Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Discussions
Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:14 am

gorgeous wrote:-----------------------------it seems you just tell everyone they are lying....
No. That was just Mary in this thread. Did you read this thread first?

(gorgeous is a "cosmic" from the David Icke forum, who joined a week ago and is spamming the forum with unconnected cut & pasted posts, from the David Icke forum.

gorgeous wrote:- -the Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people and remained a complete secret until President Truman announced 3 years later that Hiroshima had been bombed.
:D

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by gorgeous » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:21 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:-----------------------------it seems you just tell everyone they are lying....
No. That was just Mary in this thread. Did you read this thread first?

(gorgeous is a "cosmic" from the David Icke forum, who joined a week ago and is spamming the forum with unconnected cut & pasted posts, from the David Icke forum.

gorgeous wrote:- -the Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people and remained a complete secret until President Truman announced 3 years later that Hiroshima had been bombed.
:D
--------------don't know who cosmic is....I counted 4 times you called people liars today....check it out.... :D
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:27 am

gorgeous wrote:--------------don't know who cosmic is....I counted 4 times you called people liars today....check it out....
Perhaps. But the post of Matthew Ellard's which you quoted just now was made over a week ago. So are you saying that Matthew Ellard called people liars 4x today - or that you just happened making your count today?

And David isn't exactly "tethered" to the truth . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:28 am

gorgeous wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:-----------------------------it seems you just tell everyone they are lying....
No. That was just Mary in this thread. Did you read this thread first?

(gorgeous is a "cosmic" from the David Icke forum, who joined a week ago and is spamming the forum with unconnected cut & pasted posts, from the David Icke forum.

gorgeous wrote:- -the Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people and remained a complete secret until President Truman announced 3 years later that Hiroshima had been bombed.
:D
--------------don't know who cosmic is....I counted 4 times you called people liars today....check it out.... :D
So, you are really really really claiming that Truman didn't announce the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima until 1948?
phpBB [video]

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by gorgeous » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:33 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
gorgeous wrote:--------------don't know who cosmic is....I counted 4 times you called people liars today....check it out....
Perhaps. But the post of Matthew Ellard's which you quoted just now was made over a week ago. So are you saying that Matthew Ellard called people liars 4x today - or that you just happened making your count today?

And David isn't exactly "tethered" to the truth . . .
------------------it's 5 times he called someone a liar today......you think what the press and govt tell you is the truth???.....some can't handle the truth....
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:40 am

gorgeous wrote:[------------------it's 5 times he called someone a liar today......you think what the press and govt tell you is the truth???
I do? Who told you that? The press, the government?

Anyway, if you are counting the post you quoted in your total, you are a liar.

I do wish you that, if you want to post in this thread, you address the topic we've been discussing . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5281
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by gorgeous » Mon Jan 26, 2015 1:43 am

another liar caller......did Ellard order you?
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:12 am

Mary's turn.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Matthew Ellard » Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:15 am

gorgeous wrote:another liar caller......did Ellard order you?
That's hilarious, an Australian ordering around an American, whom he has never met.

Gorgeous is one of those people who has fuzzy preconceptions about loads of conspiracies and thinks we represent those "fuzzy preconceptions".

Gorgeous, is also of the belief that the Disney company is an illuminati company. Sadly she refuses to go into detail or explain how shareholders vote in illuminati directors or why the current chairman is a normal Jewish bloke recruited from ABC, which isn't an illuminati company. Pyrrho is already given her her first spam warning. It won't be long.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:11 am

There is a minor denier tradition of trying to pass off BS about Article 21 of the Nuremberg Charter, which goes along with intentional obtuseness about Article 19. Here's another example (besides Weber, previously mentioned and dealt with): Paul Rassinier, The Real Eichmann Trial or the Incorrigible Victors, p 62, where Rassinier, in a confused preamble to discussion of "Crimes against Humanity," provides "background" on the IMT at Nuremberg:
The mechanics of the way it was worked were quite simple.

"The Tribunal," stated Article 19 of the Charter, "shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence…"
Nick Terry has already posted on this sort of contention, in line with what all serious commentators, who account for this provision in large part as a concession to the continental attorneys and jurists, benefiting the defense somewhat in that Article 19 enabled them to operate on familiar ground:
The absence of rules of evidence reflected not only the involvement of continental lawyers to whom the concept of rules of evidence was entirely alien, but also the nomination of judges as triers of fact rather than a jury. In essence, rules of evidence are there to shield supposedly moronic jurors from their prejudices, whereas judges are assumed to be above such things.
Rassinier continued his discussion of trial "mechanics," using Dachau as his prime example, with his "dissection" of Article 21 and the supposed role of "judicial notice" in the Nuremberg judgment:
And Article 21, "The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge, but shall take judicial notice thereof."

And in practice this is the way these two propositions worked: when, to cite just one example, on January 11th, 1946, Dr. Franz Blaha, a Czech communist, stated before the court: "The gas chamber at Dachau was completed in 1944 and Dr. Rascher instructed me to examine the first victims. Of the 8 or 9 persons [89] in that chamber 3 were still living, but the others were dead. Their eyes were red, etc. . . ." (Volume V, p. 175), the Tribunal which was not bound by technical rules of evidence, did not ask proof of him, and the matter, being declared common knowledge, was accepted without further formality.
"Accepted without further formality," eh? Let us see.

But, first, recall that Weber, when he tried muddying these waters, also whined about Dachau - but cited a United States Congressional committee report, not Blaha ("For example, the Tribunal accepted an American congressional report that 'proved' gas chamber killings at Dachau, and a Polish government report (submitted by the US) that 'proved' killings by steam at Treblinka. /43"); as we've seen, Weber gave no evidence that the Congressional report was submitted under Article 21. How does Rassinier fare with Blaha, trying to have it that the tribunal "did not ask proof of him, and the matter, being declared common knowledge, was accepted without further formality"?

To jump ahead, the IMT session transcript does not bear out Rassinier's claim about judicial notice: Blaha's testimony was in part given by way of affidavit (3249-PS); Blaha's affidavit was introduced and read to the tribunal by Dodd explicitly as part of the "interrogation" of the witness Blaha (“I wish to offer it at this time. . . . I feel that we can reduce the extent of this interrogation by approximately three-fourths through the submission of this affidavit and I should like to read it. It will take much less time to read this affidavit than it would to go through it in question and answer form and it covers a large part of what we expect to elicit from this witness.") The reading, which was in place of counsel presenting its case through Q&A with Blaha, takes up pp 168-175 in the transcript, Blue series, v5.

After Dodd had put the affidavit before the tribunal, the tribunal didn't declare any part of Blaha's statement "common knowledge," and the statement as a whole, or in its parts, was not "accepted without further formality." Rather, what followed was that Blaha was questioned by the prosecution, the tribunal, and finally defense counsel.

First Dodd questioned his witness Blaha about his claims that high-ranking Reich officials, including defendants, had visited Dachau.

Pokrovsky for the prosecution also questioned Blaha, asking if Dachau were an "extermination camp," how many prisoners from the USSR were in the camp, what Blaha could say about types of prisoners ("greens"), what the witness knew of executions of Soviet citizens in the camp and about executions of sick/debilitated prisoners (Blaha mentioned what he had been told by prisoners coming from Mauthausen about the gas chambers there), Blaha's knowledge of the fate of Nacht und Nebel prisoners, how many prisoners died of starvation and exhaustion, and what senior Nazis saw on their visits.

Dubost followed, asking Blaha about transports of French prisoners to Dachau, what conditions prevailed on transports, how the fatalities among arriving prisoners had occurred and what actions were taken by the Germans to address these deaths, about executed French generals, what "ordinary people" knew of the goings-on in Dachau, how French prisoners were generally treated, and about Rascher's medical and biological experiments and Himmler's oversight of them.

The tribunal itself then asked questions of Blaha - what service branch the camp officials came from and what was the Gestapo's role in the camp.

Defense counsel then examined Blaha, starting with Sauter probing about Funk's visit and what he would have done and seen.

Thoma followed asking whether inmates of Dachau were required to make pledges of secrecy and the degree to which inmates communicated among themselves, to what extent inmates witnessed and discussed "atrocities and ill treatment and so forth," when following his liberation Blaha had begun to tell people about his camp experience, and about details of Rosenberg's visit to Dachau.

