The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/m/mock.steve/2004/mock.0401


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:16 EST 2004
Article: 948440 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:         
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 194
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:39:53 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948440

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401081816.58c95371@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
>> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
>> >> 
>> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
>> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that
>> >> > he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
>> >> 
>> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity
>> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
>> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
>> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
>> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
>> >> 
>> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
>> >> an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
>> >> about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the
>> >> fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr.
>> >> Michael to label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything*
>> >> the Nazis did makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if
>> >> you were a member of the Socialist Workers Party).
>> >> 
>> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
>> >> innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's
>> >> first hand experience of this event, there is no indication of
>> >> ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't
>> >> matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation he can come up with
>> >> as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact
>> >> that it was the truth. 
>> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
>> >>  discredit 
>> >> him as a source of information.
>> >> 
>> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in
>> >> some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
>> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
>> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The fact
>> >> that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for saying it
>> >> into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as evidence in
>> >> support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says anything can
>> >> ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing is true.
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
>> > had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
>> > about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
>> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active
>> > role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out
>> > the details if necessary.
>> 
>> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling
>> a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to
>> you. 
>> 
>> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
>> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
>> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
>> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such
>> that you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more
>> general sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of
>> assessing the value of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
>> 
>> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that
>> he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he
>> saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify
>> your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I
>> have quite clearly explained why any rational person looking
>> objectively at Munch's life history would presume that if he had any
>> bias at all, it would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating -
>> the crimes of the institutions he was directly a part of. 
>> 
>> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
>> > innocent people.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
>> 
>> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
>> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
>> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying
>> but that you can't even specify? 
>> 
>> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
>> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
>> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying
>> that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be
>> lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
>> 
>> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
>> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time
>> you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various
>> pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
>> 
>> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
>> > millions of innocent people.
>> 
>> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
>> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
>> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality
>> as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in
>> some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
>> 
>> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> > biased towards saying that thing.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
>> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
>> > 
>> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated
>> > by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no
>> > conflict of interest with the murderer.
>> > 
>> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
>> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
>> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
>> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has
>> > had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
>> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
>> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
>> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
>> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of his
>> > employer. 
>> > 
>> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
>> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
>> > 
>> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
>> > case. 
>> > 
>> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> > this addresses your point.
>> 
>> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
>> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> 
>> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
>> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> employees. 
>>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
>>  a 
>> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> 
>> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> Prosecutor. 
>> 
>> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> 
>> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
>> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> 
>> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> 
>> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> 
>> You haven't.
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> 
> So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
> criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
> 
> David Michael
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can 
move on.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:17 EST 2004
Article: 948441 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!news.uchicago.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:         
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 196
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:40:18 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948441

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401081816.63d1385@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
>> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
>> >> 
>> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
>> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that
>> >> > he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
>> >> 
>> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity
>> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
>> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
>> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
>> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
>> >> 
>> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
>> >> an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
>> >> about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the
>> >> fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr.
>> >> Michael to label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything*
>> >> the Nazis did makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if
>> >> you were a member of the Socialist Workers Party).
>> >> 
>> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
>> >> innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's
>> >> first hand experience of this event, there is no indication of
>> >> ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't
>> >> matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation he can come up with
>> >> as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact
>> >> that it was the truth. 
>> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
>> >>  discredit 
>> >> him as a source of information.
>> >> 
>> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in
>> >> some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
>> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
>> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The fact
>> >> that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for saying it
>> >> into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as evidence in
>> >> support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says anything can
>> >> ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing is true.
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
>> > had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
>> > about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
>> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active
>> > role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out
>> > the details if necessary.
>> 
>> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling
>> a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to
>> you. 
>> 
>> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
>> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
>> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
>> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such
>> that you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more
>> general sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of
>> assessing the value of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
>> 
>> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that
>> he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he
>> saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify
>> your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I
>> have quite clearly explained why any rational person looking
>> objectively at Munch's life history would presume that if he had any
>> bias at all, it would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating -
>> the crimes of the institutions he was directly a part of. 
>> 
>> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
>> > innocent people.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
>> 
>> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
>> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
>> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying
>> but that you can't even specify? 
>> 
>> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
>> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
>> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying
>> that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be
>> lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
>> 
>> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
>> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time
>> you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various
>> pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
>> 
>> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
>> > millions of innocent people.
>> 
>> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
>> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
>> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality
>> as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in
>> some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
>> 
>> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> > biased towards saying that thing.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
>> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
>> > 
>> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated
>> > by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no
>> > conflict of interest with the murderer.
>> > 
>> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
>> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
>> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
>> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has
>> > had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
>> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
>> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
>> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
>> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of his
>> > employer. 
>> > 
>> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
>> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
>> > 
>> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
>> > case. 
>> > 
>> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> > this addresses your point.
>> 
>> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
>> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> 
>> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
>> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> employees. 
>>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
>>  a 
>> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> 
>> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> Prosecutor. 
>> 
>> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> 
>> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
>> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> 
>> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> 
>> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> 
>> You haven't.
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> 
> So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
> criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
> 
> David Michael
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can 
move on.

Steven Mock




From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:18 EST 2004
Article: 948442 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!pln-w!lotsanews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!151.164.30.34!cyclone.swbell.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:         
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 194
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:40:07 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948442

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401081817.2b30be47@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
>> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
>> >> 
>> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
>> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact that
>> >> > he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
>> >> 
>> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer absurdity
>> >> nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of Dr. Michael's 
>> >> methodology, as well as being a steller demonstration of the fact
>> >> that the goal of actually discerning the truth has no value
>> >> whatsoever in David Michael's approach to evidence.
>> >> 
>> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch had
>> >> an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
>> >> about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That, and the
>> >> fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is enough for Dr.
>> >> Michael to label him so (for naturally to disagree with *anything*
>> >> the Nazis did makes you incorrigably anti-Nazi, just as sure as if
>> >> you were a member of the Socialist Workers Party).
>> >> 
>> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
>> >> innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away Munch's
>> >> first hand experience of this event, there is no indication of
>> >> ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi bias.  It doesn't
>> >> matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation he can come up with
>> >> as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass murder is the fact
>> >> that it was the truth. 
>> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
>> >>  discredit 
>> >> him as a source of information.
>> >> 
>> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not in
>> >> some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
>> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
>> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The fact
>> >> that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for saying it
>> >> into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as evidence in
>> >> support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says anything can
>> >> ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing is true.
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
>> > had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily spoke
>> > about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
>> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his active
>> > role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can dig out
>> > the details if necessary.
>> 
>> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of telling
>> a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I attributed to
>> you. 
>> 
>> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to Dr.
>> Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his experiences at
>> Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word games that subsume
>> these activities into the broader category of "collaboration" such
>> that you can use it as grounds to label Munch "anti-Nazi" in a more
>> general sense.  But this claim, at least for the purposes of
>> assessing the value of his testimony as evidence, is baseless. 
>> 
>> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact that
>> he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other things he
>> saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that would justify
>> your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi bias.  Indeed, I
>> have quite clearly explained why any rational person looking
>> objectively at Munch's life history would presume that if he had any
>> bias at all, it would be towards glossing over - not exaggerating -
>> the crimes of the institutions he was directly a part of. 
>> 
>> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> > against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions of
>> > innocent people.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
>> 
>> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
>> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
>> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's saying
>> but that you can't even specify? 
>> 
>> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
>> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
>> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply saying
>> that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he might be
>> lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak argument. 
>> 
>> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means by
>> which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next time
>> you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how various
>> pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a pattern. 
>> 
>> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
>> > millions of innocent people.
>> 
>> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
>> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
>> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's quality
>> as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make reference in
>> some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
>> 
>> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> > biased towards saying that thing.'
>> > 
>> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
>> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
>> > 
>> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder perpetrated
>> > by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the murderer and has no
>> > conflict of interest with the murderer.
>> > 
>> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a
>> > murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
>> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
>> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer, has
>> > had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
>> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
>> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
>> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
>> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of his
>> > employer. 
>> > 
>> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
>> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
>> > 
>> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
>> > case. 
>> > 
>> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> > this addresses your point.
>> 
>> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
>> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> 
>> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
>> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> employees. 
>>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
>>  a 
>> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> 
>> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> Prosecutor. 
>> 
>> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> 
>> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
>> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> 
>> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> 
>> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> 
>> You haven't.
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> 
> So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to my
> criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
> 
> David Michael
> http://www.nationalanarchist.com

Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can 
move on.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:18 EST 2004
Article: 948443 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 130
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:48:30 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948443

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401082136.3c65a13@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 



>> I am satisfied that my first contribution towards answering your 
>> challenge has accomplished two things: 1) it has successfully 
>> demonstrated that your standards for assessing eyewitness testimony
>> are irrational, meant to exclude by definition anyone who could
>> possibly give evidence against your case, and therefore are a poor
>> methodology for anyone who genuinely valued historical truth; and, 2)
>> it has provided a sample of key pieces of evidence in support of the
>> theory that gas chambers were used for racially motivated mass murder
>> at Auschwitz, held together by an eyewitness account from someone in
>> a position to have seen who has no reason to lie... at least none
>> that you've proposed.
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
> identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
> thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
> already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
> content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
> summary of the problems with Munch:
> 
> (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> his superiors and the world.

