Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 9th, 2008 #421
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta, here is a little exercise for you to help you understand the word - EXACT.

OK Roberta, what is the EXACT location of the geographic center of the U.S.?
You tell me, chicken-shit. It may get us closer to determining your requirements as to how precisely you want the location of a given mass grave to be identified.

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.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #422
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
OK, I’m going to make this so simple that even a retard like Roberta can understand it.
I’d say you’ll try to put up another smokescreen to avoid answering my questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
We will use the largest of the alleged “huge mass graves” of Sobibor as an example here:

(Reuters Nov., 23, 2001)

MASS GRAVES FOUND AT NAZI POLISH DEATH CAMP

"Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said on Friday they had found mass graves at the site, which was evacuated by German occupying forces in October 1943 after a prisoner uprising. The excavations were the first since World War Two at the former camp, which was subsequently forested over. They could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims, mainly Jews, who died in the Sobibor gas chambers. According to official Polish accounts, 250,000 people were killed in Sobibor, which was opened in May 1942 and lies close to the eastern border with Ukraine. ''We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned,'' archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters meters."

So here’s what is alleged to be known about this alleged “huge mass grave:”

It’s alleged to be - 70 x 25 x 5 meters. So, allegedly, we not only know its EXACT dimensions,
OK, assuming the term "measured" refers to a precise tape measurement. Which leads us the question how you would like to see that measurement documented to consider this part of your challenge met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
but it goes without saying that its EXACT location must then also be known. That’s two out of three requirements met to lay claim to nafcash’s - Final Solution Forensic Challenge. (This information must be published in “SKEPTIC” or Archaeology Magazine first of course.)
Sorry, Gerdes, but about the location you’ll still have to tell us what you want to see, how precisely you want it defined. Again, 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 more, please provide an example of the level of precision you are requiring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Also, this alleged “huge mass grave” is said to contain:

“Charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay.”

The only thing we don’t know is just how much human remains have been excavated from this alleged “huge mass grave.”
What Gerdes still has to tell us is how one is supposed to quantify these human remains – bone fragments, ashes mixed with soil or charcoal, teeth that survived burning and subsequent crushing, remains in a state of decay – in a manner that makes it possible to reach precise conclusions about the number of human dead bodies that these remains correspond to. Any idea, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
So Roberta, fill in the information for us:

A – What is the EXACT location of Sobibors largest “huge mass grave?”
Again, just how precisely do you want this location 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 more, please provide an example of the level of precision you are requiring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
B – EXACTLY how much human remains have been excavated from Sobibors largest “huge mass grave” to date? (EXACTLY how much “charred human remains” and EXACTLY how many bodies “in a state of decay?”
OK, let’s see if I get this right. Let’s assume the mass grave, with a volume of 70 x 25 x 5 = 8,750 cubic meters, contains a hundred bodies in wax-fat transformation, 50 cubic meters of bone fragments or bones, a thousand teeth from various parts of human dentures and 2,000 cubic meters of bone ash and ash of human tissues mixed with soil and charcoal. How does your applicant to the reward determine whether this collection of remains corresponds to the "at least 1 %" of 250,000 victims of Sobibor according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust? And how does he have to document his findings for you to accept that he actually found remains corresponding to at least 2,500 dead bodies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
C – What part of the unambiguous word – EXACT – don’t you not understand?
I have no problem with the term, but I would like to know how one establishes the exact quantity of human remains in that mass grave, especially in what concerns the human ashes that are mixed with wood and soil and the bone fragments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And while we’re on the subject of Sobibor Roberta, we’re still waiting for you to prove that there is an iota of human remains in that alleged "ash pile" of Sobibor and we're still waiting for you to show us the pit that that alleged "ash pile" was dug out of.

What are you waiting for Roberta?
What part of my Topix post # 829, quoted in my post # http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=398 :

Quote:
>We're still waiting for Roberta to prove that >there is an iota of human remains in that >alleged "ash pile" of Sobibor and we're still >waiting for Roberta to show us the pit that that >alleged "ash pile" was dug out of.

>What are you waiting for Roberta?

Finally the prick scrounged up enough courage to address the ash pile shown under

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5968_1_web.jpg

And the way he does it is unsurprisingly infantile: "Prove that these are actually ashes and tell us what pit they are from", he yells.

What the latter is supposed to matter he cannot explain, of course.

And as to the former, his lame attempt to shift the burden of proof is duly noted.

The situation is the following, Mr. Gerdes: the stuff inside the glass display not only looks like human ashes with some bone fragments in it, it is also thus described by the source providing this photo and obviously as well by the keepers of this memorial. And what is more, it happens to be at a place where all known eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence shows mass murder and burning of the victims to have occurred. So it is rather improbable, to say the least, that what you see in this glass display are <not> ashes.

And if you're arguing against all evidence and all probability that these are not human ashes, it's up to you to prove your allegation. Go to Poland, hire a forensic expert there, obtain permission from the memorial folks to withdraw samples from inside the glass display and have them examined by your expert. What are you waiting for?
is to hard for your tiny brain (or the part thereof that is not flooded by manure) to understand?

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:
I’m waiting for bigmouth Gerdes to stop his lame attempts to shift the burden of proof, move his ass to Poland, hire a forensic expert there, obtain permission from the Sobibor memorial folks to withdraw samples from inside the glass display and have the forensic experts examine those samples. Get cracking, Gerdes.
Clear enough now, prick?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Now, let’s walk Roberta the retard through Chelmno:

In the Jan./ Feb. 2003 issue of Archaeology Magazine, on Page 50, we find the article:

Remembering Chelmno - Heart-wrenching finds from a Nazi death camp

By Juliet (jew-lie) Golden

In said article we find:

"Between 1941 and 1945, as many as 300,000 adults and children, mostly Polish jews, were executed and cremated here... People said that the Germans had liquidated all traces of the camp and that nothing was left... Small fragments of bone catch the sunlight at the forest site where the crematories once stood. "It's one thing to hear about the crematory, it's another to stand inside an enormous pit that is filled with human bones," says Krzysztof Gorczyca, an archaeologist who directed last summer's excavation. "Only then did it occur to me just how many people were murdered here." ...The research at Chelmno is carried out with the absolute agreement and cooperation of the jewish community... Human remains found during the excavations are interred in a jewish cemetery established in the forest."