Next came Pannenbecker who drilled into facts concerning his client, Frick, and Blaha's testimony he'd visited Dachau; in reply to an inquiry from Pannenbecker, the tribunal said that defense would have the opportunity "to call all defendants" to challenge Blaha's testimony - and that this opportunity would come after conclusion of the prosecution case (p 195).

Kubuschok then asked Blaha about preparations for visits from senior people and the removal of "undesirables."

After a recess, Babel, for the SS and SD, questioned Blaha to open the next session of the trial; Babel asked Blaha how he had come to know details he'd given about the camp population, asked about the armaments factories, probed on the camp guard and its size, and inquired further about mistreatment of prisoners.

With this, Blaha was dismissed.

Dodd then did make a request that the court take judicial notice . . . "of the findings and sentences imposed by the Military Court at Dachau, Germany, on the 13th day of December 1945.” (3590-PS, my italics) The tribunal accepted Dodd's request, having satisfied itself that defendants had been provided the relevant document and utterly without reference to Blaha's affidavit or testimony.

Blaha's affidavit (3249-PS) can be found in Blue series, v32, starting p 56; no Article 21 request is noted for this exhibit; in fact, 3249-PS is introduced simply as Blaha's "sworn statement." That is, an affidavit, not an item of the type listed in Article 21 and not as a statement accepted under "judicial notice."

Rassinier’s argument is stunningly bereft. First, Blaha’s affidavit was not submitted under Article 21. But 3590-PS from the Dachau trials was submitted under Article 21, with a specific request that it be so accepted. Second, defense counsel had the right to examine Blaha, they did so to their satisfaction, they did not ask Blaha a single question about Dachau’s gas chambers. It was defense's responsibility to challenge any element of the affidavit it saw fit to - the failure of defense counsel to attack Blaha on gas chambers while asking numerous, probing questions about the many issues listed above is hardly a failure of the Charter or the tribunal but a conscious decision of defense counsel and the defendants.

Nor was Blaha's affidavit "accepted without further formality," as Rassinier would have the gullible believe: rather, a look at the session transcript shows that Blaha's statement was read into the record as part of the presentation of the prosecution's case, heard by the tribunal and defense counsel, and then subject to interrogation by the tribunal and defense counsel, who asked extensive questions of the witness as they saw fit.

Rassinier’s gloss on Article 21 and judicial notice is another revisionist bald-faced lie raising once again the question why deniers so often misstate and mislead.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:13 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Maryzilla is adamant that when Mary squawks about this, that, and the other, it is up to us to help her out or she won't explain her squawks.
I could never work out what Mary was actually asking. Mary was "sort of" asking us to find a judge introducing bad evidence into their summations, when no such thing took place. Mary than goes off and says "See you can't find it". That actually means that Mary has shot himself in the foot again because his "Reason for appeal" doesn't exist.

However, this was going to be a comedy anyway, because Mary refuses to read the IMT transcripts anyway. Mary is a classical example of extreme Dunning Kruger Syndrome in action..

:D
If you read the questions you'd understand what I'm asking. I have told you the answer to all your questions about how I know which evidence was important to the court. I'll say it again. The evidence cited as probative by the court in the judgement is evidence we know the court believed to be true and relevant. We don't know if evidence not cited in the judgement was probative or believed by the court to be true. All the evidence submitted by the Prosecution was believed by the Prosecution to be true. All evidence for which judicial notice was asked by the Prosecution was believed to be true.

The bigger question is who cares what the Prosecution or the Judges thought of the evidence in the IMT? The legal system is a horrible model for the historian. Evidence about the Nazi Soviet plan for Poland written in the Molotov Ribbontrop Agreement was inadmissible in the IMT. Should this be inadmissible for the historian as well?

An historical account of any event that is based on evidence from criminal trials is going to be very limited and probably inaccurate. That's why historians don't use evidence generated during legal proceedings to write anything except the history of specific trials.

But why in the world are you blowing a gasket over evidence from the IMT? We're talking about the Holocaust. Not an event that we know about only through evidence generated during legal proceedings
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:27 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:All the evidence submitted by the Prosecution was believed by the Prosecution to be true.
Utter BS. The court believed, in one of your examples, that at Treblinka the Germans murdered Jews in gas chambers, not steam chambers, as presented in the Polish report, PS-3311. Not to mention the little problem of defendants being acquitted on particular charges, which the prosecution tried supporting with, er, evidence, and three defendants acquitted entirely. Fatuous blether.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:All evidence for which judicial notice was asked by the Prosecution was believed to be true.
Four problems for you: 1) The prosecution didn't request judicial notice where you claim it did. 2) The tribunal refused judicial notice in cases when the prosecution requested it. 3) The trial procedure allowed challenges (attack/criticism, rebuttal) of documents admitted under the judicial notice article - and the proceedings are replete with such challenges, including on the issues you identified. 4) When evidence admitted under judicial notice differed to other evidence, as with any other evidence, the tribunal had either to determine that the difference was not material or decide which evidence to credit. That the tribunal's judgment explicitly mentions gas chambers at Treblinka only underscores your fail on your claims about judicial notice and Treblinka steam chambers.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:The bigger question is who cares what the Prosecution or the Judges thought of the evidence in the IMT? The legal system is a horrible model for the historian.
You do recall, little muppet, that you were the one who wanted to talk Nuremberg trials - and, sheesh, we supposedly dodged the discussion . . . LOL.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:An historical account of any event that is based on evidence from criminal trials is going to be very limited and probably inaccurate. That's why historians don't use evidence generated during legal proceedings to write anything except the history of specific trials.
Blah blah blah. Your little, rigid intellect seems to be on auto-pilot.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:29 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote: I could never work out what Mary was actually asking. Mary was "sort of" asking us to find a judge introducing bad evidence into their summations, when no such thing took place. Mary than goes off and says "See you can't find it". That actually means that Mary has shot himself in the foot again because his "Reason for appeal" doesn't exist.

However, this was going to be a comedy anyway, because Mary refuses to read the IMT transcripts anyway.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:If you read the questions you'd understand what I'm asking.
I have told you the answer to all your questions about how I know which evidence was important to the court.
Have you read the IMT Judges' summaries in the transcripts, which explains their deliberations? Have you read this? Yes or No?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp#proc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:30 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote: I could never work out what Mary was actually asking. Mary was "sort of" asking us to find a judge introducing bad evidence into their summations, when no such thing took place. Mary than goes off and says "See you can't find it". That actually means that Mary has shot himself in the foot again because his "Reason for appeal" doesn't exist.

However, this was going to be a comedy anyway, because Mary refuses to read the IMT transcripts anyway.
Mary Q Contrary wrote:If you read the questions you'd understand what I'm asking.
I have told you the answer to all your questions about how I know which evidence was important to the court.
Have you read the IMT Judges' summaries in the transcripts, which explains their deliberations? Have you read this? Yes or No?

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/imt.asp#proc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mary hasn't even absorbed the posts in this thread, let alone the trial proceedings.

Frankly, in the last post Mary made on this, the goose seems to have gone out of her step . . . it is really lackluster and dreary, it comes across as rote, she's just repeating herself - and without any zest or feeling. Truly sad to watch.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 27, 2015 11:44 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Blah blah blah. Your little, rigid intellect seems to be on auto-pilot.
Mary is giving his views on eyewitness testimony in the UFO thread. He is ignoring answers and got caught fabricating "testimonies" about UFOs. He suddenly can't remember where he read the "accurate testimony" he provided. Funny that.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 68#p445568" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In that UFO thread, Mary is claiming, that if an eyewitness says he was captured by aliens, then that must be true, although there is no complimentary evidence. In this holocaust denial thread, Mary argues there was no holocaust because the eyewitnesses were all lying, despite all the eyewitness testimony being supported by masses of complimentary evidence. Even funnier, Mary pretends the Jew were resettled east, based on no evidence at all!

