2005-08-17, 20:15
#1
Vi har ju en tråd om Extermitionalismens avslöjade fusk, så jag tänkte att det kunde vara bra för balansen med en med Revisionismens avslöjade fusk...
Skrivet på engelska är jag rädd, från början i USENET-gruppen alt.revisionism. Min ingress gäller även här, med tillägget att har någon kunskap som visar på motsatsen till det jag skriver så skriv på bara.
/KT
So far I have come across claims regarding David Irving, Fred
Leuchter, Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf and Jurgen Graf. If anyone have
hard-facts regarding these cases, and others, I would be most obliged.
To clarify before mud-slinging starts, Im looking for hard evidence
that supports reasonable concrete cases of lies (e.g just to state
that since the Holocaust happened, all revisionists are per defintion
liers, is not really what I am looking for).
Fred Leuchter: Caught lying during the Zundel trial, about being an
engineer, and about about his contractors:
<begin quote>
"I can inform you, however, that San Quentin has not contracted with
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. for the installation of a heart monitoring
system or for any other work." Signed: DANIEL B. Vasquez, Warden
(California)
<...>
Also, our records do not support that Mr. Leuchter performed either
consulting or any service...I can attest that the planning and work
was performed by the Department of Correction Engineering Section and
our institution maintenance department." Signed: Gary T. Dixon, Warden
(North Carolina)
<...>
We discover, then, that neither California nor North Carolina have
consulted with Leuchter regarding their gas chambers.
Leuchter was incapable of even getting the names of the wardens right,
and clearly lying about his "professional" relationships with them.
</quote>
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leu chter/leuchter-faq-22.html
Ernst Zundel was also caught lying during his trial, where he
apparently made up a memorandum of Goebbels, that turned out to be a
passage in Goebbels diary, which turned out to be non-existent:
<being quote>
The appellant's [Mr Zundel's] allegations of fact in the pamphlet were
divided into 85 extracts and rebutted one by one. The trial judge
summarized this material at length for the jury but it will suffice
here to point only to some of the more egregious examples. The
pamphlet alleged that a memorandum from Joseph Goebbels revealed that
the Final Solution was never more than a plan to evacuate Jews to
Madagascar. It was shown that there was no such memorandum but that
the reference was to Goebbels' diary entry of March 7, 1942. This
diary extract was adduced and shown to state nothing of the kind.
</quote>
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/peo ple/z/zundel-ernst/supreme-cou rt/1992-j...
And Germar Rudolf was caught using himself as source in several of his
texts, using his pen name Ernst Gauss as source or the opposite,
writing under the name Gauss, and using Germar Rudolf as source (for
example in the text "Holocaust Victims: A Statistical Analysis, W.
Benz and W. N. Sanning - A Comparison"). Im not sure when he admitted
that he in fact were the same as Ernst Gauss, if anyone knows, please
tell. And has he been using more pen names as this site claims?
http://lexikon.idgr.de/r/r_u/r udolf-germar/rudolf-germar.php
And could someone tell me more about this?
Two cases that involves lying in a more vague form:
David Irving: Caught lying (in the form of omitting evidence that
contradicted his own position and in misinterpreting and
mistranslating documents) in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial:
<begin quote>
13.31 It is my [the judge's] conclusion that the Defendants [Lipstadt
& Penguin] are justified in their assertion that Irving has seriously
misrepresented Hitler's views on the Jewish question. He has done so
in some instances by misinterpreting and mistranslating documents and
in other instances by omitting documents or parts of them. In the
result the picture which he provides to readers of Hitler and his
attitude towards the Jews is at odds with the evidence.
and
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected
nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or
another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which
I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that
the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably
well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the
question of Irving's motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the
instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly
misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.
and
13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and
misconstrue documents and overlook material evidence. I have found
that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence;
adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence;
given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed
credible evidence. It appears to me that an analysis of those
instances may shed light on the question whether Irving's
misrepresentation of the historical evidence was deliberate.
</quote>
Source: http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/
The swiss (?) revisionist Jurgen Graf in his book "Förintelsen
skärskådad" ("Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand"), lies when he claims
that Léon Poliakov in his book "Bréviaire de la haine" stated that
there are no documents that prove the Holocaust, while in fact
Poliakov was talking about the lack of an order from Hitler:
Source: http://www.vho.org/S/b/fs/13.h tml (in Swedish)
http://www.zundelsite.org/germ an/graf/Pruef2.html (German)
Im not sure if this text came before or after the "The Giant with Feet
of Clay", were Jurgen Graf actually makes the distinction between "No
documents to prove the Holocaust" and "No written order by Hitler".
(Länkarna kan vara brutna, det är ett gammalt inlägg. Och ja, jag vet Irving passagen saknar exakta hänvisningar till de fusk domaren pekar på. Ska se om jag kan få tid att gräva fram dem nånstans)
/KT
Skrivet på engelska är jag rädd, från början i USENET-gruppen alt.revisionism. Min ingress gäller även här, med tillägget att har någon kunskap som visar på motsatsen till det jag skriver så skriv på bara.
