Nazi's killed Jews with magic atomic bomb...

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
HarvestOfSorrow
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 am

Postby HarvestOfSorrow » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:10 am)

The common assumption here seems to be that there was some "document" involved. However, this assumption has no basis in the transcripts. Jackson doesn't mention any document.



avatar
Richard Perle
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 9:45 am

Postby Richard Perle » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:23 am)

The way I see it, the more evidence that exists for this atomic weapon killing the better it is for revisionists, and the whole subject can only be helpful to us. We know it couldn't have happened so the evidence would serve as a good example of how even utter nonsense can appear to be supported.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 8960
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:32 am)

HarvestofSorrow curiously said:
The common assumption here seems to be that there was some "document" involved. However, this assumption has no basis in the transcripts. Jackson doesn't mention any document.

but recall what Justice Jackson said:
Now, I have certain information, which was placed in my hands ...

So then, what was placed in his hands?
Tea leaves? No, a document.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:06 pm)

What does anyone think of this scenario:

The Soviets were feeding the Tribunal so much ridiculous junk. But in their stories, they had the problem of disposing of the bodies, otherwise they could be dug up and verified. Hence the Treblinka ridiculousness.

So some NKVD brainiac thinks about what he's heard about atomic weapons, and how death and incineration would be done at the same time. He creates a document and submits it to the Tribunal in the early stages. Then a real atomic bomb happens to everyone's surprise, and there's something called detectable radiation, and suddenly the document looks so ridiculous, so that at the still early stages of the International Military Tribunal, the British, Americans, and French see it, but find it strange and leave it out of the official documents, and only mention it.

Then in the trial it's dismissed, but in the most ridiculous way: as Nazi propaganda of all things, betraying the lack of intellect of the judge for sure.

avatar
HarvestOfSorrow
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 am

Postby HarvestOfSorrow » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:27 pm)

Hannover inquires:
So then, what was placed in his hands?
Tea leaves?


Let's look at the transcript:
Now, I have certain information, which was placed in my hands ...


So, the answer to Hannover's question is: "Information".

I hope Hannover did not mean that Jackson was necessarily talking about the literal hands here. Otherwise he might try to explain the following quotes:

http://www.huarchivesnet.howard.edu/990 ... ordon1.htm

In accepting this trust, which the President of the Board of Trustees has so gracefully placed in my hands...


http://www.iransrose.com/historyenglish.html

THE ROSE OF IRAN is in my heart, and my heart is not for sale
for I know that her destiny is placed in my hands.


http://www.hopewilbanks.com/blogs/2004_ ... chive.html

t I am doing everything I can with the talents He's placed in my hands


Meanwhile, my conclusion stands.

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:07 pm)

I agree with Hannover that it's an actual document. This is American English, not a translation from German, and if you're a native speaker as I am, it's quite clear that it's a document. He couldn't be pulling up the 400 centigrade part and other details off the top of his head. He does mention "as I am advised" so it appears that it was a document, and probably some Soviets explaining to him what the document meant. This certainly wasn't something passed on orally! It might be that he said "document placed in my hands" because it was such an outlandish document, he didn't want it in the court record with a IMT number.

Also, it's likely the Soviets who gave the document, since he mentions "near Auschwitz" and it was the Soviets who took that area over.

"placed his trust in my hands" --that is fine, but in a courtroom, people aren't going to be speaking poetically and metaphorically. "Information placed in my hands" means a document.


MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I have certain information, which was placed in my hands, of an experiment which was carried out near Auschwitz and I would like to ask you [Albert Speer] if you heard about it or knew about it. The purpose of the experiment was to find a quick and complete way of destroying people without the delay and trouble of shooting and gassing and burning, as it had been carried out, and this is the experiment, as I am advised. A village, a small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them; that it developed the explosive developed, temperatures of from 400 to 500 degrees centigrade and destroyed them without leaving any trace at all.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 8960
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:45 pm)

CCS nails it on the head.

HarvestofSorrow said:
I hope Hannover did not mean that Jackson was necessarily talking about the literal hands here.

Harvest then gives quotes which are not courtroom examples, but a mere mishmash of figurative speech which have no bearing on courtroom procedure. It is revealing that Harvest cannot produce any examples of a judge using such language without the judge actually having a document as a reference point.

I submit that when a judge says he has "information in his hands" he means just that, a document, 'in his hands'

Except where there are procedural points to be made, or clarification of questions asked, judges use documents to provide the basis in which to question someone on alleged crimes.

Imagine a judge casually saying, 'OK Albert, there's backroom talk of 400 centrigade Nazi atomic bombs that specifically killed 20,000 Jews, so let's talk about Nazi atomic bombs'. Absurd.

In fact, he would not even have such specific info. without a specific document stating such. It's simply preposterous to imagine Jackson just coming up with this. He had a document, which as in so many Nuremberg 'documents', was a bogus as the day is long.

The Nuremberg show trials have been caught with their pants down again. No tortured spin job can change that.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
HarvestOfSorrow
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 am

Postby HarvestOfSorrow » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:14 pm)

The fact remains, however, that Jackson doesn't mention any document.

If anyone insists that it was a document, I challenge them to cite it or at least provide its Nuremberg number.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 8960
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:45 pm)

I notice HarvestofSorrow avoids the ponts previously made.

He's left with denial of what the judge himself said as Nuremberg trial transcript IMT XVI pp. 579-580 (German text) states. He ignores Germanicist Claudia Rothenbach when she explains the German text:
The verb "aushändigen" means "to hand out"; so he is talking about a document and not about verbal information ...

Oops.

So yep, there was a document. And as is common with Nuremberg documents, many have conveniently disappeared, a fact. Too late though, the record speaks for itself.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:46 pm)

I saw that Claudia put the translation too. But would translation matter here? Because we have the original English. Unless the German translator translated it while watching the judge holding a paper in front of him.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 8960
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:13 pm)

CCS:
I saw that Claudia put the translation too. But would translation matter here? Because we have the original English. Unless the German translator translated it while watching the judge holding a paper in front of him.

But is there an English original, or is it an English translation taken from the German text?

I only have the German text IMT reference.

- H.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2237
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 2 years ago (Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:03 pm)

Good point. We might be dealing with a translation.

avatar
Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:43 pm)

I agree that it was most likely a document, however, the document could have been someone's hand written notes, something that could be "placed in his hands" but not submitted into evidence. Since the judge did not reference a document number or reference an exhibit number, it was most likely a document that could not be admitted into evidence.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 8960
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:01 pm)

Trojan says:
Since the judge did not reference a document number or reference an exhibit number, it was most likely a document that could not be admitted into evidence.

And why not? He made inquiries about it. He cited claims within the document. The defense would have the right to request it. As far as I know you cannot question someone on the stand about a document without that document being admitted.

The Nuremberg show trials exposed again.

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

avatar
Trojan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 140
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 7:53 am

Postby Trojan » 1 decade 2 years ago (Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:35 pm)

If the document is your own hand written notes or otherwise privileged or inadmissable, you could still ask questions about the information contained within the document without submitting the document into evidence.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot] and 13 guests