Mary is a more than just a "bit thick". Only a black hole would be as dense as Mary.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:30 am

Off Topic
Looks like some of this took your headache away, StatMech. :-P

Image
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 28, 2015 12:59 am

Much better, I feel like myself again.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

nickterry
Regular Poster
Posts: 998
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2006 6:48 pm
Location: Bristol

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by nickterry » Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:39 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote: The bigger question is who cares what the Prosecution or the Judges thought of the evidence in the IMT?
Three pages ago you started us on this derail by declaring that Julius Streicher was "murdered". This prompted a clarification from StatMech, followed by clueless trolling from you. Most of us were under the impression that we were discussing IMT as a trial, and specifically addressed your misconceptions, shared by other deniers, that articles 19 and 21 might have been used to short-circuit the judicial process of prosecution vs defense. Since it's been comprehensively established that this was not the case, you seem to want to go haring off on a new bad tangent to flee the scene of your latest car-crash.

Let us recap: the editor of Charlie Hebdo was gunned down by Islamic terrorists in an editorial meeting, along with cartoonists, journalists, contributors, other editorial staff, a building maintenance worker and two policemen. That was an act of mass murder.

By contrast, the editor of Der Stuermer was arrested, interned, arraigned and served an indictment, provided with a lawyer, brought to trial, was afforded the opportunity to hear the evidence against him, was then afforded the opportunity to defend himself following his lawyer's advice and by giving his own testimony, was cross-examined and then the judges deliberated on the charges, acquitted him of crimes against peace, but convicted him of crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to death.

The reason why Streicher was convicted was straightforward: he had repeatedly called for the extermination of the Jews, and was the responsible editor for further acts of incitement. As the judgement noted:
Twenty-three different articles of " Der Sturmer " between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which the extermination " root and "branch" was preached.
This did not exhaust the stock of examples entered into evidence:
In the record are twenty-six articles from 'Der Sturmer ", published between August, 1941 and September, 1944, twelve by Streicher's own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms.
The judges did not buy Streicher's contortions and obfuscations in his own defense.

One can, of course, disagree with the verdict in this particular case, or disagree with the severity of the sentence, but you have done neither. Instead we've had irrelevant crap about evidence that was not even used against Streicher.
The legal system is a horrible model for the historian. Evidence about the Nazi Soviet plan for Poland written in the Molotov Ribbontrop Agreement was inadmissible in the IMT. Should this be inadmissible for the historian as well?
What a {!#%@} stupid question. Have you even read a serious book about the origins of WWII or which covers the outbreak of WWII? Silly me: of course you haven't.
An historical account of any event that is based on evidence from criminal trials is going to be very limited and probably inaccurate. That's why historians don't use evidence generated during legal proceedings to write anything except the history of specific trials.
Since you're not a historian and manifestly don't read works of serious history on any subject, never mind the Third Reich and Holocaust, then you're not actually able to say what historians do and don't use by way of evidence.

There is no intrinsic reason why trial evidence would be any worse than the many other types of evidence that historians demonstrably use, from newspapers to parliamentary debates to committee hearings to diaries to memoirs to oral histories to photos, paintings, sculptures, newsreels, films, speeches, censuses, business records, railway timetables, government decrees and ordinances, memoranda, stenographic protocols, audio recordings, orders, telegrams, log books and ledgers, architectural blueprints, forensic reports and so on. All of these sources are potentially "biased" or "limited" one way or another.

The adversarial trial format has the advantage, unlike many other source types, of bringing together multiple perspectives. It has the disadvantage that the accused have a strong motive to lie through their teeth, but this isn't a problem unique to trials.
But why in the world are you blowing a gasket over evidence from the IMT? We're talking about the Holocaust. Not an event that we know about only through evidence generated during legal proceedings
There's a huge difference between evidence generated by a trial, and evidence submitted to a trial. The former consists of testimony under direct examination and cross-examination.The latter exists independently of a trial. With IMT, approximately 120 individuals testified as defense or prosecution witnesses, or on their own behalf as accused. The tribunal received several thousand pieces of evidence submitted in written form, ranging from affidavits to secret documents to published sources such as Mein Kampf.

The affidavits might appear to be trial testimony,however they are not generated by the trial, rather they were generated outside the courtroom. Recording a declaration, statement, aide-memoire, testimony or interview is a rather widespread phenomenon and not restricted to a legal context. In the Nuremberg context, 200 witnesses were interrogated outside the courtroom, with most of the interrogations being summarised into affidavit form rather than entered into evidence as stenographic protocols. However, the verbatim transcripts survive and are very useful in providing further details. For the 12 successor trials, 10,000 interrogations of around 2,200 individuals were transcribed. Not all were used in the trials.

In similar fashion, while the prosecution submitted thousands of documents to IMT and even more to the 12 successor trials, they also opted not to submit thousands more that had been originally identified. There are many examples of non-submitted documents in the 'Red Series' Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression publication series, and many more non-submitted documents were copied into the various series (-PS, NO-, NG-, NOKW- and so on), many of which run to 4000 or 6000 items.

For about 10-15 years after the war, the Nuremberg documents were the most accessible collection of sources on the Third Reich, since they had been copied in multiple locations - the French, British, Americans and Soviets all had their sets, and another set was held in Nuremberg, and there were soon further sets of copies in for example, the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich. The easiest way to reference these sources was to cite the Nuremberg document number.

After the American Historical Association microfilmed the Nazi documents captured by the US, and restituted the originals to West Germany, then historians switched to exploring raw files, but often found that they were coming across a "Nuremberg" document in its original location. So one might as well use both if you come across the concordance. Like this:

OKH/GenStdH/Gen zbV b ObdH/GenQu/Abt.Kr.Verw Nr II/4590/41 geh., Russische Kriegsgefangene, 24.7.41, NA T501/48/882-5, also NOKW-2423

Der Bevollmächtigte des Reichsführers SS für Bandenbekämfpung, Richtlinien 26.2.43, NA T311/219/851, also NOKW-475

Pz AOK 2 Ia/OQu/Qu.2/Verw. VII, Unternehmen ‘Zigeunerbaron’, hier Evakuierung und Beuteerfassung, 11.5.43, NA T314/1130/1268-70, also NOKW-472

Der Oberbefehlshaber der 3. Panzerarmee OQu/Qu.2, Zivilbevölkerung bei Absetzbewegungen, 2.1.44, NOKW-2424, also NA T313/312/8589722-3.

Pz AOK 3 OQu/Qu.2, Zivilbevölkerung, 21.2.44, NOKW-2647, also NA T313/212/8589796-8

RAM V, Einsatz von sowjet. Kriegsgefangenen, 26.8.41, BA R3901/20168, pp.53-4, also 3005-PS, IMT 31, pp.474-6.

Erlass des Führers zur Durchführung des Erlasses über einen Generalbevollmächtigten für den Arbeitseinsatz vom 30.9.42, BA R3901/20280, pp.42R, also 1903-PS, IMT 29, p.94

Rosenberg an Sauckel, 21.12.42, BA R6/281, pp.10-13, also 018-PS, IMT 25, pp.74-7.

Bericht Ministerialrat Dorsch betr: Gefangenenlager in Minsk, 10.7.41, NA T454/25/679-80, also 022-PS, IMT 25, pp.81-3

Just under 200 Einsatzgruppen reports were given NO-document numbers at Nuremberg, yet when I read through them, they were on US National Archives microfilm, series T175, reels 233,234 and 235.

The same thing holds true for certain documents from the Auschwitz Zentralbauleitung archive: some were included in the Hoess trial, especially vol. 11 of the records, but can also be seen in fond 502 opis 1 of the RGVA in Moscow (Russian State Military Archive) in their original file context.

The Eichmann trial and West German trials continued the pattern: documents were copied from various archives and submitted as evidence in trials, but the originals remained in the archives. For example, many years ago, I copied an important file of Reichsbahn transport schedules to Minsk, Treblinka and Auschwitz that was held in the National Archives of the Republic of Belarus, fond 378, knowing the same documents were used in the trial of Georg Heuser, a Gestapo officer stationed in Minsk.

Complaining that we might have first learned about some of these documents via trials is as silly as complaining that we might have first learned about other things via newspapers, or a parliamentary/congressional inquiry, or the Foreign Relations of the United States document collection series.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:33 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Four problems for you: 1) The prosecution didn't request judicial notice where you claim it did. 2) The tribunal refused judicial notice in cases when the prosecution requested it. 3) The trial procedure allowed challenges (attack/criticism, rebuttal) of documents admitted under the judicial notice article - and the proceedings are replete with such challenges, including on the issues you identified. 4) When evidence admitted under judicial notice differed to other evidence, as with any other evidence, the tribunal had either to determine that the difference was not material or decide which evidence to credit. That the tribunal's judgment explicitly mentions gas chambers at Treblinka only underscores your fail on your claims about judicial notice and Treblinka steam chambers.
Make that five problems for you: 5) You don't understand (and have failed even to articulate) judicial notice, let alone the meaning of Article 21 of the IMT Charter.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jan 29, 2015 1:51 am

When Thieves Fall Out, or How Many Nazis Fit under a Bus When Thrown by Defense Counsel at Nuremberg

Thanks to Nick Terry for reminding us what led Mary down this dead-end.
nickterry wrote:Three pages ago you started us on this derail by declaring that Julius Streicher was "murdered". This prompted a clarification from StatMech, followed by clueless trolling from you. Most of us were under the impression that we were discussing IMT as a trial, and specifically addressed your misconceptions, shared by other deniers, that articles 19 and 21 might have been used to short-circuit the judicial process of prosecution vs defense. Since it's been comprehensively established that this was not the case, you seem to want to go haring off on a new bad tangent to flee the scene of your latest car-crash.

Let us recap: the editor of Charlie Hebdo was gunned down by Islamic terrorists in an editorial meeting, along with cartoonists, journalists, contributors, other editorial staff, a building maintenance worker and two policemen. That was an act of mass murder.

By contrast, the editor of Der Stuermer was arrested, interned, arraigned and served an indictment, provided with a lawyer, brought to trial, was afforded the opportunity to hear the evidence against him, was then afforded the opportunity to defend himself following his lawyer's advice and by giving his own testimony, was cross-examined and then the judges deliberated on the charges, acquitted him of crimes against peace, but convicted him of crimes against humanity, and sentenced him to death.

The reason why Streicher was convicted was straightforward: he had repeatedly called for the extermination of the Jews, and was the responsible editor for further acts of incitement. As the judgement noted:
Twenty-three different articles of " Der Sturmer " between 1938 and 1941 were produced in evidence, in which the extermination " root and "branch" was preached.
This did not exhaust the stock of examples entered into evidence:
In the record are twenty-six articles from 'Der Sturmer ", published between August, 1941 and September, 1944, twelve by Streicher's own hand, which demanded annihilation and extermination in unequivocal terms.
The judges did not buy Streicher's contortions and obfuscations in his own defense.

One can, of course, disagree with the verdict in this particular case, or disagree with the severity of the sentence, but you have done neither. Instead we've had irrelevant crap about evidence that was not even used against Streicher.
As Nick Terry says, indeed, the IMT tribunal “did not buy Streicher's contortions and obfuscations in his own defense." But Nick Terry's observations got me thinking - what exactly was Streicher’s defense?

So I looked it up, in the session transcripts, a version of which is here.

In his “final plea” for Streicher, defense counsel Hanns Marx gave the court the defendant’s case for exoneration and acquittal - basically saying, yeah, a lot of these crimes went down, but you've got the wrong guy. It is a sordid, preposterous, appalling, almost surreal “argument.” According to Streicher’s counsel . . . Stretcher was a little guy, an outsider without means of influence, a pretty much private guy interested in enlightening the German people and someone who was never privy to, let alone a participant in, the big plans and actions of the real leaders of the Third Reich . . . like Kristallnacht or the extermination of the Jews . . . and , without influence, whatever hateful and disgusting things he said or wrote, well, what are you going to do?

Here's my quick summary of Marx's tendentious, mind-blowing preroration:

* the criminal activity of the NSDAP and Reich leaders didn’t develop until the war

* Streicher was distant from the inner circles of party and state - and dismissed as Gauleiter in 1940, prior to the regime’s “somersault” into genocide and criminality

* Streicher was not taken into confidence by Reich leaders, like Hitler, as they developed criminal policies and thus didn’t know of plans for aggressive war

* Streicher’s hatred for Jews and preaching against them was not connected to preparing for aggressive war nor was it connected to the plan to exterminate the Jews, of which plan Streicher was also left out

* Streicher’s speeches and publications against the Jews were of a private, educational nature - aiming at the enlightenment of the people and stressing the necessary separation of Jews from Germans by removing the Jews from Germany and resettling them somewhere else

* try as he might, and indefensible as were his expressed views, Streicher was not successful in winning hearts and minds of the Germans - besides which Streicher didn’t write many of the articles he’s being held responsible for and, just because he published them, well, give him a break and, ya know, the foreign press was psychotic and to blame for provoking him - and, if the press did whip up anti-Semitism and pave the way for persecution of and violence against the Jews, Goebbels did it, not Streicher

* as for Kristallnacht, that was a Party thing, again orchestrated by Goebbels, but the riffraff took it overboard, and, remember, Streicher wasn’t part of the inner circle but rather a “Gauleiter” in quotation marks who gave speeches at the time attacking the Jews to show how much he disapproved of the attacks on the Jews. . . .

* as for the extermination of the Jews, again, my man Streicher was out of the loop - and in any event Hitler and Himmler kept secrets and duped naïfs like Lammers and Streicher . . .

* the extermination of the Jews was concocted behind the backs of good Nazis and possibly repugnant anti-Semites like Streicher - and hatched mainly in Hitler’s brain, carried out by his inner circle, and sui generis; if anyone can be said to have influenced the decision to murder Europe’s Jews, it would be the merciless, pig-headed Himmler who bragged about his role in various speeches and whose SS, Gestapo, Waffen-SS, and SD carried out the extermination orders

* the order to exterminate Jewry was written down in a decree issued under Bormann’s name (PS-3422) but beyond all doubt commanded by Hitler and conveyed through Himmler and Gestapo Müller - leaders over whom Streicher had no influence

As a curiosity, it should be noted that the Bormann circular, which defense counsel Marx held up as the actual extermination order, was submitted by the prosecution to the tribunal on “judicial notice” - and this same circular has been touted more recently by Il Re di Convoluzione as proof of resettlement!

The circular was neither the “smoking gun” Marx wanted it to be (the decisive incrimination of no one but Hitler, Himmler, and Müller) nor proof of resettlement (which the tortured reading of Mattogno tries making out); rather Bormann's circular consisted of talking points for Party functionaries to use in the face of rumors spreading through Germany about the “harsh measures” being taken against Jews in the East in 1942. People - soldiers on leave, according to Bormann - were talking about what was being done to the Jews in the East, and the Party leadership wanted to tamp it all down. Thus, a circular to Party functionaries on what to say about the rumors.

For sure, Marx saw and raised the prosecution's bet on this document, transmogrifying talking points into the supposedly definitive order passed from Hitler to his satraps, bypassing Streicher and ensuring the "actual extermination of the Jews" behind poor, inferior Streicher's back.

The extermination plan has been proven, through PS-3422, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Said Marx. For the defense.

Many buses here, with a number of Nazi bigwigs thrown under them. And PS-3422 in the hands of the defense at Nuremberg, contra the revisionist squealing of Il Re di Convoluzione, turned into the "decree ordering the extermination of Jewry" at Hitler's instruction: the smoking gun, as it were. To hell with Longerich, there was a written order after all, and its name was PS-3422.

According to Streicher.

Crazy stuff, eh? The disengenuous defense at Nuremberg used as its ace in the hole a document claimed to prove that Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews and that Himmler, Müller et al carried it out - and it's the same damned document that the disingenuous revisionist genius Mattogno believes to prove resettlement and exonerate the Nazis! LOL.

Maybe Mary is right: trials are da bomb.

Read all about it! Read your excerpts from where Streicher had his counsel blame his former colleagues for the Final Solution! “It happened,” pled Streicher, “but I didn’t do it!” “Hitler ordered it! Bormann wrote it up! Read it here!”
. . . in the Jewish question the final aims of the Party - the effects of which were manifest in the concentration camps - had not been formulated and fixed the way they appeared in the end, neither before the seizure of power nor several years after. The Party programme itself provided for Jews to be placed under an aliens' law, and so laws issued in the Third Reich also followed this line. Only later on, it can be said here, the programme in this as in many other points became more harsh and finally somersaulted altogether, under the influence of war. But any proof that the defendant Streicher knew of other aims than those of the official Party programme has not been offered. . . .

As a matter of actual fact it must be said here that the defendant Streicher, in contrast to almost all the other defendants, did not remain in his position until the end, not even until the war. Officially he was dismissed in 1940 from his position of Gauleiter, but actually and practically he had been without any influence and power for more than a year before that time. But while he could still work within the modest framework of his capacity of Gauleiter, no criminal plans of the NSDAP were recognizable. In any case not as regards anybody who, like the defendant Streicher, was outside the close circle surrounding Adolf Hitler. . . . The individual conferences, from which the prosecution derives the evidence for the planning of the war which broke out later, did not see the defendant Streicher taking part in any case. His name does not appear anywhere, neither in any written decree, nor in any protocol. Consequently no proof has been offered that Streicher knew of such alleged plans for waging war.

This does away with the accusation that he preached hatred against the Jews in order to facilitate thereby the conduct of the war planned for some later time. . . .

[Streicher] is accused of having incited and instigated through decades the persecution of the Jews, and of being responsible for the final extermination of Europe's Jewry. . . . As evidence of this the prosecution put forward:

(a) The speeches by Streicher before and after the seizure of power, particularly one speech in April, 1925, in which he spoke about the extermination of the Jews. In the Prosecutor's opinion, herein is the first evidence to be seen regarding the final solution of the Jewish question planned by the Party, namely the extermination of all Jews.

(b) Active rise of the person and authority of the defendant, namely on the "Boycott Day" on 1st April, 1933.

(c) Numerous articles published in the weekly paper, Der Sturmer, among [them] especially those dealing with ritual murder and with quotations from the Talmud. He is said to have knowingly and intentionally described therein the Jews as a criminal and inferior race, and created and wished to create hatred of these people and the wish to exterminate them. The defendant's reply to these points is as follows:

He states that he worked merely as a private writer.

His aim was to enlighten the German people on the Jewish question, as he saw it. His description of the Jews was merely intended to show them as a different and a foreign race and to make it clear that they live according to laws which are alien to the German conception. It was far from his intention to incite or inflame his circle of listeners and readers. Moreover, he always only propagated the idea that the Jews, because of their alien character, should be removed from German national and economic life and withdrawn from the close association with the body of the German people.

Further, he always had in mind an international solution of the Jewish question; he looked on a German or even European partial solution as worthless, and rejected it. So it was in this way that he suggested in an editorial in Der Sturmer in the year 1941 that the French island of Madagascar should be considered as a place of settlement for the Jews. Consequently, he did not see the final solution of the Jewish question in the physical extermination of the Jews, but in their resettlement.

It cannot be the aim of the defence to go into further details of the defendant's actions as journalist and speaker, particularly with regard to Der Sturmer and his reply to the accusations raised against him. His ideology and convictions shall likewise remain unexplained, unexcused and undefended, as also his manner of writing and speaking. Examination and judgement in this respect rest with the Tribunal alone. . . . Further, it may be said in this connection that, according to the unrefuted statement of the defendant, the most biting articles were written in reply to articles and writings in the foreign Press, which contained very radical suggestions for the destruction of the German nation - also, no doubt, due to the existing war psychosis.

The defendant Streicher - it cannot be denied and shall not be defended - continually wrote articles in Der Sturmer and also made speeches in public which were strongly anti-Jewish and which at least aimed at the elimination of Jewish influence in Germany. . . .

Now how is the influence of Der Sturmer upon the German people to be estimated, and what picture unfolds itself in the handling of the Jewish problem during the years between 1920 and 1944? . . . With the seizure of power by the NSDAP in 1933, the . . . power of the State was exclusively in the hands of the Party and nobody could have prevented the use of violence against the Jewish population. . . . But nothing like that happened. Apart from some minor incidents, evidently caused by local or personal conditions, no attacks on Jews or their property took place anywhere. . . . It must be added that with the seizure of power by the Party the total Press apparatus came under the control of the Party, which immediately undertook to co-ordinate the Press, i.e. to direct it from a central office in the spirit of the National-Socialist policy and ideology. This was done through the Minister of Propaganda and chief of the Reich Press via the official "National Socialist Party Correspondence." Particularly Dr. Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, described by different witnesses, such as Goering, Schirach, Neurath and others, as the most bitter advocate of the anti-Semitic trend in the Government, is said to have given each week to the entire German Press several anti- Jewish leaders, which were printed by more than 3,000 dailies and illustrated papers. If in addition we take into account that Dr. Goebbels was making broadcasts of an anti-Semitic nature, we need no further explanation for the fact that the interest in a one-sided anti-Semitic journal should diminish, and that actually happened. . . . In what way now did Der Sturmer exert any influence during the war period?

It can be said that during the war Der Sturmer no longer attracted any attention worth mentioning. The gravity of the times, the anxiety for relatives in the theatres of war, the battles at the front, and finally the heavy air attacks completely diverted the German people's interest from questions dealt with in Der Sturmer. The people were weary of the continuous repetition of the same assertions. The best proof of how little Der Sturmer was desired as reading matter can be seen in the fact that in restaurants and cafs Der Sturmer was always available on the news stands, whereas other papers and magazines were always in use.

The circulation figures decreased steadily and unceasingly in those years. The influence of Der Sturmer in the political sphere became non-existent. . . .

But the intervention of the State was needed to eliminate Jewry from the economic life.

The same conclusion can be drawn from the reaction of the greater part of the German populace to the demonstrations carried out against the Jews during the night from 9th to 10th November, 1938.

It is proved that these acts of violence were not committed spontaneously by the German people but that they were organized and executed with the aid of the State and Party apparatus upon instructions of Dr. Goebbels in Berlin.

The result and the effect of these State-directed demonstrations - which in a cynical way were depicted for effect abroad as an expression of the indignation of the German people at the assassination of the secretary of the Embassy in Paris, von Rath - were totally different from that visualised by the originators of this demonstration.

These acts of violence and excesses, based upon the lowest instincts, found unanimous aversion in the circles of the Party and even of its leadership. Instead of creating hostility towards the Jewish population they roused pity and compassion with their fate. Hardly any other measure taken by the NSDAP was ever rejected so generally. The effect upon the public was so marked that the defendant Streicher in his capacity as "Gauleiter" found it necessary in an address in Nuremberg to give a warning against exaggerated sympathy for the Jews. According to his statement he did not do this because he approved of these measures but only in order to strengthen by his influence the heavily impaired prestige of the Party.

Previously, as it appears from the testimony of the witness Fritz Herrwerth examined here, he gave a refusal to SA Obergruppenfuehrer von Obernitz to take part personally in the planned demonstration, and called it useless and prejudicial. He publicly expressed this point of view later also, during a meeting of the League of Jurists at Nuremberg. In doing so he risked placing himself in open opposition to the official policy of the State.

All these facts show that despite the anti-Jewish propaganda carried on by the Government, actual hostility against the Jewish population did not exist among the people themselves. Thus it is proved already that neither Streicher's publications in Der Sturmer nor his speeches had the inciting effect upon the German people in the sense maintained by the prosecution.

. . . Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler - who was entrusted by Hitler with the mass assassinations - and his close collaborators shrouded all these events in deepest secrecy. By threatening with the most severe punishments any violations of the command of absolute silence which was imposed, they managed to lower, before the events in the East and in the extermination camps, an iron curtain which hermetically sealed off those facts from the public.

Hitler and Himmler prevented even the corps of the highest leaders of the Party and State from gaining any insight and information. Hitler did not hesitate to give false information to even his closest collaborators, like Reich Minister Dr. Lammers who was heard here as a witness, and to make him believe that the removal of the European Jews to the East meant their settlement in the Eastern territories but by no means their extermination. . . . I now come to the last and decisive part of the accusation, i.e., to the examination of the question: who were the chief persons responsible for the orders given for the mass extermination of Jewry; how was it possible that men could be four who were ready to execute these orders and whether without the influence of the defendant Streicher such orders would not have been given or executed.

The main person responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question - the extermination of Jewry in Europe-was without doubt Hitler himself. . . .

