[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Roberta:

"Suing NAFCASH and/or the challenge supporters won't help me, as neither of them ever undertook a legally binding commitment to pay the reward if the stated requirements for claiming it are met."

This of course, is a flat out lie and just another lame attempt by Roberta to weasle out of her public acceptance of - THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE.

First of all, I have already made clear that the reward money would be nice to have but is not the main motivation for my research. From my post # 596 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=596:

Nothing to make a fuss about, actually. I’ve become so interested in the subsoil of these camps, especially Sobibor, that I intend to find out as much as I can about it for this reason already. If I can get my findings published in Archeology or Skeptic magazine, or at least co-author an article in one of those publications, that would be great. And if doing so furthermore forces an intellectual midget and lowly piece of scum to pay me 100,000 dollars, that would be the icing on the cake.

To put this so simply that even a retard like Gerdes will understand it, I’m doing my research independently of how big a chance there is that meeting the challenge requirements will get me any money. If I don’t get paid for submitting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, that’s fine. If I do get paid, that’s even better.

Second, stinking liar Gerdes is quoting out of context my statement about the expected futility of suing NAFCASH and/or the challenge supporters, which is included in my post # 668 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=668:, and thereby completely altering its meaning. The context of this statement is the following:

Let's assume I have published proof objectively meeting the challenge requirements in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine and am therefore entitled to lay claim to the reward.

I then submit my evidence to the consideration of NAFCASH. I send them all reports by archeologists or forensic experts, drawings, photos, video clips, GPR surveys etc. that I have collected, together with a letter formally requesting payment of the reward to a given account. The elements I submit meet the challenge requirements, i.e. (to simplify things, I'll talk only about the main challenge now) they prove beyond a reasonable doubt the exact location and exact dimensions of a given mass grave at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor or Treblinka and that this grave contains human remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the estimated number of victims of these camps according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

With that submittal, I shall have a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward. The association NAFCASH, validly represented by Mr. Greg Gerdes, and the supporters XYZ of the NAFCASH challenge, undertake the legally binding commitment that, in case the conditions described in the previous two paragraphs are met, they will pay me the net amount of 100,000 US dollars. The association NAFCASH and each of the challenge supporters shall be jointly and severally liable to this effect.

The implications of this legally binding commitment are that, if NAFCASH and the challenge supporters should fail to pay the reward, despite all conditions for payment having been complied with (and I frankly don't give much for the "character" of either Mr. Gerdes or any of the challenge supporters), I can sue them or any of them (as they are jointly and severally liable) before a competent court of law and obtain from that court of law an award whereby the respondent or respondents must pay, lest a court executor pawns their assets and sells them in an auction to the extent required for satisfying my claim.

Is the above correct, Mr. Gerdes?

YES or NO ?

If the answer is YES, then the NAFCASH challenge is a fairly honest challenge.

If the answer is NO, [italics added – RM] this means that whether or not I get paid upon submitting to NAFCASH proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, following publication of such proof in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, depends on whether or not the supporters of the challenge are actually the "people of character" Gerdes claims they are (which I strongly doubt). If these people are a bunch of charlatans like Gerdes (which is what you usually find in the "Revisionist" scene), that means tough luck for me. I shall have invested much time and money into collecting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements (apart from travel and lodging expenses for trips to and inside Poland, I don't think archaeologists, forensic experts and GPR professionals work for free, and one must probably also pay fees for official permissions to conduct archaeological investigations) and not recover a cent of my expenses. Suing NAFCASH and/or the challenge supporters won't help me, as neither of them ever undertook a legally binding commitment to pay the reward if the stated requirements for claiming it are met.[italics added – RM]

And this, of course, is final confirmation (if that were still necessary) that the NAFCASH challenge is a rip-off, a hoax, a mendacious publicity stunt meant to impress suckers, and nothing more than that.

So what is your answer to my above questions, Mr. Gerdes?

Is it YES?

Or is it NO?

So what I say about the uselessness of suing NAFCASH and/or the challenge supporters is worded as a conclusion I would consider realistic in case Gerdes’ answer to my question is "NO". If the answer is "YES", this conclusion does not apply.

Gerdes is mendaciously trying to make believe that I postulated as an established fact what I actually only considered as one out of several possible hypotheses.

But then, it has long become obvious that Gerdes is a compulsive, pathological liar.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

This is exactly what Hugh was talking about when he posted Hitlers remarks about the jew tactics of:

Quote:
when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion.

They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one’s hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards.

If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day.

The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday’s defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct.

Boy, that sure reminds me of how Gerdes has persistently evaded most of the questions I have asked him throughout this discussion (when he didn’t respond with platitudes such as "what part of proof don’t you understand"), ignored most of the evidence I have shown and repeated his mantras over and over again instead of addressing my arguments.

