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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
foundation of the historic science, which frequently has only two or
three witness statements or documents at its disposal and which therefore
has to accept their consistency as proof” (p. 34). The expert witness
unfortunately omits to give objective, comprehensible criteria in order
to determine, up to which intensity source criticism is admissible in his
view and from which point onward it has to be rejected as excessive. He
also does not substantiate his sweeping claim. Even a back reference to
the contribution by Tiedemann, which the expert witness has criticized,
would not have helped here, because Tiedemann demonstrates precisely
– as the expert witness states himself – that the sources given by him
hardly show any consistency but instead “blatant contradictions,” so the
expert witness himself (p. 25).
The questions which the expert witness would have had to assess is
not to which degree revisionists reject sources, but instead whether and
to what extent they give comprehensible, justifiable objective reasons
for this and whether they stick to these reasons. The expert witness has
failed to do this completely. In this respect his assessments are nothing
else but unfounded statements of opinion.
3.7. Criteria of scientific nature not examined
The aspects of the nature of science as listed in A.3. under list entries
7-12 have not even been mentioned by the expert witness, let alone
any indication that he assessed the book at issue in this regard. It is not
evident why that is so, but a conclusion by analogy offers itself. According
to revisionist perception, almost the entire established literature
on the Holocaust stands out by being replete with internal inconsistencies
and contradictions to logical laws and to that which is scientifically
and technically possible. Furthermore the evidentiary hierarchy is usually
turned upside down by witness accounts determining how to interpret
documents and by almost completely ignoring material evidence. These
points of criticism are the objective basis of revisionist source criticism,
a fact which the expert witness omits entirely. The established literature
moreover persistently contains allegations which evade an evaluation
for logical reasons, a fact also eliciting harsh revisionist criticism. The
expert witness himself commits this disastrous unscientific mistake by
positing that a crime for which no evidence exists has to be assumed as
true for reasons of reverence, i.e., piety (p. 12). Yet to postulate a thesis
whose properties, namely the lack of any evidence, render its verifica-
302