Same answer as before.  Go back and read it:

"But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to  
grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the definitions 
of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no 
"axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many of his fellow SS doctors, 
including his superiors, and, when interviewed by Lifton, praised 
aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly are unable to come up with any 
specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly has against the Nazis or why, 
other than his disapproval of the racially-motivated mass murder he 
claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the only evidence you offer in 
support of the claim that he has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he 
"collaborated" with the occupation authorities after the war, yet the 
only form of "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his  
willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  
The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks about the 
Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the Holocaust.  
Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to believe has an 
"axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless condition, in the way that 
you use it, for the purpose of honestly assessing evidence."

You have not addressed this point.

> (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> Auschwitz.

Same answer as before...

"You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your support 
for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his statements in 
which he described the trauma he experienced in relation to his 
encounters with the mass murder of innocent human beings at Auschwitz as 
representing a chronic condition that had no relation to the stated 
object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when he was in his 90's, it 
was certified that he was experiencing mental deterioration due to his 
advanced age.  To suggest that either of these are justifications to 
consider him in any way unfit to give evidence in the early 1980's is 
nothing more than pure hostile speculation, coming from someone who is 
truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be 
dismissed as crazy, if that's the last resort you have left.  If this is 
the best you can do, I'm content to leave the matter at that."

You have given us no reason why we should doubt his mental capacities in 
the early 1980's.

> (c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
> overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
> door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
> pure Aryan race being gassed.

Already dealt with.  If these are the biggest flaws you can find in his 
statements, I'm satisfied.

> (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> the war.

Same answer as before...

"Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish TV 
in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid speculations 
about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious conspirators 
during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false testimony in exchange 
for his life.  There are many holes in this theory, but I have avoided 
discussing them because such a discussion would be an irrelevant 
diversion.  I did not post his testimony in 1946-47 as evidence and 
therefore have no immediate interest in defending it.  I resolved not to 
post any testimony from anyone in Allied captivity, and I have kept my 
word.  You go on to speculate that once he had provided such false 
testimony, it would be difficult and damaging to his credibility for him 
to change his story.  I accept this too, for the sake of argument. 

"But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't 
change his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he claims 
to have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the Holocaust to 
Swedish TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how you explain the 
fact that he chose to talk about it at all.  What pressure or coercion 
could have been placed on him during his "Allied captivity" in 1946-47 
(that it takes "trust", rather than merely a sense of reality, to assume 
they did not do) to induce that behaviour in 1981?"

You have not answered this question.  You will NEVER answer this 
question.

No, Dr. Michael.  Any intelligent reader can see that I have already 
addressed the holes in each of these lame rationalizations directly 
above.  By simply repeating the rationalizations, without addressing the 
issues I've raised, you are essentially admitting defeat.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:19 EST 2004
Article: 948444 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer1.atl.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:         
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 49
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:50:59 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948444

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401081817.2b30be47@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> > this addresses your point.
>> 
>> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count), Munch
>> is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> 
>> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder. 
>> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> employees. 
>>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in on
>>  a 
>> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> 
>> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> Prosecutor. 
>> 
>> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> 
>> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that
>> his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> 
>> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> 
>> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> 
>> You haven't.

You really have no response to this, do you?

Well, I guess my work here is done.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:19 EST 2004
Article: 948445 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:          
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 57
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:57:52 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948445

Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would appreciate 
it if you would at least do me the courtesy of answering this one...

Steven Mock


Steven Mock  wrote in
news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 

> By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the discussion
> is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in the logic and 
> methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would be so kind as to
> make an effort to answer these questions, which I'm now posting for
> the 3rd time.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is to say,
> invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere fact that
> someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is enough to proof
> enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias.  Catch-22.
> 
> And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm "misrepresenting" your
> argument, answer these two questions:
> 
> Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
> racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having an 
> anti-Nazi bias?
> 
> Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
> considered by you a reliable witness?
> 
> If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
> questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
> methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder to 
> someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short, anyone
> who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by definition
> BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
> 
> Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence do you 
> have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact that he spoke
> openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
> 
> It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth that 
> meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical.  End of 
> argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar Rudolf's 
> argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it, and if not,
> what does the use of such an argument say about the logic of Rudolf's 
> approach to historical evidence.  I'd appreciate it if you'd address 
> that point as well.
> 
> Steven Mock



From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:20 EST 2004
Article: 948489 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 76
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:20:15 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948489

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401090908.3233a3e1@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would
>> appreciate it if you would at least do me the courtesy of answering
>> this one... 
>> 
>> Steven Mock
>> 
>> 
>> Steven Mock  wrote in
>> news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 
>> 
>> > By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the
>> > discussion is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in the
>> > logic and methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would be so
>> > kind as to make an effort to answer these questions, which I'm now
>> > posting for the 3rd time.  Thank you.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is to
>> > say, invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere fact
>> > that someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is enough to
>> > proof enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias.  Catch-22.
>> > 
>> > And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm "misrepresenting"
>> > your argument, answer these two questions:
>> > 
>> > Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
>> > racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having
>> > an anti-Nazi bias?
>> > 
>> > Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
>> > considered by you a reliable witness?
>> > 
>> > If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
>> > questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
>> > methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder to 
>> > someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short,
>> > anyone who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by
>> > definition BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
>> > 
>> > Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence do
>> > you have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact that
>> > he spoke openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
>> > 
>> > It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth
>> > that meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical.  End
>> > of argument.
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar Rudolf's 
>> > argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it, and if not,
>> > what does the use of such an argument say about the logic of
>> > Rudolf's approach to historical evidence.  I'd appreciate it if
>> > you'd address that point as well.
>> > 
>> > Steven Mock
> 
> Same answer as before. Go back and read it.

No.  You never answered any of these questions or requests.  You are 
lying.

If that is how you mean to leave the discussion, I suppose I shall just 
have to accept it.

Its been fun.



Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:20 EST 2004
Article: 948492 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!68.6.19.232.MISMATCH!west.cox.net!east.cox.net!filt01.cox.net!peer02.cox.net!cox.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 319
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:24:01 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948492

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401090910.4925b1ed@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401081816.58c95371@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> >> 
>> >> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> >> > news:... 
>> >> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
>> >> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
>> >> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact
>> >> >> > that he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer
>> >> >> absurdity nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of
>> >> >> Dr. Michael's methodology, as well as being a steller
>> >> >> demonstration of the fact that the goal of actually discerning
>> >> >> the truth has no value whatsoever in David Michael's approach
>> >> >> to evidence. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
>> >> >> had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily
>> >> >> spoke about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That,
>> >> >> and the fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is
>> >> >> enough for Dr. Michael to label him so (for naturally to
>> >> >> disagree with *anything* the Nazis did makes you incorrigably
>> >> >> anti-Nazi, just as sure as if you were a member of the
>> >> >> Socialist Workers Party). 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> >> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions
>> >> >> of innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away
>> >> >> Munch's first hand experience of this event, there is no
>> >> >> indication of ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi
>> >> >> bias.  It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation
>> >> >> he can come up with as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass
>> >> >> murder is the fact that it was the truth. 
>> >> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
>> >> >>  discredit 
>> >> >> him as a source of information.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not
>> >> >> in some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
>> >> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
>> >> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The
>> >> >> fact that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for
>> >> >> saying it into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as
>> >> >> evidence in support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says
>> >> >> anything can ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing
>> >> >> is true. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Steven Mock
>> >> > 
>> >> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that
>> >> > Munch had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he
>> >> > voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the
>> >> > war.' 
>> >> > 
>> >> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
>> >> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his
>> >> > active role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can
>> >> > dig out the details if necessary.
>> >> 
>> >> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of
>> >> telling a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I
>> >> attributed to you. 
>> >> 
>> >> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to
>> >> Dr. Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his
>> >> experiences at Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word
>> >> games that subsume these activities into the broader category of
>> >> "collaboration" such that you can use it as grounds to label Munch
>> >> "anti-Nazi" in a more general sense.  But this claim, at least for
>> >> the purposes of assessing the value of his testimony as evidence,
>> >> is baseless. 
>> >> 
>> >> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact
>> >> that he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other
>> >> things he saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that
>> >> would justify your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi
>> >> bias.  Indeed, I have quite clearly explained why any rational
>> >> person looking objectively at Munch's life history would presume
>> >> that if he had any bias at all, it would be towards glossing over
>> >> - not exaggerating - the crimes of the institutions he was
>> >> directly a part of. 
>> >> 
>> >> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch
>> >> > has against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered
>> >> > millions of innocent people.'
>> >> > 
>> >> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
>> >> 
>> >> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
>> >> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
>> >> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's
>> >> saying but that you can't even specify? 
>> >> 
>> >> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
>> >> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
>> >> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply
>> >> saying that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he
>> >> might be lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak
>> >> argument. 
>> >> 
>> >> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means
>> >> by which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next
>> >> time you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how
>> >> various pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a
>> >> pattern. 
>> >> 
>> >> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
>> >> > millions of innocent people.
>> >> 
>> >> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
>> >> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
>> >> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's
>> >> quality as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make
>> >> reference in some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
>> >> 
>> >> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> > biased towards saying that thing.'
>> >> > 
>> >> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
>> >> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
>> >> > 
>> >> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder
>> >> > perpetrated by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the
>> >> > murderer and has no conflict of interest with the murderer.
>> >> > 
>> >> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit
>> >> > a murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
>> >> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
>> >> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer,
>> >> > has had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
>> >> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
>> >> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
>> >> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
>> >> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of
>> >> > his employer. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
>> >> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
>> >> > 
>> >> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
>> >> > case. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> >> > this addresses your point.
>> >> 
>> >> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> >> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> >> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count),
>> >> Munch is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> >> 
>> >> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.
>> >> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> >> employees. 
>> >>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in
>> >>  on a 
>> >> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> >> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> >> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> >> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> >> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> >> 
>> >> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> >> Prosecutor. 
>> >> 
>> >> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> >> 
>> >> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> >> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> >> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning
>> >> that his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> >> 
>> >> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> >> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> >> 
>> >> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> >> 
>> >> You haven't.
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > 
>> > So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to
>> > my criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
>> > 
>> > David Michael
>> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>> 
>> Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can
>> move on.

I guess that's the best he can do, folks.

> From the number of identical subposts that are now appearing and
> fanning out across the thread, and the repeated insistence that I
> answer points that I've
> already answered, 

No, I am asking you to answer posts you have never answered.  Observe, 
as I repost the responses I have already given to these goofball 
assertions of yours.

> I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
> content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
> summary of the problems with Munch:

And here is the summaray I have already given as to why your problems 
are lame and meaningless...

> (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> his superiors and the world.

"But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to  
grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the definitions 
of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no 
"axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many of his fellow SS doctors, 
including his superiors, and, when interviewed by Lifton, praised 
aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly are unable to come up with any 
specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly has against the Nazis or why, 
other than his disapproval of the racially-motivated mass murder he 
claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the only evidence you offer in 
support of the claim that he has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he 
"collaborated" with the occupation authorities after the war, yet the 
only form of "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his  
willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  
The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks about the 
Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the Holocaust.  
Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to believe has an 
"axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless condition, in the way that 
you use it, for the purpose of honestly assessing evidence."

You have not addressed this point.

> (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> Auschwitz.

"You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your support 
for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his statements in 
which he described the trauma he experienced in relation to his 
encounters with the mass murder of innocent human beings at Auschwitz as 
representing a chronic condition that had no relation to the stated 
object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when he was in his 90's, it 
was certified that he was experiencing mental deterioration due to his 
advanced age.  To suggest that either of these are justifications to 
consider him in any way unfit to give evidence in the early 1980's is 
nothing more than pure hostile speculation, coming from someone who is 
truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be 
dismissed as crazy, if that's the last resort you have left.  If this is 
the best you can do, I'm content to leave the matter at that."

You have given us no reason why we should doubt his mental capacities in 
the early 1980's.

> (c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
> overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
> door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
> pure Aryan race being gassed.

Already dealt with.  If these are the biggest flaws you can find in his 
statements, I'm satisfied.

> (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> the war.

"Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish TV 
in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid speculations 
about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious conspirators 
during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false testimony in exchange 
for his life.  There are many holes in this theory, but I have avoided 
discussing them because such a discussion would be an irrelevant 
diversion.  I did not post his testimony in 1946-47 as evidence and 
therefore have no immediate interest in defending it.  I resolved not to 
post any testimony from anyone in Allied captivity, and I have kept my 
word.  You go on to speculate that once he had provided such false 
testimony, it would be difficult and damaging to his credibility for him 
to change his story.  I accept this too, for the sake of argument. 

"But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't 
change his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he claims 
to have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the Holocaust to 
Swedish TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how you explain the 
fact that he chose to talk about it at all.  What pressure or coercion 
could have been placed on him during his "Allied captivity" in 1946-47 
(that it takes "trust", rather than merely a sense of reality, to assume 
they did not do) to induce that behaviour in 1981?"

You have not answered this question.  You will NEVER answer this 
question.

No, Dr. Michael.  Any intelligent reader can see that I have already 
addressed the holes in each of these lame rationalizations directly 
above.  By simply repeating the rationalizations, without addressing the 
issues I've raised, you are essentially admitting defeat.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:21 EST 2004
Article: 948493 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lying Liar David E. Michael Cannot Control His Lies
From: Steven Mock 
References:     <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <3e34cae9.0401090754.1d8700c3@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 19
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:26:07 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948493

revision@emailaccount.com (FW) wrote in news:3e34cae9.0401090754.1d8700c3
@posting.google.com:

> Once again those predictable morons ruined a good thread.  Having been
> hilariously exposed as the tosser that he is Mock enlists his cronies
> to come and drag everything down to the usual personal abuse.  The
> same sad script is re-run for the nth time.  And yes, they surely are
> morons because it seems pretty clear that they really *don't* know how
> much their loathesome tactics damage their, ehem, 'arguments'.  It is
> people like David Michael who merely afford these Nizwits an
> opportunity to parade their vileness in full public view and that is a
> valuable service.

Thank you very much for your intelligent contribution to the discussion, 
FW.  Such a demonstration of extent to which revisionists rely on clear, 
logical arguments, as opposed to mindless insults and insinuations, serves 
as an excellent close to this thread.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:22 EST 2004
Article: 948494 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 322
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:28:18 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948494

Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
Newsgroups: Easynews:alt.revisionism
To: "david_michael" 

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401090910.4925b1ed@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401081816.58c95371@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> >> 
>> >> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> >> > news:... 
>> >> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
>> >> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401070930.43f6823d@posting.google.com:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > In fact whether Munch's anti-Nazi bias stems from his
>> >> >> > alleged participation in gassings is irrelevant -- the fact
>> >> >> > that he HAS such a bias taints his testimony. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'd like to revisit this line, because I think its sheer
>> >> >> absurdity nicely demonstrates the self-referential nature of
>> >> >> Dr. Michael's methodology, as well as being a steller
>> >> >> demonstration of the fact that the goal of actually discerning
>> >> >> the truth has no value whatsoever in David Michael's approach
>> >> >> to evidence. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that Munch
>> >> >> had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he voluntarily
>> >> >> spoke about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the war. That,
>> >> >> and the fact that he doesn't come out in approval of it, is
>> >> >> enough for Dr. Michael to label him so (for naturally to
>> >> >> disagree with *anything* the Nazis did makes you incorrigably
>> >> >> anti-Nazi, just as sure as if you were a member of the
>> >> >> Socialist Workers Party). 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch has
>> >> >> against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered millions
>> >> >> of innocent people.  It doesn't matter that if you take away
>> >> >> Munch's first hand experience of this event, there is no
>> >> >> indication of ANYTHING ELSE that would amount to an anti-Nazi
>> >> >> bias.  It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only motivation
>> >> >> he can come up with as to why Munch would speak about Nazi mass
>> >> >> murder is the fact that it was the truth. 
>> >> >>  The mere fact that he has ANY such motivation is enough to
>> >> >>  discredit 
>> >> >> him as a source of information.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> >> argument can stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> >> biased towards saying that thing.  Naturally, if they were not
>> >> >> in some way motivated to say that thing, they wouldn't say it. 
>> >> >> However, it doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the only bias that
>> >> >> can be discerned stems from that thing being the truth.  The
>> >> >> fact that such a bias exists calls the person's motives for
>> >> >> saying it into question, and hence the testimony is invalid as
>> >> >> evidence in support of that truth.  Therefore no one who says
>> >> >> anything can ever be trusted.  We cannot know anything. Nothing
>> >> >> is true. 
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Steven Mock
>> >> > 
>> >> > RE. 'The only grounds Dr. Michael offers for his claim that
>> >> > Munch had an "anti-Nazi bias" is the extent to which he
>> >> > voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings at Auschwitz after the
>> >> > war.' 
>> >> > 
>> >> > ANSWER: That is a lie. I also cited his collaboration with the
>> >> > Polish authorities in producing a propaganda booklet and his
>> >> > active role in such things as anti-Nazi propaganda films. I can
>> >> > dig out the details if necessary.
>> >> 
>> >> I really don't understand you, Dr. Michael.  You accuse me of
>> >> telling a lie, and then simply repeat precisely the sentiment I
>> >> attributed to you. 
>> >> 
>> >> The only sort of collabration you seem to be able to attribute to
>> >> Dr. Munch is his involvement in projects documenting his
>> >> experiences at Auschwitz.  You are trying very hard to play word
>> >> games that subsume these activities into the broader category of
>> >> "collaboration" such that you can use it as grounds to label Munch
>> >> "anti-Nazi" in a more general sense.  But this claim, at least for
>> >> the purposes of assessing the value of his testimony as evidence,
>> >> is baseless. 
>> >> 
>> >> You have cited nothing that Munch has done - other than the fact
>> >> that he voluntarily spoke about the mass gassings (and other
>> >> things he saw, I will grant) at Auschwitz after the war - that
>> >> would justify your attribution to him of a pre-existing anti-Nazi
>> >> bias.  Indeed, I have quite clearly explained why any rational
>> >> person looking objectively at Munch's life history would presume
>> >> that if he had any bias at all, it would be towards glossing over
>> >> - not exaggerating - the crimes of the institutions he was
>> >> directly a part of. 
>> >> 
>> >> > RE. 'It doesn't matter to Dr. Michael if the ONLY thing Munch
>> >> > has against the Nazis is the fact that they mass murdered
>> >> > millions of innocent people.'
>> >> > 
>> >> > ANSWER 1: This has not been substantiated.
>> >> 
>> >> You have not offered any alternative!  Are you suggesting that we
>> >> must discard Munch's testimony because he might have some unknown
>> >> grudge against the Nazis that has nothing to do with what he's
>> >> saying but that you can't even specify? 
>> >> 
>> >> At the moment are assessing the quality of Munch's testimony as
>> >> evidence in isolation.  Hence we can only deal, for now, with what
>> >> Munch, himself, has said.  Your "ANSWER 1" amounts to simply
>> >> saying that Munch's testimony is invalid as evidence because he
>> >> might be lying for reasons you can't even name.  A very weak
>> >> argument. 
>> >> 
>> >> On the other hand, if you really would like to discuss the means
>> >> by which we can substantiate what Munch says, I suggest that next
>> >> time you refrain from snipping and ignoring my discussions on how
>> >> various pieces of evidence, including this one, converge to form a
>> >> pattern. 
>> >> 
>> >> > ANSWER 2: He collaborated with the Allies. They also murdered
>> >> > millions of innocent people.
>> >> 
>> >> Whatever.  Even if this is so, not such that he was personally
>> >> involved with and hence could give first-hand evidence on.  You
>> >> forget that the point of this exercise is to assess Munch's
>> >> quality as a *witness*. Your arguments, therefore, must make
>> >> reference in some way to what he actually *witnessed*. 
>> >> 
>> >> > RE. 'Let's take the Holocaust out of the picture and see if this
>> >> > argument can  stand to be tested: Anyone who says anything is
>> >> > biased towards saying that thing.'
>> >> > 
>> >> > ANSWER: The nonsensical nature of that argument can be seen by
>> >> > contrasting two hypothetical cases.
>> >> > 
>> >> > CASE 1: A passer-by claims to have witnessed a murder
>> >> > perpetrated by a stranger. The passer-by does not know the
>> >> > murderer and has no conflict of interest with the murderer.
>> >> > 
>> >> > CASE 2: An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit
>> >> > a murder. The employee has a track record of conflict with his
>> >> > employer, was treated badly by his emmployer, was thrown in jail
>> >> > and almost hanged as a result of the behaviour of his employer,
>> >> > has had psychiatric problems as a result of the behaviour of his
>> >> > employer, and has a track record of supporting the staunch
>> >> > political opponents of his employer. Moreover, the employee is
>> >> > psychologically 'weak' and only escaped hanging by making it
>> >> > perfectly clear that he absolutely repudiated the behaviour of
>> >> > his employer. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > In case 1, I put it to you that it would be difficult to argue
>> >> > REASONABLY that the passer by might be fabricating the evidence.
>> >> > 
>> >> > In case 2, I put it to you that it would be easier to make that
>> >> > case. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> >> > this addresses your point.
>> >> 
>> >> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> >> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> >> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count),
>> >> Munch is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> >> 
>> >> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.
>> >> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> >> employees. 
>> >>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in
>> >>  on a 
>> >> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> >> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> >> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> >> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> >> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> >> 
>> >> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> >> Prosecutor. 
>> >> 
>> >> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> >> 
>> >> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> >> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> >> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning
>> >> that his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> >> 
>> >> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> >> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> >> 
>> >> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> >> 
>> >> You haven't.
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > 
>> > So there, ladies and gentlemen, we have Steven Mock's response to
>> > my criticisms of the evidence of Dr Munch. I rest my case.
>> > 
>> > David Michael
>> > http://www.nationalanarchist.com
>> 
>> Very well.  If this is the best you can do, I'm satisfied that we can
>> move on.

I guess that's the best he can do, folks.

> From the number of identical subposts that are now appearing and
> fanning out across the thread, and the repeated insistence that I
> answer points that I've already answered, 

No, I am asking you to answer points you have never answered.  Observe, 
as I repost the responses I have already given to these goofball 
assertions of yours.

> I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
> content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
> summary of the problems with Munch:

And here is the summaray I have already given as to why your problems 
are lame and meaningless...

> (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> his superiors and the world.

"But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to  
grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the definitions 
of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no 
"axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many of his fellow SS doctors, 
including his superiors, and, when interviewed by Lifton, praised 
aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly are unable to come up with any 
specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly has against the Nazis or why, 
other than his disapproval of the racially-motivated mass murder he 
claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the only evidence you offer in 
support of the claim that he has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he 
"collaborated" with the occupation authorities after the war, yet the 
only form of "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his  
willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  
The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks about the 
Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the Holocaust.  
Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to believe has an 
"axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless condition, in the way that 
you use it, for the purpose of honestly assessing evidence."

You have not addressed this point.

> (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> Auschwitz.

