 |
|
Such a suspicion grows stronger upon examination of Ball's terms.
The last sentence, indicating that each expert must meet the approval
of the "author" - Ball himself - is the giveaway. If three written
reports proving him wrong were to appear on his doorstep, he would
simply need to reject one or more of the experts, for any reason or no
reason at all. Certainly he would have no incentive to make himself
$100,000 poorer by approving whoever disagreed with him.
But when John Morris wrote Ball, as the first step toward trying to
meet the challenge, it did not even get as far as his doorstep. A total
of three letters were sent as registered mail to Ball's listed address
(a P.O. box) and to his home address. All three were sent back, marked
"Return To Sender." Email concerning the letters received no reply.
The first letter to the P.O. box which Ball listed on his website
was returned as "unclaimed." The final letter to that same P.O. box -
the same address advertised on his website - came back as "Moved,
Address Unknown."
Without actually retracting it, Ball quietly removed all mention of
his $100,000 offer - but his homepage now proclaims:
Ball's photo-interpretation and map-accuracy have never been
disproved by another air photo expert.
Another Air Photo Expert
Michael Shermer spoke with John Ball for a lengthy 1995 article
he published in his magazine Skeptic. [12] In his 1997 book
Why People Believe Weird Things, he discusses Ball's
claims about the photographs of Auschwitz: [13]
According to Ball, the photographs were tampered with, marked,
altered, faked. By whom? By the CIA itself, in order to match the story
as depicted in the television mini-series Holocaust.
Thanks to Dr. Nevin Bryant, supervisor of cartographic applications
and image processing applications at Caltech/NASA's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory in Pasadena, California, I was able to get the CIA
photographs properly analyzed by people who know what they are looking
at from the air. Nevin and I analyzed the photographs using digital
enhancement techniques not available to the CIA in 1979. We were able
to prove that the photographs had not been tampered with, and we indeed
found evidence of extermination activity.
Though he is aware of this work, Ball has nowhere addressed it.
Innocent or Guilty
In late 1998, Ball offered a survey on his website. His readers were
invited to provide feedback, ostensibly on how convincing his site had
been:
Vote on German Guilt or Innocence: [...]
Select a verdict, or compose your own:
[ ] Air photos show it was physically impossible that mass-murders
occurred as described in the 1946 War Crimes trials, and so the Germans
are innocent.
[ ] Air photos show nothing new to contradict 1946 evidence that
mass-murders occurred as described by eye-witnesses, so the Germans are
guilty.
The "vote" which I sent in read as follows:
"The Germans" are innocent? "The Germans" are guilty?
This gross misuse of language, this confirmation of collective guilt
(or innocence) stands contrary to any fair approach to history.
"The Germans" were not found guilty in any war crime trial, in
1946 or at any other time. The people found guilty in those trials were
those who were at the camps in question, who committed the crimes in
question. In fact the trials were established partly to demonstrate to
the German people that they were not the ones on trial; the
criminals, and only the criminals, were punished for their
crimes. [14]
As for your claims, they are false. If you believe they are true,
why did you back out of your $100,000 offer? Afraid you'd lose
money, I expect.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/ball-challenge/
You see things on photographs that aren't there and draw them in for
the rest of us, which doesn't impress me very much. You have a poor
background in the camps you purport to detail, and you have no
credentials as an "air photo expert." Your analysis has been
exposed in, among other places, Michael Shermer's book Why People
Believe Weird Things, by a real photographic expert from the JPL -
and your silence in response tells me all I need to know.
But, all that aside: you need to decide what it is that your website
demonstrates. If your purpose is to decide "German Guilt or Innocence,"
then you have already fallen prey to the trap of collectivist guilt.
No thinking person can accept your premises. Only when you decide what
the proper questions are can we begin a proper critique of your answers.
I received no direct answer to this. It was published, in edited
form, on Ball's website. [15]
My reference to the $100,000 offer webpage was stripped out without an
ellipsis (as were my pointed references to the doctrine of collective
guilt). Here is what Ball published, in full:
"The Germans" were not found guilty in any war crime trial, in 1946
or at any other time. The people found guilty in those trials were
those who were at the camps in question, who committed the crimes in
question. In fact the trials were established partly to demonstrate to
the German people that they were not the ones on trial; the criminals,
and only the criminals, were punished for their crimes. You see things
on photographs that aren't there and draw them in for the rest of us,
which doesn't impress me very much. You have a poor background in the
camps you purport to detail, and you have no credentials as an "air
photo expert."
(Ball's answer: I studied air photo interpretation at
University.)
Your analysis has been exposed in, among other places, Michael
Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things", by a real
photographic expert from the JPL (Jet Propulsion Library) [sic]
and your silence in response tells me all I need to know.
(Ball's answer: I asked Shermer for a copy of the photo
expert's supposed report and have yet to receive a reply.)
