Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
172
der weapon and the crime did not exist until proven otherwise.
Insofar my starting point was both absolutely legitimate and
correct.
3. Following the motto de omnibus dubitandum est – everything
has to be doubted – the initial doubt about the existence of
what is claimed precisely proves my scientific, that is critical
attitude. If I want to maintain these doubts, then I have to undergird
them with arguments, and that is exactly what I do in
my expert report.
4. The BPjM is not a government institute for the determination
of what is correct, false, or faulty.
5. Even in case my expert report should prove faulty, this still
does not prove that it is unscientific.
d) Conclusion: The authors of this indexing decision are obviously scientific
illiterates.
6. Auschwitz: Plain Facts
I have edited this book 85 which is a collection of contributions critically
discussing the book The Crematories of Auschwitz: The Technique
of Mass Murder by the French pharmacist Jean Claude Pressac. 84 Since
Pressac’s book had been praised internationally as a refutation of revisionist
arguments, it is not only legitimate to subject the book to revisionist
criticism, but if regarded under the aspect of the nature of science,
this is even a must. The BPjM, however, never seems to have
even heard anything about criticism being the essence of science, because
as a cheap, sweeping argument in order to get rid of the arguments
published in that book the BPjM states laconically: 190 “The main
concern of the authors is actually […] to deny.” The following has to be
said about this:
a) The motivations of an author are irrelevant, as only his arguments
count.
b) The BPjM cannot possibly know an author’s motivations.
c) Attempts at refutation are not only legitimate, but they are actually
desirable and necessary in the scientific process in order to test theses
as to their reliability.
190 Decision no. 4898, 8 April 1999, BAnz 81, 30 April 1999.