. . . It can be considered as proved beyond any doubt that Hitler was a man of unique and even demoniacal brutality and ruthlessness who, in addition, later lost all sense of proportion and all self-control. . . .

When the Prosecution declares that from the book Mein Kampf a direct road leads to the crematories of Mauthausen and Auschwitz, this is only an assumption; and no evidence for it has been given. The evidence rather suggests the fact that Hitler also wanted to see the Jewish problem in Germany solved by way of emigration. This thought, as well as the position of the Jewish part of the population under the laws governing aliens, formed the Official State policy of the Third Reich. Many of the leading anti-Semites considered the Jewish question as settled after the laws of 1935 had been promulgated. The Defendant Streicher shared this opinion. The stiffening of Hitler's attitude to the Jewish question cannot be traced back beyond the end of 1938 or the beginning of 1939. Only then did it become apparent that in case of war-which he believed was propagated by the Jews-he was planning a different solution. In his Reichstag speech on 30 January 1939 he predicted the extermination of Jewry should a second World War be let loose against Germany. He expressed the same ideas in a speech made in February 1942, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the day on which the Party was founded. And, finally, his testament, too, confirms his exclusive responsibility for the murdering of European Jewry as a whole.

Though Hitler had adopted an increasingly implacable attitude on the Jewish question ever since the beginning of the war, there is nothing to show that he visualized the extermination of the Jews in the early stages of the war. His final resolution to this effect was undoubtedly formed when Hitler, probably as early as 1942, saw that it was impossible to secure a victory for Germany.

It can be assumed almost with certainty that the decision to exterminate the Jews originated-as did almost all of Hitler's plans-exclusively with himself. . . .

It cannot, however, be maintained in earnest that his reading of Der Sturmer moved Hitler to give orders for wholesale murder. This should make it clear that the Defendant Streicher had no influence whatever on either the man who made the decision to exterminate Jewry, or on the orders issued by him.

In October 1942 Bormann's decree ordering the extermination of Jewry was issued (Document 3244-PS). It has been established beyond all question that this order came from Hitler and went to Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler, who was charged with the actual extermination of the Jews. He for his part charged the Chief of the Gestapo, Muller, and his commissioner for Jewish affairs, Eichmann, with the final execution of the order. These three men are the three who are chiefly responsible, next to Hitler. It has not been proved that Streicher had any possibility of influencing them, or that he did actually influence them. He states-and there is no proof to the contrary-that he never knew either Eichmann or Muller, and that his relations with Himmler were slight and far from friendly.

Casually it might be mentioned that Himmler was one of the most radical anti-Semites of the Party. From the beginning he had advocated a merciless fight against the Jews; and in any case, judging by what we know of him, he was not the man to allow himself to be influenced by others in matters of principle. Apart from that, however, a comparison of the two personalities shows that Himmler was in every way the stronger and superior man of the two, so that for this reason alone the exertion of any influence by the Defendant Streicher on Himmler may be ruled out. I believe I may refrain from further illustration of this point.

I now come to the question of whether the activity of the Defendant Streicher had a decisive influence on the men who actually carried out the orders; that is, on members of the Einsatzgruppen on the one hand, and on the execution Kommandos in the concentration camps on the other; and whether any spiritual and intellectual preparation was necessary to make these men willing to execute such measures.

In his speeches in Nikolaev, Posen, and Kharkov-which have often been mentioned here-the Reichsfuehrer SS stated unequivocally not only that he besides Hitler was responsible for the final solution of the Jewish question, but also that the execution of the orders was only made possible by the employment of forces which he himself had selected from among the SS. We know from Ohlendorf's testimony that the so-called Einsatzgruppen consisted of members of the Gestapo and the SD, companies of the Waffen-SS, members of the police force with long service records, and indigenous units.

It must be stated as a matter of principle that the Defendant Streicher never had the slightest influence on the ideological attitude of the SS. . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:11 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Blah blah blah. Your little, rigid intellect seems to be on auto-pilot.
Mary is giving his views on eyewitness testimony in the UFO thread. He is ignoring answers and got caught fabricating "testimonies" about UFOs. He suddenly can't remember where he read the "accurate testimony" he provided. Funny that.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 68#p445568" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thank you for the update. Yes, I have been instructing some novice skeptics on the value of eyewitness testimony. It's been as illuminating to me as it has been to my pupils.
In that UFO thread, Mary is claiming, that if an eyewitness says he was captured by aliens, then that must be true, although there is no complimentary evidence. In this holocaust denial thread, Mary argues there was no holocaust because the eyewitnesses were all lying, despite all the eyewitness testimony being supported by masses of complimentary evidence. Even funnier, Mary pretends the Jew were resettled east, based on no evidence at all!

Mary is a more than just a "bit thick". Only a black hole would be as dense as Mary.
As always, Matthew Ellard doesn't understand what somebody is saying. That's probably why he doesn't understand that he agrees with me. I don't say that an eyewitness who was captured by aliens is always telling the truth. I'm saying that eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove that an event happened as long as there is complimentary evidence such as more eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is so strong that even an event that is impossible can occur if you have enough eyewitnesses saying that it occurred. So any event or phenomenon that we know about primarily through eyewitnesses (like UFOs) is true.

Two things I've noticed: Everybody in the UFO subforum seems to think I'm off my rocker. They tell me that eyewitness testimony the most unreliable type of evidence. They say that if eyewitness testimony conflicts with science, that SCIENCE rules supreme and the event described by the eyewitnesses didn't happen. Can you believe that nonesense?

They say that when you analyze the reliability of an eyewitness statement you have to consider the entire statement. If the eyewitness says things that are obviously deranged but also says things that you want to believe happened, you can't just ignore the deranged part of the statement and cherry pick the part of the statement you like. They say that crazy talk in a statement degrades the believability of the witness as a whole.

Weird, isn't it?

The other thing I've noticed is that whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs. What does a highly improbable event such as the existence of UFOs that we know about through multiple eyewitness statements but no physical evidence have to do with the Holocaust?

Matthew Ellard has even accused me to trying to "trick" skeptics outside the HD forum into saying something that I can use against the denier liars here in this forum. What could skeptics in the UFO forum say that would relate to the things we talk about here? Are they going to say that Kurt Gerstein and Filip Mueller are obviously deranged individuals and that anybody who relies on their testimony about anything is an idiot?

Are they going to say that Matthew Ellard's collection of photographs appears to be "dirt. we have it here on Earth" and is not conclusive evidence of hundreds of thousands of dead Jews at Treblinka?

Are they going to tell me that you can't conflate the evidence for crematorium with evidence for a gas chamber?

Are they going to say that it's irrational to think that we don't need to ask questions about how the gas chambers worked because we know that they did work?
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:00 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:...whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs...
Yes, I'm a Monster.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Jan 30, 2015 12:01 am

Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote:Two things I've noticed: Everybody in the UFO subforum seems to think I'm off my rocker.
You first gave a fictional novel as your "documentary evidence", you idiot, because you never read it first. You then said you had an accurate UFO eyewitness statement but couldn't remember where you read it and didn't offer the unedited testimony, that you originally copied, as heavily edited, from a UFO fan site. You then said "this evidence" proved UFO were real. Everyone laughed at you.
:D
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote:They tell me that eyewitness testimony the most unreliable type of evidence.
You are lying again. You were told the accuracy of eyewitness testimony is assessed in conjunction with other complimentary evidence. You were informed that implausible UFO eyewitness testimony, on its own, can be countered by "expert witnesses" offering hard evidence that people make up stories. You then claimed you had complimentary evidence but ran away
:D
Mary Q Contrary, the holocaust denier wrote: They say that when you analyze the reliability of an eyewitness statement you have to consider the entire statement. Weird, isn't it?
I don't have to add anything to this claim at all........

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:37 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs...
Yes, I'm a Monster.
That's a question, not an accusation. He asked if my evaluation of eyewitness testimony is informed by my participation in the HD thread. You, on the other hand, obviously believe that the evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is comparable. You're the one who made the assumption that somebody who believes in a fantastical phenomenon for which there is no physical evidence but lots of eyewitness testimony must be talking, not about UFOs, but about the Holocaust.

