View Single Post
Old June 9th, 2008 #12
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Ok, time for a little update, with a couple of editions / changes on the specific subjects.

To date, this is all the "evidence" that Roberta has provided which she claims "proves" the Treblinka holohoax story:
I’m looking forward to Gerdes showing where I claimed that the evidence he will list hereafter is by itself proof of the mass murder at Treblinka. Needless to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gerdes omitted

a) the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 and
b) the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 1 - Teeth (Between 24 and 96 million of them):
Didn’t you want to leave out the straw-man about Grossman’s "3 million" overestimate, which corresponds to the "96 million" teeth you’re babbling about?

Of course I have no problem with your showing again and again what a liar you are. Keep digging yourself in, Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
"The earth is throwing out crushed bones, teeth, clothes, papers."

As quoted by Vassili Grossman in this link here:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?topic=4194&forum=2

And:

“Grave robbers from Wólka Okrąglik and neighboring villages pose for a photo together with militiamen who caught them red-handed. In the peasant's pockets there were golden rings and teeth of Jews… "With the grave robbers we found golden rings, crowns and porcelain teeth with gold and silver inlays."

As quoted in this link here:

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/925...ml#reply-92506

Also:

Q - Please tell us the EXACT number of teeth that you can prove have been located at Treblinka, along with the photos of said teeth and the names of those who claim to have found them and on what date and EXACTLY where in the Treblinka camp they were found.

Roberta:

A - "None of the sources I quoted contains this information, and I don’t think it is of any relevance... No, I have no photo of "just one" tooth. And you cannot explain what the hell that is supposed to matter... there’s no reason why I should physically have a single tooth in my hands or a photo of a tooth at my disposal."
Another of your mendacious "montages", Gerdes?

Let’s look at the whole of what I wrote, highlighting the parts that you picked out.

In post # 18:

Quote:
None of the sources I quoted contains this information, and I don’t think it is of any relevance. One can reasonably expect that most of the burned corpses' ashed teeth were crushed, together with most of what bones were not destroyed by the fire, but some were not, as the evidence I have provided shows. How many teeth were neither crushed nor fell apart is not known and need not be known.

But if you disagree and want to make your demand look like anything other than a showpiece of infantile silliness and a feeble attempt to question inconvenient evidence, please explain for what purpose exactly one would have to know how many teeth Grossman saw, how many teeth the Polish cops found with the grave-robbers, or where "exactly" in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka those teeth were seen or picked up.

Relevance, Mr. Gerdes.

Demands the relevance of which you cannot demonstrate need not be met.

They are just pointless distractions.
What part of the word "relevance" do you not understand, Gerdes?

Quote:
No, I have no photo of "just one" tooth.

And you cannot explain what the hell that is supposed to matter
, in the face of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence proving a mass murder that corresponds to as many teeth as 750,000 men, women and children had in their mouths.

So better drop that silly "just one" – rhetoric. It’s wearing thin, and I’m being polite.
Or do you have an explanation what the hell it is supposed to matter whether your opponent can show a photo of "just one" tooth, Gerdes? Judging by how you keep running away from this question, you have none.

In post # 21:

Quote:
As to the "single piece of tangible physical evidence" you babble about, there’s no reason compatible with the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence of the Treblinka killings why I should physically have a single tooth in my hands or a photo of a tooth at my disposal, so I’m not "admitting" anything (apart from never having claimed that I had such a physical exhibit or photo of such a physical exhibit at my disposal, as the liar well knows). I have shown eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence mentioning teeth, which is proof enough that not all ashed teeth were crushed after the burning of the corpses but some were left intact. And as Gerdes cannot explain why the evidence I have shown should be less conclusive than a physical exhibit, or what reason there is to doubt the accuracy of that evidence, his yelling for "one single tooth" is as irrelevant as a spoilt little brat’s yelling for a lollipop.
Note that Gerdes left out the part "compatible with the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence of the Treblinka killings", which is the one that matters. I guess he left it out because he cannot explain why the my having no photo of "one single tooth" at my disposal should be incompatible with the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence of the Treblinka killings.

This is called quote-mining, Gerdes, leaving out a part of a quote to give it another meaning than it actually has. It’s a form of lying. But then, Gerdes starts lying as soon as he hits the keyboard, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (50,000 each) / Lazarett:

Roberta (from topix post #611):

"No, I can’t “show” you any specific bullet or shell casing. And you can’t explain what the hell it is supposed to matter that I can’t show you any specific bullet or shell casing, which means that you can stick your idiotic “just one” babbling you-know-where."
Exactly, Gerdes. Thanks for again confirming that you cannot demonstrate the relevance of your demands, which means that those demands are just pointless distractions. They may impress dumb suckers, but they don’t impress people with brains inside their heads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And from VNN:

"No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of... involving such bullets and shell casings themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any bullets or shell casings have been found"

"No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of... it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified."
More quote-mining, Gerdes? Let’s look at the above-quoted statements from post # 21 as a whole, highlighting the parts you conveniently left out:

Quote:
No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of, but there’s no reason compatible with the historical record why such exhibits should necessarily have been found, while there is conclusive eyewitness testimony to the shootings at the "Lazarett" involving such bullets and shell casings themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any bullets or shell casings have been found.
Quote:
No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of, but there’s no reason compatible with the historical record why such exhibits should necessarily exist, as the killers had all the time in the world to erase the physical traces of the "Lazarett". On the other hand, conclusive eyewitness testimony to the shootings at the "Lazarett" was provided at trials before West German courts, also and especially by the shooters themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified.
Why did you leave out the highlighted parts, Gerdes? Because you cannot handle them, have no arguments against them? So it would seem.