So Roberta, fill in the information for us:

1 - Just where EXACTLY is this "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?"
In the area of former Chelmno extermination camp in Poland, Mr. Gerdes. If you want the location identified more precisely than that (for the purpose of your "challenge", otherwise it’s irrelevant), please provide an example of how precise (geographic coordinates or so) you would like the location’s identification to be. And then tell me what documentation you would like to see to accept that this location has been identified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
2 - What are the EXACT dimensions of said "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?"
I have no idea at the moment, but I might try to find out (for the purpose of collecting your reward, otherwise it’s of no interest). In this sense, please confirm that (as you have hinted before) a tape measurement of the mass grave’s length, width and depth will satisfy you, and let me know what documentation you would like to see to accept that

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:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
3 - EXACTLY how much "human remains" found during the "excavations" have been "interred in the jewish cemetery?"
I have no information about this, and how exactly does your question relate to your NAFCASH "challenge"? If it is not related – i.e. if answering it couldn’t get a potential applicant closer to the money – there’s no aspect under which your question could be relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
4 - 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?"
I’d say such proof is contained in the relevant documentation you have quoted (which I see no reason to call in question, as it has been published in a renowned and presumably peer-reviewed archeology magazine and is in line with what all known evidence tells us about events at Chelmno), for "an enormous pit that is filled with human bones" is certainly more than "one pound of human remains". But again, how does this question relate to your NAFCASH "challenge"? A pound of human remains surely doesn’t correspond to at least 3,200 people (1 % of 320,000 Chelmno victims according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust), and if answering your question doesn’t get a potential applicant closer to earning the NAFCASH reward, there’s no aspect under which your question could be relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
6- Can you prove that so much as one single tooth has been excavated from this alleged "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?"
Maybe I could if I contacted Krzysztof Gorczyca and succeded in persuading him to make available documentation about the teeth he has found with those human bones, but again, how is your question related to your NAFCASH "challenge"? A single tooth surely doesn’t correspond to at least 3,200 people (1 % of 320,000 Chelmno victims according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust), and if answering your question doesn’t get a potential applicant closer to earning the NAFCASH reward, there’s no aspect under which your question could be relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
7- If not – Why?
Currently because I haven’t yet contacted Mr. Gorczyca, and getting him to provide documentation about teeth finds would solve the problem (it is likely that some teeth have been found, for I don’t think that no teeth at all survived cremation and posterior crushing). But again, how is this related to your NAFCASH "challenge"? If it is not, there’s no aspect – not even the aspect of forcing an intellectual midget to pay out 80,000 dollars – under which your question could be relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
8 - Is there a photo of this alleged "enormous pit that is filled with human bones?"
At this moment, I don’t know. But again, how is this question related to your NAFCASH "challenge"? It would only be if the photo in question allowed for establishing the length, width and depth of the pit or for confirming measurement data from a related report. Let’s assume there is a photo of a pit on which you can see that the pit is, say, 70 meters long, 25 meters wide and 5 meters deep, and also that there are lots of human bones inside that pit (I don’t know if it is possible to show all that on a photo, but let’s assume it is). Would such photo lead you to accept that human remains corresponding to "at least 1 %" of the number of Chelmno’s victims according to the Encylopedia of the Holocaust have been identified, and to accordingly pay your 80,000 dollars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
9 - If not, why?
If no such photo is known, there are understandable reason why it was not taken or at least not published, one being concern for the religious feelings of certain people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
10 - What are you waiting for Roberta?
Right now I’m waiting for Gerdes to explain how his questions relate to his 80,000 dollar NAFCASH "challenge", which is the only aspect under which they might be relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW Roberta, remember what your man Robin O'Neil said about the Belzec "investigation:"

"It does not matter how big the crime is as such - it could have been 800,000 people or one person - the detection, or forensic investigation, is exactly the same as long as the correct procedures are adopted," he said.
Hey Gerdes, what part of what I responded to the same crap in my post # 397 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=397 :

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
If you're still having problems understanding the simpicity of all this, remember what your man Robin O'Neil said:
My man, Gerdes? The only one who has been dishing up Mr. O’Neill here is you, even after I told you where you could stick the fellow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
In 1997 Mr. O'Neil was invited to the site of the Belzec camp where the graves had to be located by experts from a university in Warsaw before a memorial to the dead could be put up. Although it was originally thought that 600,000 men, women and children were taken by train transit to die at Belzec, current research by Robin O'Neil shows the figure to be over 800,000. They are buried in 33 pits or mass graves some big enough to contain 80,000 bodies.

At the University of Leicester lecture Mr. O'Neil will bring with him plans and maps of the extermination camp.

By using the archaeology of the Holocaust excavations at Belzec in a similar way to forensic scrutiny, O'Neil discovered that the Nazis had dug up all the bodies, burnt them and ground the bones down and put them back in 33 pits.

"It does not matter how big the crime is as such - it could have been 800,000 people or one person - the detection, or forensic investigation, is exactly the same as long as the correct procedures are adopted," he said.
Sorry, Gerdes, but that doesn’t contribute anything to answering my question # 5. If the fellow was trying to say that one can count the bodies buried at Belzec based on their partial remains like one can count whole dead bodies in a mass grave, he obviously didn’t know shit of what he was talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
You detect and prove 1% just like you would detect and prove 1.
That would be acceptable if those 1 % were necessarily whole, but if the 1 % are reduced to ashes and bone fragments mixed with soil and wood ashes and only much less than 1 % are still whole, I’d say it’s simply impossible.
is too hard for your tiny manure-filled brain to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
I want answers to every single question Roberta.
What do you want those answers for?

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:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW Roberta, what do you think O'Neil is trying to hide by refusing to release the videos that he claims he took while investigating Belzec?
As you’re so obsessed with O’Neill that you can’t shut up about the fellow (even after I told you several times that I don’t care what O’Neill did or not and where you could stick your O’Neill babbling), how about proving the facts underlying your conjectures, first of all? You haven’t yet shown that O’Neill claimed to have made such a video, unless I missed something.

