produce credible evidence of one sort or another, while
>you
>> produce none.
>Really? What is your evidence that Hoess was tortured?
That is indisputable. If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
>What have you ever
>displayed? You have talked about a "verbatim tape," but have never produced
>it,
>nor have you ever revealed how you came across it.
During an INTERVIEW, Scot. That is how interviews are normally conducted.
>One can only come to the
>conclusion that it is vapor.
Vapor what? Vapor rub on your part?
>
>
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 4:00 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9D9115...@pop.mindspring.com>
The burden of proof is on you, Scot.
Debunks
>From: John Morris John....@UAlberta.CA
>Message-id: <j16r9t41a8tirqbc9...@4ax.com>
I cannot recall one instance where you personally ever proved anything by way
of actual evidence, Mr. Morris. Is that pattern going to change in the future?
I seriously doubt it.
>
>> The blind leading the blind into the abyss.
>
>Where I will smell the Smoke of Stan and burn in perdition forever?
>
Personally I do not care where you spend your eternity, Mr. Morris.
>> >>> > And you know damn well that I am quite informed on these
>> >> >> historical matters
>
>> >We know damned well that you can't produce the least shred of
>> >evidence or a half-ways intelligent argument.
>> LOL! A saver! Care to run that by us again, Mr. Morris? LOL!
>> Here, let me do it for you:
>
>> "We know damned well that you can't the least shred of evifdence or
>> half-ways intelligent argument."
>
>> LOL! If that isn't the funniest half-ass comment I have ever read
>> in this newsgroup! And that is saying something. Go take a
>> valium, Mr. Morris, and get back to us in the moring.
>
>In the "moring," Mr. Spelling Lame?
In the moring I'll be a snoring....old Scottish proverb.
>And you still haven't produced the least shred of evidence or a
>half-ways intelligent argument.
You would not have the intelligence to recognize it even if I did.
>Your arguments boil down to this: Tauber is a perjurer becuase he's a
>perjurer
No, Morris, my argument boils down to examining Tauber's own testimony and
comparing it with other perjurers, such as Dragon, Bimko, Nyiszli, etc. There
is a difference.
>Butler quoted Clarke verbatim because Butler quoted Clarke
>verbatim.
Of course you can PROVE that he didn't, right?
>>> >>-much better informed than you and most of your ilk which
>> >> >> posts here put together.
>
>> >That's right. You're "the foremost expert on the Third Reich" so
>> >you don't actually have to produce evidence.
>> Whenever I post, I produce credible evidence of one sort or
>> another, while you produce none.
>
>Funny, but I haven't seen anything from you on Tauber except the mere
>assertion that he is a perjurer.
Funny, buy I posted his own testimony and compared it with the testimony of the
others. That is the way things are done in the real world, which is obviously
not your world.
>Where is your evidence? You *do*
>know what evidence is, don't you?
Sure, I do. It is that which you are avoiding and which you perpetually refuse
to post.
>> >What a loser!
>
>> LOL! If I am a loser, what does that make you? Fact is, no one
>> would waste their time with a loser, which is why I usually ignore
>> you inisipid posts.
>
>Like you did this one and the others you responded to today?
Your posts *are* insipid, Morris.
>> >> >But all that hard work and learning doesn't do a damn bit of
>> >> >good if you keep it
>> >> >to yourself, now, does it? Looks like all that research you did
>> >> >was pretty damned
>> >> >futile if you have no intention of using it to debate your
>> >> >opponents. Is that the
>> >> >intellectual standard you want us to think you hold, Joe? That
>> >knowledge is to be
>> >> >hoarded, not shared? What good is that knowledge now?
>
>> >> There is no such animal as a serious debater on your side in
>> >> ar-but you know this. You are trolls. And your purpose here is
>> >> to attack *people* rather than address issues. This being the
>> >> case, it makes no sense to try and throw pearls before swine. I
>> >> will no longer do it. You need an education, and I suggest you
> >> try and get one.
>
>> >In other words, you can't back up your claims.
>
>> >But that's nothing new. You never have.
>> Of course, my comments have been proven correct in your recent
>> replies to my posts, which are laced with pathetic name-calling and
>> attempts to shift blame of some sort on to your opponent.
>
>It is merely the frustration of a reasonably intelligent person with
>the pretensions of the inadequate.
Calling yourself that which you are not is not convincing.
>
>> How effortlessly one can get your goat!