"You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your support 
for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his statements in 
which he described the trauma he experienced in relation to his 
encounters with the mass murder of innocent human beings at Auschwitz as 
representing a chronic condition that had no relation to the stated 
object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when he was in his 90's, it 
was certified that he was experiencing mental deterioration due to his 
advanced age.  To suggest that either of these are justifications to 
consider him in any way unfit to give evidence in the early 1980's is 
nothing more than pure hostile speculation, coming from someone who is 
truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be 
dismissed as crazy, if that's the last resort you have left.  If this is 
the best you can do, I'm content to leave the matter at that."

You have given us no reason why we should doubt his mental capacities in 
the early 1980's.

> (c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
> overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
> door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
> pure Aryan race being gassed.

Already dealt with.  If these are the biggest flaws you can find in his 
statements, I'm satisfied.

> (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> the war.

"Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish TV 
in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid speculations 
about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious conspirators 
during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false testimony in exchange 
for his life.  There are many holes in this theory, but I have avoided 
discussing them because such a discussion would be an irrelevant 
diversion.  I did not post his testimony in 1946-47 as evidence and 
therefore have no immediate interest in defending it.  I resolved not to 
post any testimony from anyone in Allied captivity, and I have kept my 
word.  You go on to speculate that once he had provided such false 
testimony, it would be difficult and damaging to his credibility for him 
to change his story.  I accept this too, for the sake of argument. 

"But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't 
change his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he claims 
to have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the Holocaust to 
Swedish TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how you explain the 
fact that he chose to talk about it at all.  What pressure or coercion 
could have been placed on him during his "Allied captivity" in 1946-47 
(that it takes "trust", rather than merely a sense of reality, to assume 
they did not do) to induce that behaviour in 1981?"

You have not answered this question.  You will NEVER answer this 
question.

No, Dr. Michael.  Any intelligent reader can see that I have already 
addressed the holes in each of these lame rationalizations directly 
above.  By simply repeating the rationalizations, without addressing the 
issues I've raised, you are essentially admitting defeat.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Fri Jan  9 14:22:23 EST 2004
Article: 948503 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:    <73fedc95.0401062026.624ac120@posting.google.com>  <73fedc95.0401071843.cd23c77@posting.google.com>  <73fedc95.0401091101.a0e5526@posting.google.com>
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 29
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:10:18 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948503

morghus@MailAndNews.com (Morghus) wrote in news:73fedc95.0401091101.a0e5526
@posting.google.com:

>> > The one from Australia.  They zigzagged a ground penetrating
>> > radar system all over and around the site that was once Treblinka. 
>> > The device could detect soil disturbances down to about 18 feet.
>> 
>> Oh yes, the team that didn't even find a camp there.  I wouldn't put
>> much stick in them, "Morghus".
> 
> One thing for sure, they didn't find anything beneath the surface
> that indicated any mass burials ever took place at the site.

The fact that they didn't manage to even find a camp there would cause a 
rational person to wonder whether they even knew how to work the equipment 
they were using, let alone interpret the data.

> Aerial
> photos taken during the war show small buildings there, but they must
> have been just temporary buildings used for a transit camp.  After
> all, that's all Treblinka ever was: a transit camp for Jews being
> transported to the Estonia, Latvia, Belarus, and Lithuania.

Then why did they never arrive at their destinations?  What happened to 
them?



Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:07:40 EST 2004
Article: 948513 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!140.99.99.194.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lying Liar David E. Michael Cannot Control His Lies
From: Steven Mock 
References:     <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> 
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 33
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:43:59 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948513

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
news:b7fe1abc.0401082142.454463c7@posting.google.com:

> (a) If I am such a liar, what was the very worst lie that I have ever
> told. Please post evidence to support your case.

I don't know about the *worst*, but this new thread has produced some 
pretty hearty whoppers.

Here's one: in an effort to cast dispersions on the mental faculties of Dr. 
Munch, you have repeated to me several times, "you yourself indicated that 
he was having mental problems even at Auschwitz."

I did no such thing.

Here is what I really said:

"Wirths could not order Munch to participate [in the selections], as the 
Hygienic Institute was outside of his jurisdiction, but he could apply 
considerable pressure.  He was able to persuade Weber, but Munch 
continually found excuses, finally declaring to Wirths that he simply could 
not handle it psychologically.  "I... observed it [selections] and... could 
stand it for only half an hour [and then] had to vomit" to which Wirths 
replied, "That will pass.  It happens to everyone..."(Lifton 308)"

So either 1) you are lying, or 2) you consider it a "mental problem" to 
have psychological difficulty with the prospect of participating in the 
mass murder of innocent people.

If it is the latter, I submit this proves Dr. Munch to be far more sane 
than you.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:07:41 EST 2004
Article: 948564 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!elnk-nf2-pas!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lying Liar David E. Michael Cannot Control His Lies
From: Steven Mock 
References:     <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>   
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 48
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:42:37 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948564

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401091938.3581e0ab@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401082142.454463c7@posting.google.com:
>> 
>> > (a) If I am such a liar, what was the very worst lie that I have
>> > ever told. Please post evidence to support your case.
>> 
>> I don't know about the *worst*, but this new thread has produced some
>> pretty hearty whoppers.
>> 
>> Here's one: in an effort to cast dispersions on the mental faculties
>> of Dr. Munch, you have repeated to me several times, "you yourself
>> indicated that he was having mental problems even at Auschwitz."
>> 
>> I did no such thing.
>> 
>> Here is what I really said:
>> 
>> "Wirths could not order Munch to participate [in the selections], as
>> the Hygienic Institute was outside of his jurisdiction, but he could
>> apply considerable pressure.  He was able to persuade Weber, but
>> Munch continually found excuses, finally declaring to Wirths that he
>> simply could not handle it psychologically.  "I... observed it
>> [selections] and... could stand it for only half an hour [and then]
>> had to vomit" to which Wirths replied, "That will pass.  It happens
>> to everyone..."(Lifton 308)" 
>> 
>> So either 1) you are lying, or 2) you consider it a "mental problem"
>> to have psychological difficulty with the prospect of participating
>> in the mass murder of innocent people.
>> 
>> If it is the latter, I submit this proves Dr. Munch to be far more
>> sane than you.
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> We're referring here to a medical doctor who, according to you, used
> to diagnose people as dead through a peephole in a closed door . . .

Not really all that difficult, under the circumstances.

And this is the best you can do.  Well, I guess my work here is done.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:07:42 EST 2004
Article: 948567 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 136
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:19:02 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948567

Why does Dr. Michael never engage my argument directly, further to usual 
Usenet convention, but rather always chooses to ignore it and post his own 
tripe at the bottom.

My theory is this: he knows damn well that if his answers were juxtaposed 
directly against the questions I really asked, it would be blindingly 
obvious even to the usual Nazi morlocks he expects to still have on his 
side just how unresponsive his assertions are to the issues I've actually 
raised.

Since Dr. Michael is refusing to engage in any further discussion, I might 
as well take the opportunity to test this theory with a little cut-n-paste 
exercise, to see what it would look like if he even *tried* to answer my 
points directly.

Dr. Michael prefaces each repost with "Same answer as before. Go back and 
read it."  So lets go back and read it, and see if there really is an 
"answer" of any kind therein...

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401092005.5e8b3a96@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>
>> "But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to  
>> grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the
>> definitions of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous
>> extreme.  Munch had no "axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many
>> of his fellow SS doctors, including his superiors, and, when
>> interviewed by Lifton, praised aspects of Nazi ideology.  You
>> certainly are unable to come up with any specifics as to *what* Munch
>> supposedly has against the Nazis or why, other than his disapproval
>> of the racially-motivated mass murder he claims to have witnessed. 
>> Indeed, the only evidence you offer in support of the claim that he
>> has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he "collaborated" with the
>> occupation authorities after the war, yet the only form of
>> "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his  
>> willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at
>> Auschwitz.  The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks
>> about the Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the
>> Holocaust.  Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to
>> believe has an "axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless
>> condition, in the way that you use it, for the purpose of honestly
>> assessing evidence." 
>> 
>> You have not addressed this point.

> (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> his superiors and the world.

Nope.  No response there.  Just the same baseless assertions.