The above characterization fits your stance like a glove, Mr. Gerdes. If it describes fallacies that are specifically Jewish, I guess that makes you a Jew. If I were any of your brothers-in-spirit here, I would demand you show a certificate of "Aryan" descent to make sure you’re not a self-hating kike.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

All this talk about how the reward money is to be paid out has already been discussed on the topix site:

My Post #587:

Sam,

Because of the restrictions on the type of nonprofit organization that nafcash is (501 (c)(3)(exempt), Scientific / Historical Educational Organization), I am not able to hold cash.

I do of course have access to the promissory notes that have been signed and notarized by the supporters of The Final Solution Forensic Challenge. Every one of the supporters of said challenge not only has more than enough money to cover their contracts, but they are ready, willing and able to meet their contractual obligations.(I would have rejected their contracts if I had any inkling what-so-ever that they would not.) In fact, I wouldn’t even have asked them to become supporters if I didn’t believe that they not only had the means, but would pay up if and when they were told to do so.

My Post #592:

Sam:

“I would have to see the promissory notes that are signed and notarized to believe there is any cash."

Me:

Fine. What do I care what you believe? Do you believe that there was a Treblinka holocaust Sam?

What hard physical evidence have you seen to support such a belief?

What's harder to believe? That 20 people have pledged $5,000.00 each to pay someone a reward to prove something that will never be proven, or that the Germans murdered 870,000 jews without leaving a trace of their crime? If you're such a skeptic Sammyboy, then why do you believe in an 870,000 death toll / perfect crime?

Hell Sam, even with baby sitting and paper route, you could probably come up with $5,000.00. Virtually every single supporter of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM has a house and two vehicles and who knows how many toys and how many other valuables.

What is your bicycle worth Sam? How about your comic book collection? Like I said, I bet even you could come up with 5 grand. When you get to be an adult Sam, you will realize that, for most intelligent / educated people,$5,000.00 is pocket change.

Note how Gerdes runs away from a legitimate and reasonable request for proof that the reward money is available, which anyone who might consider spending valuable time and money in gathering proof to meet the challenge requirements is not only entitled but also well-advised to ask, by bullshitting around and bringing up irrelevant "what’s harder to believe" – pseudo-arguments that one would expect to hear from a bitching fish-wife on a Saturday morning (and of course the mendacious "without leaving a trace" – straw-man could not be missing from that pseudo-argument).

This is not about being a "skeptic" or not, Gerdes (a skeptic is the last thing you are, by the way). It is about the right and legitimate interest of someone who considers applying for your challenge reward, with the amount of effort, time and money that gathering the required evidence implies, to make sure that he will see the money if he succeeds. Whoever does this mainly for the reward money wouldn’t want to risk not being able to recover his investment because there’s no reward money around, don’t you think so?

Originally Posted by Gerdes

My Post #596

Sam:

"Without a central repository guaranteeing the available funds, the reward is useless and virtually unenforceable."

No Sam, every unpaid legally binding pledge could be used to put a lien on the house of the person who didn't pay up by the winner of the challenge in the allotted time stipulated in the nafcash contracts. That means they have teeth. That's why all supporters have to be legal residents of the U.S.

Yeah, the pledges sure have "teeth". The applicant who earned the reward will apparently have to run after every single supporter of the challenge for the part of the reward to which this supporter has committed. This should be big fun, especially if the supporters all live in different places - say one in Montana, the other in Missouri, the other in Alabama, the other in West Virginia, and so on. If there are 20 supporters (in my previous hypothetical scenario it was 50, but Gerdes speaks of 20 so I make it 20) living in different places throughout the US and they all have as little character as Mr. Gerdes, the winning applicant may have to conduct 20 lawsuits before different courts at different places over an amount of 5,000 dollars each.

Is that what you call "teeth", Mr. Gerdes?

If this were an honest challenge, the 100,000 dollars would at some time, say when the applicant has submitted all his evidence to NAFCASH, be placed on an escrow account with a bank that is instructed to pay the amount to who presents either

a) a declaration signed by Greg Gerdes certifying that the submitted material has been "authenticated and validated as legitimate proof" and has met all requirements "expressed and implied" of the challenge, or

b) a decision by a court of law that he's entitled to the reward.

Or, at the very least, the winning applicant would be handed a statement signed by all supporters of the challenge whereby they are jointly and severally liable for the 100,000 dollars, meaning that the winning applicant can claim the entire amount from any of them.

Of course the latter wouldn't help the applicant much if each of the supporters has only a fraction of that amount of money. It would be like trying to get money out of a naked miner's pockets, to quote a saying from the Ruhrgebiet industrial region of Germany, where my parents are from.

If this is so (and I wouldn't be surprised if it is, despite Gerdes' claim that he checked the supporters' financial capacity, as I've seen the fellow lie way too often) the only way to make the NAFCASH challenge an honest and fair challenge, instead of a thinly disguised rip-off, would be the above-mentioned escrow account provision.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Sams Post #619

Mr. Gerdes

Can you demonstrate tangible proof that you can satisfy even 1% of the offered award?

1%

Sams Post #631

Did I miss it, did Gerdes provide evidence that he can provid just 1% of the alleged reware money?

