|
|
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.