Why are you not able to debate without lying through your teeth by quote-mining and straw-man misrepresentations of your opponent’s arguments, Gerdes?

Is it because you cannot handle what your opponent actually wrote, as opposed what you would like him to have written?

It would seem so.

Why did you leave out the important part, Gerdes? Let’s quote the whole thing, highlighting the part you omitted:

Quote:
Considerable amounts of physical exhibits are documented in two Polish site investigation reports, and photographs showing parts of what these reports describe are also available.
Are you so scared of what is written in those site investigation reports that you prefer to ignore them and make a fuss about what little of the reports’ contents is visible on photographs, as if I had ever stated that the photos and not the reports are the relevant records of the physical evidence?

It would seem so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Did I anywhere state that this photographs, which Alex Bay analyzes based on what he knows about the building from eyewitness testimonies, is proof of the gas chambers inside that building?

Show me where, Gerdes.

If you can’t, admit that you lied again.

Quote:
# 5 - The "huge mass graves -

A - In the "receiving" area:

Roberta:

“In the south-western part of the camp, roughly corresponding to the area of the "receiving camp" ...there are four shapes of ground scarring I circled and marked as 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the September 1944 photograph. I think that 1, 2 and 3 are in all probability pits for corpses which were used during the first phase of Treblinka and 4 is the "Lazarett:”

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg
My comment about this point in post # 21 was the following:

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.
Why did you ignore this and instead quoted what I wrote about the mass graves in the "receiving camp" sector of Treblinka, Gerdes? Because you think that is easier for you to handle than the descriptions of at least one mass grave and of the whole mass graves area in the "death camp" sector in the quoted passages from examining judge Lukaszkiewicz’s reports?

It would seem so.

But OK, if you’d rather discuss the mass graves in the "reception camp" sector, there’s this question you have been often asked but never even attempted to answer:

What, if not mass graves in an area where at least two eyewitnesses mentioned the presence of mass graves, could the ground-scarring shapes I pointed out possibly have been, namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory?

When will you stop running away from this question, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
* Please notice her contradiction from what she stated in # 2 above.
Wow, Gerdes is trying to be smart again. But even his mutilated quote of what I stated "in # 2" contains the following period:

«… it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified»

"It doesn’t matter a damn thing whether it could" does not mean "it cannot", of course. Get a brain, Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
B - In the "death camp" area (From topix post #543):

Q - Where EXACTLY is this "enormous pit" located Roberta?

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

Captioned: "One of the enormous pits in the Treblinka camp into which the victims' corpses (and later, ashes) were thrown."

Roberta:

"It is exactly located in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka extermination camp, Mr. Gerdes. That’s all criminal investigators and historians need to know."
Why did you leave out the rest of what I wrote in Topix post # 543 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p27#c543 , Gerdes?

I’ll highlight the parts you left out:

Quote:
It is exactly located in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka extermination camp, Mr. Gerdes. That’s all criminal investigators and historians need to know, if they need to know it at all in order to prove the mass murder at Treblinka (which I don’t think is the case). If you want to know the precise geographic coordinates, I’m looking forward to your explaining the relevance of your demand.
So, Gerdes, where is your explanation?

What part of the word "relevance" do you not understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Sorry, but I'm at loss about what the poet is trying to tell us here. Care to explain, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 6 - Photos of the camp itself, from the outside:

A - During its construction:

B - During its operation:

C - During its destruction:
Adding new irrelevant demands now, Gerdes? Why so? Have you become conscious of how chewed-out the irrelevant demands you have made so far are?

It would seem so.

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
Now look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten something.
You’ve "forgotten" a lot, a I pointed out above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And please notice #6. What do you have for that Roberta?
You mean photos of the camp from the outside? There’s none that I know of, but I’ll check. Meanwhile, try explaining why you added another demand, the relevance of which you haven’t bothered to explain, without having yet explained the relevance of your previous demands let alone answered any of the questions I have asked you.

Is this just an attempt to throw more sand into the eyes of the suckers you apparently expect your "White" buddies to be, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, please look over the evidence carefully Roberta, and let me know if I missed anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."
I don’t expect the "next phase" to contain anything but a repetition of Gerdes’ straw-men and pointless demands, but who does Gerdes think he is to unilaterally establish the "foundation" of our debate?