>
>So you're purpose was not to prove a case, but to troll for
>responses.
I am not the one calling people names here, Morris. How soon you forget.
>
>How typically feeble of you to claim to have proven something you
>haven't, then pretend you were really just trolling all along.
In fact, it is you who is the troll, but that is a minor point after all. You
have always been a troll.
>By the way, where is your evidence that Tauber perjured himself?
Have you read his testimony and compared it with others lately>? That is all
the evidence an honest person requires here.
>You do know what evidence is, don't you?
>
>- --
> John Morris
Sure, we have evidence of your trollery here, and evidence which you refuse to
post or address re Tauber and Auschwitz.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A9D9192...@pop.mindspring.com>
Got any proof it wasn't taped yet, Dep? You see, you accuse, the burden is on
you, as you so frequently tell me.
>> >> > Now, produce the quote from Gilbert or whomever else you wish,
>> >> > complete with citation, that sustains your claim, or be proved by
>> >> > your own evasions and attempts to make me do your work that you
>> >> > never had any evidence for your claim to begin with.
>> >>
>>
>> > REPLY: You need more than a few quotes to properly educate yourself,
>Scot.
>> >I
>> >> suggest you start doing some serious research, just like I had to.
>> >
>> >That was Daffer, not me, Joe.
>>
>> Birds of a feather.
>
>Gotta pay attention, Joe.
>
>
Birds of a feather, Scot.
>
>
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 2:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <j10r9tgicvg4hk1iq...@4ax.com>
Oh, little Ms Methodology returns to the fray to add her inane voice to the
rest. How droll. Have you obtained that information re your proffered
historians and how they validated their materials yet? Thought not.
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 3:40 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9D8C65...@pop.mindspring.com>
Butler is simply another of your ilk. Clark had a big mouth and stuck his foot
into it. That simple.
William Daffer
[...]
> >> >
> >> > Heh, you're the one whose claiming that a novel is the work of an
> >> > historian.
> >> >
> >> > And where is your evidence that Butler tape recorded his interview
> >> > with Clarke and then produced the dialog in _Legions of Death_
> >> > 'verbatim?' How would you know that it's *verbatim*?
> >> >
> >> Funny, I own the book and it is not published as a novel.
> >
> >
> > Really. How is it published? How do you know? More importantly, will
> > this be another claim that you'll refuse to back up?
> >
> > Why won't you provide your source for your claim that the
> > quotes are verbatim?
> >
> >
> If you are really so concerned about this, I would advise you to
> contact Butler and Clark.
I may do this, but not because I need to prove you wrong. You've
already done that for me.
And, actually, I'm not that concerned about it. You have made it
completely clear to me that you never had any evidence for you
claims about Butler and Clarke, you just made them up.
I reason thus: If you had this information, there would be
absolutely *no* stopping you! You would have pasted them all over
this group. Repeatedly. Ad Nauseum. The very fanaticism you display
in avoiding all requests for information works against you, since it
clearly shows that you would be just this fanatical if you actually
had the information you claim to have.
One application of Modus Tolens and we're there!
The fact that you haven't belabored us with a thousand reposts of
your evidence and that you are *so* ridiculously reticent in
providing the evidence proves to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
that you just made them up.
We can safely ignore your claims about Butler and, mutatis mutandis,
we can apply precisely the same argument to your claims about Hoess'
'psychological torture' at Nuremberg and the proof you claim exists
in Gilbert.
You can prove me wrong, of course, but for the moment I see no
reason to continue this charade that you are a serious debater who
only utters view when prepared to substantiate them with
evidence. We've had quite enough proof of the falsity of that view.
Now, in some pathological way, I'll grant you that you may believe
your claims with all your heart, but your pathologies do not the
truth make.
William Daffer
[...]
> > You first. Then I will prove those 'silly soap claims', but only
> > *after* you've shown me where I made them.
> >
> > I can very easily show you where you made your claims about Hoess,
> > Butler, Clarke and Gilbert.
> >
>
> I doubt whether you could show me anything I do not already know.
> As I have said, I am not playin gthese tit for tat games with you
> any longer. Prove your case and your claims. It is long overdue.
You're right, joe. It's a dead end.
You never had the evidence you claim, we all see that.
Melody Blaiser
I'll do that as soon as you tell me where the tape is and validate
your claims about Butler and Clarke. I gave up on your hand waving
long ago.
