|
July 30th, 2008 | #901 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
|
July 30th, 2008 | #902 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
a) "proving" the "exact" location of a Sobibor or Treblinka mass grave, its "exact" dimensions and that the mass grave contains human remains corresponding to at least 1 % of the victims of each camp, and thus qualifying for the NAFCASH main reward, and b) if the mass grave mentioned under a) is a Sobibor mass grave, "proving" that the mound of ash at the Sobibor memorial is actually comprised of human ash and thus also qualifying for the NAFCASH bonus reward, they will be answered in an article that I shall try to get published in SKEPTIC magazine (the only publishing option that miserable coward Gerdes left to an applicant for the reward – if he had balls he would at least accept publication in any pertinent scientific magazine of the applicant’s choice) as soon as I have all the information together and authorization to make it public (authorization is needed because, unlike what I have shown you so far, this information is not yet in the public domain). If you want your questions answered on this forum, then you’ll have to change the NAFCASH site in the sense that proof meeting the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge may also be published on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine. Make that change, and then you can put questions – insofar as relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge requirements – on the table here. Until you have made that change, shut the fuck up. |
||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #903 | ||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that’s not the only demonstration of the pathetic cowardice that Gerdes self-projectingly accuses me of. Readers who have followed this discussion will surely remember how little of the evidence I have shown (last recap see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777) Gerdes even dared to address. Readers who have followed this discussion will also remember how many questions (regarding evidence I have shown, regarding the relevance of his infantile "show me" – demands and regarding the rules and standards of evidence – if any – that these demands are based on, among other things) I have asked the fellow, and how few of these – if any at all – he has not run away from. Readers will further remember Gerdes’ persistent refusal to define more precisely the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and to state what exactly he would accept as proof meeting those requirements, even though I made it real easy for him by providing a draft of such specification and asking him to modify it as he considered necessary (see my posts # 506 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=506 , # 528 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=528 , # 536 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=536 , # 540 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=540, # 545 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=545 , # 566 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=566 , among others) . The staple reply to my suggestion was the idiotic "what part of proof do you not understand?" – rhetoric. Asked if this meant submission to reasonable standards of proof such as applied in criminal investigation and historical research, Gerdes ignored the question. Readers will further remember my suggestion that Gerdes make the NAFCASH challenge more transparent by clearly describing the procedure for selecting eligible applicants, submittal of evidence by such applicants, assessment of evidence submitted by NAFCASH and their decision about entitlement to the reward. The NAFCASH site is rather vague in this respect. Yet all requests that a potential applicant be informed more precisely about the procedures were met with the hysterical derision and Simian howling that is the hallmark of Gerdes’ "argumentation". Another thing that I’m sure our readers recall is Gerdes’ refusal to introduce an escrow account provision (as is usually done in challenges of this nature, I’ve been told) or at least make it clear to a potential applicant that he may well have to run after x different challenge supporters (the number is 21 including Gerdes, according to the same) at y different places for z part of the reward amount to which each supporter has committed – a fact that would probably make a potential applicant whose first and foremost interest is the money think twice. Gerdes’ response to this reasonable suggestion was a most imbecile "why don’t you get the money from those filthy stinking-rich Jews" – rant. As if these examples of Gerdian cowardice were not enough, Gerdes also excluded Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps from the challenge, obviously in order to limit a potential applicant’s opportunities to meet the challenge requirements. Asked why he had done so, the best he could come up with was some notoriously lame babbling about "simplification" and "focus", IIRC. Bullshit. But that’s not yet all, folks. Apparently for no reason other than my apparent preference for ARCHAEOLOGY magazine over SKEPTIC magazine as the publisher of my future article containing evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements, miserable coward Gerdes excluded ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from the already limited list of accepted publishers (if he had balls, as I said before, he would at least have accepted any pertinent scientific magazine for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements) and limited a potential applicant’s choice of publishers to SKEPTIC magazine alone (to be sure, it was stated on the NAFCASH site that an applicant rejected by SKEPTIC "MAY" be given the chance to publish in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine instead, but Gerdes wouldn’t be Gerdes if that "MAY" did not mean "WILL NOT"). And what is more, Gerdes started making a fuss about an unfavorable opinion I had uttered on Topix about Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, obviously in order to make sure that Shermer’s resentment over such statement would hinder his publishing an article of mine in SKEPTIC magazine. Shall I also mention Gerdes’ persistent failure, after mouthing off about my fellow HC bloggers and my subsequent request that he address them directly, to do so by posting a comment below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html , despite my several reminders in this sense? Or Gerdes having opened a thread on the CODOH Revisionist Forum, a place he knows I am banned from, to mouth off about me there together with the fellow coward (Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis) who was so scared of me that he banned me from that place? To cut a long story short, the fellow who calls me a "pathetic coward", and that just because I don’t respond here to questions that a) have obviously been asked just because Gerdes knows that I cannot yet provide answers; b) are of no relevance except perhaps within the context of the NAFCASH challenge, in which case the place to respond to them is an article in SKEPTIC magazine and not this forum, is himself one of the most pathetic and miserable cowards in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, a buffoon who tries to mask his fear, and his inability to cope with that fear, between bigmouthed howling, foul invective and infantile "show me, show me, right here and now" – demands reminiscent of a spoilt brat’s yelling for a lollipop. