Archeological Investigations of Treblinka

[Wayne]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

Wow, that's quite a bloodthirsty little thing we have here.

Projection ... a jew trait. It is the jew that uses blood for matzah.

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

Let's see the proof, baby. And it better be beyond reproach or question.

Chutzpah ... another jew trait.

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

What would you accept as "proof based on logic" that Nazi genocidal policies caused the death of at least 5 million Jews during World War II?

One gassed body would be a start.

So, get busy proving. Otherwise, your entire fairy tale falls apart.

EG was right. The mere goyim have quit caring.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by EireannGoddess

Meh, you could have fooled me, considering the many times you kept reposting them. As to the rest of your writings; the verbiage is such that I barely skim them, since I quickly realise the preachings that I have already gone over with you and others like you, as well as jews. However, jews generally run away from me in an hysterical snit, drooling. I am glad that you decided the doctored fotos are "not even a very important part " of your so-called "evidence".

Someone who repeats claims she cannot substantiate is obviously acting on faith alone.

Originally Posted by EG

Perhaps you mean what you state - however, it doesn't matter to me, I have answered these questions in so many other debates with holocaustians that it's become rote.

After what I've seen of you, sweetheart, I would be very surprised if you had even provided anything like a consistent answer to such questions. But relax, you're not alone. The inability to answer such questions is a common "Revisionist" problem.

Originally Posted by EG

When it comes to you, I simply do not have the time nor desire to wade through your replies were I do address you seriously; full of convolutions, repetitive statements, each worded differently but saying the same thing as is your wont; nor am I interested in your veering off into some holocaustian religious trance and being subjected to revelations that, which would surely be of a completely different topic - if only to avoid Herr Gerdes posts. No, I will not give you that.

The smokescreen you're setting up to run away from answering my questions is duly noted, baby. Who do you think you're fooling?

Originally Posted by EG

And you make quite a good imitation of a jewish parrot. So we are equally entertained, I suppose.

Sorry, darling, but you don't sound like you're entertained at all, and calling me names won't make you more convincing.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Wayne

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Wow, that's quite a bloodthirsty little thing we have here.

Projection ... a jew trait.

That would make your friend Gerdes a Jew, and please mind what the lady wrote (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by EG

Facts, evidence, dna, Proof based upon logic - not belief - are required and, due to the enormity of the Lie, and the heavy price America and Europe paid and continue to pay at the altar of Holocaustianity, the proof had best be above reproach or question - there will be hell for you pay in the near future if you jews do not do this. You will FINALLY get your holocaust. A real one, one that will not have to be made up. And, there will be no eyewitnesses left to lie.

Kill all of them kikes, that’s the spirit! The Führer would have been proud of her, don’t you think so?

Originally Posted by Wayne

It is the jew that uses blood for matzah.

This comes from someone who claims he doesn’t believe in fables.

And what is more, from someone who keeps yelling for "one gassed body" …

Originally Posted by Wayne

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Let's see the proof, baby. And it better be beyond reproach or question.

Chutzpah ... another jew trait.

I don’t see why demanding proof that supports your articles of faith is "chutzpah".

It must be because it’s like an atheist’s demanding proof that God made man in his own image, which a creationist would probably also call "chutzpah".

Originally Posted by Wayne

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
What would you accept as "proof based on logic" that Nazi genocidal policies caused the death of at least 5 million Jews during World War II?

One gassed body would be a start.

That’s as unreasonable a demand as I can think of, considering that the bodies of most gassing victims were burned, that the few who were not are lying at the bottom of mass graves from which they haven’t yet been exhumed, and that even if they are exhumed it should be difficult if not impossible to detect signs of carbon monoxide poisoning or suffocation in semi-decomposed remains 65 years old.

And I didn’t ask for what would be a "start", but for what would convince you that Nazi genocidal policies caused the death of at least 5 million Jews during World War II.

I also asked the following:

b) What rules or standards of evidence you can show us are your requirements based on?

c) In what respect is the converging documentary, eyewitness, physical and demographic evidence that has led criminal investigators and historians to conclude on the factuality of this genocide supposed to be anything other than "proof based on logic"?

d) What events in history that you accept as factual do you consider to have been demonstrated by "proof based on logic", and how is the proof that convinced you of the factuality of these events supposed to differ from the proof that has convinced criminal investigators and historians of the factuality of the Nazi genocide of the Jews?

Care to give it a try with these questions, Wayne?

Originally Posted by Wayne

So, get busy proving. Otherwise, your entire fairy tale falls apart.

