The Eichmann trial

[Breker]

Breker

Well, I still don´t know why you think I was wrong about this particular point. Your post can be boiled down to one word: “no!” Obviously, I am not going to change my opinion because you say “no!”

I did not say it “removed any doubt”. I said, “I don´t think there can be any doubt”. I still have the same opinion. Is that a problem to you, Breker?

Further, you fail to realize that my initial post was not solely about this comparison of photos.

'No' is quite correct. No, they do not look differerent. They look like the same man. Hold to your position for dear life if you wish. I fail to see the difference in my saying "removed any doubt" and your saying "I don´t think there can be any doubt". Hair splitting supreme we suppose.
You're wrong, I am quite aware of the other points in your inititial post. In fact I alluded to them but I guess you missed it.
And please sir, no machoisms a la 'is that a problem with you'. Very unnecessary.
Breker

[_Mads_]

As for the last example of grammatical errors ("aber die Stimmen drangen etc") in my previous post, it is not completely correct. That would take too many words to explain, but anybody who speaks German can listen for himself. Anyway, the fact that I didn´t get it right in this case doesn´t mean that the glass case man does (in the same case), because he certainly does not.

For the non-German speakers, I found these German language instruction sentences on an Italian site:

13. Ich betrachte ihn für einen guten Arzt.
RICHTIG: Ich betrachte ihn als einen guten Arzt.

14. Er hält ihn für einen kompletten Idioten.
DER SATZ IST RICHTIG!

http://www.viaggio-in-germania.de/prepverb-sol.html

"Richtig" means "correct"; sentence nr. 13 is incorrect. In this respect the glass case man as already mentioned has problems, because he said "betrachte für". But no native German-speakers have such problems. This is language instruction for non-Germans. The fact is that if the glass case man were to do a German test in an Italian high school, he would probably fail (and he should). That is the only conclusion possible regarding a person who says things like: "Ich muss sagen, dass ich diese Vernichtung an die Juden für eines der kapitalsten Verbrechen innerhalb der Menschheitsgeschichte betrachte."

At the same time, he is supposed to be "fluent" in Hebrew, and I don´t doubt that that actually is a difficult language, if for no other reason than being very different from German or other Indo-European languages.

All in all, I have some troubles taking this "trial" seriously. I wonder how anybody can, actually.

Breker,

There is no "hair-splitting". The point was that I had stated that that was my opinion ("I think"), and the fact that you have a different opinion is in itself really not interesting at all. You need to say why you have a different opinion. "They look the same to me" is not enough.

Nor are there any "machoisms". It seems to me you´re not interested in this topic at all, and so I naturally wondered whether you had some other kind of problem.

I don´t think this silly argument should go on forever like this, but if you have something more substantial to say, I will welcome it.

[ClaudiaRothenbach]

Claudia Rothenbach,

Highly interesting, I would like to see that method applied, although I´m not waiting for it to form an opinion.

Mads, I am sure that you are right.

It would be great if we would have the PROOF that "glass box" Oakman was not Eichmann. That would be a headline in all non-jewish-controlled media around the globe (perhaps even in both).

Perhaps someon in this forum works in a university an knows someone who knows the method. Please ask your co-students etc. A precise proof and I would be happy.

[Moderator3]

Mads,
Breker has said the images look like the same man to him, that is his reason, end of story. You persist in attacks which he has not initiated and your language has taken on a overtly beligerent tone, so please stop.

[Frederik Jensen]

An understanding of how the Eichmann trial was probably a great hoax with a fake Eichmann could pave the way for an understanding of some of the later hoaxes.
By the way, only one fourth of the original post concerned the pictures.

[jnovitz]

Frederik

You could always try search Yad Vashem for Richard Klement

http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/IY_HON_Welcome

[_Mads_]

I found a German page which says that "the importance of the Eichmann trial for the history writing about the Holocaust can barely be measured. For 15 years there had been only few significant discussions about the issue. The trial caused a new generation to finally devote itself more thoroughly to the Holocaust."

(The German sentences: "Der Eichmann-Prozess war von kaum abzuschätzender Relevanz für die Geschichtsschreibung des Holocaust. 15 Jahre lang gab es nur wenige bedeutende Diskussionen des Themas. Der Prozess war Anlass für eine neue Generation, sich nun endlich eingehender mit dem Holocaust zu befassen")

http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/eichmann_de.html

Allow me to refer again to the last part of the first post, regarding this importance.