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:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And - same question about photos / Shermer.
Same as above concerning relevance, and what part exactly of what I wrote in my post # 272 and quoted from that post in my post # 309 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=309 :

Quote:
Still hooked on Shermer, Mr. Gerdes? One might think you’re in love with the fellow.

Ah, and how about finally telling us on what page of Denying History Shermer is supposed to have claimed that «he proved, by “reviewing the physical evidence,” that 900,000 jews were killed»? Your repeated refusal to answer this question strongly suggests that you are deliberately misrepresenting what Shermer wrote.
is too difficult for your Simian intellect to grasp, Mr. Gerdes?
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #423
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
I think that this would be a good time to mention the fact that the following investigations all found the same thing - that is to say - no mass graves.

The Aug., 1944 Soviet investigaton.

The Nov., 1945 Polish investigation.

The Oct., 1999 Krege investigation.

All three investigations found no indication that any mass graves ever existed.
Dead wrong, as lying Gerdes (or is it just his wishful thinking, PS?) well knows.

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:
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.
As to poor hapless "Revisionist" true believer Krege, the fellow seems to have found exactly what he hoped not to find – soil disturbances compatible with mass graves at Treblinka. I pointed this out in my posts # 194 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=194 and # 310 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=310 :

Quote:
Source Two:

Scan from Krege’s "forensic examination", as assessed by GPR expert Lawrence B. Conyers, see under http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=73168&page=2 (emphasis mine):

Quote:
I looked at the web site, and the image you sent. It is only one small part of his 'grid'. The picture shows him using a 200 MHz antenna and collecting about 1 meter spaced transects in a huge grid. That image is not processed, and only shows about a 5 meter long section in one line. And even in that profile it looks like a bunch of "things" in the ground on the right hand side that could easily be mass graves. It is apparent that this guy either does not know anything of GPR, or at the very least does not know how to process it. To really do a good job, the data need to be put into a 3-D cube of reflections and processed in a batch, including ALL the profiles collected. If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this you either need to get his data and let someone else process it, or re-collect it all and re-process your own data. This is NOT a scientific or representive study of the ground by any stretch.
Assessment of same source under http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=94929 :

Quote:
Originally Posted by sallyg
Significant purturbation of the "A" or topsoil horizon is present and the inconsistent returns from the "B" or subsoil horizon certainly merits investigation. As an example of undisturbed soil, this fails any test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obdicut
Mr. Mills,

Since the images do show disturbance of the topsoil consistent with graves (in the most generous sense), I hope he didn't follow your advice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
(And the first two proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the "lazarette" pit was a fraudulent hoax. Not one body, not one piece of crushed bone, not one single tooth, not one single bullet or shell casing.)
I didn’t know the Soviets searched for the pit at the "Lazarett", Gerdes. Could you please show me the part I’m supposed to have missed?

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:
Excavations were begun on the grounds using the services of 20 workers who had been mustered by the village administration for carrying out roadwork. The excavations began at the location described by the witness Rajzman on November 6, where the so-called ‘camp hospital’ had stood and where, according to the witness, a mass grave is supposed to exist.
Since a bomb crater 4 to 5-meter deep is present at the said location – two bombs still lie at a slight distance from this crater – the digging was begun in this crater. In the course of this work numerous Polish, as well as Russian, German, Austrian, and Czech coins as well as broken pieces of various kinds of containers were discovered. At the end of the work, at approximately 3 pm, at a depth of 6 meters, we encountered a layer which had not been reached previously. There were no human remains found.
cannot have been the pit of the "Lazarett", it was too deep for that. Unless, of course, a deeper pit was dug after the traces of the killing had been removed from the "Lazarett" and used to bury broken containers and other useless stuff.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
In fact, the only alleged "huge mass grave" ever located at Treblinka is the "lazarette," and like I said, it was proven to be no mass grave at all - just a refuse pit - nothing more, nothing less.)
The only mass grave?

And what was this, asshole?

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.
This is a site investigation report by a criminal investigator, Mr. Gerdes. If you accept it as accurate where you think it suits you, you must also accept it as accurate where it doesn’t, all the more so as the parts you think are favorable to your stance are proof of the examining judge’s honesty. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, no mass graves have EVER been located there,
All you can claim is that no pits full of stinking dead bodies were located at Treblinka II, Gerdes. At least one former mass grave (now filled with partial human remains) was located in November 1945, and your friend Krege obviously found soil disturbances compatible with the existence of mass graves in the Treblinka subsoil in 1999.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
only Shermer claims to have found evidence that they existed.
Did he, Gerdes? On what page of Denying History, and in what exact terms, did Shermer describe the finding of such evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Does anyone know what "physical evidence" Shermer was talking about when he stated:

"We must review the physical evidence in conjunction with written documents and eyewitness testimonies... To debunk the deniers can’t we just go there and see them for ourselves? The answer, of course, is “yes.”… We can no longer ignore the deniers, calling them names and hoping they will go away… We cannot remain silent anymore. It’s time to respond… Not only is it defensible to respond to the deniers, it is, we believe, our duty… Many of our arguments draw on specialized research into the claims of the deniers that took us… to the Nazi extermination camps themselves… we went to Europe to conduct research at the camps, in particular at… Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec… We wanted to see for ourselves just what evidence there is at the camps and to take the opportunity to examine firsthand the claims… Much of the research is the type of work professional historians normally do… analyzing ground and aerial photographs… in order to make proper interpretations, we must review the physical evidence… Like criminologists solving a crime, we piece together the myriad bits of evidence until a conclusion emerges from the morass of data… How is it that so much physical evidence can come to be doubted?”
You apparently don’t even know yourself, Mr. Gerdes. And you’re not quoting a statement of Shermer’s, you are putting together a montage of various statements from different parts of the book that are taken out of context and not necessarily related to each other, as if they were one specific statement. In other words, you are trying to make believe that Shermer said something he didn’t say. To put it plainly, you are lying.