>> "You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your
>> support for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his
>> statements in which he described the trauma he experienced in
>> relation to his encounters with the mass murder of innocent human
>> beings at Auschwitz as representing a chronic condition that had no
>> relation to the stated object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when
>> he was in his 90's, it was certified that he was experiencing mental
>> deterioration due to his advanced age.  To suggest that either of
>> these are justifications to consider him in any way unfit to give
>> evidence in the early 1980's is nothing more than pure hostile
>> speculation, coming from someone who is truly scraping the bottom of
>> the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be dismissed as crazy, if
>> that's the last resort you have left.  If this is the best you can
>> do, I'm content to leave the matter at that." 
>> 
>> You have given us no reason why we should doubt his mental capacities
>> in the early 1980's.

> (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> Auschwitz.

Nope.  No serious grounds offered as to why we should doubt his mental 
capacities in the 1980's, nor any response to my observations on the 
shameful manipulation of rhetoric that Dr. Michael has engaged in to try 
and invite this conclusion without supporting it.



>> "Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish
>> TV in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid
>> speculations about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious
>> conspirators during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false
>> testimony in exchange for his life.  There are many holes in this
>> theory, but I have avoided discussing them because such a discussion
>> would be an irrelevant diversion.  I did not post his testimony in
>> 1946-47 as evidence and therefore have no immediate interest in
>> defending it.  I resolved not to post any testimony from anyone in
>> Allied captivity, and I have kept my word.  You go on to speculate
>> that once he had provided such false testimony, it would be difficult
>> and damaging to his credibility for him to change his story.  I
>> accept this too, for the sake of argument. 
>> 
>> "But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't 
>> change his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he
>> claims to have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the
>> Holocaust to Swedish TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how
>> you explain the fact that he chose to talk about it at all.  What
>> pressure or coercion could have been placed on him during his "Allied
>> captivity" in 1946-47 (that it takes "trust", rather than merely a
>> sense of reality, to assume they did not do) to induce that behaviour
>> in 1981?" 
>> 
>> You have not answered this question.  You will NEVER answer this 
>> question.

> (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> the war.

Nope, no answer to the question.  He will NEVER answer this question.

Then Dr. Michael treats us, every time, to this "cue":

> 

How shameful that he keeps repeating this, when every time he has posted 
this tripe, I have replied with just one post addressing each of these 
"points" head-on.

I think it must now be clear even to the morlocks which of us is honestly 
trying to proceed with the discussion and which of us is "content to play 
silly wotsits", trolling and ignoring the issues.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:07:43 EST 2004
Article: 948568 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!news.alt.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 184
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:19:19 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948568

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401092007.13caa073@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401081817.2b30be47@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> >> news:b7fe1abc.0401080711.6a3fa78e@posting.google.com: 
>> >> 
>> >> > If we accept that Munch is closer to case 2 than case 1, I think
>> >> > this addresses your point.
>> >> 
>> >> Trouble is that its not.  Granted, Munch is not simply a random
>> >> passer by, but I would suggest that based on the evidence that has
>> >> actually been *presented* (baseless speculation doesn't count),
>> >> Munch is closer to the following CASE 3: 
>> >> 
>> >> An employee claims to have witnessed his employer commit a murder.
>> >> The employee was a model worker and on good terms with his fellow
>> >> employees. 
>> >>  Then the employer tries to bring him and a number of employees in
>> >>  on a 
>> >> plot to murder several of his clients.  This deeply disturbs the
>> >> employee, and he refuses to participate.  When the murder is
>> >> committed, and the employer is caught, the employee - torn between
>> >> his loyalty to his comrades and his personal values - nonetheless
>> >> goes to the police with what he knows and has seen. 
>> >> 
>> >> I would say that you would have an excellent witness there, Mr.
>> >> Prosecutor. 
>> >> 
>> >> Unless you could *prove*, that:
>> >> 
>> >> 1) The employee did have any problems with the employer OTHER THAN
>> >> his refusal to involve himself in the murder plot. 2) The employee
>> >> was "disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning
>> >> that his trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 
>> >> 
>> >> If the defence could support either of these positions, that would
>> >> certainly effect the credibility of the witness. 
>> >> 
>> >> If not, the defence is sunk.
>> >> 
>> >> You haven't.
>> 
>> You really have no response to this, do you?
>> 
>> Well, I guess my work here is done.
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> Same answer as before. Go back and read it. 



So I guess you can't prove (not just shout, *prove*) that the "employee" in 
question had any problems with the employer OTHER THAN his refusal to 
involve himself in the murder plot; or that the employee in question was 
"disturbed" in any way OTHER THAN his revulsion at learning that his 
trusted employer was involved in such a plot. 

You can keep reposting your lame, unsupported personal attacks from now 
until the end of time in your vain effort to disparage Dr. Munch's 
testimony.  I will just keep explaining why they are lame and unsupported.  
And you will keep running away.  Comically, its exactly how I predicted 
this thread would end.



Dr. Michael, let's try and bring this discussion back under control.  
You are right about one thing - we are about to end up talking in 
circles.  Understandably, I have a different take as to why.  It is not 
the result of my "circular troll", as you put it (in a vain attempt to 
distract attention away from the content of what I say by casting 
dispersions on my motives for saying it).  What I see is this: you are 
offering lame rationalizations as to why we should discard Dr. Munch as 
a source of evidence, I'm explaining to you why I think those 
rationalizations are lame, you're ignoring my explanations and reposting 
the same lame rationalizations, I explain again, you repost, and so on.  
You're right: we could keep going this way forever, or until one of us 
gets fed up.  So let me break down for you, from my perspective, what it 
is I think we have left to discuss.

In an earlier post, you said: 

> I thought that
> Mock had agreed that 'captured' witnesses and those with an axe to
> grind were not acceptable witnesses. He appears to be backtracking on
> this -- perhaps that's all he can find, so he has no choice?

It doesn't bother me at all to hear you say this.  Indeed, this is 
precisely how I predicted our discussion would progress.  If you'll 
recall, my argument from the beginning has been that your standards of 
evidence, while worded in such a way as to sound superficially 
reasonable, are in fact designed to be sufficiently vague and open to 
such wide interpretation that you can, if necessary, use them to dismiss 
any evidence against your cherished position that could possibly exist, 
no matter how conclusive or credible that evidence might be.  Hence, I 
have no doubt that no matter what witness testimony or other piece of 
evidence is put before you, you will find some way to stretch your 
definition of "captured by the Allies" or "an axe to grind" in order to 
include it, then accuse me of failing to meet your conditions.  That you 
do so, and often quite shamelessly, is precisely what I set out to prove 
in this thread.  I feel, at this stage, that my success on that score is 
evident.

Hans Munch was not "captured by the Allies" when he spoke to Swedish TV 
in 1981.  In order to address this, you present your lurid speculations 
about how he could have been pressured by the nefarious conspirators 
during his captivity in 1946-47 to provide false testimony in exchange 
for his life.  There are many holes in this theory, but I have avoided 
discussing them because such a discussion would be an irrelevant 
diversion.  I did not post his testimony in 1946-47 as evidence and 
therefore have no immediate interest in defending it.  I resolved not to 
post any testimony from anyone in Allied captivity, and I have kept my 
word.  You go on to speculate that once he had provided such false 
testimony, it would be difficult and damaging to his credibility for him 
to change his story.  I accept this too, for the sake of argument.

But here's the point, Dr. Michael.  I am not asking why he didn't change 
his story.  I am not asking why, if he hadn't seen what he claims to 
have seen, he didn't get up and publicly *deny* the Holocaust to Swedish 
TV or to Robert Jay Lifton.  I am asking you how you explain the fact 
that he was chose to talk about it at all.  What pressure or coercion 
could have been placed on him during his "Allied captivity" in 1946-47 
(that it takes "trust", rather than merely a sense of reality, to assume 
they did not do) to induce that behaviour in 1981?

I think you realize how weak your extension of the concept of "captured 
by the Allies" is in this situation.  If you didn't, you wouldn't be 
trolling so hard to avoid the question, nor would you have proceeded to 
try and find other rationalizations - completely unrelated to the 
conditions you set for me at the outset - to discard Munch's testimony.  

