View Single Post
Old August 29th, 2008 #1036
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
This is going to send the dullest of the dull into one of his famous, hysterical carpet-biting fits.

New on the nafcash ( http://www.nafcash.com/ ) site:

NOTE: If you lack the courage to accept the above facts and you want to continue to deny the truth about the “holocaust,” the “final solution” and the “pure extermination centers,” then the ball is in your court. The supporters of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM have put their money where their mouths are and it’s time for the criminally fraudulent holocaust industry, their mealy-mouthed “skeptical” minions, their bought whores in the media and their servile Judas-Goats in our government indoctrination centers to put up or shut up. And to further illustrate just what utter frauds Michael Shermer, Andrzej Kola and the members of THE SOBIBOR ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT are, NAFCASH TM will consider, for the purpose of laying claim to THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM, that Sobibors fraudulent “ASH MOUNTAIN” is one of the alleged “huge mass graves.” This means of course, that this “huge mass graves” exact location and exact dimensions are already known! So you only need to prove that it contains the remains of 2,500 people. What could be easier to do - IF - the claims about this “huge mound of human remains” are true?


Now there is no need to wait on Kolas alleged report!

What are you waiting for dull one?


What I'm waiting for, the self-projecting hysteric asks?

Let’s see …

I’m waiting for time and means to go to Sobibor, obtain permission to disturb the ash heap (which I doubt will be granted) and enlist the services of an expert to analyze the human remains and certify that they are in fact human remains (which I also doubt anyone will do for just little me).

So waiting for what comes of an assessment of the mass graves’ contents by the SAP and/or for a detailed report by Prof. Kola seems a more promising approach.

I’m also waiting for Gerdes to take care of the tasks listed in my post # 955:

Quote:
1. A positive response to the question at the end of my post # 916:

Quote:
Now, Mr. Gerdes, can we move to the questions I have asked you and you have never answered, and to further questions I would like to ask you? The list is quite a long one, and unlike most of your questions, they are all pertinent and relevant. Can I post a list of my questions, and will you try to answer them to the best of your knowledge and ability as I have just answered your questions?
2. Changes on the NAFCASH site that make good for the following examples of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in my post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 :

Quote:
Readers who have followed this discussion will also remember how many questions (regarding evidence I have shown, regarding the relevance of his infantile "show me" – demands and regarding the rules and standards of evidence – if any – that these demands are based on, among other things) I have asked the fellow, and how few of these – if any at all – he has not run away from.

Readers will further remember Gerdes’ persistent refusal to define more precisely the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and to state what exactly he would accept as proof meeting those requirements, even though I made it real easy for him by providing a draft of such specification and asking him to modify it as he considered necessary (see my posts # 506 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=506 , # 528 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=528 , # 536 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=536 , # 540 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=540, # 545 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=545, # 566 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=566 , among others) . The staple reply to my suggestion was the idiotic "what part of proof do you not understand?" – rhetoric. Asked if this meant submission to reasonable standards of proof such as applied in criminal investigation and historical research, Gerdes ignored the question.

Readers will further remember my suggestion that Gerdes make the NAFCASH challenge more transparent by clearly describing the procedure for selecting eligible applicants, submittal of evidence by such applicants, assessment of evidence submitted by NAFCASH and their decision about entitlement to the reward. The NAFCASH site is rather vague in this respect. Yet all requests that a potential applicant be informed more precisely about the procedures were met with the hysterical derision and Simian howling that is the hallmark of Gerdes’ "argumentation".

Another thing that I’m sure our readers recall is Gerdes’ refusal to introduce an escrow account provision (as is usually done in challenges of this nature, I’ve been told) or at least make it clear to a potential applicant that he may well have to run after x different challenge supporters (the number is 21 including Gerdes, according to the same) at y different places for z part of the reward amount to which each supporter has committed – a fact that would probably make a potential applicant whose first and foremost interest is the money think twice. Gerdes’ response to this reasonable suggestion was a most imbecile "why don’t you get the money from those filthy stinking-rich Jews" – rant.