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:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, anyone know what "physical evidence" he's talking about? He seems to have found something that neither the Soviets, the Poles or krege found.
There’s an easy way to find out, Mr. Gerdes. Give us the number of the pages containing the statements «we must review the physical evidence» and «How is it that so much physical evidence can come to be doubted?», so we can look them up and see in what context these statements were made. The latter statement might as well have referred to the Nanking massacre, for all you have so far shown.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Why on earth would he not release this information,
Not that it matters, but what information exactly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
or at least release photos that prove he at least steped foot inside the camps he claimed he did?
Not that it matters, but why should Shermer bother to release a photo captioned "This is me at Sobibor" or so? Just because of Gerdes’ hysterical howling? Try to find a better reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta, what has Shermer told you about his investigation / findings?

You have contacted Shermer by now and asked him, haven't you?
I contacted Shermer on 15 May 2008 to call his attention to my HC article about Gerdes. The message read as follows:

Quote:
Dear Dr. Shermer,

My name is Roberto Muehlenkamp, I am a German citizen living and working in Portugal , and I post on the RODOH forum ( http://rodohforum.yuku.com/directory ) and the “Holocaust Controversies” blog. ( http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspt.com/ ).

I’m writing to you because I thought you might be interested in the last HC article, which is about your “friend” Greg Gerdes of NAFCASH. The article has already been brought to Mr. Gerdes’ attention.

Best regards,
Roberto Muehlenkamp
On the same day I sent a PS reading as follows:

Quote:
P.S. The address of HC is:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com
A bit of publicity for the HC blog, taking advantage of our common acquaintance Gerdes. That was it. There was no feedback from Shermer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
If not, why?
Why the fuck should I, Gerdes?

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.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #424
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"You still have to tell us what level of "exactitude" you would like to see"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Only a jew...

Do you get that folks? The jewbitch claims there are different "levels of exactitude."

Yes, there's the - not very exact at all level of exactitude.

There's the - sort of exact level of exactitude.

Then we have the - getting close to exact level of exactitude.

Then of course there's the - almost exact level of exactitude.

And then, finally, we get to the - exact level of exactitude.

Only a jewbitch...
Again haggling about semantics to dodge my question, Mr. Gerdes? The quote is from my post # 397 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=397 , and I was quite specific there about what I mean (emphasis added):

Quote:
As to the location, you still have to tell us what level of "exactitude" you would like to see. Would, say "inside the area of former Sobibor extermination camp" be "EXACT" enough? Or do you want to know in what specific part of former Sobibor extermination camp the mass grave is located? Would something like "in a clearing in the wood two hundred steps in northwesterly direction from the memorial containing human ashes" be enough, or do you want an even more precise description of the location? Please tell us, Mr. Gerdes. And when you have, please also tell us what (e.g. an archeologist’s written report, a plan and section, photographs) you would accept as proof of your "EXACT" location.
Don’t hide behind semantics, chicken-shit. And kindly stop quote-mining. Answer my questions.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #425
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

How would your applicant (assuming he manages to put together a meaningful and reliable quantification despite the obstactles mentioned under 1) have to document his findings for you to accept it as proven that he has identified human remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the death toll of a given camp, say Sobibor? 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, Mr. Gerdes. Your answer is decisive for determining whether you set a challenge that can be met or a bogus "challenge".

The only answer to that drivel is this Roberta:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That may be the only answer our hysterical piece of dumb chicken-shit has got, but objectively it’s no answer at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What part of proof don't you understand Roberta?
What part of the introductory remark to my questions in post # 397 under # http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=397

Quote:
Here you are running away again, my friend. I’m obviously not asking for a definition of "proof", I’m asking how you expect someone to prove that a given mass grave contains human remains corresponding to at least one per cent of the number of people killed in the respective camp according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.
wasn’t processed by the sparse neurons inside your skull?

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:
1. How could someone who has access to a given mass grave, and the necessary tools, permissions and time, prove that this mass grave contains human remains corresponding to X number of burned human bodies? What that someone finds in the graves are lots of bone fragments, lots of human ashes mixed with wood ashes and soil, and maybe some bodies in wax-fat transformation at the bottom of the grave. If he finds at least 2,500 bodies in a state of wax fat transformation at the bottom of a mass grave at Sobibor, he can go claim your reward. But lets assume that there are only a few dozen bodies in a wax-fat transformation there, which would be perfectly compatible with the historical record of mass murder at Sobibor, and that the human remains in the grave are almost exclusively bone fragments and human ashes mixed with wood ashes and soil, which is the most probable scenario. Considering this scenario, please answer these questions:

a) How is your candidate for the reward supposed to "convert" the bone fragments he finds, after he has picked them all out of the grave and put them in a heap, into a given number of human skeletons to which these bone fragments may have once belonged (considering that the bodies were to a large extent reduced to parts smaller than bone fragments, i.e. to ashes)?

b) How is your candidate to the reward supposed to separate the human ashes from the wood ashes and the soil after he has removed all layers of human ashes mixed with wood ashes and/or soil from the mass grave?

c) Assuming he finds a method by which the human ashes can be cleanly separated from wood ashes and/or soil, how does your candidate to the reward "convert" the mass of human ashes thus collected into whole human bodies, considering that the bodies were to a large extent reduced to parts larger than ashes, i.e. to bone fragments?

I don’t see how this can be done, but perhaps I’m missing something. Please explain how you expect your applicant to the reward to reach any reliable conclusions about what number of human bodies the ashes and bone fragments he finds in a mass grave at Sobibor may have belonged to.

If you can’t explain this, I expect you to admit that your "challenge" cannot be physically and technically met unless at least 1 % of the victims of a given camp lie at the bottom of one of the mass graves in a state of wax-fat transformation (as I understand your requirements, the "1 %" must be in one grave – if you didn’t mean it that way, you should clarify this).

2. How would your applicant (assuming he manages to put together a meaningful and reliable quantification despite the obstactles mentioned under 1) have to document his findings for you to accept it as proven that he has identified human remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the death toll of a given camp, say Sobibor? 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, Mr. Gerdes. Your answer is decisive for determining whether you set a challenge that can be met or a bogus "challenge".

