Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Ok, time for a simplified recap, with a couple of editions / changes in the specific subtopics.
To date, this is all the "physical evidence" that Roberta has provided regarding Treblinka:
|
The bets are on that lying Gerdes will again leave out the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November 1945 and 29 December 1945, even though I have stated many times that I consider these the key records of the Treblinka physical evidence and the photographs to be mere illustrations of what those records contain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 1 - Teeth:
Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single tooth has been found at Treblinka.
|
I have provided one eyewitness testimony and one contemporary document mentioning teeth on the Treblinka site, and Gerdes the charlatan has not even tried to explain why these exhibits are not proof that this physical evidence was there and why only photographs should be considered evidence to the presence of teeth on the Treblinka site.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (at least 50,000 each):
Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single bullet or shell casing has been found at Treblinka.
|
As if that were a big deal. I have explained why no bullet or shell casing need have been found at Treblinka, and I have referred to eyewitness testimonies, including such from the shooters themselves, which prove the shootings at the "Lazarett" and hence any amount of bullets and shell casings this entailed. The relevance of his yelling for physical exhibits of bullets or shell casings Gerdes has not been able to explain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
|
A claim that is supported by several eyewitness descriptions of the "Lazarett" and its position inside the camp, without Gerdes having been able to provide anything like a plausible alternative explanation as to what, if not the mass grave of the "Lazarett", the ground scarring shape I pointed out on this photograph is supposed to be.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
|
Looks like I won the bet. Gerdes again omitted the site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945, which describe the physical evidence far more completely than it could conceivably be shown on any photograph. From my post # 21:
Quote:
At least one of these, 7.5 meters deep (or the part thereof that became a bomb crater with a diameter of 25 meters when robbery diggers set off explosives in their search for valuables), is described in Lukaszkiewicz’s site investigation report of 13.11.1945:
Quote:
The largest of the craters produced by explosions (numerous fragments attest to the fact that these explosions were set off by bombs), which is at maximum 6 meters deep and has a diameter of about 25 meters – its walls give recognizable evidence of the presence of a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains – was further excavated in order to discover the depth of the pit in this part of the camp. Numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition.[208] The soil consists of ashes interspersed with sand, is of a dark gray color and granulous in form. During the excavations, the soil gave off an intense odor of burning and decay. At a depth of 7.5 meters the bottom was reached, which consisted of layers of unmixed sand. At this point the digging was stopped here.
Lukaszkiewicz’ report of 29.12.1945 describes what must have been the area of the mass graves in the "death camp", where ashes and bone fragments had been returned to the emptied mass graves and later projected to the surface by the activity of robbery diggers:
Quote:
In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of human skulls could discover no trace of wounding. At a distance of some 100 m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay.
In my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , I showed that these data allow for establishing the compatibility of the physical evidence with what becomes apparent from documentary evidence about the scale of the killing.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 4 - The gas chamber:
Roberta: "Did I anywhere state that this photograph is proof of the gas chambers inside that building?"
Which is taken to mean: Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that the alleged homicidal gas chambers have ever been found at Treblinka.
|
Indeed the photograph is not proof of the gas chamber building by itself, for without background knowledge from eyewitness testimony it tells you nothing. But then, only charlatans like Gerdes ask their readers to believe that one can prove historical events or the existence of related installations on the basis of photographs alone, that there must always be photographs of a given event or the related installations, and that photographs are a must to prove either. The existence and functions of the Treblinka gas chamber building are proven by several eyewitness testimonies independent of each other, and all this photograph does is provide a visual record of what the eyewitnesses described and further confirmation of the accuracy of their descriptions. Under
http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp4.shtml , Alex Bay explains what this photograph shows (emphasis added):
Quote:
|
In the enlargement of the excavator (Figure 37), a number of important and interesting details become visible and are of great interest. Annotation 1 points to two of the lager's Jewish worker 'Sonderkommando' carrying a stretcher. Two men and a stretcher were the means by which the corpses were moved, either from the gas chambers to the burial pits and cremation grates, or from the burial pits to the grates. Annotation 2 refers to a gate which is open. Number 3 indicates a small building. Its location is in the area where some sources show the location of a well, so it possible that it is a pump house. Viernick stated that the gas chambers were hosed down after use, which established that water under pressure was available. This structure stands outside of a security fence running from a gatepost north towards the new gas chambers. Number 4 indicates the western half of the gable end of the new large gas chambers. At 5 is a board fence serving to screen activity in the death camp from the view of the victims directed to the older facility. At six is a window into the motor room of the small gas chambers where the engines used to produce the killing gases were located.