The point of the manipulation of this "trial" is that people believe that both sides are present, both sides are heard, whereas in fact only one side is. Therefore this kind of manipulation is the best that exists and not uncommon.

Claudia Rothenbach,

It is a very good idea, and your interest in bringing this matter to a quick successful conclusion is heartening. Still, I personally do not see any scarcity of other kinds of proofs.

Moderator 3,

A reason would be something like: "if there is any difference regarding the left eyelid, it will be due to his having surgery/the left eyelid is not hanging down on photo 2/the left eyelid of the man in the glass case also is hanging down"; "if it appears that the forehead wrinkles are different, it is due to Eichmann lowering the brows on the video 2, 00:08-photo, because of the sun"; etc.

By refusing to mention any reasons, Breker is actually violating the "no-dodging" rule of the guide lines.

Much worse, Breker falsely claims that my proposition regarding this "trial" is based on the difference between these photos. I in fact state in my opening post that that is not the case. After the links, part number two of the first post is about the fact that the trial appears "staged", in the sense that the glass box man is an actor who plays on the same team as the judge and the prosecutors. Part number three, about the Sassen recordings and related issues, also deals with the same subject.

[Breker]

Concerning yours truly:

A reason would be something like: "if there is any difference regarding the left eyelid, it will be due to his having surgery/the left eyelid is not hanging down on photo 2/the left eyelid of the man in the glass case also is hanging down"; "if it appears that the forehead wrinkles are different, it is due to Eichmann lowering the brows on the video 2, 00:08-photo, because of the sun"; etc.

By refusing to mention any reasons, Breker is actually violating the "no-dodging" rule of the guide lines.

Much worse, Breker falsely claims that my proposition regarding this "trial" is based on the difference between these photos. I in fact state in my opening post that that is not the case. After the links, part number two of the first post is about the fact that the trial appears "staged", in the sense that the glass box man is an actor who plays on the same team as the judge and the prosecutors. Part number three, about the Sassen recordings and related issues, also deals with the same subject.

I guess I should repeat Mads' specifics on what he thinks are differences in the images, ok, consider them repeated. I do hereby state that I see nothing in the eyebrows, scars, wrinkles, eyelids, etc. to warrant the conclusion that they are two different men.
In regards to Mads' curiously stating "Breker falsely claims that my proposition regarding this "trial" is based on the difference between these photos", I will use an Americanism, hogwash.
I stated :

On the other hand, I can say there is no point in making claims of an Eichmann stand-in based upon images which do not look like two different people. That is my objection.

Mads claimed, based upon images that he posted, that there was an Eichmann stand-in. I see no basis for that claim. I do agree that Mads pointed out problematic statements by Eichmann at his trial. These statements by Eichmann simply confirm that Eichmann's testimony and trial in general were a farce, which I previously said in so many words. Eichmann's performance does not mean there was two Eichmanns. Mads' images do nothing to enhance what we already know.
Breker

[Moderator3]

Mads,
Breker has replied, you may not like his opinion, but c'est la vie. Move on.

[Frederik Jensen]

Jnowitz,

do you think Richard Klement was the fake Eichmann in the Eichmann trial?

[Haldan]

Jnowitz,

do you think Richard Klement was the fake Eichmann in the Eichmann trial?

That would be a absurd belief because according to "Yad Vashem The Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority", Klement Richard died at Majdanek in 1942 or at Auschwitz in 1943 depending on what page you pick to use for your source. Perhaps a 'holocaust' victim can die multiple times.

As for this "fake Oakman", my personal belief for whatever its worth, is that we are looking at the genuine Eichman and not some fake. I don't think that I would behave as I normally would being in capture at the hands of vengeful people, in a artificially created state where torture is or was legally sanctioned. Who knows what Eichman experienced in his capture.

-haldan

[Hannover]

Frederik

You could always try search Yad Vashem for Richard Klement

http://www.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/IY_HON_Welcome

But why, jnovitz? Explain why you refer to a Richard Klement, who is falsely said to have died at Majdanek in 1942?

haldan said:

As for this "fake Oakman", my personal belief for whatever its worth, is that we are looking at the genuine Eichman and not some fake. I don't think that I would behave as I normally would being in capture at the hands of vengeful people, in a artificially created state where torture is or was legally sanctioned. Who knows what Eichman experienced in his capture.