Note that I’m not asking according to what rules or standards of evidence you request a certain documentation of proof. I’m not asking because we’re not talking here about the relevance and reasonability of your demands in the context of proving what happened at any of these camps. We are talking about the requirements one must meet to collect your 80,000 dollars, and in this context you may well require something that is perfectly irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at any of these camps, and ask for documentation that is not necessary by reasonable standards to prove what you are demanding to be proved. Your only limitation is that your must demand a proof that can be a) made and b) documented, otherwise your "challenge" is a hoax.

3. Third complex of questions, before I forget it: who would decide whether or not the requirements of your "challenge" have been met by the evidence an applicant has presented?

Will you hire some independent person or entity as arbitrator for this purpose?

Or is Mr. Gerdes defense attorney, judge and jury in one person here?
All of them, Mr. Gerdes.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #426
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
The possibility is infinitesimal to nonexistent. As concerns the Treblinka pictures, on the other hand, there are site investigation reports and other evidence showing that there was much bone ash in the place. So your comparison is out of place, to put it politely.
No the possibility is completely the same since there has never been any physical proof of it being there. You're just an idiot who is trying to find connections where there are none.

Quote:
For my pictures there are site investigation reports and other evidence about mass killing pointing to the presence of much bone ash at Treblinka. For your "new pics" there’s nothing indeed.
There is no evidence for what you wrote because even if it was true (And its not) that is not bone ash for sure. Look up calcium phosphate and you'll see that it would be indistinguishable and if it was actually there it would be purely by coincidence just like in any of the pics I mentioned. The chance is completely the same.


Quote:
Wrong comparison again, as my "may or may not statement" has evidence for the "may" behind it whereas there’s nothing at all behind your "apocalypse today" thing.
There is no evidence for your statement, it is a may or may not statement. You are mentally deranged , you need help .


Quote:
For the presence of bone ash on the Treblinka site, which might or not be the white stuff on the ground in my pictures, there is evidence. For the possibility of "apocalypse today" there is none. That’s the difference.
It is as likely as an apocalypse happening tomorrow since I can guarantee that is not so. How? Simple, if there was any ash there the person who had found it would have claimed 50,000 dollars already. There is no evidence of anything being there other than a shaky claim of a 3 days investigation that found no evidence that would say that the ash was actually human. If you don't know if it is then you can't possibly know if there is any bone ash there its merely a possibility and even then a very slim one. (You dumbass bone ash would be mixed in with the normal ash, you wouldn't see any difference)


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:
Which is rather irrelevant, as profit is not the only possible reason for wishful thinking. Faith, religious or ideological, can be at least as strong a reason.
Only for fools and I don't think anyone here is a fool since no one believes that your over-exposed pictures (Which can happen anywhere) are proof of bone ash. It's completely ridiculous and your inability to see this shows that the only wishful thinker is you.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; July 9th, 2008 at 10:19 AM.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #427
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Do you want photographs?"

No, that won't be necessary Roberta, I'll just take the jews word for it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Only a jew...
If we were discussing what proof there is to the mass murders at the Nazi extermination camps, you would have to justify the relevance and necessity of the evidence you demand, by showing rules or standards of evidence according to which criminal site investigation reports or archeological reports must be illustrated with photographs to be evidentiary documentation of the physical evidence, or by providing indications that the reports in question may not be accurate and photographic or other corroboration is therefore required.

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.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #428
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes
Roberta:

"Do you want photographs?"

No, that won't be necessary Roberta, I'll just take the jews word for it.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Only a jew...

Want more photos of bone ash? I can make a lot more
Which is the part where one is supposed to laugh?
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #429
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
But if you’re content with gas vans, ...

I never asked about any "gas van." Where is the gassed jew?
When you have consistently responded to my post # 399 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=399 (especially about how my "fairy tale" is supposed to depend on my being able to "produce" a "gassed jew") I might try to find you one – though I don’t they’ll let me dig out a body in wax-fat transformation from the mass graves at Belzec or Sobibor, and even if they do (and assuming I have the time and means for that) I don’t think any forensic expert can still identify signs of suffocation or carbon monoxide poisoning in those rotten corpses.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #430
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Where am I not being objective? Show me.

That’s not exactly objective. It’s just an expression of baseless preconceived notions and wishful thinking.

Really, CS, I know little about "Marx" and "Commune", even less about "Talmud", and I don’t care much for either of the three. The last one leaves me cold, the former two suck as much as your Nazi heroes’ ideology, as far as I’m concerned.

I did not dismember your post, CS. I responded separately to the part that contained an argument (or an attempt at an argument) and to the part that contained only invective.

You have no reflection, no inner light to point at.
Getting mystical now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Baseless preconceived notions is a neurotic bell ringing unconsciously.
Baseless preconceived notions is what you are full of. Or shall we call it faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
You need know nothing of Marx or talmud; you are it, the archetype.
Thanks for making my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Dismembering posts, assigning weights to single words in a sentence or paragraph, responding to the single word: Marx.
I’m not conscious of having dismembered posts, whatever you mean by that. Single words in a sentence or paragraph usually have a given weight in the context in which they were used, nothing wrong with that. And what exactly does all that have to do with Marx?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Have you not been following this discussion – which is mostly about physical evidence found at certain camps – , or are those tomato slices glued to your eyes?

No, the fellow's being a rabbi has nothing to do with my reasoning. The rabbi complaining about desecration of human remains at Chelmno is no more credible than the Wehrmacht commander of Ostrow complaining about the unbearable stench of insufficiently buried Jewish bodies emanating from Treblinka (who I consider very credible unintentional evidence).

Tomato slices because I disagree with you. Hmm.
Not because you "disagree" with me, but because your "disagreement" is so baseless and unreasonable as to require to tomato slices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Did the commander of Ostrow complain about Jewish bodies specifically? Did he say: Gosh, what a pong those insufficiently buried Jews make?
The quote is in my post # 172 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=172 , emphases added:

Quote:
A final document, though it gives no exact indications of numbers, is illustrative when it comes to giving an idea of just how many Jews were being killed. It is the remark of the Wehrmacht commander of Ostrow recorded in the first war diary of the General Quartermaster of the Military Commander in the Generalgouvernement on 24 October 1942.