|
Knowledge of what the annotated features mean is derived from eyewitness descriptions. I highlighted one of the features that eyewitnesses described and Bay identified on the photo, the removal of the corpses from the gas chamber building by means of stretchers. The photo doesn’t prove that corpses were removed from the gas chamber building in this manner, but it is further confirmation that eyewitness descriptions of the removal process are accurate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
|
Again Mr. Greg "Recap" Gerdes omitted the Polish site investigation reports, even though these have been repeatedly stated to be the best source of information about the mass graves area and the depth of the mass graves. Readers without ideological tomato slices in front of their eyes might wonder why Gerdes keeps avoiding these reports and babbling about photographs alone, without even having tried to explain why on earth photographs should be considered the only relevant records of physical evidence. What is the charlatan afraid of?
Also note that Gerdes has not yet tried explaining what, other than mass graves in the "receiving camp" sector of Treblinka (where at least two eyewitnesses described the presence of such mass graves) the shapes pointed out on the photograph "A" are supposed to be. Why does he keep running away from this question?
Regarding annotated photograph "B", see below.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 6 - Photos of the camp itself, from the outside, during its construction, operation or destruction:
Roberta: "I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation."
* * * *
|
Also quote what follows, liar (emphases added):
Quote:
I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any. But I know of photographs from the inside, taken in violation of instructions received by deputy commander Kurt Franz. They are among the photos shown under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html , and the link http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html shows all of Franz's excavator photos.
As you are such a photo-freak, here are two questions regarding these photographs:
Regarding the photo captioned
«MASS GRAVE
If Treblinka, the boards were added to the bodies in course of a test burning. Usually the victims were buried in mass graves, later cremated on roasts.
Photo: Bundesarchiv No. 183-F0918-0201-011»
the question is: what, if not a corner of one mass grave where the bodies have been covered with boards and what looks like tarpaulin sheets, do you think this photograph shows?
Regarding the excavator photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html , the question (asked several times already and always studiously avoided by Gerdes) is the following:
What would these excavators have been doing in what you claim was a "transit camp"?
Answer the questions, Gerdes!
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, please look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."
Should there be any other sub categories Roberta?
|
Cut the crap, Gerdes. Anyone with some brains inside his head and without ideological tomato slices covering his eyes should have seen that the purpose of your "recaps" is to obfuscate the evidence you cannot address and avoid answering my questions, and that you have forgotten nothing but
deliberately omitted what you figure is more difficult for you to make a fuss about. Who do you think you’re fooling, Gerdes? Do you think your "White" buddies are
that stupid?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW folks, can’t you just sense the pressure that Roberta is feeling?
|
Gerdes seems to be projecting his own situation in a desperate attempt to convince his "White" buddies that he’s winning. Poor Gerdes.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
The longer this goes on and the more it’s getting boiled down to just the tangible physical evidence, the more hysterical and nonsensical her responses get.
|
Actually the only hysteria here is Gerdes’ own, and I appreciate his confessing to the flagrantly
unscientific nature of his approach, in trying to limit the record of evidence to whatever it is he calls "tangible" physical evidence. But the charlatanry doesn’t end there, folks. Apart from trying to limit the record of evidence to just one out of several existing categories of evidence, Gerdes also tries to limit the "admissible" documentation of physical evidence to photographs alone, ignoring site investigation reports prepared by criminal investigators.
All of this he does without ever having tried, despite numerous requests in this sense, to show any rules or standards of evidence that would justify his approach – which is understandable insofar as
there are no such rules or standards of evidence. A criminal investigator who limits the evidence he looks at to physical evidence and is only interested in photographs but not in written descriptions of that evidence is not a criminal investigator, but an incompetent bungler and a slobbering fool.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And please notice how this freaky bitch complains about “quote mining” when her entire argument is composed of cherry picked quotes from the glaringly contradictory and physically impossible “eyewitness testimony.”
|
Thanks for admitting to your quote-mining by claiming that "mine" is worse, Gerdes. And you seem to be fond of getting homework for yourself, because your accusation calls for your demonstrating that
a) my argument is entirely based on eyewitness testimony;
b) the eyewitness testimony I am supposed to have based my "entire" argument on (what about the site investigation reports and the German documents you keep ignoring, Gerdes?) is "glaringly contradictory" and "physically impossible", and
c) I "cherry-picked" from this eyewitness testimony, i.e. quoted from it out of context or according to no criterion other than convenience to my argument.
Let’s see how you support your idiotic accusation, Gerdes. Get cracking.