|
July 9th, 2008 | #421 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
But it would be even better if you stopped beating around the bush and told us just how precisely you want the location of a mass grave to be identified. Would something like "200 meters in north-easterly direction from the northern edge of the memorial containing human ashes on the Sobibor memorial site" be precise enough for you, or do you want more? If so, please give and example of how precisely you would like the location to be identified. |
|
July 9th, 2008 | #422 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What I’m waiting for I told you in the above and in post # 835 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p41#c835 : Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
a) Such tape measurement was made, b) The length, width and depth measured are the length, width and depth or a mass grave, and c) The mass grave in question is one of the mass graves of Chelmno extermination camp. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In order to pay out your 80,000 dollars? I’m asking because that’s the only aspect under which those answers would be relevant. In the context of proving and reconstructing what happened at Chelmno extermination camp, they are not necessary at all. Mass murder at that camp has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt independently of how many human remains the information at my disposal allows me to rub your nose in. Quote:
And how is this O’Neill babbling related to your NAFCASH challenge, which is the only aspect under which it might be relevant? How would musing about O’Neill’s presumable motivations bring a potential applicant closer to your 80,000 dollars? Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 9th, 2008 | #423 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
The Nov. 1945 Polish investigation found at least one former mass grave, now filled with partial human remains, which had a depth of 7.5 meters. The pertinent excerpt from the site investigation report is quoted in my post # 172 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=172 , exhibit A.3.1.4: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As to the Polish investigation commission in November 1945, they apparently dug in the wrong place and didn’t find the pit of the "Lazarett", which according to the information I have (e.g. a drawing by survivor Willenberg I saw yesterday on Youtube) was comparatively shallow. This pit excavated by Łukaszkiewicz’ team on 9 November 1945 , see my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html : Quote:
Quote:
And what was this, asshole? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just because you can’t stop thinking about what Shermer does or does not, this doesn’t mean anybody else has the same pathetic obsession. |
||||||||||||||||||||
July 9th, 2008 | #424 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 9th, 2008 | #425 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Come on, Gerdes, you’re making it to easy for me to show what a cowardly brainless chimp you are. Get a brain, get a couple of balls, and try to provide consistent answers to these questions: Quote:
|
||||
July 9th, 2008 | #426 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I am tired of listening to the rantings of a mad man, you are completely robbed of common sense and its my opinion that you aren't qualified to speak on any subject, you completely lack reason. The rest is rather sadistic prattle over which "may" is more likely which is what I more or less expected from a half-wit, if that was so then you wouldn't say may/may not you would say it is PROBABLY but you say may or may not because there is absolutely nothing supporting your statements. 0=0 May or may not is only of use if there is no significant difference since if there was you'd use other descriptors "Most probably" "Less likely" etc but you'd have to provide support and an over-exposed picture as support wouldn't even get past toddler court. Speaking of which I actually gave you a benefit with that rain example considering it's measurable and the chances range widely (Depending on region), still a 50-50 chance is much more likely than your 1/1,000,000,000 chance of there being bone ash in any of the pics you showed us. Besides wasn't the original claim that it was Calcium oxide? Obviously the investigators had a bit of a lacking scientific background on this matter. Quote:
Last edited by psychologicalshock; July 9th, 2008 at 10:19 AM. |
|||||
July 9th, 2008 | #427 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
In the context of your NAFCASH "challenge", on the other hand, you don’t have to demonstrate that your requirements are reasonable, or that the kind of evidence you require is indispensable to proving the events you deny or even contributes much to such proof. You are free to define the conditions under which you are willing to pay out 80,000 dollars, even if they are unreasonable or irrelevant from an evidentiary point of view. However, your conditions must be such that can be physically and technically fulfilled, and you must define them precisely. This is what my questions are about. The complex of questions in which I mentioned photographs is the following: What documentation do you want to see? An archeologist’s detailed description of the findings and the quantification processs? The report of an expert in forensic medicine certifying that the remains found are human remains? If so, what part of the remains must said expert have examined? All of them or just some representative samples? In the latter case, what would satisfy you that the samples examined are representative of what has been separated from soil and wood ashes as human ashes and bone fragments? Do you also want photographs? If so, what part of the human remains would the photographs have to visualize, and what would have to be recognizable on the photographs? Please answer these questions, coward. All of them. |
|
July 9th, 2008 | #428 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9th, 2008 | #429 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
