fake Einsatzgruppen document

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Sat Nov 01, 2003 9:26 pm)

This thread seems relevant to our Babi Yar discussion.

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

elvistheelf
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:59 am

Prove it Hannover!

Postby elvistheelf » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Nov 04, 2003 5:04 am)

Hannover, you state that this document is a forgery; prove it!

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:35 am)

Please actually read my points about it. Show me the mass graves to support the numbers. The onus is upon the accusers, that is a rule of jurisprudence and logic.

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

elvistheelf
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:59 am

Postby elvistheelf » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:48 am)

Hannover,
In this case, YOU have made an allegation: that this document is a "fake". If you make an allegation, then it is up to you to prove it. So let us hear your proof: Is the paper of the wrong date? Is the ink of the wrong date? Was it typed on a machine that was not manufactured until 1948?

Come on Hannover, show us your proof! Stop dodging!

Elvis

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Nov 04, 2003 11:26 am)

Oh please. I've already proved my point. Read my posts.
The thing is nothing more than ink on paper that anyone could have typed with a typewriter of the period.

Now, where is YOUR proof? Where are the mass graves to support this phoney document?

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

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Nov 04, 2003 11:36 am)

elvistheelf wrote:Hannover,
In this case, YOU have made an allegation: that this document is a "fake". If you make an allegation, then it is up to you to prove it. So let us hear your proof: Is the paper of the wrong date? Is the ink of the wrong date? Was it typed on a machine that was not manufactured until 1948?

Come on Hannover, show us your proof! Stop dodging!

Elvis

Hannover already explained in his first message of this thread why he believes that the document is a fake.

Why should it be necessary for him to repeat this?

It would be interesting to know, why elvistheelf believes, that the document in question is not a fake.

fge

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 6 years ago (Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:16 pm)

elvistheelf:

All parties involved have given you reasons why they consider this piece of paper to be a fake document. Your shrill tone and avoidance of those reasons is cause for my deletions of some of your posts, they contributed nothing to the debate and you have never said why you believe this piece of paper to be true & factual, even though you were asked.

Get with it.

Thanks, Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

elvistheelf
Member
Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 11:59 am

To the Moderator

Postby elvistheelf » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Nov 05, 2003 4:58 am)

Dear Moderator,

Maybe I have to reiterate the same points to you that I made to both Hannover and Sailor:

1. I have not stated that I believe this document to be genuine; therefore, why am I being challenged to prove something that I have not said? To be honest, having not had the opportunity to carry out a full analysis of this document, I can have no opinion as to its status.

2. Hannover stated that this document IS a fake, not that he BELIEVES it to be a fake. In legal terms, these are two very different statements; what I have done is ask him for his proof that it is a fake. He appears to be unable to supply this. Therefore, his accusation that this document is a fake is invalid.

Why did you not censure Hannover for dodging in that he avoided answering the request to provide proof?

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Nov 05, 2003 10:23 am)

elvistheelf wrote: what I have done is ask him for his proof that it is a fake

What would be considered an acceptable proof in this case?

Wonders
Sailor

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1685
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Nov 05, 2003 10:24 am)

elvistheelf:

Is this one of those 'depends on what the definition of is is' a la Bill Clinton? :roll:

Reasons for stating the document is fake have been given, no games please. Either debate the topic or leave the thread, last notice.

Thanks, RevForum Moderator
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

User avatar
Sailor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 810
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:54 pm
Location: California

Postby Sailor » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Nov 05, 2003 12:36 pm)

The problem then seems to be Hannover’s choice of words, in this case “fake”, and that he should have said instead “seems to be a fake”.

Isn’t this a little “Wortklauberei” (quibbling)? This may be more important to a lawyer, I admit.

I don’t know whether hard evidence for the authenticity of the document exists. I doubt it.

And are we certain whether the original of this document exists at all or is it only a copy? (Butz talks about a four page letter.)



muses
Sailor

Vallon
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 3:55 pm

Postby Vallon » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Dec 20, 2005 3:51 pm)

Hannover wrote:Upon inspection we see that it is nothing more that a piece of paper.

Correct.
It's a crude fake attempting to claim that 363,211 Russian Jews had been executed.

This alleged "document" is particularily clumsy, and quite absurd.

take note:

- no official stationary
- no signatures
- initials that could be easily added
- no indication of typist...standard procedure
- no forensic/physical confirmation via mass graves for numbers given
- could have been typed by anyone
- completely unverifiable

A somewhat clearer image is here: http://shamash.org/holocaust/photos/images/Report01.jpg
But also this is image is cut off at the top and at the bottom.

Leon Simmons wrote about the preceding page:
This report from Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler was submitted to Hitler on 31 December 1942 by Hitler's Personal adjutant, Hauptsturmführer Pfeiffer, as indicated in Pfeiffer's hand on page one of the report.

Report 51 was presented in quadruplicate on the Führer-typewriter (a special Typewriter with very large type) in Himmler's field-command headquarters on 29 December; it was submitted to Hitler on 31 December, as the handwritten notation by Hitler's adjutant Pfeiffer indicates.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/Meldung291242b.html

Seems well verified to me.
Can Hannover quote any researcher who disputes the authenticity of this document?

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Dec 20, 2005 4:25 pm)

Vallon shows a 'clearer image' as if that settles the matter. A clearer image of a fake is still a fake.

Vallon claims verification by a Leon Simmons, but Simmons gives no proof for his claim. He merely pulls from the air:
This report from Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler was submitted to Hitler on 31 December 1942 by Hitler's Personal adjutant, Hauptsturmführer Pfeiffer, as indicated in Pfeiffer's hand on page one of the report.

Report 51 was presented in quadruplicate on the Führer-typewriter (a special Typewriter with very large type) in Himmler's field-command headquarters on 29 December; it was submitted to Hitler on 31 December, as the handwritten notation by Hitler's adjutant Pfeiffer indicates.

Oh really? Where is this 'report 51' to see?

Simmons is futher thwarted here:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History/Simmon131002.html

And of course the lack of required mass graves renders the entire matter a fraud.

again:
- no official stationary
- no signatures
- initials that could be easily added
- no indication of typist...standard procedure
- no forensic/physical confirmation via mass graves for numbers given
- could have been typed by anyone
- completely unverifiable

Here we have an alleged 'document' that was allegedly given to Hitler, that's Hitler for godssake, but yet it lacks any indentifying traits, is casually typed on an old German typewriter of which thousands existed, and many still do. This thing was probably typed in New York, not on the Eastern Front. There is absolutely nothing to validate this obvious forgery, it's laughable.


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

grenadier
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 9:07 am

Postby grenadier » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Dec 20, 2005 5:31 pm)

Vallon wrote:
Seems well verified to me.
Can Hannover quote any researcher who disputes the authenticity of this document?


Butz does in his "Hoax..." p.244. He discusses it only briefly though.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:12 pm)

Vallon asks:
Can Hannover quote any researcher who disputes the authenticity of this document?

Well yes; myself, thank you. I note that Vallon is unable to respond to all of my points:
- no official stationary
- no signatures
- initials that could be easily added
- no indication of typist...standard procedure
- no forensic/physical confirmation via mass graves for numbers given
- could have been typed by anyone
- completely unverifiable


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


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests