Yes, that would be why I made it.
Mazal's site has a lot of good stuff on it. You should read it sometime.
I am comparing apple from tree A with apple from tree B and declaring that apple from tree A was pick from tree B.
No, you're comparing a RSHA document to a non-RSHA document, and claiming that because the RSHA document's formatting is different from the non-RSHA document's formatting, the RSHA document is a forgery.
And that's an illegitimate argument.
I agree. That would not be an logical argument since both codes do not have an similar pattern.
Yet that's exactly what you're doing here. The pattern on the Reichskommissariat Ostland document and the Orpo document tells you
nothing about what a pattern on a RSHA document should look like.
I am not trying to prove how RSHA identified documents. That is not the base of my argument. I am trying to prove the header of the document 1 is missing important details compared to other documents header. That is why I had presented the documents from other offices.
No, what you're doing is still repeating what the source you cribbed Alvarez's arguments from told you. You refer to this number as a "serial number" because that's how Alvarez referred to it in his remarks about the March 26, 1942 letter - "d) The letter's serial no. '167/42g' is handwritten, not typed."
Your complete misunderstanding of what that number actually
means and description of it as a "serial identification" for documents is also how I know you didn't get your list of criticisms directly from Alvarez' book, but instead from someone else who reproduced Alvarez' list (I'd bet good money on
this CODOH forum thread being your actual source for your "analysis").
Because on the pages in his book right after he talks about the March 26, 1942 document, Alvarez talks about a series of letters between Pradel's referat and the Gaubschat company stretching from April 1942 all the way to September of that year and dealing with the details of the orders placed with the company for the gas vans themselves. And
every single one of those documents not only bears the same code at the upper left, II D 3a (9) B. Nr. 668/42, but the letters written in the RSHA office itself
also contain instructions that they be filed under 1737/41.
Because the number is not a "serial number" at all, but a reference to an internal filing location for the documents. Even in the first two RSHA-generated documents, which bear the slightly-different code II D 3a (9) B. Nr. 668/42-121, that's not a "serial number", but a reference to where a specific (and probably previous, since the correspondence says the discussions about those changes to the gas vans predates the first document) authorization was filed, since that exact number appears on both an April 27th 1942 internal document requesting that Rauff approve some changes in the gas van design, and an April 30th, 1942 letter sent from the referat to the Gaubschat company requesting those changes be made to the vehicles the company was manufacturing.
And if you actually read the NMT volume you found at Mazal, you'll see even more examples of documents written weeks or months apart yet still bearing the same filing codes in the same places.
Put plainly, if you have no understanding of what those numbers mean, how they were used,
why they were used, in what
circumstances they were used, and why they appear on any given document in any given location, you are completely unable to determine what counts as suspicious or anomalous about those numbers on a document.
Do you know any reference for the document? I could try to find an URL if you provide an appropriate reference.
Yad Vashem TR.10-767, I believe. Dr. Terry would know more about that than I do.
Perhaps you did not understand what I mean.
I am arguing the filling code of document 1 is out of context when compared with other documents. No other document use the filling code bellow the left header with handwriting.
And as I already told you, you're wrong about
that, too, since the invitation letters to the rescheduled Wannsee Conference contain a (partially) handwritten filing number at the upper left of the document, underneath the agency title.
Hitler's Bureaucrats: The Nazi Security Police and the Banality of Evil
For many, the name Adolf Eichmann is synonymous with the Nazi murder of six million Jews. Alongside Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, he is probably the most infamous of the Nazi murderers; unlike them, the aura linked to his name is that of the ultimate evil that may lurk in each and every one of us. (...) By taking this position, Arendt rejected the biblical story of Genesis, which sets the ability to distinguish between right and wrong at the very core of beign human. Instead, she implied that Eichmann represented a potential face of the future. This book claims that she was wrong. It describes the facts as they appear in the documentation created by Eichmann and his colleagues, and suggest that they fully understood what they were doing. (...)
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0826479189...refURL=http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com.br/
That is the study which you referenced?
Yes, though that's not the only thing he wrote about the topic.
Absence is a sign of inconsistency.
Forgery is the absence of consistency.
Does this mean that since the Orpo document
also has that very same "inconsistent absence", it was forged too? If so, why did you cite the formatting of a forged document to prove that another document with different formatting was forged?
If not, why does that "inconsistent absence" indicate forgery on one document, but
not the other?
It is not such thing of "less than true". The information can only be false or true.
It's called a "lie by omission".
I just reviewed all posts regarding this matter and I could not find where you provided a link for the Dr. Becker 1960 statement...
It was
right here.
ZSL 9 AR Z 220/59, vol. I, p. 194 ff., and you can easily read the relevant parts of what he said since it was quoted in Ernst's Klee's book
The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders.