It reads: "OK Ostrow reports that the Jews in Treblinka are not sufficiently buried and therefore an unbearable smell of corpses befouls the air."51

Ostrow, it is significant to point out, was 20 kilometres from Treblinka.
OK Ostrow seems to have been aware of what was going on in Treblinka.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Let’s say I don’t care enough about the issue to find out to what extent money and media are actually controlled by people who happen to be Jewish.

Communism wasn’t Jewish indeed, if you ask me. I see nothing in common between the principles of Judaism (what little I know about them) and the principles of Communism. Jews who embraced Communism (there were quite a few among the early Bolsheviks, much less later under Stalin) must have turned their backs on Judaism.

Oh, and I also didn’t know that Mao Tse Tung, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot and Mengistu Haile Maram were Jews or had anything to do with Jews. What is more, someone recently told me that the members of the Japanese Communist Party are … Japanese!

You've no idea of how Jewey that is, eh, Jewboy.
You have no idea amusing and instructive such chimpy remarks in lieu of non-existing arguments are, my friend. Also for the reasonable part of our audience, I presume.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
What makes you think I care about Israel or support Israeli policies? I don’t. But however condemnable Israeli politics may be, trying to fight them by denying the proven mass murder committed by the Nazis is for assholes – apart from being counterproductive, by the way. The more you howl, the more people like me will be interested in what happened to Europe’s Jews during World War II. The less you howl, the less I will be interested in the subject. Care to know how many books about the Holocaust I had read when I first met you beautiful people?

You mentioned Israel before; "just like other places," to paraphrase. The more you are interested in anything doesn't matter due to your neurotic selectivity.
I’d say the neurotic selectivity is all yours, brother. Or then you missed what I wrote about my stay in Jaffa in post # 133 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=133 :

Quote:
Your remark that I responded to seemed to refer to backwardness in terms of infrastructure and living conditions, and that’s not what I saw in Tel Aviv (even though they badly need a metro). The other issues you mention were one of the reasons for not taking the job I had been offered there, even from the little I managed to see in one week. I lived in a hostel in Jaffa, the old part of town, which I was told was one of the few places in Israel where Jews and Arabs live in harmony. According to what I saw this is actually so, you see Arab bakeries next to Jewish shops, Jewish and Arab peddler selling thing on the flea market next to each other, and so on. What I didn’t like, however, was a poster in the restored high part chronicling the millenary history of Jaffa. Under the year 1948 it mentioned the "liberation" of Jaffa by forces of the Haganah and Irgun Zvai Leumi. Actually Jaffa was a town mostly populated by Arabs, and most of them were expelled from their homes in 1948. Calling that ethnic cleansing "liberation" is offensive, to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Then you must have plenty of evidence showing how "it" pulled off the most gigantic, far-ranging and successful evidence-manipulation conspiracy of all times and kept it up to the present day. Can we see some of it, please?

Because you asked so nicely, here is an intro to money power:

money masters
Cute, but where’s the part about how they pulled off the most gigantic, far-ranging and successful evidence-manipulation conspiracy of all times and kept it up to the present day?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Was that supposed to be a parallel?

Try producing a better one. One where bone ash on the beach is described in criminal site investigation reports, where there are documents showing how many people were taken to the bone ash beach and how it used to stink of dead bodies for miles around, and where eyewitnesses testified in court about how people were killed and burned into bone ash at said beach. Eyewitnesses including some of the folks who did the killing.

I'll have you know it was a religious experience; my religious feelings have been hurt now. If only I had the money/media control Jews have; I'd organize harassment of your local officials and have you arrested for religious persecution.
Was that supposed to be the better parallel? I’d call it incoherent nonsense.

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:

 
Old July 9th, 2008 #431
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

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.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #432
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
The possibility is infinitesimal to nonexistent. As concerns the Treblinka pictures, on the other hand, there are site investigation reports and other evidence showing that there was much bone ash in the place. So your comparison is out of place, to put it politely.

No the possibility is completely the same since there has never been any physical proof of it being there.
That's not true, there are site investigation reports describing it there. 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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
You're just an idiot who is trying to find connections where there are none.
Is calling me an idiot supposed to be an argument? By such standards all criminal investigators and historians trying to match evidence of different categories or different documentations of evidence are idiots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Quote:
For my pictures there are site investigation reports and other evidence about mass killing pointing to the presence of much bone ash at Treblinka. For your "new pics" there’s nothing indeed.

There is no evidence for what you wrote because even if it was true (And its not)
How do you know? Little bird of Faith?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
that is not bone ash for sure. Look up calcium phosphate and you'll see that it would be indistinguishable and if it was actually there it would be purely by coincidence just like in any of the pics I mentioned. The chance is completely the same.
If what you’re saying is that white-colored calcium phosphate wouldn’t be distinguishable from the soil it lies on even on a good quality photograph, that’s more like an argument and what you should have gone for in the first place. Where did you read this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Quote:
Wrong comparison again, as my "may or may not statement" has evidence for the "may" behind it whereas there’s nothing at all behind your "apocalypse today" thing.

There is no evidence for your statement, it is a may or may not statement. You are mentally deranged , you need help .
Sorry, but you don’t get to set the standards and dictate what is evidence and what is not. Site investigation reports, eyewitness testimonies and documents are evidence for the purposes of criminal investigation and historical research, therefore relevant evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Quote:
For the presence of bone ash on the Treblinka site, which might or not be the white stuff on the ground in my pictures, there is evidence. For the possibility of "apocalypse today" there is none. That’s the difference.

It is as likely as an apocalypse happening tomorrow since I can guarantee that is not so. How? Simple, if there was any ash there the person who had found it would have claimed 50,000 dollars already.
Sorry, but I don’t think any given person is necessarily inclined to accommodate a challenge set by an intellectual midget like Gerdes. Lots of people may actually consider it below their dignity to document human remains in order to gain a money reward. And you don’t seem to have read Gerdes’ requirements for paying out his 80,000 dollars. He wants a lot more than just "any ash", and I maintain that some of what he wants is physically and technically impossible to fulfill considering what the human remains consist of and the soil and wood ashes they are mixed with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
There is no evidence of anything being there other than a shaky claim of a 3 days investigation that found no evidence that would say that the ash was actually human.
Actually there’s nothing "shaky" about the contents of the investigation reports quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , and one of them expressly mentions that an expert in forensic medicine found the ashes to be human ashes (remains of cremated human bones).