I don’t think the consistency of the "fairy tale" depends on a forensic examination certifying that a given dead body is of someone who was killed by gassing, but perhaps you can explain why the heck that should be so.

Originally Posted by Wayne

EG was right. The mere goyim have quit caring.

Speaking for myself, I can say I would care a lot less were it not for my aversion to "Revisionist" nonsense. And I’m not the only one, from what I have seen. This suggests that the more you people howl against historical facts incompatible with your ideology, the more you are making reasonable people interested in those facts – and thus shooting yourselves in the foot.

[Wayne]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

That would make your friend Gerdes a Jew, ...

Less than a week ago, you had me as an enemy of Gerdes. Make up your mind.

BTW ... that is another jew trait.

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

This comes from someone who claims he doesn’t believe in fables.

I don't believe in fairy tales. Fables teach a lesson. Another jew trait is distorting what was said.

There is much evidence to support the blood ritual. Even from a jew ...

A just-published book by an eminent Italian-Israeli historian that revives European blood libels has Jews in Italy and abroad in an uproar.

But the furor hasn’t hurt sales. “Bloody Passover: European Jews and Ritual Murder” sold out so quickly after its arrival in bookstores Feb. 8 that another edition is on its way.



Ariel Toaff, who teaches Medieval and Renaissance history at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, wrote that Jews in the Middle Ages may have murdered Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals.


The issue is especially disturbing for Italian Jews because Toaff is the son of Rabbi Elio Toaff, who from 1951 to 2001 was the chief rabbi of Rome, Italy’s largest Jewish community. Rabbi Toaff became a beloved and respected figure in Italian Jewry.

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

And what is more, from someone who keeps yelling for "one gassed body" …

No yelling. I'm asking for actual forensic proof of your fairy tale.

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

This suggests that the more you people howl against historical facts incompatible with your ideology, the more you are making reasonable people interested in those facts – and thus shooting yourselves in the foot.

Quite the opposite. How many truthers were there 10 years ago, 20 years ago? The more you try to push the lies, the more people will investigate for themselves. Throughout the ages, the jew has never learned to stop and consolidate its position. It always continues to push .... until it once again is expelled. It is once again on the cusp.

It will never learn.

[ced smythe]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

No, your father has nothing to do with this, and whether I require further substantiation depends on what substantiation you provide in the first place. I may well be satisfied with your first substantiation (unlike you, I’m a reasonable person), and you’ll never know until you provide it.

Ah, and of course fear of eventual further questions is as piss-poor an excuse for not providing substantiation as I can think of.

Sorry, but that’s just horseshit. The kind of meaningless "it’s obvious to any honest person" – horseshit that signals a charlatan’s lack of arguments.

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

... And I also didn’t know that physical evidence is the only evidence that matters for criminal investigators or historians. If it's the only evidence that matters for you, I wonder how you’re even certain who your father is.

I agree, my father has nothing to do with this. I simply pointed out an observable time wasting trait; this alone is substantiation; just one of many. I've explained why one shouldn't chase you every time, Bert; your legendary status is immanent. Can others corroborate your claim to being reasonable? I mean, the posturing, the demands, the arrogance. Are you the head of an organization or just lonesome little Bobbajob?

No, I’m not untouchable at all. Every one of my arguments is potentially refutable. All it takes is a better argument.

Actually "it is simply a fact" is Judge Johnson’s simplified expression of a legal principle that, as far as I know, has a good old Anglo-Saxon tradition.

Your "short and very clear" statement was a baseless claim at best, and my response was a direct and detailed demonstration of your claim’s baselessness.

Nonsense.

That’s what a court decision tends to express, and it has always been that way everywhere, if you ask me.

I'd say either term is subject to interpretation.

No, what you call the "Jew myth" is only "disputable" because you throw down logic and reason.

Ho hum, more rabbinisms. I'd say a sedative is what it takes, not a better argument.

My correction tool accepts "disingenuousness" but not disingenuity, and there’s nothing disingenuous about my parallels.

Correction tool? Pointing out typos is now so much more pretentious than I imagined. Blame your narrow minded correction tool, not your erroneous, petty, unapologetic self. There's another quick substantiation of self deception.

Wrong. You’re either dead or not, but whether something can be considered indisputable depends on what standards are applied for doubt or question to be significant.

A claim is disputable or not. Jew court standards are a duality ridden sham.

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.

Oh, FCOL, get on with it.