Just one percent - can you do it?

My Post #638:

Sam:

"Did I miss it, did Gerdes provide evidence that he can provide just 1% of the alleged reward money? Just one percent - can you do it? Then show it."

Just 1 % Sam? So you're challenging me to prove to you that I have, at my immediate disposal,$1,000.00 in cold hard cash on this date of 6 - 8 -18? Ok Sam, but we can do even better than just 1 %, can’t we? Lets you and me have a little wager, OK?

Currently the reward officially stands at $80,000.00, but it will soon be, very soon,$100,000.00, so let's use that figure, OK? And rather than 1 %, let’s say, Oh, let's go with 10 % shall we? That’s a nice round figure - 10 % of $100,000.00.

So, you will be betting me, dollar for dollar, that I can't prove, that on this date of June 8th, 2008, that I have at least $10,000.00 in cash at my immediate disposal. Not resources / things of value, but actual cold hard cash. OK, let’s use the amount that I currently have (at least) in JUST ONE my checking accounts alone, on this very date of 06 - 08 - 08. This is a figure that can be proven or disproven and in an account that can be irrefutably verified, at any date in the future, correct?

So that’s the bet then Sam - you bet your $10,000.000 that I don't have at least $10,000.00 in JUST ONE of my checking accounts on this date of 6 - 8 – 08 - Deal? Do we have a wager Sam? Do we have a deal on the conditions?

You set the wager up with an attorney. You will of course have to come up with your own $10,000.00 and deposit it with said attorney. He will of course make out the contracts that will ensure that the money goes to the winner.

But of course, the loser of the bet will also have to pay the attorney’s fees, so we better raise the amount that we bet to $15,000.00. So how’s that for a deal then Sam? You’re betting me $15,000.00 that I don't have, at the very least $15,000.00 in JUST ONE my checking accounts on this date.(The side wager of $5,000.00 is for covering the attorney’s fees.)

So again, the bet is, your putting your $15,000.00 up betting me that I can’t prove that I have, in JUST ONE of my checking accounts alone, AT LEAST $15,000.00 - on this date of 6 -08 -08.

Get an attorney and get things set up Sam. I will accept that bet.

Bring it on Sam!

BTW Sam, please contact me via the email address at the bottom of the nafcash site:

http://nafcash.com/

And give me all your pertinent personal information so I know who it is that is challenging me to such a bet.

After all, only a coward would make the childish statements that you’ve been making anonymously and then not be a man enough to follow up on them.

Right Sammy?

My VNN post #619:

...BTW Roberta, do any of your fellow funny boy freaks who live in the U.S. want to accept the challenge I gave to semen sucking Sam?

If I lived in the US and had asked Sam’s "1 %" question, I might feel compelled to either drop it or accept your bet, but I didn’t ask that question.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

What's wrong Roberta? Are they as big as cowards as you?

Just look who’s calling me a coward.

The fellow who refused debating me on an equal-opportunity forum like RODOH but rather chose a place where he knew his buddies would back him up against a lone opponent and he would thus have numbers in his favor.

The fellow who has dodged most of my questions and ignored most of my arguments as well as most of the evidence I have shown throughout this discussion. See, for instance, my question about the alleged Shermer claims that Gerdes made such a fuss about, post # 423 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=423 :

How about at least providing the page number on which one finds each of the snippets you pasted together in the above "quote", Mr. Gerdes?

It’s not the first time that I’m making this reasonable request.

What’s the matter, are you too



to accommodate this reasonable request?

The fellow who responded to my questions about the precise contents of his challenge requirements and what he would accept as proof for those requirements (I really made it easy for him by precisely specifying my interpretation of both and asking him to confirm or correct my interpretation, see my post # 506 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=506 among others) with "what part of proof don’t you understand" – platitudes and similar evasive baloney.

As I have said before (and I know CS resents this parallel, but it’s just so fucking appropriate), Greg Gerdes calling me a coward is like Elton John calling Brad Pitt a faggot.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

She's really working overtime looking for an angle out, isn't she?

It's the most cowardly thing I've ever seen.

Only a jew...

No, Gerdes, I’m not looking for an angle out. As I told CS in my post # 677 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=677 :

I don’t think so and couldn’t care less, and I’m also not "pettifogging over money". Money has never been my motivation for opposing you beautiful people (I have never received a cent for it, as a matter of fact) and will not become a motivation now. It’s just something that would be nice to have if I get it, but if I don’t it doesn’t really matter. From my post # 596 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=596 :

Of course this doesn’t keep me from trying to find out if the NAFCASH challenge is a fairly honest challenge or a hoax. Gerdes is on his way to confirming (assuming such confirmation is still needed) that it is the latter.

For now I’ll assume in your benefit that you either don’t read my posts or are to dumb to understand them, but the next time you repeat that "looking for an angle out" - BS you’ll be telling another lie, asshole. Of course that’s exactly what I expect you to do, compulsive liar that you have amply shown to be.