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
If you don't know if it is then you can't possibly know if there is any bone ash there its merely a possibility and even then a very slim one.
What’s that supposed to mean? There are at least three reports (the two quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html and their Soviet predecessor) mentioning the presence of bone ash on the Treblinka site. Unless and until these reports have been proven wrong, I know from these reports that there was bone ash on site. As simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
(You dumbass bone ash would be mixed in with the normal ash, you wouldn't see any difference)
Your claim is taken note of, but calling me names is no way to substantiate it. Please explain why bone ash would necessarily be mixed with "normal ash"(you mean ash of soft human tissue?), and demonstrate that one wouldn’t see the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
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.
Calling me names is no argument, whoever believes in the silly conspiracy theories you obviously cling to shouldn’t invoke common sense and reason, and I couldn’t care less if you consider me "qualified" enough or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
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.
So your problem is the "may or may not" formulation? I’ll change it to "probably but not necessarily", then. Is that better?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Quote:
Which is rather irrelevant, as profit is not the only possible reason for wishful thinking. Faith, religious or ideological, can be at least as strong a reason.

Only for fools and I don't think anyone here is a fool since no one believes that your over-exposed pictures (Which can happen anywhere) are proof of bone ash.
I don’t remember having said they were. To be proof of bone ash these photos would have to certainly and not just probably show bone ash, and that in turn would require ruling out the possibility that the white aspect of part of the soil is due to overexposure of the photos. As that possibility cannot be ruled out, the photos are not proof of bone ash on the soil of Treblinka.

Ah, and the "only for fools" thing is real funny, coming as it does from who obviously clings to an ideological faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
It's completely ridiculous and your inability to see this shows that the only wishful thinker is you.
What am I supposed to be unable to see? I have conceded that the quality of these photos does not allow for concluding whether they show bone ash or not, because the white stuff on the ground may also be due to overexposure. But as long as you cannot demonstrate that overexposure is the only possibility, or at least the by far likeliest possibility in light of the associated evidence, the attempted parallel with your "new pics" remains an improper one.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #433
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
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.
No, I'm arguing that these photos may but need not show bone ash. There's a certain probability that they do because their aspect, in conjunction with associated evidence (without that it would be meaningless) so suggests. On the other hand, one cannot rule out the possibility that the aspect of the photos is due to overexposure, so one cannot argue that they do show bone ash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
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.
The Unicorn is even worse than mixing up possibilities with a certain probability with possibilities that are not only theoretical but also remote. There is at least a theoretical possibility that someone might have shed bone ash on your beach, unlikely though it may be, but Unicorns do not exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
You're arguing for the Holocaust and this isn't an argument,
Let's say that it's not a strong argument because the possibility of the "white" effect being due to overexposure cannot be ruled out. That's why I dropped it long before you came around with your "new pics". I have better arguments and don't need this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
this a red herring now gather your dignity and at least try to return to Earth and prove your fairy tale.
Unlike who believes in the demonic powers of a Jewish conspiracy that manipulated or suppressed thousands of documents, trained thousands of false incriminating eyewitnesses (apparently chosen for the telepathic capabilities, which would keep them from straying too far from what their colleagues had said even if they had no way of hearing or reading it), coerced or otherwise induced a couple of thousand indicted perpetrators, especially before West German courts, into falsely incriminating themselves, silenced all potential exonerating witnesses throughout Europe and the rest of the world, fooled governments and other administrative authorities, criminal justice authorities and historians and demographers all over the world (unless, of course, you want to tell us that all these people were in the pay of said conspiracy) and brainwashed or otherwise induced millions of non-victims living in Israel, the US and other countries into concealing their origins and identity so it could be claimed that they had been murdered, I have never left this Earth.

And who proclaims hatred shouldn't use the word "dignity".
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #434
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
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.
Sorry, but your probability calculations don’t convince me. Unless you can demonstrate that there’s no chance the bone ash would be distinguishable from the soil or from other ash on a photograph, I’d say the probability of bone ash vs overexposure (considering the associated evidence to the presence of bone ash on site) is as least slightly favorable to bone ash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
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.
So what? The misnomer is even an indication against misreporting, for your fabulous hoaxers would certainly have got the chemical formula right.

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:
Knochenasche durch Glühen von Knochen erhaltenes Gemisch von Calciumphosphat und Calciumoxid; Verwendung zur Herstellung von → Superphosphat.
Are they wrong?
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #435
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

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:
We're still waiting for Roberta to prove that there is an iota of human remains in that alleged "ash pile" of Sobibor and we're still waiting for Roberta to show us the pit that that >alleged "ash pile" was dug out of. What are you waiting for Roberta?

Finally the prick scrounged up enough courage to address the ash pile shown under

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5968_1_web.jpg

And the way he does it is unsurprisingly infantile: "Prove that these are actually ashes and tell us what pit they are from", he yells.

What the latter is supposed to matter he cannot explain, of course.

And as to the former, his lame attempt to shift the burden of proof is duly noted.

The situation is the following, Mr. Gerdes: the stuff inside the glass display not only looks like human ashes with some bone fragments in it, it is also thus described by the source providing this photo and obviously as well by the keepers of this memorial. And what is more, it happens to be at a place where all known eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence shows mass murder and burning of the victims to have occurred. So it is rather improbable, to say the least, that what you see in this glass display are <not> ashes.

And if you're arguing against all evidence and all probability that these are not human ashes, it's up to you to prove your allegation. Go to Poland, hire a forensic expert there, obtain permission from the memorial folks to withdraw samples from inside the glass display and have them examined by your expert. What are you waiting for?"
Notice how the lying jewbitch switched the issue / photo of the alleged "huge pile of human ash" to "the stuff inside the glass display."