[Todd in FL]

Originally Posted by EireannGoddess

The Mule wouldn't bother to chat up a prostitute - she would tire of the verbose, long-winded financial negotiations and likely just beat him or stab him and take his wallet and any jewelry he might be wearing.

Any normal and decent woman would not be as violent as a prostitute, if she even bothered to allow the Mule near her, the moment he started talking, she would excuse herself to the pub or restaurant ladies' loo and instead go to the kitchen, leaving out the back door. The Mule would not even notice she had ran off, either, for he would be sitting at table, chatting himself up, debating himself, convincing himself to go on a date with himself...

Clear out your PM box, please!

[EireannGoddess]

Originally Posted by Bobby Mule:

Kill all of them kikes, that’s the spirit! The Führer would have been proud of her, don’t you think so?

I am assuming that by "her" you mean me since I am the only woman posting on this thread. I do not know whether or not Der Chef would have been proud of me. I would hope that to be the case.

Fact is, this is the 21st Century and I am alive now. You are unable to answer Herr Gerdes questions re Evidence on this thread, so you are now coming back with different topics altogether. You are busy 'hondling' a deal over money with Herr Gerdes, a thing with which you are most comfortable.

It is this sort of jewish BS that is going to end up with the jews losing israel [you do not really believe that the rest of the world is going to sit idly by whilst the jews nuke Iran do you?] - No, the juden have proven themselves incapable of managing the patch of land they bought with Hoax reparations and continue to support by using the Hoax as premise for further funding.

So, yes, soon there will be no more israel, nor jew left in the middle east. As for the jew squatting on American and European soil, the repercussion to their thousands of years of meddling and further BS, will either be Folks sending them to aids infested Africa, providing we are in a mood to be compassionate.

However, The Reich proved one thing, compassion toward jews failed. The jews were put to work in camps; separated from their Host, and they were so pissed about it, they had to invent and vent their rage by making up a holocaust - in their long history, they have made up several holocausts when offended by their Host.

The jew is an angry vengeful parasite - much like their desert god [and goddess, let us not forget "God's Wife" - the jews' version of Astarte, or Asherah - they call her their 'Shekinah' whom ortho juden like to have spiritual sex with whilst bobbing and calling her forth in minyan] -

When I tell you that holocaustians and jews are long overdue for another expulsion or permanent Disapora, I am telling the truth. This time their Disapora will be a real holocaust. Period.

Deflection from Herr Gerdes challenge and refusal to adequately answer his questions posed on this thread is quite a relief for you isn't it, you priestly nonce and intellectual midget? Watch, you will reply to this post with yet more deferral, leading you to bring up yet another topic that has nothing to do with Herr Gerdes requests.

When you fail at your financial negotiations, you will come up with yet a new topic; announcing that you have proven your claims; claims which you will also state you have 'forgotten' the content of, and then will ask Herr Gerdes to remind you, starting the whole debate over again from it's orginal Point A.

So, whilst you are enjoying yourself, why not look around for that irrefutable evidence: Proof of one gassed, holocausted unto death kike.

[Greg Gerdes]

I thought you all might be amused at Retardo's latest email to me. Please notice how she is trying to control the language of the issue by "simplifying" the issue by "giving me a choice" of two questions to answer. Then, if I "refuse" to answer one of her two "simple" questions, she can then proclaim to all her homosexual / jewish buttbuddies that I refused to answer her simple questions - ergo - the nafcash challenge "is a hoax."

But before I share with you what she wrote, let me give you an example of how her transparent jew tactic works. My two simple questions to Roberta:


The question still pending now is the following - Roberta:

Which of the following statements is true, Roberta?

A - Did you get your HIV / AIDS via anal sex with your boyfriend nickterry?

B - Did you get your HIV / AIDS via anal sex with another member of your holocaust controversies fruitloop troop?

Simple answer, no bullshit: Is it A, or is it B ?


Now take a look at what she's asking me to answer:

The question still pending now is the following:

Does publishing proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, grant the applicant a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward, or does it not?

Which of the following statements is true, Mr. Gerdes?

A - An applicant who publishes in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements will be paid the reward.

B - An applicant who publishes in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements may (or may not) be paid the reward.

Simple answer, no bullshit: Is it A, or is it B ?

My answer of course, is C.

Roberta, by having your alleged "proof" published in "Skeptic" or Archaeology magazines, you will have completed the vetting process, and can then submit said published material / "proof" to nafcash for consideration for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE reward.

