Graverande dokument ang Förintelsen

4. Relevant documentation in the action
I have been given access to the following documents which have come into the Defendants’ possession in the course of this litigation or have been created for the purposes of this litigation:

The pleadings:
the Statement of Claim served on 5 September 1996;
the Defences of the First and Second Defendants served on the 12 February and 18 April 1997 respectively;
the Reply to both Defences served on the 19 April 1997.
Documents disclosed by the Plaintiff pursuant to his discovery obligations: various documents from the Plaintiff’s various Lists of Documents as referred to in the footnotes to this report.
5. Relevant material and opinions
The relevant material on which I have based my report and conclusions is detailed in the footnotes to my report.
The material relating to the history of Auschwitz is derived from various evidential historical sources which can be categorized as follows:
contemporaneous documents such as letters, blueprints, minutes of meetings held in the Auschwitz Central Construction Office, budgets, contractors’ bids, requests for material allocations, invoices, and so on, which are found in the archive of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, the Osobyi archive in Moscow (this collection has been microfilmed, and is available in microfilm format at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.), and the German Federal Archive in Koblenz;
unpublished transcripts of the trials of (a)Rudolf Höss, held in Warsaw in 1947; (b)the Auschwitz architects Walther Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, held in Vienna in 1972;
published transcripts of the trials of (a) Josef Kramer and others held in Lüneburg in 1945; (b) Hermann Goering and others held in Nuremberg in 1945 and 1946; (c) Adolf Eichmann held in Jerusalem in 1961; (d) Mulka and others held in Frankfurt in 1963, 1964 and 1965;
contemporary newspaper articles, magazine articles and other publications reporting on the situation in the concentration camps;
contemporary documents and reports,such as the Vrba-Wetzlar report or the transcripts of the Höss interrogations in Nuremberg, published after the war in edited collections;
memoirs, such as the autobiography of Rudolf Höss, written and published after the war;
academic historical studies published after the war.
The material relating to Holocaust Denial in general, the Faurisson Affair, the Zündel Trial and the Leuchter Report is derived form various evidential historical sources which can be categorized as follows:
contemporaneous documents such as letters that became available in Irving’s Further Discovery;
unpublished transcripts of the trials of Ernst Zündel held in Toronto in 1985 and 1988;
the published writings of Holocaust deniers like Paul Rassinier, Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz, Thies Christophersen, Wilhelm Stäglich, and Fred Leuchter;
contemporary newspaper articles, magazine articles and other publications reporting on Holocaust denial;
published academic studies of Holocaust denial.
The material relating to David Irving’s engagement with Auschwitz, the Holocaust, Holocaust Denial in general, the Zündel Trial, and the Leuchter report is derived from various evidential historical sources which can be categorized as follows:
contemporaneous documents such as letters, audiotapes and videotapes that became available in Irving’s Further Discovery;
unpublished transcripts of the trial of Ernst Zündel held in Toronto in 1988;
the published writings of Irving;
contemporary newspaper articles, magazine articles and other publications reporting on Irving;
published academic studies of Holocaust denial.
In my research, I have considered that there is a hierarchy of reliability in respect of these categories of sources which I have taken into account when preparing this report. The most important reliable source is contemporaneous documents and the published and unpublished trial transcripts. The reliability of the rest of the categories depends on the context in which they have been produced, organized or extracted. I have avoided any over reliance on one evidential source.

I have taken into account the fact that archival records are invariably organized and structured in a particular way when they are first put together and are necessarily set up to serve a particular purpose. The reliability of oral evidence depends on their distance in time from the event they are recalling, their role in the particular event, the interests of the witness in giving his or her account of the event and of the interlocutor in recording the account. I know that historians may be predisposed to accept the information uncritically in order to show that they have made a new discovery,and have tried to consider the evidence in its context,having put aside all political or personal persuasions.21

Och kolla, en källhänvisning: [url]https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/

Likaså har du en diger lista på bl a dokument etc denna länk.

Det är självklart jag vill att du korrigerar dina felaktiga värden.
Varför angav du fel värden?

Ett skäl som rimligen är att försöka kasta skuggor på de vittnen som var där och som jobbade med kremeringarna.

Du skrev även tidigare:

Visa mig ett enda dokument som gör gällande att Topfs ugnar i Auschwitz kunde nå 1200 till 1300 grader

Ja, du länkade själv till Topf som skrev att ugnarna pallade för temperaturer till, och kanske även över 1200 grader. Det är därför ditt smusslande med 1000 grader är så falskt.

PP skrev som svar:
Jag har inte påstått att man bränner vid 1300 grader, däremot tål teglet den tempen.

men en van eldare ser ju vad som är på gång och minskar koltillförseln i tid. (fast eldarna kanske aldrig hann bli erfarna).

Du drar felaktiga slutsatser av min temperaturbegränsning.