You would like to be able to dismiss Dr. Munch as crazy.  Your support 
for this argument is two-fold: 1) misrepresenting his statements in 
which he described the trauma he experienced in relation to his 
encounters with the mass murder of innocent human beings at Auschwitz as 
representing a chronic condition that had no relation to the stated 
object; 2) citing the fact that, in 1998, when he was in his 90's, it 
was certified that he was experiencing mental deterioration due to his 
advanced age.  To suggest that either of these are justifications to 
consider him in any way unfit to give evidence in the early 1980's is 
nothing more than pure hostile speculation, coming from someone who is 
truly scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses.  Anyone could be 
dismissed as crazy, if that's the last resort you have left.  If this is 
the best you can do, I'm content to leave the matter at that.

But it is over the matter of your claim that Munch had an "axe to 
grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to stretch the definitions 
of your conditions is taken to the most ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no 
"axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about many of his fellow SS doctors, 
including his superiors, and, when interviewed by Lifton, praised 
aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly are unable to come up with any 
specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly has against the Nazis or why, 
other than his disapproval of the racially-motivated mass murder he 
claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the only evidence you offer in 
support of the claim that he has an "axe to grind" is your claim that he 
"collaborated" with the occupation authorities after the war, yet the 
only form of "collaboration" you seem to be able to come up with is his 
willingness to speak about and document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  
The upshot of this argument is that anybody who speaks about the 
Holocaust is unreliable simply because he speaks about the Holocaust.  
Anyone, by definition, who says what you don't want to believe has an 
"axe to grind".  Hence this is a meaningless condition, in the way that 
you use it, for the purpose of honestly assessing evidence.

I am satisfied that my first contribution towards answering your 
challenge has accomplished two things: 1) it has successfully 
demonstrated that your standards for assessing eyewitness testimony are 
irrational, meant to exclude by definition anyone who could possibly 
give evidence against your case, and therefore are a poor methodology 
for anyone who genuinely valued historical truth; and, 2) it has 
provided a sample of key pieces of evidence in support of the theory 
that gas chambers were used for racially motivated mass murder at 
Auschwitz, held together by an eyewitness account from someone in a 
position to have seen who has no reason to lie... at least none that 
you've proposed.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:07:45 EST 2004
Article: 948569 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!cyclone.bc.net!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 138
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:18:57 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948569

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401092005.5c7d7031@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401090908.3233a3e1@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would
>> >> appreciate it if you would at least do me the courtesy of
>> >> answering this one... 
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock  wrote in
>> >> news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 
>> >> 
>> >> > By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the
>> >> > discussion is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in
>> >> > the logic and methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would
>> >> > be so kind as to make an effort to answer these questions, which
>> >> > I'm now posting for the 3rd time.  Thank you.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is
>> >> > to say, invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere
>> >> > fact that someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is
>> >> > enough to proof enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias. 
>> >> > Catch-22. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm
>> >> > "misrepresenting" your argument, answer these two questions:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis
>> >> > committed racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT
>> >> > accuse of having an anti-Nazi bias?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
>> >> > considered by you a reliable witness?
>> >> > 
>> >> > If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
>> >> > questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
>> >> > methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder
>> >> > to someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short,
>> >> > anyone who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by
>> >> > definition BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence
>> >> > do you have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact
>> >> > that he spoke openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
>> >> > 
>> >> > It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth
>> >> > that meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical. 
>> >> > End of argument.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar
>> >> > Rudolf's argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it,
>> >> > and if not, what does the use of such an argument say about the
>> >> > logic of Rudolf's approach to historical evidence.  I'd
>> >> > appreciate it if you'd address that point as well.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > Same answer as before. Go back and read it.
>> 
>> No.  You never answered any of these questions or requests.  You are 
>> lying.
>> 
>> If that is how you mean to leave the discussion, I suppose I shall
>> just have to accept it.
>> 
>> Its been fun.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
> identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
> thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
> already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
> content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
> summary of the problems with Munch:
> 
> (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> his superiors and the world.
> 
> (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> Auschwitz.
> 
> (c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
> overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
> door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
> pure Aryan race being gassed.
> 
> (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> the war.
> 
> 

Nope.  No answer in that mess of unsupported assertions to any of the 
questions I actually asked.

I'll make it easier for you, Dr. M.  If you really want to answer the 
questions, I shall pull them out of the post above and number them in 
isolation:

1) Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having an 
anti-Nazi bias?

2) Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be 
considered by you a reliable witness?

3) What do you think of Germar Rudolf's argument against Munch?  Would 
you would stand by it, and if not, what does the use of such an argument 
say about the logic of Rudolf's approach to historical evidence?

It doesn't really make a difference at this stage, but I would 
appreciate your giving in an honest try, just to satisfy my own 
intellectual curiousity regarding revisionist standards of evidence.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:08:00 EST 2004
Article: 948570 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!pln-w!lotsanews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:           
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 139
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:19:02 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948570

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401092006.1b58fa53@posting.google.com: 

> Steven Mock  wrote in message
> news:... 
>> david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
>> news:b7fe1abc.0401090908.3233a3e1@posting.google.com: 
>> 
>> > Steven Mock  wrote in message
>> > news:... 
>> >> Oh, and Dr. M., before you're finished running away, I would
>> >> appreciate it if you would at least do me the courtesy of
>> >> answering this one... 
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Steven Mock  wrote in
>> >> news:Xns946AF26EBF3E4smocknizkororg@140.99.99.130: 
>> >> 
>> >> > By the way, Dr. M., though I'm getting your hint that the
>> >> > discussion is pretty much over, for the sake of my interest in
>> >> > the logic and methodology of revisionism, I wonder if you would
>> >> > be so kind as to make an effort to answer these questions, which
>> >> > I'm now posting for the 3rd time.  Thank you.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > The fact that a witness has an anti-Nazi bias taints (which is
>> >> > to say, invalidates) his testimony against them.  Yet the mere
>> >> > fact that someone  is willing to testify against the Nazis is
>> >> > enough to proof enough to you they have an anti-Nazi bias. 
>> >> > Catch-22. 
>> >> > 
>> >> > And before you howl like a stuck moose that I'm
>> >> > "misrepresenting" your argument, answer these two questions:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis
>> >> > committed racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT
>> >> > accuse of having an anti-Nazi bias?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be
>> >> > considered by you a reliable witness?
>> >> > 
>> >> > If you cannot give a specific answer to [at least one] of these 
>> >> > questions, then it proves that there is a straight line in your 
>> >> > methodology right from anyone who testifies to Nazi mass murder
>> >> > to someone who is considered unreliable as a witness.  In short,
>> >> > anyone who says what you don't want to believe is invalid by
>> >> > definition BECAUSE THEY HAVE SAID IT.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Munch stands as the quintessential example.  For what evidence
>> >> > do you have of his alleged "anti-Nazi bias" other than the fact
>> >> > that he spoke openly after the war about Nazi mass murder?
>> >> > 
>> >> > It is logically impossible for a witness to exist on this earth
>> >> > that meets your criteria.  Hence your criteria are illogical. 
>> >> > End of argument.
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > 
>> >> > Also, I asked you a while ago what you thought of Germar
>> >> > Rudolf's argument against Munch.  Whether you would stand by it,
>> >> > and if not, what does the use of such an argument say about the
>> >> > logic of Rudolf's approach to historical evidence.  I'd
>> >> > appreciate it if you'd address that point as well.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Steven Mock
>> > 
>> > Same answer as before. Go back and read it.
>> 
>> No.  You never answered any of these questions or requests.  You are 
>> lying.
>> 
>> If that is how you mean to leave the discussion, I suppose I shall
>> just have to accept it.
>> 
>> Its been fun.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steven Mock
> 
> Same answer as before. Go back and read it. From the number of
> identical subposts that are now appearing and fanning out across the
> thread, and the repeated insistence that I answer points that I've
> already answered, I take it that you've given up the ghost and are now
> content to play silly wotsits. That's fine by me. Therefore here is my
> summary of the problems with Munch:
> 
> (a) He had a track record of anti-Nazi activism, including
> collaboration with the Polish authorities. He was thus hardly an
> impartial observer. He was a quirky, cantankerous fellow, at odds with
> his superiors and the world.
> 
> (b) He had a track record of mental weakness, culminating in his own
> lawyer producing a psychiatrist's certificate saying that he was
> senile. His own son described his mental state as weak and you
> yourself indicated that he was having mental problems even at
> Auschwitz.
> 
> (c) Some of his testimony -- including some under oath -- is obviously
> overstated, notably the bit about certifying people dead through a
> door and the bit about anyone who was did not fit Hitler's idea of a
> pure Aryan race being gassed.
> 
> (d) Munch was indeed captured by the Allies. Of the 39 or so people
> tried, he was the only one acquitted; 23 of his colleagues were
> slaughtered. To simply retract his testimony would have destroyed his
> credibility and exposed him to possible retaliation -- moreover, he
> was hardly likely to do this given his anti-Nazi inclinations after
> the war.
> 
> 

Nope.  No answer in that mess of unsupported assertions to any of the 
questions I actually asked.

