I do appreciate these efforts by those like Hans who put these documents out there for all to see and review for themselves. This brings us closer to truth, whichever side you currently sit on, as it gives us the opportunity to discuss the most relevant questions, patterns, findings, etc., with much less reliance on inference and assumption. There is no doubt Hans is following the "Nuremberg method" of only presenting the documentation he (and the Nuremberg prosecution) finds to be 'relevant', which is par for the course for all of Holocaust historiography, given that Revisionists have been directly and/or indirectly banned from accessing archives in-person, and with limited access even online, today.
The table remains tilted favoring the Holohoax narrative, which is why Hans takes full advantage of this condition, highlighting the quantity of documentation presented in support of a 'Holocaust', deflecting from or diminishing the conditions under which it was gathered (i.e. how much against his position has been susceptible to alteration, destruction, etc.), and of course minimizing the glaring lack of physical evidence in
every single one of his largest and/or most shocking atrocity claims.
We should trust the documents because, you know, Soviet judges, 'judicial notice', Iron Curtains, vast patterns of crazy/absurd atrocity lies by [mostly Jewish] witnesses, false exhibits, CIA deception schemes... all of this spells "honesty".
It is a fact that certain 'Holocaust' documents have appeared in multiple versions, of which all but one are necessarily falsified. The fact that this has ever happened at all is a strong indication that all documents must be deemed suspect until proven otherwise. This is why Revisionists (and logic) push for physical evidence as the primary arbiter on 'what really happened' -- and why exterminationists
push away from physical evidence, primarily.
When reviewing any documents of the 'Holocaust', you must ask yourself:
- Do we have a complete and clear chain-of-custody on this document (i.e. some clear understanding of who exactly had access to it at any point, over time)?
- Are there any clear indicators of who has actually written or held this document (e.g. verifiable signatures, distinct handwriting)?
- Is the style, format, structure, etc. of this document fully consistent with what is seen among others from the same alleged author or organization/unit?
- Does the document actually and necessarily say what exterminationists claim (i.e. unambiguous, clear language, rather than presumption or inference)?
- Does the context (time, location, persons involved, etc.) support the exterminationist interpretation, above all others (once all others have been thoroughly considered)?
- Are there other documents which could provide important context to this current one which are strangely missing from the record (or which have significant problems, themselves)?
- Are the claims in the document verifiable by any other means (prioritizing physical evidence, then related documentation, and so on)?
Remember, the best lies are those which are aligned with as much factual information as possible. Thus, a certain quantity of documentation presented by exterminationists which aligns with their narrative (or even challenges certain peripheral Revisionist interpretations by that time) is insufficient to indicate their position aligns with
all available evidence, which is what the truth must necessarily do.
The fact that exterminationists have always preferred sticking to presentations of documents from archives they control, rather than 'exposing the truth' to the world with comprehensive and widely-publicized excavations and the like, is (and always has been) very telling, in itself.