I think the most interesting thing about your response to my meanderings outside the HD forum is that your problem isn't that I'm willing to accept the reliability of dubious eyewitness testimony as evidence for implausible events. You object to the fact that I'm willing to consider it as believable as dubious eyewitness testimony for implausible events from Jewish eyewitnesses.
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:56 am

I am not checking in any longer on Mary's very silly UFO game. But Mary now assets that scrmbldggs
believe that the evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is comparable.

What was so dumb about Mary's UFO game at the outset is the utter dissimilarity between the two cases and Mary's inability to grasp how historians evaluate evidence for whatever they study.

Which brings me to my question: Does anyone here believe that evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is of similar quality?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:06 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs...
Yes, I'm a Monster.
That's a question, not an accusation. He asked if my evaluation of eyewitness testimony is informed by my participation in the HD thread...
...and an astute question it was: "If you don't mind me asking, is your belief in alien spacecraft visiting Earth somehow related to Holocaust Denial? I'm referring specifically to what constitutes evidence. I find the statements by you that I quoted to be a bit extreme.", derived by him alone simply from reading what you wrote.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:14 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I am not checking in any longer on Mary's very silly UFO game. But Mary now assets that scrmbldggs
believe that the evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is comparable.

Not surprising, but what a ridiculous lie by Mary. :roll:

What was so dumb about Mary's UFO game at the outset is the utter dissimilarity between the two cases and Mary's inability to grasp how historians evaluate evidence for whatever they study.

Which brings me to my question: Does anyone here believe that evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is of similar quality?
[/quote]

Not now, not ever.
Last edited by scrmbldggs on Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:17 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:...Does anyone here believe that evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is of similar quality?
Not now, not ever.
Now that is what is so darned curious, because I could swear that Mary wrote these exact words, referring to you:
You, on the other hand, obviously believe that the evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is comparable.
I'll be doggone. That's just so odd. Golly.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
digress
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 2:11 am
Custom Title: doomer

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by digress » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:22 am

I saw the movie Fire in the Sky. It's all the UFO evidence you will ever need.
  God is an idea.  
"For now, I am going to err on the side of freedom of speech..." -Pyrrho
"Every instance that has always existed is a piece of evidence that God is not needed." -yrreg
"I am not a concept..." -Confidencia

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jan 30, 2015 3:23 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:...Does anyone here believe that evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is of similar quality?
Not now, not ever.
Now that is what is so darned curious, because I could swear that Mary wrote these exact words, referring to you:
You, on the other hand, obviously believe that the evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is comparable.
I'll be doggone. That's just so odd. Golly.
And perhaps an answer to our difficulties with that particular poster. Her reading comprehension is abysmal, her imagination runs rampant, and she apparently convinces herself that whatever runs through her sigmoi... umm... mind, has validity? :pardon:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:42 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I am not checking in any longer on Mary's very silly UFO game. But Mary now assets that scrmbldggs and others?
believe that the evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is comparable.
What was so dumb about Mary's UFO game at the outset is the utter dissimilarity between the two cases and Mary's inability to grasp how historians evaluate evidence.

Which brings me to my question: Does anyone here believe that evidence for UFOs and evidence for the Holocaust is of similar quality?
Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs can't even tell the difference between the two. Matthew Ellard actually tried to interject Treblinka into a discussion in the UFO forum about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony!

We weren't even talking about UFOs. We were talking about eyewitnesses. And he's thinking it's about Nazis!
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jan 30, 2015 8:30 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs...
Yes, I'm a Monster.
That's a question, not an accusation. He asked if my evaluation of eyewitness testimony is informed by my participation in the HD thread...
...and an astute question it was: "If you don't mind me asking, is your belief in alien spacecraft visiting Earth somehow related to Holocaust Denial? I'm referring specifically to what constitutes evidence. I find the statements by you that I quoted to be a bit extreme.", derived by him alone simply from reading what you wrote.
That was an astute question about what constitutes evidence in response to--what he thought--was an extreme statement of mine. He thought my belief in alien spacecraft visiting Earth might be related to Holocaust denial. Somebody could link the two by searching my name and finding many posts of mine are in the HD subforum. If I posted alot in the Religion subforum, somebody might think perhaps my extreme position on UFOs is related somehow to Religion.

I don't think Monster read my posts in the UFO forum and thought "Hey, wait a minute. This Mary chick is spouting out nonsense about the reliability of eyewitness testimony. She says that implausible eyewitness testimony to fantastical events can be believed even when these events run counter to our understanding of the natural world. She says that people who insist that an eyewitness who said that nearly three people can fit in one square foot is unreliable is falling for the fallacy of incredulity. She says there are photographs of a spaceship landing site but she shows us grainy black and white photographs of dirt. She says she's talking about UFOs but I know she really means the Holocaust."

No, Monster asked a question indicating that he really does understand what I'm asking. I'm asking about what constitutes valid evidence of a phenomenon. I made an extreme statement about how we know faster than light travel is possible. Scrmbldggs read that extreme statement and recognized it as 'shatbit crazy analysis...unfounded assumptions based on faith rather than facts...some sort of logical fallacy which Nessie can no doubt identify....twisting evidence to fit a predetermined conclusion....she must be talking about the Holocaust.'

Only somebody who is very familiar with the historical method as it applies to Holocaust historiography would see a connection between my contorted logic and evidence for the Holocaust. Eagle-eye Scrmbldggs believes he has seen through my "charade." He believes everybody can see through it so he doesn't even bother to say "Yes, Mary's approach to eyewitness evidence is based on the way we analyze evidence in response to Holocaust deniers."

No, he uploads a picture of a scoop dropping dirt as a "gotcha" to prove that the Holocaust happened and then says that my problem is that I'm trying to suggest that eyewitness testimony in general is as reliable and valid as Jewish eyewitness testimony. He doesn't say that there is nothing about evidence for the Holocaust that is comparable to evidence for UFOs. He doesn't say that the Holocaust is proven by much more than just eyewitness testimony. He says that, yes, eyewitness testimony is all we got for the Holocaust...but it's Jewish eyewitness testimony.

Of course, that says far more about what's going on in Scrmbldggs head than in mine. It also doesn't really deal with Monster's question.

My statement about how I know that faster than light travel is possible that Monster found so extreme is extreme. It's also anti-intellectual and ridiculous on the face of it. The logic is correct. I said that if it is necessary for a UFO to travel faster than the speed of light to be able to get to our planet, we know that faster than light travel is possible because aliens have been here. I say that I don't need to prove how faster than light travel is possible to believe. I can believe it because I know it happened.

It's a tortured logic that anybody who understands the scientific method should recognize immediately as pure bollocks. Anybody who subscribes to that line of thinking should be expelled from the intellectual community. It's also the same tortured logic that was thrown down to dismiss the concerns of people who understand that the Nazi gas chambers cannot work the way we're told they did:

"It is not necessary to ask how, technically, such a mass murder was possible. It was possible technically since it took place. That is the necessary point of departure for any historical inquiry on this subject. It is our function simply to recall that truth: there is not, there cannot be, any debate about the existence of the gas chambers." Pierre Vidal-Naquet and 34 other historians in Le Monde on 21 February 1979, page 23
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:42 am

Mary Q Contrary wrote:Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs can't even tell the difference between the two. Matthew Ellard actually tried to interject Treblinka into a discussion in the UFO forum about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony!

We weren't even talking about UFOs. We were talking about eyewitnesses. And he's thinking it's about Nazis!
So your answer is that Matthew Ellard and scrmbldggs both think that the UFO evidence and Treblinka evidence are basically the same? Instead of continuing the conversation you seem to be having with your imaginary friend, why not just answer what I asked you?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 1:34 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs...
Yes, I'm a Monster.
That's a question, not an accusation. He asked if my evaluation of eyewitness testimony is informed by my participation in the HD thread...
...and an astute question it was: "If you don't mind me asking, is your belief in alien spacecraft visiting Earth somehow related to Holocaust Denial? I'm referring specifically to what constitutes evidence. I find the statements by you that I quoted to be a bit extreme.", derived by him alone simply from reading what you wrote.
That was an astute question about what constitutes evidence in response to . . .
What overwrought piffle. Not one point worth drilling into. You could at least try to post something that promotes thought and discussion. For example, with your proclaimed insight into how history is studied, you could summarize for us the problems you claim in how half a dozen or ten or so major studies of the final solution approach and use evidence. Hell I will even help by suggesting relevant works. Or you can keep blowing smoke. I can guess which course you'll take.