I'll make it easier for you, Dr. M.  If you really want to answer the 
questions, I shall pull them out of the post above and number them in 
isolation:

1) Is there anyone who would publicly state that the Nazis committed 
racially motivated mass murder who you would NOT accuse of having an anti-
Nazi bias?

2) Is there anyone who could have an anti-Nazi bias but still be considered 
by you a reliable witness?

3) What do you think of Germar Rudolf's argument against Munch?  Would you 
would stand by it, and if not, what does the use of such an argument say 
about the logic of Rudolf's approach to historical evidence?

It doesn't really make a difference at this stage, but I would appreciate 
your giving in an honest try, just to satisfy my own intellectual 
curiousity regarding revisionist standards of evidence.

Steven Mock



From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:08:02 EST 2004
Article: 948571 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch
From: Steven Mock 
References:          
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 8
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:19:32 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948571

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in 
news:b7fe1abc.0401092006.42800172@posting.google.com:

> Same answer as before. Go back and read it. 

You realize you're trolling yourself here, don't you?

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:08:03 EST 2004
Article: 948586 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,free.uk.talk.sheffield
Subject: Re: Lying Englishman David E. Michael, Terrorist supporter
From: Steven Mock 
References:   <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>      
Message-ID: 
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 118
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:38:05 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948586 free.uk.talk.sheffield:31351

I think this post nicely serves to demonstrate the flagrantly dishonest 
way that Dr. Michael's misrepresents the arguments made against his 
case, then proceeds to use those misrepresentations as a rationalization 
to ignore them.

Let us observe...

david_michael@onetel.net.uk (david_michael) wrote in
news:b7fe1abc.0401100610.39b344c2@posting.google.com: 

> RE. 'Steve Mock made mincemeat of you in very short order'
> 
> Steve Mock responded to my challenge to produce his best evidence for
> his so-called 'normative' case by wheeling out the statements of a man
> who:
> 
> 1. according to Mock was in the habit of certifying people dead
> through a closed door;

Not even remotely implausible under the circumstances.

As Euguene Holman already observed to Dr. M.:

"IF I KNOW that
- a concentration of 300 ppm of cyanide kills people within 5 to 10 
minutes, that
- the people trapped in the chamber have been exposed to a concentration 
more than 20 times that high during the last few minutes of a 15 minute 
gassing cycle due to my understanding of the outgassing rate of cyanide 
>from Zyklon-B, that 
- I initially heard screaming and the sounds of pandemonium, but that 
after 5 minutes they had been replaced by death coughs followed by a 
period of complete silence, and that
- looking through a peephole and detecting no signs of movement, but 
only motionless people with their eyes agape and signs of bodily fluids 
having been expelled due to the relaxation of sphincter muscles, 

THEN

- I COULD JUSTIFIABLY CONCLUDE on the basis of my knowledge of medicine, 
physiology, and the chemical properties of cyanide that 
- THE PEOPLE IN THE CAMBER WERE ALL DEAD."

I think Dr. M. was a bit too embarrased to respond to this rather 
obvious observation.

> 2. had a history of psychiatric difficulties culminating in him being
> declared mentally weak by his own son and totally senile by a
> psychiatrist and by his own layer;

Except that this is not true.  Dr. Munch has no history of psychiatric 
difficulties.  Dr. Michael is making this up.

The grain of truth around which he spins this fabrication is the point 
in my account of Dr. Munch's background in which he is quoted as saying 
that he couldn't psychologically handle the prospect of being involved 
in the systematic effort to murder innocent people.  If that is grounds 
to consider Munch weak, we should all be so weak.

What's more, being "senile" is not a condition that, once diagnosed in 
someone in his 90's, can be presumed to have been a factor throughout 
his entire life!

Dr. Michael knows this.  He shouldn't even need to have the points 
spelled out for him, but nonetheless they have been repeatedly.  He has 
ignored them every time.

This is about the lamest excuse imginable for Dr. Michael to dismiss a 
witness account otherwise devestating to his case.

> 3. had a track record of political activism against the very people
> his statements were directed against -- including collaboration with
> the Polish authorities in producing propaganda material and work on
> propaganda films.

This point, too, has been answered.

The only "track record of political activism against the very people his 
statements were directed against" that Dr. Michael has demonstrated are 
those statements themselves.  Anything that documents the racial mass 
murder committed by the Nazis is labelled by Dr. Michael as "propaganda 
material".  Hence this is a catch-22 condition.

As I said before to Dr. Michael, "it is over the matter of your claim 
that Munch had an "axe to grind" with the Nazis that your willingness to 
stretch the definitions of your conditions is taken to the most 
ludicrous extreme.  Munch had no "axe to grind".  He speaks kindly about 
many of his fellow SS doctors, including his superiors, and, when 
interviewed by Lifton, praised aspects of Nazi ideology.  You certainly 
are unable to come up with any specifics as to *what* Munch supposedly 
has against the Nazis or why, other than his disapproval of the 
racially-motivated mass murder he claims to have witnessed.  Indeed, the 
only evidence you offer in support of the claim that he has an "axe to 
grind" is your claim that he "collaborated" with the occupation 
authorities after the war, yet the only form of "collaboration" you seem 
to be able to come up with is his willingness to speak about and 
document what he witnessed at Auschwitz.  The upshot of this argument is 
that anybody who speaks about the Holocaust is unreliable simply because 
he speaks about the Holocaust.  Anyone, by definition, who says what you 
don't want to believe has an "axe to grind".  Hence this is a 
meaningless condition, in the way that you use it, for the purpose of 
honestly assessing evidence."

Dr. Michael has never responded to this point, nor posted any other 
grounds to support his claim that Munch had a pre-existing anti-Nazi 
bias.

> As a result of this, Steve Mock has had to resort to extracting
> himself from the discussion by spamming hundreds of nonsense posts all
> over the thread and declaring that I'm running away when I don't do
> likewise!

Fascinating.  In fact, I have done no such thing by any stretch of the 
imagination.  Dr. Michael, on the other hand, clearly has.  It is 
amazing that he can look us in the eye and lie so flagrantly.  I guess 
that's all he has left.

Steven Mock


From smock@nizkor.org Sat Jan 10 12:08:04 EST 2004
Article: 948595 of alt.revisionism
Path: sn-us!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!easynews-local!news.easynews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Lying Englishman David E. Michael, Terrorist supporter
From: Steven Mock 
References:   <5dudnWcTS_va22GiRVn-hQ@comcast.com>  <3ffdbc4e$0$6755$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>      
Message-ID: 
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 21
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: EasyNews, UseNet made Easy!
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:45:31 GMT
Xref: sn-us alt.revisionism:948595

Now here's an interesting thought.  Dr. Michael has just accused me, on 
record, of "extracting himself from the discussion by spamming hundreds of 
nonsense posts all over the thread".

"spamming hundreds of nonsense posts".  His words.

I have just counted the number of posts (nonsense or otherwise) that I have 
contributed to this thread, starting with my original post entitled "The 
Eyewitness Accounts of Dr. Hans Munch" and including all alternately titled 
sub-branches.  They amount (including this one) to a total of 35.

Notwithstanding the subjective nature of Dr. Michael's accusation, it would 
seem clear that he has, at the very least, "overstated his case... leading 
one to wonder how much else was overstated."

Further, then, to his own standards for assessing the credibility of 
sources, we therefore have objective grounds to conclude that nothing Dr. 
Michael says can be trusted and he is worthless as a source of information 
of any kind.

Steven Mock



Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.