Melody Blaiser
Hilary Ostrov
<20010228213842...@ng-fv1.aol.com>, deb...@aol.com
(Debunks) wrote:
[...]
>>Thank you for letting us know it is now open season on mistypes, typos,
>>spelling lames, and other such trivial errors, Joe. I hope you are perfect from here
>>on.
>>
>
>It has always been open season on typos from your end of the board, Dep. Your
>Ms Ostrov is perpetually attacking and ridiculing people on account of typos,
"Perpetually"? What dictionary are you using, now, little "mr.
expert"?! I didn't accuse you of making any typos when you wrote:
From: deb...@aol.com (Debunks)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 05:48:49 GMT
Subject: Re: For Dep-"In the Beginning"
Message-ID: <20010228004849...@ng-fn1.aol.com>
<quote>
I am no longer interested in pursuing diversions, opinions,
explanations, excuses or anything else other than documentation.
</quote>
But given your subsquent posts, it's quite clear that the above
*should* have read:
"I, Joe Bellinger, am only interested in pursuing diversions,
opinions, explanations, excuses and anything else other than
documentation."
Did your original contain typos or mere "fraudulent" slips?! Readers
may decide for themselves.
[rest deleted]
hro
=====================
Hilary Ostrov
E-mail: hos...@telus.net
WWW: http://www3.telus.net/myssiwyg/
The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
William Daffer
[...]
> Butler is simply another of your ilk. Clark had a big mouth and
> stuck his foot into it. That simple.
Clarke, Joe. The spelling is "Clarke." At least get that much right.
And who will you be confusing me with in your reply?
Dobr...@webtv.net
now-I estimate it will take David about 10 minutes to threaten me with a
lawsuit for expressing that opinion. First of course, he will entertain
us all with a farcical demonstration of indignation.
Who are you gonna hire for this job, David? I know-it will be a joint
enterprise of British and Americans- Perry Mason will do the legal work
and Sherlock Holmes will do the investigating.
The trial will be held in the People's Court with Judge Wapner
presiding. I will dig up Clarence Darrow's bones to represent me.(He
will be assisted by Abe Lincoln's corpse)
Joe Bruno
Respect is a two- way street
http://www.trachtman.org/MIDI/Joplin/magnetic.mid
david_michael
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
Perhaps he means barristers and perhaps he is referring to the anticipated
costs of a specific case. The statement is certainly incorrect regarding
libel lawyers. But £20,000 is not $200,000.
> > I did a Google search on that name. It produced no contributions
> > from Mr Kurrein in uk.legal.
>
> That's not my problem. Does Google go back to May 1999?
August 2000.
> > > > Answer: you made it up. It is quite untrue.
>
> > > Go fuck yourself.
>
> > You might find it necessary to engage in such behaviour. I do not.
>
> You can go fuck yourself.
See above.
> > > > The going rate for a good libel
> > > > lawyer in London seems to be around £300 per hour plus VAT and
> > > > disbursements.
>
> > > > And, of course, you do not need a libel lawyer. You can argue
> > > > the case yourself.
>
> > > Fool for a client and all that. The example of David Irving
> > > springs to mind.
>
> > Well when Martin Webster (formerly of the National Front) was sued
> > for libel by Peter Hain (former thug, now government minister), he
> > represented himself quite well. He lost the case, but only had to
> > hand over a few pounds whereas Hain, whose action was deemed to be
> > a bit on the frivolous side, was landed with the court costs of
> > thousands.
>
> And I care why?
It demonstrates that one does not always need to employ a lawyer to obtain a
good result in court.
> > > > So, Mr Morris, you have been caught telling fibs.
>
> > > > More sleaze from the anti-revisionists.
>
> > > Wow. You are desperate.
>
> > Merely pointing out that you are writing drivel.
>
> Le me know when you start.
I think I started in about 1997.
> > > The only thing is that I can't remember giving you a good
> > > ass-kicking lately. That's usually the reason you make some
> > > dumbass screaming allegation about me.
>
> > Poor Mr Morris. Shown to be a liar.
>
> Poor David E. Michael. Shown to be a petty nobody.
In what way?
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
David
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
> Butler is simply another of your ilk. Clark had a big mouth and stuck his foot
> into it. That simple.
But if you think Butler is believable, then what about (as Morris said) his
quoting "verbatim" speeches at Wannsee--one for which there are no notes, and one
by a person who was not even there? Is your Butler still believable, Joe?