His laconic answers leave much to be desired. The sole credential he
offers as an air photo expert is that he took a class, or classes, in
the subject. His short online autobiography goes into a little more
detail, but not much: [16]
1981 - Graduated from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada with a B.Sc. in Geology. Studied air photo interpretation.
On December 28th, 1998, I sent email asking questions about his course
of study, including: what classes did he take? Did he take them for
credit? And if so, what grades did he earn? No answer.
His claim to have contacted Michael Shermer regarding Nevin Bryant's
report is not borne up by the facts. Shermer confirmed for me in email
the next day:
I have never heard from John Ball since my last meeting with him
years ago at the L.A.X. airport restaurant.
That meeting was before the book in question was published. Shermer
went on to clarify:
But there is no "report" by the JPL scientist. The report is by me
and it is in my book, based on his assistance in my research. We sat
there together in his lab going over the computer enhanced aerial
photographs. A more detailed report from me will be published in my
book on the Holocaust deniers, to be published next year by the
University of California Press, called DENYING HISTORY.
Ball in Court
Perhaps the most significant demonstration of John Ball's
credentials has been in a courtroom in Toronto, in 1988.
In that year, Holocaust-denier Ernst Zundel was being retried by the
Canadian government, after his 1985 conviction under the so-called
"false news" law was overturned by an Ontario court. (He would end up
being convicted again in 1988, a conviction later overturned when
the law was declared unconstitutional - and rightfully so - by the
Supreme Court of Canada.)
The trial summary available at Ernst Zundel's Zundelsite has a
table
of contents
whose witness list goes directly from the ninth witness,
Tijudar Rudolph,
to the tenth,
Ernst Nielsen.
But between Rudolph's and Nielsen's testimony came John Clive Ball's
voir dire - the examination to test the competence of a
witness. No mention of this is made on Zundel's website, but a
description of the proceedings can be found in the book The
Holocaust on Trial, written by a Zundel
supporter. [17]
It is worth quoting at length:
Christie [Zundel's defense attorney] asked permission to call
as an expert witness John C. Ball, a consulting geologist from
British Columbia who, since the early 1970s [sic], has analyzed
aerial photographs for clients to help them determine the mineral
potential of land.
Recall that, according to Ball's website, he did not receive his
degree in geology until 1981.
In November 1987, at Ernst Zundel's request, Ball obtained wartime
aerial photographs of Birkenau from the National Archives in
Washington, D.C., and examined them at his office in Vancouver. He
focused especially on the roofs of the crematory buildings, including
the alleged gas chambers, seeking physical indicators relating to the
standard Holocaust narrative.
Ball was finally rejected as a witness by Judge Thomas after he
testified on the voir dire. Thomas agreed that the aerial photos
were proper evidence for the defense to introduce, but concluded, after
some reflection, that Ball was not sufficiently qualified as an expert
to do the job.
Ball had the remarkably bad luck to be cross-examined not only by
Pearson [the prosecuting attorney] but (informally) by a judge
who admitted that he once tried a case where, for two months, the finer
points of aerial photography were debated. Before admitting this,
however, Thomas had a little fun with Ball (and the rest of the court)
by suddenly peppering him with questions like, "Have you ever presented
or formulated a horizontal model? In the horizontal plane?" and "Have
you developed a computer-assisted vertical plane with the benefit of
photogrammetry?" So sophisticated and assured was this technical
questioning that it looked like Toronto had an unsung Leonardo da Vinci
in robes until Thomas's explanation was forthcoming.
As Christie tried to save his witness, he jettisoned one line of
potential questioning after another until there was little left for
poor Ball to have said. [...]
Ball was finally stripped almost bare, but it was not enough to save
him. Judge Thomas, flaunting his knowledge, was especially concerned
that Ball had indicated several times that "as far as he is concerned
[a micro-stereoscope and a stereoscope] are the same thing. They aren't
the same."
After Christie described what he hoped Ball could testify about,
the Judge gave his decision:
That line of argument was fine, said Judge Thomas, but a proper
expert was still needed to present the photos to the jury. So ruling
against Ball, he adjourned the court for
lunch. [18]
Predictably, these events are described in no "revisionist"
literature - to my knowledge - except this one book.
Conclusion
A future essay on this website will address the specific issues John
Ball raises. For now, we have seen nothing which indicates his
expertise to speak on those issues. He can offer no academic
credentials of significance. He refuses to address a contradictory
expert opinion presented by someone with superior credentials, and has
covered up this refusal with a fabrication. The one time he offered to
stand behind his results, he quietly disappeared the moment real
interest was displayed.
And the one time his expertise was put to any kind of real test - in
a court of law - he was "stripped almost bare": ruled so unqualified
that he could not be asked to render an opinion on anything related to
aerial photographs of Auschwitz.