Indeed, violent kidnapping, solitary confinement, and who knows what else. We should also remember that torture was standard treatment, i.e.: repeatedly used on Commandant of Auschwitz, Hoess.

In the words of American Nuremberg judge, van Roden:

Statements admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months..The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head, punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses"

Judge van Roden's allegation of torture to gain "confessions" is confirmed by Texas Supreme Court Judge, Gordon Simpson. He confirmed that savage beatings, smashing of testicles, and months of solitary confinement occurred.
- Congressional Record, appendix. v. 95,sec.12, 3/10/49.

Eichmann, in spite of his obviously ridiculous and revealing efforts to say what was demanded of him, had no chance.

- Hannover

[Frederik Jensen]

The first thing which is quite surprising, is that (pseudo) Eichmann says something very different from those Germans convicted in Nürnberg. Secondly, it actually seems as if he is cooperating with the prosecuter (and notice how he blinks with the eyes, when he can't remember the names of the cities and the way he then looks to the prosecuter) about talking about the Holocaust. And that's the thing about this trial: It seems more like a propaganda stunt for Holocaust and the (pseudo) Eichmann has everything in common with one of those "holocaust witnesses" and not much if anything in common (regarding his remarks) with those Germans who were convicted after the war. It's true that some of them (at least Höss) admitted something but shortly later he said he had been tortured to confessment. Now the (pseudo) Eichmann does'nt look like someone tortured to me anyway (though I'm not quite sure how such a person would look, (pseudo) Eichmann, however, appears quite calm, then if he had been tortured, it would be that he had lost all emotion, however, he does get excited when confused about the names and corrected by the prosecuter and therefore appears to be in some way balanced emotionally). All in all, he just appears much more like those later holocaust witnesses than like one of the Germans convicted before.

Having seen this, it's quite reasonable to turn to the pictures, to try to see if there is a difference to photos of war-time Eichmann. But then of course one can't rely only on these, because the Jews would have to choose someone who looked like him, you would think (or otherwise they wouldn't have made the hoax at all or they would have chosen another German). But, as we know from for example the Holohoax, sometimes the Jews just don't bother making their hoaxes all that good, because the rely on other things (such as controlling media, and, of course the occupation if Germany) and looking at the pictures, I find that this is exactly the case: the 1940 Eichmann and the (pseudo) Eichmann just can't be the same person!

Now, the Richard Klement thing is really interesting, if you could find a picture of him and if it looked like the (pseudo) Eichmann it would be irrefutable proof (and those Yad Vashem lists couldn't list anything else than people who fled, didn't exist or of course died in one of the konzentrations camps from lack of food, medicine or other reasons)).

If the Eichmann case was proved (as with Richard Klement pictures, though somehow, it is allready more or less prooved but it's a matter of definition) it would be like Claudia Rothenback said headline story in all non Jewish-controlled newspapers and certainly very important for the understanding of all those small games and actors, the way the Jews have tricked the people of the earth later on.

[Frederik Jensen]

Hannover,

I asked jnowitz the same question ("explain why you refer to a Richard Klement, who is falsely said to have died at Majdanek in 1942"), read Mads' original post, it's quite good![/quote]

[Hannover]

Jensen said:

Having seen this, it's quite reasonable to turn to the pictures, to try to see if there is a difference to photos of war-time Eichmann. But then of course one can't rely only on these, because the Jews would have to choose someone who looked like him, you would think (or otherwise they wouldn't have made the hoax at all or they would have chosen another German). But, as we know from for example the Holohoax, sometimes the Jews just don't bother making their hoaxes all that good, because the rely on other things (such as controlling media, and, of course the occupation if Germany) and looking at the pictures, I find that this is exactly the case: the 1940 Eichmann and the (pseudo) Eichmann just can't be the same person!

I must say that some images of Eichmann look like writer Henry Miller, that's not a compliment BTW.



All told though, Mads and yourself may be correct, but I don't see enough differences to go out on limb. As has been said, the Revisionist research on the bizarre Eichmann 'testimonies', writings, etc. is more than enough to shred the idea that Eichmann confirms the 'holocaust' storyline.

- Hannover