Now, once the previously mentioned published / vetted material is presented, nafcash will then have to make a determination as to whether or not the submitted material actually meets the requirements for the claimant to receive the reward. And if it does, you will be declared the recipient of said reward.

Put simply, the presented material will have to be authenticated and validated before any determination / declaration can be made.

Once all requirements have been met and Greg Gerdes (the executor of nafcash's - THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE) has officially declared that the submitted material has been authenticated and validated as legitimate proof and has met all requirements - expressed and implied, then, and only then, will the supporters of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE be notified that they have 30 days to pay the declared recipient the monetary amount they are legally bound to pay as is stipulated in their contracts. All contracts will then be turned over to the reward recipient to ensure payment.

If the reward claimant feels that they have been unjustly denied, or if a reward recipient does not receive the promised money, then of course that claimant / recipient has at their disposal the U.S. court system and the myriad jews who infest it to help them get relief.

Now that Retardo, is the answer to your two "simple" questions.

[Greg 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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


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...

[Greg Gerdes]

BTW Roberta, big-change-a-coming to nafcash, just for you.

I hate to do what I’m doing, but it's all being done in the name simplicity.

So simple, that even the dullest of the dull will be able to understand it.

Simplify and clarify.

Simplify simplify simplify.

And clarify.

[Alex Linder]

Greg - maybe this info is in thread, if so i apologize, but perhaps you could tell us - who are you, how did you become interested in this stuff in the first place?

[Karl Radl]

I would have thought 'Holocaust and Genocide Studies' would be more likely to publish Roberto's screeds than 'Skeptic' although its a tough competition to see whose bar is lower Richard Breitman or Michael Shermer...

[Greg Gerdes]

Alex:

"Greg - maybe this info is in thread, if so I apologize, but perhaps you could tell us - who are you, how did you become interested in this stuff in the first place?"

I’ve just had a life-long interest in history that eventually led me to investigate the big-lie. All my life, while sitting in history classes or watching some movie / TV show about the hoax (when I used to own a TV I was a big fan of The History Channel) or reading the stories about jews just standing in line like good little sheep waiting to be slaughtered - all the while knowing exactly what was in store for them… it just never made any sense to me. It all just didn’t seem plausible - It didn’t add up.

There was always - ALWAYS - a big lingering question mark in my head telling me that something just wasn't right. (EXACTLY like when I was sitting in church growing up.) It was that inborn Bullshit meter that most of us here have that made me skeptical. But I just couldn’t put my finger on it because while I was growing up there was no internet. So that's all it ever was - just lingering doubts that I couldn’t investigate properly because I just didn't know where to look for information. And when I did look of course, ALL the books in the libraries were the same old claptrap. So for a long long time I was just in limbo with my doubts.

But then I found the internet, and I started to read and study like a mad man - BOTH - sides of the story I might add, but of course it didn’t take long to see which side had the story right.

So there you have it. I was a seeker of the truth who finally found the truth and who is now speaking the truth. (And everything that I've said about the hoax can be said about "the jews.")

[Greg Gerdes]

Roberta:

"You will hear from me again on this subject when you find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHEOLOGY magazine with an article about my research findings in your mailbox."

Nothing in my mailbox today but bills.

Maybe tomorrow Roberta?

LOL!!!

And here's a thought Roberta - Why not both of them?


What do you think about of what your man says here Roberta?

"...when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons... 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."

That's you to a T, isn't it Roberta?

(And the continued silence of Roberta on the Chelmno / Sobibor vids is just deafening, isn't it?)

[Alex Linder]

Thanks, Greg. Good stuff, nice to see jews against the wall when their usual whine and ban tricks aren't allowed.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes

I thought you all might be amused at Retardo's latest email to me. Please notice how she is trying to control the language of the issue by "simplifying" the issue by "giving me a choice" of two questions to answer. Then, if I "refuse" to answer one of her two "simple" questions, she can then proclaim to all her homosexual / jewish buttbuddies that I refused to answer her simple questions - ergo - the nafcash challenge "is a hoax."

But before I share with you what she wrote, let me give you an example of how her transparent jew tactic works. My two simple questions to Roberta:

The question still pending now is the following - Roberta:

Which of the following statements is true, Roberta?

A - Did you get your HIV / AIDS via anal sex with your boyfriend nickterry?

B - Did you get your HIV / AIDS via anal sex with another member of your holocaust controversies fruitloop troop?

Simple answer, no bullshit: Is it A, or is it B ?

Now take a look at what she's asking me to answer:

My answer of course, is C.

Roberta, by having your alleged "proof" published in "Skeptic" or Archaeology magazines, you will have completed the vetting process, and can then submit said published material / "proof" to nafcash for consideration for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE reward.

Now, once the previously mentioned published / vetted material is presented, nafcash will then have to make a determination as to whether or not the submitted material actually meets the requirements for the claimant to receive the reward. And if it does, you will be declared the recipient of said reward.

Put simply, the presented material will have to be authenticated and validated before any determination / declaration can be made.

Once all requirements have been met and Greg Gerdes (the executor of nafcash's - THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE) has officially declared that the submitted material has been authenticated and validated as legitimate proof and has met all requirements - expressed and implied, then, and only then, will the supporters of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE be notified that they have 30 days to pay the declared recipient the monetary amount they are legally bound to pay as is stipulated in their contracts. All contracts will then be turned over to the reward recipient to ensure payment.

If the reward claimant feels that they have been unjustly denied, or if a reward recipient does not receive the promised money, then of course that claimant / recipient has at their disposal the U.S. court system and the myriad jews who infest it to help them get relief.

Now that Retardo, is the answer to your two "simple" questions.

Actually the question you are required to answer (one question with a "yes" and "no" answer option, hence the plural) is the one in my post # 668 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=668:

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, 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.

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?

The only relevant statement in your hysterical babbling – which contains the inevitable self-projecting invective as crypto – faggot Gerdes desperately tries to contain his apparent urge to dress up like a woman and take it in the ass – is the following:

Once all requirements have been met and Greg Gerdes (the executor of nafcash's - THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE) has officially declared that the submitted material has been authenticated and validated as legitimate proof and has met all requirements - expressed and implied, then, and only then, will the supporters of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE be notified that they have 30 days to pay the declared recipient the monetary amount they are legally bound to pay as is stipulated in their contracts. All contracts will then be turned over to the reward recipient to ensure payment.

If the reward claimant feels that they have been unjustly denied, or if a reward recipient does not receive the promised money, then of course that claimant / recipient has at their disposal the U.S. court system and the myriad jews who infest it to help them get relief.

That's more or less a "YES" reply to my question - with the interesting detail that if he doesn't get paid, 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 50 supporters living in different places throughout the US and they all have as little character as Mr. Gerdes, the winning applicant may have to conduct 50 lawsuits before different courts at different places over an amount of 2,000 dollars each.

Are you kidding me, 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 - 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.

[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.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes

BTW Roberta, big-change-a-coming to nafcash, just for you.

I hate to do what I’m doing, but it's all being done in the name simplicity.

So simple, that even the dullest of the dull will be able to understand it.

Simplify and clarify.

Simplify simplify simplify.

And clarify.

Cut the crap, Gerdes. If one of us is dumb and has understanding problems, it is you.

Don't forget the part about the escrow account when you "simplify and clarify". Or, if you don't want to include that part, make it very clear that if not paid the winning applicant will have to sue x number of different persons in y number of different places for z part of the reward amount each, OK?

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes

Roberta:

"You will hear from me again on this subject when you find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHEOLOGY magazine with an article about my research findings in your mailbox."

Nothing in my mailbox today but bills.

Maybe tomorrow Roberta?

LOL!!!

Gathering evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements is not exactly something that can be done from one day to the next, as even dumb fuck Gerdes should understand. But I'm glad he's so dumb as to already get nervous every time he opens his mailbox. That means he'll be suffering for quite a while.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

And here's a thought Roberta - Why not both of them?

Yeah, Gerdes, why not shift the goalposts again? Just go ahead and keep showing what a miserable coward and stinking hoaxer you are.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

What do you think about of what your man says here Roberta?

My man? I thought that was from your beloved Führer.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

"...when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons... 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."

That's you to a T, isn't it Roberta?

No, but it fits Gerdes like a glove. As I said, if I were one of Gerdes' fellow knuckle-draggers I would demand that he show me a certificate of "Aryan" descent to make sure he's not a self-hating kike.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

(And the continued silence of Roberta on the Chelmno / Sobibor vids is just deafening, isn't it?)

Not that it matters, but how about reading what I wrote about those videos in the posts mentioned hereafter?

# 609: http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=609

# 648 http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=648

# 610: http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=610

# 650: http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=650

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

I would have thought 'Holocaust and Genocide Studies' would be more likely to publish Roberto's screeds than 'Skeptic' although its a tough competition to see whose bar is lower Richard Breitman or Michael Shermer...

Take that up with Gerdes, he's the one who insists that it be either SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.