Detailed analysis of aerial photography is largely a matter of
interpretation, and where the results are important we should not trust
the interpretation to amateurs. When we are asked to take this man's
drawings, explanations and theories as so authoritative that they can
nullify the testimony of eyewitnesses to and perpetrators of the
crimes, we are at the very least entitled to some evidence that he is
well-qualified.
The evidence indicates the opposite.
Notes
- Ball's homepage, the "Air Photo Evidence" site:
http://www.air-photo.com/.
Java banner text is as of March 1999.
- The pamphlet can be found at
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/ people/z/zundel-ernst/censorship/ban-schindler.html.
The pamphlet's claims are debunked at
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/ball.john/goeth-shooting-01.
- At
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/ english/catalog/audio_catalog.html#47.
- At
http://www.codoh.com/found/found.html.
- At
http://codoh.com/incon/inconshr4567.html.
- "Zur Kritik an 'Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge,'"
http://www.ostara.org/autor/germar3.htm.
- At
http://www.vho.org/GB/Contributions/Green.html.
- See
http://www.nizkor.org/features/ball-challenge/.
- Irving has a long-standing offer of
$1,000. What exactly must be proved to collect the money varies. At
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/HistoryIndex.html,
http://www.fpp.co.uk/new.html,
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Auschw.html,
and
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online.html
he requires "proof [that] Hitler knew of the Holocaust." At
http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/IntelliReport.html
it is "evidence that Hitler knew about the Holocaust." In a May 1981 letter
to Newsday, as cited at
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/ADL/FingerSmear060783.html,
it was "evidence that Hitler knew of Auschwitz."
Only at
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/ documents/controversies/Reward.html
are the terms clarified. To avoid the reward being collected, he must
reject the abundant "evidence" and "proof" which falls outside some
narrow specifications:
...a wartime document showing explicitly that Hitler
knew about the mass liquidation of Europe's Jews. [...]
The document must be of German origin (Allied code-breaking
intercepts will be accepted); it must be submitted to Focal Point
Publications (click F at bottom of page for the address); it must be
submitted as a clear photocopy of the original, with proof ot its
provenance (archives, etc). "Wartime" refers to the years September 1,
1939-May 8, 1945. The reference must be explicit, and not depend upon
clever translations, or fancy interpretations, or
reading-between-the-lines.
Of course Irving does not restrict himself thusly in his books and
speeches; only in this "challenge." And like John Ball's challenge, the
one with the money seems to be the one who decides when the terms have
been met - so it is safe to say the terms will never be met.
See also the pamphlet
"Who is David Irving?".
- The IHR's $50,000 offer was accepted by
Mel Mermelstein, an Auschwitz survivor. After a four-year court battle,
both sides claimed victory, but the end result was that the IHR paid
him the money - actually $90,000 - and issued an official Letter of
Apology. See
http://www.nizkor.org/features/qar/qar05.html
and
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ people/m/mermelstein.mel/mermelstein.text.
- The
CODOH offer
amounts to a bid of $250,000 for ninety minutes of prime-time TV, in
which they will "debate" the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith.
Bradley Smith, the director of CODOH, has promoted his organization
chiefly by purchasing blocks of time on AM radio, and advertisements in
student newspapers. This purchase, however, is not likely to go
through: $250,000 will buy not much more than 90 seconds
of prime-time TV.
- Skeptic magazine, Vol. 2,
No. 4, pp. 32-57.
- Shermer, Michael, Why People Believe
Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our
Time, 1997, pp. 233ff.
- See Robert Jackson's opening speech to the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Trial of the Major
War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,
Vol. 2,
pp. 98ff,
in particular
p. 102:
We would also make clear that we have no purpose to incriminate the
whole German people. We know that the Nazi Party was not put in power
by a majority of the German vote. We know it came to power by an evil
alliance between the most extreme of the Nazi revolutionists, the most
unrestrained of the German reactionaries, and the most aggressive of
the German militarists. If the German populace had willingly accepted
the Nazi program, no Storm-troopers would have been needed in the early
days of the Party...
- At
http://www.air-photo.com/english/comments.html.
- At
http://www.air-photo.com/english/about.html.
- Lenski, Robert, The Holocaust on
Trial: The Case of Ernst Zundel, Reporter Press, Decatur,
Alabama, 1990, pp. 229-31. This book is out of print and difficult to
find.
- A footnote in Lenski's book here points
out that a different witness, one Kenneth Wilson, later gave testimony
about the Auschwitz photographs. It seems little time was spent on the
Leichenkeller roofs, and that little controversial was said. Notably,
Wilson's testimony did not even hint at Ball's most important point:
that the photographs show evidence of tampering, alteration, or
retouching. Wilson today plays no role in Holocaust-denial.
|
