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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Yet if data sets – here witness testimonies – have been selected or
eliminated without thorough source criticism and merely according to
the criterion of whether they supported the preordained theses – here the
indictment – then this can only be described as unscientific caprice. Yet
this is precisely the method of established historians and unfortunately
also of the judiciary.
In contrast to this stands the method of fact-oriented source criticism,
which on one hand asks how a statement came about in the first
place. I have dedicated more than 40 pages of my book to this complex
of questions. There I consider questions such as whether compulsion,
threats, or torture were applied; whether suggestive, leading questions
were asked; whether there was an incentive to ramble on uncritically. I
also ask whether statements of third parties have had an influence, that
is, either through private organizations, through government authorities,
or more generally through the media and the Zeitgeist.
This is followed by the second stage of source criticism, the examination
of the contents of a statement. Here questions are asked such as:
does a statement contain inner contradictions, or does it contradict other
statements, documents, or material evidence? Is it in contradiction to
laws of logic, to what was technically possible, or to what is possible
under the laws of nature?
The first group of questions ultimately leads to an assessment of the
trustworthiness of a witness, whereas the second group leads to an assessment
of the credibility of the contents of a statement, which in turn
of course affects the trustworthiness of the witness. Now, I should not
be telling you anything new here, since in principle every judge in every
trial has to proceed according to the same pattern.
What I have just described, the objective and fact-oriented assessment
and selection of witness statements, is one of the principal methods
of revisionism. And precisely because revisionism with its systematic
source criticism of testimony is scientific, it provokes the disapproval
of prosecutors who object that the witnesses for “Holocaust”
claims and their testimony should not be exposed to source criticism –
or at least not when they do not like the results.
To conclude my discussion of “immunizing theories” by arbitrarily
eliminating evidence, allow me to present an example from the natural
sciences. This is the approach used by Prof. Markiewicz and his col-
82