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
You can't prove a negative. Can you prove to me that OJ wasn't taped actually
killing Nicole? of course you can't. That's why OJ would not be in any trouble if
I were to start telling people that I knew of a tape of him actually murdering
his wife but refused to actually show it to anyone. Should anyone believe me? If
I went on Larry King Live and talked about this tape and told everyone what was
in it, and then refused to show it, would anyone believe me? Not on your life.
That's why no one believes in your Clarke tape, Joe. You can't prove it existed.
And it is not up to us to prove it doesn't. We *know* it doesn't.
Buck Turgidson
Debunks wrote:
Is that really a valid method? To discover the extent of one's perjury, you
measure his statements against...other perjurers? What does that prove? Wouldn't
it be more accurate to measure his statements against others you know to be true?
This imprecise methodology, combined with your clear pro-German agenda and
emotional/psychological profiting from the Holocaust, is plain reason why your
interpretations of events are suspicious and cannot be accepted.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <3a9e2...@news5.newsfeeds.com> in alt.revisionism, on Thu, 1 Mar
2001 11:02:12 -0000, "david_michael" <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
wrote:
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> news:su3r9t8gis90pouhs...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> > Poor David E. Michael. Shown to be a petty nobody.
> In what way?
Compare your subject line to the fact that it would never cross your
mind to withdraw your allegation.
It wouldn't even occur to you that you could act decently.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOp5cwpQgvG272fn9EQLFKQCglHsYmh3OJrw4sN7qH1XfoVgRhGIAn0rG
p/abFSXnx5w1gTUEuT9LRUku
=9S0i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 6:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <m3bsrmm...@scythia.localdomain>
>
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> > You first. Then I will prove those 'silly soap claims', but only
>> > *after* you've shown me where I made them.
>> >
>> > I can very easily show you where you made your claims about Hoess,
>> > Butler, Clarke and Gilbert.
>> >
>>
>> I doubt whether you could show me anything I do not already know.
>> As I have said, I am not playin gthese tit for tat games with you
>> any longer. Prove your case and your claims. It is long overdue.
>
>
> You're right, joe. It's a dead end.
>
> You never had the evidence you claim, we all see that.
>
>whd
>--
evidentiary nature relating to the holcaust, your posts will be ignored.
Debunks
>From: William Daffer whda...@earthlink.net
>Date: 2/28/01 6:59 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
>deb...@aol.com (Debunks) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> >> >
>> >> > Heh, you're the one whose claiming that a novel is the work of an
>> >> > historian.
>> >> >
>> >> > And where is your evidence that Butler tape recorded his interview
>> >> > with Clarke and then produced the dialog in _Legions of Death_
>> >> > 'verbatim?' How would you know that it's *verbatim*?
>> >> >
>> >> Funny, I own the book and it is not published as a novel.
>> >
>> >
>> > Really. How is it published? How do you know? More importantly, will
>> > this be another claim that you'll refuse to back up?
>> >
>> > Why won't you provide your source for your claim that the
>> > quotes are verbatim?
>> >
>> >
>
>> If you are really so concerned about this, I would advise you to
>> contact Butler and Clark.
>
> I may do this, but not because I need to prove you wrong. You've
> already done that for me.
>
We will see about that. Let me know what they tell you, eh?
> And, actually, I'm not that concerned about it.
Of course you're not. You are not concerned with discussing the holocaust or
with what is true or not true. Your only concern is how best to try and
lambast your opponents here.
>You have made it
> completely clear to me that you never had any evidence for you
> claims about Butler and Clarke, you just made them up.
So says the befuddled Daffer.
> I reason thus:
It is clear that you do not reason at all
> If you had this information, there would be
> absolutely *no* stopping you! You would have pasted them all over
> this group. Repeatedly. Ad Nauseum.
Well, that sounds as if I have posted such information repeatedly in the past,
so I must be doing something right.
>The very fanaticism you display
> in avoiding all requests for information works against you,
Go preach that to Mr. Matthews, Gehrig, Blaiser, etc, who have refused all
repeated requests to post information relating to Tauber and historical
methodology. Doesn't your blatant hypocrisy ever bother you in the least? Of
course not.
> We can safely ignore your claims about Butler and, mutatis mutandis,
> we can apply precisely the same argument to your claims about Hoess'
> 'psychological torture' at Nuremberg and the proof you claim exists
> in Gilbert.
Ever delusional, you imagine I post here for your benefit. And guess what? No
one cares what you and your team mates think...