|
|
July 9th, 2008 | #430 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But please keep entertaining me, CS. Your paranoid fantasies are always fun to read (I guess that was also very "Jewish", wasn’t it?) And please let me retribute your "Money Masters" with two cartoons from Der Stürmer. This is how you see yourself, I presume: And this is one of my favorites. I like the girl on the right: |
||||||||||||
July 9th, 2008 | #431 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Anyhow here's something simple for your mind to understand:
May or may not do not further knowledge and are thus not arguments. It may rain tomorrow, it may not does not provide any useful knowledge. You are trying to argue that these photos show bone ash through a may or may not conjecture by saying that one "may" is more likely. It would still not be an argument since you are not furthering the argument and thus not making an argument since what you are saying isn't furthering knowledge simply saying there is a possibility. There's a possibility of a unicorn living in my backyard, so what? It means nothing. You're arguing for the Holocaust and this isn't an argument, this a red herring now gather your dignity and at least try to return to Earth and prove your fairy tale. |
July 9th, 2008 | #432 | |||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ah, and the "only for fools" thing is real funny, coming as it does from who obviously clings to an ideological faith. Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
July 9th, 2008 | #433 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And who proclaims hatred shouldn't use the word "dignity". |
||||
July 9th, 2008 | #434 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, a German online dictionary under http://wissen.spiegel.de/wissen/doku...l=Knochenasche tells me that bone ash (Knochenasche) consists of both Calcium Phosphate and Calcium Oxide: Quote:
|
|||
July 9th, 2008 | #435 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
PS:
"Want more photos of bone ash? I can make a lot more" Anything that rubs Roberta’s hooked nose into her filthy lies is OK by me. I vote for MOAR. And speaking of Roberta's lies about ashes, check this out: Quote:
How many lies now is that? Does "dozens" even come close? And did you see how the lying jewbitch danced around the questions of Chelmno and Sobibor? LOL!!! Not just a liar, but a cowardly one at that. |
|
July 9th, 2008 | #436 | |||||||||||||||||
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Eye witness evidence can be dethroned by photographic evidence or forensic evidence. Obvious , Justice has been trying for years to add more certain evidence to prevent innocents from being jailed. Photographic evidence can be dethroned by forensic evidence Obvious as well , photographic evidence is easily faked, forensic evidence doesn't require proof of the investigation itself, it merely requires experimental provisions as all science does since then even if you fake the study it can easily be redone. Thus science rarely produces fake studies as they are too easy to eject. Since the proof can be reacquired by anyone and requires no belief or possibility of human error (Since if there is an error it will be re-examined until it is correct) it is the superior proof. Proof that stands on its own and is extremely difficult to fake is indeed the best proof. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Cremate any vertebrate organic matter and see what happens. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[quote] Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide Here's the reason(s) why this happens. There would be no quicklime in the remains. Last edited by psychologicalshock; July 9th, 2008 at 12:17 PM. |
|||||||||||||||||
July 9th, 2008 | #437 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Quote:
"Dead wrong... The Nov. 1945 Polish investigation found at least one former mass grave" Notice how the lying jewbitch is trying to claim that the craters produced by the Soviet bombs are graves. Judge Łukaszkiewicz clearly made the distinction when he said: "The largest of the craters produced by explosions (numerous fragments attest to the fact that these explosions were set off by bombs)" And: "During the work on the terrain, I found no mass graves" What part of - "I found no mass graves" don't you understand Roberta? |
|
July 9th, 2008 | #438 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Roberta:
"OK, assuming the term "measured" refers to a precise tape measurement." What else would one "assume" it to be dumb ass? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Only a jew... |
July 9th, 2008 | #439 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Concerning the EXACT location of an alleged "huge mass grave," Roberto writes:
"about the location you’ll still have to tell us what you want to see, how precisely you want it defined" How "precisely" should we "define exact?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Only a jew... |
July 9th, 2008 | #440 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
In the interest in saving time and space, reguarding Roberta's entire post # 422:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! What incredible nonsense. Suddenly, to Roberta, the existance of an allegedly excavated "huge mass grave" becomes - "there’s no aspect under which your question could be relevant." And did you catch this: Q - Can you prove that so much as one pound of human remains has been excavated from this alleged "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?" Roberta: "an enormous pit that is filled with human bones" is certainly more than "one pound of human remains" And later: "In the context of proving and reconstructing what happened at Chelmno extermination camp, they are not necessary at all. Mass murder at that camp has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt" Well, that's good enough for me. Send me your address Roberta, I send you the reward money. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Only a jew... |
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|