Here are some works you could dissect for us - a mix of older works and some newer ones, some general and some specific, a variety of themes, points of view, approaches, and conclusions (which list does raise the nettlesome little issue, as Nick Terry put it, "Since you're not a historian and manifestly don't read works of serious history on any subject, never mind the Third Reich and Holocaust, then you're not actually able to say what historians do and don't use by way of evidence" - but here's your chance to prove him wrong) - given that you are supposedly so "familiar with the historical method," and the history in your view is so flawed, critique these works for us:

* Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (3 volume)
* Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942
* Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews
* Silberklang, Gates of Tears: The Holocaust in the Lublin District
* Engelking & Leociak, Warsaw Ghetto: A Guide to the Perished City
* Bryant, Eyewitness to Genocide: The Operation Reinhard Death Camp Trials, 1955-1966
* Grabowski, Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland
* Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp (5 volumes)
* Epstein, Model Nazi: Arthur Greiser and the Occupation of Western Poland
* Montague, Chelmno and the Holocaust: The History of Hitler's First Death Camp
* Trunk, Lodz Ghetto: A History
* Blatman, The Death Marches: The Final Phase of Nazi Genocide
* Roseman, A Past in Hiding: Memory and Survival in Nazi Germany
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:57 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:...whenever I show up to discuss eyewitness reliability outside of the HD forum, Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs immediately jump up and down and start screaming that I'm talking about the Holocaust, not UFOs...
Yes, I'm a Monster.
That's a question, not an accusation. He asked if my evaluation of eyewitness testimony is informed by my participation in the HD thread...
...and an astute question it was: "If you don't mind me asking, is your belief in alien spacecraft visiting Earth somehow related to Holocaust Denial? I'm referring specifically to what constitutes evidence. I find the statements by you that I quoted to be a bit extreme.", derived by him alone simply from reading what you wrote.
That was an astute question about what constitutes evidence in response to . . .
What overwrought piffle. Not one point worth drilling into...
Exactly.



Mary posts in the UFOs, Cryptozoology, and The Paranormal subforum, the place of the strange, weird and unbelievable. And of cons. That's where she does her "research" about eyewitness testimony.

And expects that those with even a smidgen of WW II and Holocaust knowledge will not recognize the commentary, as they then do and some then inquire about. And also notice the transparency of her agenda when she introduces her pet project "eyewitness reliability and assessment". And her dodging of inconvenient questions and facts, and her dishonesty and distortions.

All of which she then whines and complains about. As also about nonexistent insults fabricated by her herself.

I told her I won't be interacting with her outside the HD forum anymore, maybe she's now trying her luck in stirring up {!#%@} here.

Fin
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Mary Q Contrary
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1180
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:30 am

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Mary Q Contrary » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:53 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs can't even tell the difference between the two. Matthew Ellard actually tried to interject Treblinka into a discussion in the UFO forum about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony!

We weren't even talking about UFOs. We were talking about eyewitnesses. And he's thinking it's about Nazis!
So your answer is that Matthew Ellard and scrmbldggs both think that the UFO evidence and Treblinka evidence are basically the same? Instead of continuing the conversation you seem to be having with your imaginary friend, why not just answer what I asked you?
Yes. They know that eyewitnesses are all we have for both. Matt will say there is complimentary evidence but will give examples of different eyewitness testimony when pressed for the details. Scrmbldggs says it's all eyewitness testimony for both but for the Holocaust, it's Jewish eyewitness testimony so it can be believed. (Yes, they both conflate gas chambers with the Holocaust)
Thanks from:
Abraham, Jesus, Mohammed, Satan, Tinky Winky

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:54 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:. . . All of which she then whines and complains about. As also about nonexistent insults fabricated by her herself.. . .
She also appears to believe she's instructing novices and illuminating things for them - even though they've concluded she's off her rocker. 13 works on the Holocaust by historians - ready for Mary to instruct us on the historical method and illuminate things for us . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 7:59 pm

Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs can't even tell the difference between the two. Matthew Ellard actually tried to interject Treblinka into a discussion in the UFO forum about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony!

We weren't even talking about UFOs. We were talking about eyewitnesses. And he's thinking it's about Nazis!
So your answer is that Matthew Ellard and scrmbldggs both think that the UFO evidence and Treblinka evidence are basically the same? Instead of continuing the conversation you seem to be having with your imaginary friend, why not just answer what I asked you?
Yes. They know that eyewitnesses are all we have for both. Matt will say there is complimentary evidence but will give examples of different eyewitness testimony when pressed for the details. Scrmbldggs says it's all eyewitness testimony for both but for the Holocaust, it's Jewish eyewitness testimony so it can be believed. (Yes, they both conflate gas chambers with the Holocaust)
Very strange. And yet in post after post on Nessie's Treblinka thread, the one I mentioned elsewhere, both Matthew Ellard and scrmbldggs discuss the same variety of evidence I told you was discussed in that thread.

So, again, I have to ask: Matthew, scrmbldggs, is it true that you think (know?) that eyewitnesses are all we have for both UFOs and the Holocaust?

If you do, maybe you all should start with Hilberg and tell us about his methods and sources . . . but first things first, is it true what Mary is telling me?

By the way, while you guys are at it, I wonder if you can tell me how Mary used the historical method she loves so much to help Eric Hunt with his question about Warsaw's Jews in 1942 . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26494
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:08 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Mary Q Contrary wrote:Matthew Ellard and Scrmbldggs can't even tell the difference between the two. Matthew Ellard actually tried to interject Treblinka into a discussion in the UFO forum about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony!

We weren't even talking about UFOs. We were talking about eyewitnesses. And he's thinking it's about Nazis!
So your answer is that Matthew Ellard and scrmbldggs both think that the UFO evidence and Treblinka evidence are basically the same? Instead of continuing the conversation you seem to be having with your imaginary friend, why not just answer what I asked you?
Yes. They know that eyewitnesses are all we have for both. Matt will say there is complimentary evidence but will give examples of different eyewitness testimony when pressed for the details. Scrmbldggs says it's all eyewitness testimony for both but for the Holocaust, it's Jewish eyewitness testimony so it can be believed. (Yes, they both conflate gas chambers with the Holocaust)
Very strange. And yet in post after post on Nessie's Treblinka thread, the one I mentioned elsewhere, both Matthew Ellard and scrmbldggs discuss the same variety of evidence I told you was discussed in that thread.

So, again, I have to ask: Matthew, scrmbldggs, is it true that you think (know?) that eyewitnesses are all we have for both UFOs and the Holocaust?
Yes for UFOs from outer space and Alien abductions, and an absolute No for the Holocaust.
If you do, maybe you all should start with Hilberg and tell us about his methods and sources . . . but first things first, is it true what Mary is telling me?

By the way, while you guys are at it, I wonder if you can tell me how Mary used the historical method she loves so much to help Eric Hunt with his question about Warsaw's Jews in 1942 . . .
AFAIK, Mary has not lifted a finger yet in assistance to Eric Hunt's rallying call and request. Unless her answer: "Jews are where Jews went." somehow falls under the historical method. :-P
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24731
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Je Suis Rudolf, Mattogno, Graf, Zundel, Fauriss

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Jan 30, 2015 11:44 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Yes for UFOs from outer space and Alien abductions, and an absolute No for the Holocaust.
Which means no, since the question was a both/and type of question.

So this is astonishing. Twice now, in less than 24 hours, I think, Mary has told us that you believe something that you don't believe at all. How odd. Who could have predicted such a thing? Well, on account of Mary's doing this twice, I will find it hard to trust anything she claims.
scrmbldggs wrote:AFAIK, Mary has not lifted a finger yet in assistance to Eric Hunt's rallying call and request.
I didn't think so. At least I was unable to find any reply at all from Mary. Who, you know, according to Mary, has all the answers.

Poor Eric.
scrmbldggs wrote:Unless her answer: "Jews are where Jews went." somehow falls under the historical method.
LOL. That must be it, "Jews are where Jews went" and "It's a stupid question" come under Mary's special treatment of the historical method for the Holocaust.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .