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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
tion logically impossibly, is grossly unscientific, as it is thusly immunized
against any attempt at refutation.
It therefore can, indeed it has to be concluded that the following is
the reason why the expert witness has not investigated these essential
aspects of the nature of science (or maybe he is not even aware of
them?): because he himself is part of this established unscientific attitude.
Finally one would have wished that the expert witness had given his
expert report a systematic structure – this, too, is a hallmark of science!
– for instance by initially explaining in a substantiated way, which criteria
of the nature of science he considers relevant, in order to then use
them as a yardstick to assess the individual contributions of the book at
issue.
C. Conclusions
The expert witness
– has essentially missed the topic of his assignment for an expert report,
because some 2 /3 of his expert report do not address the topic of
his assignment;
– has transgressed the area of competence as an expert by commenting
on topics for which he is not an expert according to his own statements
or which even originate from utterly foreign disciplines;
– has not performed his assignment professionally by omitting essential
aspects of his assignment for an expert report – various criteria
of the nature of science – and by repeatedly and at times in a massive
way violating scientific principles himself.
Hence both the expert report and the expert witness have to be rejected
as utterly unsuitable pieces of evidence.
Germar Rudolf, Heidelberg, 24 February 2007
Postscriptum
The above verdict is harsh. It may even be unfair, for Prof. Dr. Ernst
Nolte did not write his expert assessment of “my” book for the isolated
use of a few judges looking for an expert opinion on the nature of science
and how my book fits into it. Prof. Nolte was well aware that his
expert report would eventually end up in the public domain, and that
303