As if these examples of Gerdian cowardice were not enough, Gerdes also excluded Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps from the challenge, obviously in order to limit a potential applicant’s opportunities to meet the challenge requirements. Asked why he had done so, the best he could come up with was some notoriously lame babbling about "simplification" and "focus", IIRC. Bullshit.

But that’s not yet all, folks. Apparently for no reason other than my apparent preference for ARCHAEOLOGY magazine over SKEPTIC magazine as the publisher of my future article containing evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements, miserable coward Gerdes excluded ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from the already limited list of accepted publishers (if he had balls, as I said before, he would at least have accepted any pertinent scientific magazine for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements) and limited a potential applicant’s choice of publishers to SKEPTIC magazine alone (to be sure, it was stated on the NAFCASH site that an applicant rejected by SKEPTIC "MAY" be given the chance to publish in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine instead, but Gerdes wouldn’t be Gerdes if that "MAY" did not mean "WILL NOT").

And what is more, Gerdes started making a fuss about an unfavorable opinion I had uttered on Topix about Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, obviously in order to make sure that Shermer’s resentment over such statement would hinder his publishing an article of mine in SKEPTIC magazine.
3. A post addressing my fellow HC bloggers below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html, in order to make up for another example of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in post # 903.

4. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059, a link to the present VNN thread and links to my HC articles under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_28.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...enge_4802.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_29.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html

5. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 , an invitation to Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis to report for debate on this VNN thread starting 25 August 2008.
As I wrote in my post # 1025, I’m waiting for Gerdes to use the little brain matter inside his skull, for a change, and try to provide more or less consistent answers to my posts:

# 1011 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1011 , in which I reminded you of what you should have done while I was on vacation in order to look a little bit less like the cowardly and obnoxious liar you have shown yourself to be throughout our discussions,

# 1012 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1012 , in which I (again) answered the repetitive questions that stinking liar Gerdes still claims I’ve run away from ,

# 1013 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1013 ,

# 1014 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1014 and

# 1015 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1015 .

Especially answers to the still unanswered questions contained in those posts.

As I also wrote in post # 1025,

Quote:
One question I would especially like to see answered is the question at the end of my post # 916 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=916 , which I reminded you of in my post # 955 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=955 before going on vacation and in my post # 1011 after coming back:

Quote:
Now, Mr. Gerdes, can we move to the questions I have asked you and you have never answered, and to further questions I would like to ask you? The list is quite a long one, and unlike most of your questions, they are all pertinent and relevant. Can I post a list of my questions, and will you try to answer them to the best of your knowledge and ability as I have just answered your questions?
There’s a good reason for my having asked this question. I have answered to the best of my current knowledge all your questions related to the physical evidence at the Nazi extermination camps we have been talking about. More information will be forthcoming as I follow the progress of archaeological work on the site of Sobibor extermination camp, but until it does we must decide what do with our discussion.

I see three alternatives:

Alternative # 1: We can bore the hell out of our audience with your endless "show me, show me" – yelling, your repetitive irrelevant questions and my yawning responses to both.

Alternative # 2: We can let this discussion rest until more news from the current Sobibor investigations come in.

Alternative # 3: We can do something productive in the meantime by taking a look at the questions I have asked you throughout this discussion and further questions I would like to ask you, questions related to the relevance of your demands, to the physical evidence we have looked at, to the documentary and eyewitness evidence I have shown and to the hypothetical scenarios other than mass murder that you believe in.

From the point of view of our audience, I’d say Alternative # 3 is the most interesting.

As concerns Greg Gerdes, Alternative # 1 is what he will choose if he decides to continue behaving like the lying coward he has so far shown himself to be, Alternative # 2 is the neutral choice and Alternative # 3 is the one he will choose if he should manage to overcome his cowardice and if he has a minimum of genuine interest in the historical events we have been talking about.

So which of them shall it be, Mr. Gerdes?

Alternative # 1 ?

Alternative # 2 ?

or

Alternative # 3 ?
An answer to the question which alternative you choose - that's also what I’m currently waiting for.