/KT
So far I have come across claims regarding David Irving, Fred
Leuchter, Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf and Jurgen Graf. If anyone have
hard-facts regarding these cases, and others, I would be most obliged.
To clarify before mud-slinging starts, Im looking for hard evidence
that supports reasonable concrete cases of lies (e.g just to state
that since the Holocaust happened, all revisionists are per defintion
liers, is not really what I am looking for).
Fred Leuchter: Caught lying during the Zundel trial, about being an
engineer, and about about his contractors:
<begin quote>
"I can inform you, however, that San Quentin has not contracted with
Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. for the installation of a heart monitoring
system or for any other work." Signed: DANIEL B. Vasquez, Warden
(California)
<...>
Also, our records do not support that Mr. Leuchter performed either
consulting or any service...I can attest that the planning and work
was performed by the Department of Correction Engineering Section and
our institution maintenance department." Signed: Gary T. Dixon, Warden
(North Carolina)
<...>
We discover, then, that neither California nor North Carolina have
consulted with Leuchter regarding their gas chambers.
Leuchter was incapable of even getting the names of the wardens right,
and clearly lying about his "professional" relationships with them.
</quote>
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/faqs/leu chter/leuchter-faq-22.html
Ernst Zundel was also caught lying during his trial, where he
apparently made up a memorandum of Goebbels, that turned out to be a
passage in Goebbels diary, which turned out to be non-existent:
<being quote>
The appellant's [Mr Zundel's] allegations of fact in the pamphlet were
divided into 85 extracts and rebutted one by one. The trial judge
summarized this material at length for the jury but it will suffice
here to point only to some of the more egregious examples. The
pamphlet alleged that a memorandum from Joseph Goebbels revealed that
the Final Solution was never more than a plan to evacuate Jews to
Madagascar. It was shown that there was no such memorandum but that
the reference was to Goebbels' diary entry of March 7, 1942. This
diary extract was adduced and shown to state nothing of the kind.
</quote>
Source: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/peo ple/z/zundel-ernst/supreme-cou rt/1992-j...
And Germar Rudolf was caught using himself as source in several of his
texts, using his pen name Ernst Gauss as source or the opposite,
writing under the name Gauss, and using Germar Rudolf as source (for
example in the text "Holocaust Victims: A Statistical Analysis, W.
Benz and W. N. Sanning - A Comparison"). Im not sure when he admitted
that he in fact were the same as Ernst Gauss, if anyone knows, please
tell. And has he been using more pen names as this site claims?
http://lexikon.idgr.de/r/r_u/r udolf-germar/rudolf-germar.php
And could someone tell me more about this?
Two cases that involves lying in a more vague form:
David Irving: Caught lying (in the form of omitting evidence that
contradicted his own position and in misinterpreting and
mistranslating documents) in the Irving vs Lipstadt trial:
<begin quote>
13.31 It is my [the judge's] conclusion that the Defendants [Lipstadt
& Penguin] are justified in their assertion that Irving has seriously
misrepresented Hitler's views on the Jewish question. He has done so
in some instances by misinterpreting and mistranslating documents and
in other instances by omitting documents or parts of them. In the
result the picture which he provides to readers of Hitler and his
attitude towards the Jews is at odds with the evidence.
and
13.9 As appears from section V above, the Defendants have selected
nineteen instances where they contend that Irving has in one way or
another distorted the evidence. Having considered the arguments, which
I have summarised at some length, I have come to the conclusion that
the criticisms advanced by the Defendants are almost invariably
well-founded. For whatever reason (and I shall consider later the
question of Irving's motivation), I am satisfied that in most of the
instances cited by the Defendants Irving has significantly
misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined, reveals.
and
13.140 Historians are human: they make mistakes, misread and
misconstrue documents and overlook material evidence. I have found
that, in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence;
adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence;
given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed
credible evidence. It appears to me that an analysis of those
instances may shed light on the question whether Irving's
misrepresentation of the historical evidence was deliberate.
</quote>
Source: http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/
The swiss (?) revisionist Jurgen Graf in his book "Förintelsen
skärskådad" ("Der Holocaust auf dem Prüfstand"), lies when he claims
that Léon Poliakov in his book "Bréviaire de la haine" stated that
there are no documents that prove the Holocaust, while in fact
Poliakov was talking about the lack of an order from Hitler:
Source: http://www.vho.org/S/b/fs/13.h tml (in Swedish)
http://www.zundelsite.org/germ an/graf/Pruef2.html (German)
Im not sure if this text came before or after the "The Giant with Feet
of Clay", were Jurgen Graf actually makes the distinction between "No
documents to prove the Holocaust" and "No written order by Hitler".
(Länkarna kan vara brutna, det är ett gammalt inlägg. Och ja, jag vet Irving passagen saknar exakta hänvisningar till de fusk domaren pekar på. Ska se om jag kan få tid att gräva fram dem nånstans)
/KT
Daffer's namn står ju faktiskt högst upp på sidan. Rätt ska vara rätt. 