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.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #436
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
That's not true, there are site investigation reports describing it there. 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.
And a lot of people aren't certain, I happen to be certain because modern technology has allowed me to be.


Quote:
Is calling me an idiot supposed to be an argument? By such standards all criminal investigators and historians trying to match evidence of different categories or different documentations of evidence are idiots.
No you just are an idiot.






Quote:
If what you’re saying is that white-colored calcium phosphate wouldn’t be distinguishable from the soil it lies on even on a good quality photograph, that’s more like an argument and what you should have gone for in the first place. Where did you read this?
Worthless argument that I wont bother getting into since it has no application.

Quote:
Sorry, but you don’t get to set the standards and dictate what is evidence and what is not. Site investigation reports, eyewitness testimonies and documents are evidence for the purposes of criminal investigation and historical research, therefore relevant evidence.
The standards are made rationally
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:
Sorry, but I don’t think any given person is necessarily inclined to accommodate a challenge set by an intellectual midget like Gerdes. Lots of people may actually consider it below their dignity to document human remains in order to gain a money reward. And you don’t seem to have read Gerdes’ requirements for paying out his 80,000 dollars. He wants a lot more than just "any ash", and I maintain that some of what he wants is physically and technically impossible to fulfill considering what the human remains consist of and the soil and wood ashes they are mixed with.
Actually its very simple you have to prove that there was a grave there via GPR radar, that means you don't even have to find ash.


Quote:
Actually there’s nothing "shaky" about the contents of the investigation reports quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , and one of them expressly mentions that an expert in forensic medicine found the ashes to be human ashes (remains of cremated human bones).
This little excerpt is "not shaky"?
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
What methodology did they use, who was this forensic scientist, how did he know? This is just a claim that ranks below Krege's claim which is experimental. Before you state that this was for a court or in Poland ill tell you that ive seen Forensic science at work and you have to be very specific of what you did and how you did it. Forensic science IS science and if someone isn't scientifically collecting forensic evidence it might as well not be considered evidence any longer. Where are the experimental provisions? Show me.

Quote:
What’s that supposed to mean? There are at least three reports (the two quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html and their Soviet predecessor) mentioning the presence of bone ash on the Treblinka site. Unless and until these reports have been proven wrong, I know from these reports that there was bone ash on site. As simple as that.
Krege said that there were no disturbances, do you have proof that there are? No?


Quote:
Your claim is taken note of, but calling me names is no way to substantiate it. Please explain why bone ash would necessarily be mixed with "normal ash"(you mean ash of soft human tissue?), and demonstrate that one wouldn’t see the difference.
......
Cremate any vertebrate organic matter and see what happens.


Quote:
Calling me names is no argument, whoever believes in the silly conspiracy theories you obviously cling to shouldn’t invoke common sense and reason, and I couldn’t care less if you consider me "qualified" enough or not.
That is what is called a genetic fallacy considering that you are actually being one sided (By considering evidence to prove what you are trying to prove without realizing its almost certainly not)


Quote:
So your problem is the "may or may not" formulation? I’ll change it to "probably but not necessarily", then. Is that better?
You can change it but it's still a may or may not since that is what it still is. That and if you change it you're committing fraud because you have no reason to think that as there are two claims that contradict one another. Krege's claim happens to be experimental though and thus up and above what you are using (Which makes no provisions of experiments or proof), if you'd like to show me who did this and with what methodology id be happy to look. I am sure someone would like to do a new experiment if they actually find ash.


Quote:
I don’t remember having said they were. To be proof of bone ash these photos would have to certainly and not just probably show bone ash, and that in turn would require ruling out the possibility that the white aspect of part of the soil is due to overexposure of the photos. As that possibility cannot be ruled out, the photos are not proof of bone ash on the soil of Treblinka.
You're a lunatic.

Quote:
Ah, and the "only for fools" thing is real funny, coming as it does from who obviously clings to an ideological faith.
I could care less if it's true or not.


Quote:
What am I supposed to be unable to see? I have conceded that the quality of these photos does not allow for concluding whether they show bone ash or not, because the white stuff on the ground may also be due to overexposure. But as long as you cannot demonstrate that overexposure is the only possibility, or at least the by far likeliest possibility in light of the associated evidence, the attempted parallel with your "new pics" remains an improper one.
It's not may but is as I have shown you by overexposing other pictures to the amount your's are. I am not an atheist because I know with certainty there is no God I am an atheist because there is no positive proof and as we can see there is no positive proof here also and thus you're not credible. I can say a million different things of what it might be and id keep being right as long as I say that someone else said it was so. Its pixy dust, I spoke to a forensic official and he said it is so, it's ectoplasm I spoke to a witch hunter and he said it is so. That is as credible as what you are peddling, no doubt about it.


[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Sorry, but your probability calculations don’t convince me. Unless you can demonstrate that there’s no chance the bone ash would be distinguishable from the soil or from other ash on a photograph, I’d say the probability of bone ash vs overexposure (considering the associated evidence to the presence of bone ash on site) is as least slightly favorable to bone ash.
Nope, without evidence the likelihood is around what I stated if not more. What you're talking about is your belief that it is so. Without any forensic evidence of it being there the chance is very slim and next to none. If you can't say with any certainty or proof that it isn't over-exposure (Which it is with 99.99......% certainty) then no. The argument was that it is bone ash not that there might be bone ash there but even the might is mighty unlikely (Considering you don't know and no one will ever know) how can you figure how likely something that you don't know anything about is? It makes no sense.



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:
They are talking about quicklime which quickly converts back to Calcium carbonate on exposure to air. Calcium Oxide wouldn't be present.


Quote:
Are they wrong?
Nope they just happen to be describing a reaction's results not if they are stable.

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.
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #437
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
I think that this would be a good time to mention the fact that the following investigations all found the same thing - that is to say - no mass graves.

The Aug., 1944 Soviet investigaton.

The Nov., 1945 Polish investigation.

The Oct., 1999 Krege investigation.

All three investigations found no indication that any mass graves ever existed.
Roberta:

"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?
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #438
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

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...
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #439
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

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...
 
Old July 9th, 2008 #440
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

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...
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:58 PM.
Page generated in 0.43924 seconds.