III. Practice Shooting at the Type of Evidence Presented

Since Mr. Tilove was not able to challenge anything, but absolutely anything, from the massive evidence presented against Mr. Ganor's credibility in our studies, Mr. Tilove tried to get us from a different route: rather than to challenge us on a particular issue --be it a piece of evidence introduced or an argument presented, he challenges now our study on the grounds of our "stunning disclaimer" that in full is posted below:

!

With this being said, let us begin by noting that we have no direct evidence of any sort on Solly Ganor and that contrary to his expressed views, we are not the "judge and jury" of anything. All the evidence that we have are the "facts" as presented by Mr. Ganor in his various postings and representations. Our opinion expressed herein refuting Mr. Ganor's purported "facts" is based on the massive indirect evidence that exists which is being filtered through our argument supplied. Our formed opinion, for what is worth, it is just that --our opinion and nothing else. Because we stay away from speculations, the only thing left in rendering our opinion is our rational deductive reasoning based on Mr. Ganor's supplied evidence hereinbelow.

and abbreviated in this way in Mr. Tilove's article:

Plunked in the middle of the diatribe, next to a huge exclamation mark, is a stunning disclaimer: "Let us begin by noting that we have no direct evidence of any sort on Solly Ganor." What you are reading, Brattman writes, "is but our opinion for what it's worth."

This issue of the type of evidence that we present herein in our studies is nevertheless a fair and appropriate question to ask and, Mr. Tilove has expressed those very concerns in his May 16, 2006 email to us where he concluded with these lines:

Did Dr. Distel's communication to you confirming Mr. Ganor's status resolve anything for you?   And, returning to question 1, shouldn't your disclaimer that you have ``no direct evidence of any sort on Solly Ganor,'' suggest a less inflammatory and declarative approach than you have taken?

A member of our staff responded in the very same day (May 16, 2006) with this email:

Dear Jonathan Tilove,

We answer herein only questions related to our posted material in iSurvived.org that is meaningful.

1. Questioning the first letter 'I" in the name of our website is as meaningful as questioning Apple Computer Company of the names placed on their products such as the iMac or the iPod, etc.

2. We do not discuss any private emails received from Dr. Distel or anyone else as we scrupulously protect all our private contacts received. The evidence that we were able to secure afterwards from the Dachau Memorial Museum and most importantly from the documented transports from Stutthof to Dachau, further supported our study on Mr. Ganor, but, since that matter has been closed, that additional evidence no longer is being posted as we have no reason to re-open this study to add additional material in support of our conclusion(s).

3. Clearly, we could NOT possible have any DIRECT or PRIMARY evidence on Mr. Ganor's case as NO such credible evidence was able to surface for our viewing. But as you undoubtedly must be aware, each and every day, court cases are decided by juries or judges with indirect evidence that a rational person can make certain inferences that --in criminal cases-- reach the level of certainty that is being called "beyond a reasonable doubt." We did our very best to present, as accurately as we can, a long, very long list of indirect evidence from where a rational person can arrive, through rational inferences, at certain conclusions that we have expressed them. You, of course, may ignore all our voluminous evidence presented by us and the associated argument that we have presented --and that is just fine with us. The unfortunate part in all this, as noted in the previous correspondence, was Mr. Ganor's refusal to reply to any of the many questions that were posted based on our evidence presented.

4. You of course, can write your own study on Mr. Ganor that arguably could be different than ours in its conclusion. We have no idea on the scope, purpose, or motivation of your current inquiry, but please be advised that this is all what you will be getting from us.

5. Finally, we agree totally with your assessment on our standing and view on Mr. Ganor that you have encapsulated as follows:

"The clear implication of your postings is that he is a fraud, that he is not the Holocaust survivor he purpots [***correct spelling 'purports'] to be."

Best regards,

First Assist Service Team (FAST)

Now, this editor will take advantage of the opportunity created to expand on the point 2 of the above email with respect to the reference made to "Dr. Distel's communication." While it is true that we do not discuss our private communications received with anyone, I will bend just a little bit our internal rules to give an additional insight into our views and findings concerning Mr. Ganor's purported imprisonment at Dachau.

Various analyses were being presented to us by some of our readers questioning the accuracy of the description of Dachau provided by Mr. Ganor and questioning thus whether he in fact was ever imprisoned there. The most pertinent and immediate such observations can be seen in the posted Postscript of our mentioned study on Solly Ganor.

Additional mounting questions were added when Mr. Ganor on his website at <www.rongreene.com/solly.html> posted this entry to "prove" that he was a Dachau prisoner during the Holocaust:

(2) From the Dachau Archives Name: Genkind Solly ( Solly Ganor) Born: 18.5.1928, Kauen Last known address: Kauen, Kalviu 13 Prisoner‚s number : 92298 Nationality : Lithuanian Jew Arrived in Dachau 18.8.1944, from Stutthof. Liberated on 2.5.1945 KZ-Gedenkstaetter Dachau, 24.3.2004 i.A Anne Stiller

A surprising number of our readers expressed the opinion that the above purported "proof" of Mr. Ganor that he was a prisoner at Dachau is a forgery, a doctored document introduced in the Dachau Archives most likely after our critical posting on Mr. Ganor. The great majority noted the simple fact that Mr. Ganor's first name at that time was Zalke and not Solly (that arrived much later in Mr. Ganor's life). Others have attacked the authenticity of the arrival date of August 18, 1944 from Stutthof invoking a number of reasons. We, independently, received from Stutthof the official lists of all transports to Dachau that supports the view of the improbability of the accuracy of the posted date of arrival at Dachau. So all these indirect evidence accumulated, in addition to our two studies on Solly Ganor, leads a rational person to question his credibility in a most serious way.

 

 
.