> You can prove me wrong, of course,
Of course you can prove me wrong too, can't you? Of course not.
>, but for the moment I see no
> reason to continue this charade that you are a serious debater who
> only utters view when prepared to substantiate them with
> evidence. We've had quite enough proof of the falsity of that view.
Good! Will you be dropping out of the thread now? You never offered anything
of substance anyway. All my statements stand unrefuted by you.
>
> Now, in some pathological way, I'll grant you that you may believe
> your claims with all your heart, but your pathologies do not the
> truth make.
>
>whd
Your lying will not save you from your responsiblity to post facts in support
of your irrational beliefs.
Debunks
>Date: 2/28/01 10:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <m3k86ak...@scythia.localdomain>
Clark, Clarke, Tomato, tomatoe.........THe spelling of his name is unimportant.
Prove that Butler misquoted him.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A9E54C5...@pop.mindspring.com>
He is Your brand of historian, like your witnesses (Tauber et al). This has
nothing to do with Butler but with what he quoted Clarke as saying verbatim
Debunks
>Message-id: <04fr9tg90mi4u2bu6...@4ax.com>
Since you are a proven liar, you will do no such thing. Anyway, it is up to
you to prove that Butler misquoted Clarke and that Clarke successfully sued the
author and his publisher. Good luck.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A9E5596...@pop.mindspring.com>
The burden is on you.
Debunks
>Message-id: <3A9E57B5...@pop.mindspring.com>
Your say so is hardly conclusive. Come back when you have something of
substance, won't you?
Debunks
>Date: 3/1/01 6:14 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A9E595D...@pop.mindspring.com>
Well, do you have something *true* to post, Scot? I have done what any court
in the world would do, compare all the available testimonies and found them
wanting.
>This imprecise methodology, combined with your clear pro-German agenda
You have not proven that I have any agenda other than getting at the truth.
and
>emotional/psychological profiting from the Holocaust,
LOL! *I* am profiting from the holocaust? Guffaw. Here, according to Mr.
Finkelstein:
".....Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg cast a plague on both sides, sneering that, "it's
not about justice, it's a fight for money." When Germans or Swiss refuse to
pay compensation, the heavens cannot contain the righteous indignation of
organized American Jewry. But when Jewish elites rob Jewish survivors, no
ethical issues arise: it's just about money." p. 87, Finkelstein, The
Holocaust Industry, Verso Books, NY, 2000.
AND...
"Alfonse D'Amato, the ex-Senator from New York, mediates Holocaust lawsuits
against German and Austrian banks for $350 per hour plus expenses. For the
first 6 months of his labors, he took in $103,000. Earlier Wiesel publicly
praised D'Amato for his "senstitivity to Jewish suffering." Lawrence
Eagleburger, Secretary of State under President Bush, earns an annual salary of
$300,000 as chair of the International Commission on Holocaust-Era Insurance
Claims. "Whatever he's being paid," Elan Steinberg of the World Jewish
Congress opined, "it is an absolute bargain." Kagan rings up in 12 days,
Eagleburger in 4 days, and D'Amato in 10 hours what my mother received for
suffering six years of Nazi persecution. The award for the most enterprising
Holocaust huckster, however, must surely go to Kenneth Bialkin. For decades a
prominent US Jewish leader, he headed the ADL and chaired the Conference of
Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Currently, Bialkin
represents the Generali insurance company against the Eagleburger Commission
for a reported "high sum of money." In recent years, the Holocasut industry
had become an outright extortion racket. Purporting to represent all of world
Jewry, living and dead, it is laying claim to the Holocaust-era Jewish assets
throughout Europe." Ibid., pp. 88, 89.
AND
"Anxious to share in the limelight, Rabbi Marvin Hier, Dean of the Simon
Wisenthal Center, spectacularly alleged that the Swiss incarcerated refugee
Jews in "slave-labor camps." (With wife and son on the payroll, Hier runs the
Simon Wiesenthal Center as a family business; together the Hiers drew a salary
of $520,000 in 1995. The Center is renowned for its "Dachau-meets-Disneyland"
museum exhibits and "the successful use of sensationalistic scare tactics for
fund-raising." Ibid., p. 92
End quotes. Now, Scot, care to repost your nonsense that *I* am profitiing
from the Holocaust?
is plain reason why
>your
>interpretations of events are suspicious and cannot be accepted.
Sure, Scot, tell us another one, won't you?