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For legal purposes of judicial enquiry it may not be sufficient – a court would probably require an archaeological report such as was published about Prof. Kola’s investigations at Belzec, or that Prof. Kola testify in person about his findings before the court. But I’m surprised to learn that Gerdes is all of a sudden interested in legal arguments. Documentary evidence and eyewitness testimonies are definitely arguments for legal purposes of judicial enquiry. Does this mean you have found the courage to address the evidence listed in my post 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777. that you have so far mostly ignored, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s get on with it, then. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And his playing to his buddies again clearly shows the reason why Gerdes chose to debate me in this lovely place instead of the RODOH forum: miserable cowards like Gerdes only feel safe and brave when in company. Alone they are zero. I, on the other hand, need no company to confront this trash. As my opponents' beloved Führer used to say: The strong is strongest when alone. |
||||||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #904 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay? |
||||
July 30th, 2008 | #905 | ||||||
Member
|
[quote]
Quote:
Good, but you obviously did not read the several cases wherein convictions, based solely upon eyewitness testimony, later; upon appeal, had to be overturned due to the many incidences of convicting innocent people to long term prison time as well as to death. This happened so often that generally, if you read all the articles and links - which you obviously did not bother to do before making your pronouncement - that eyewitness testimony is so easily challenged that Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Defence no longer deem it viable enough for conviction alone. Ask your local [or State] District Attorney if he is willing to go forward with prosecuting a case that is lacking in sufficient evidence and relies totally upon one or more eyewitnesses - in your query, include that the cases would have to be sufficient to earn either capital punishment or long-term to life imprisonment. For instance [and the article was writ by a kike, no less] http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...utput=viewport Quote:
I gave several links - you and Mule do not bother to read nor follow up - at least if you are going to dispute my posts; provide back up Google and research, do your own work and then come back with more than one link, and be willing to discuss them - likely another thread, since this is a subject that does not actually pertain to this thread. Though, I'm sure your pal, Mule would love further derailment so as to avoid answering fully Herr Gerdes questions. But, I am not going to be the one to give him that out - so, if you wish to discuss matters of law - start a thread on it. OV would be the right place. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...ce&btnG=Search |
||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #906 | |||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
What Gerdes is yelling for on the NAFCASH site, on the other hand, is not necessary to prove the crimes under discussion beyond a reasonable doubt. It also doesn’t contribute much to historical knowledge. It is mainly or exclusively relevant for the purpose of earning the NAFCASH reward. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As to his questions related to the Sobibor mass graves, read what I have told him several times already: insofar as these questions are relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge (otherwise they are irrelevant, and irrelevant questions need not be answered), I shall answer them, when I have the necessary information, in the manner required on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in an article to be published in SKEPTIC magazine. If Gerdes wants the answers posted on this forum, he must change that site in the sense that evidence meeting the challenge requirements may also be provided by posting on this forum instead of an article in SKEPTIC magazine. And as to the "when" question, which reveals both your and Gerdes’ nervousness and anxiety, what part of the following: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #907 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #908 |
Member
|
I am, again, giving you link to same reply I have given to Slammin, though, from reading his posts; he is either a rather old jew, perhaps in stages of early Alzheimer's or he is a a young kike, and not able to keep up with most discussion on this forum.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=905 Since you are pretty much his intellectual equal; either way, to save time and space on this thread - which is dealing with specific data, which is incumbent for you to prove, and using outdated and false information and charges that were illegal to begin with, there is little else for you to be discussing - other than how you jews can now go back over time and prove to Herr Gerdes your outrageous claims during the Nurnberg Trials and so forth. As well, you state you have the evidence and proof that will destroy the Revisionist argument, which you will submit to Herr Gerdes, for an award. The thorny question seems to be when you will send it to him. However, you state that you are putting off doing this so as to continue having fun on this board and thread. Well, o.k. - but, having made the claim, eventually you will have to settle down and mail your proofs to Herr Gerdes. We are patient. |
July 30th, 2008 | #909 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #910 | |||||||||||
Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
|
|||||||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #911 | |||||||||
Member
|
[quote]
Quote:
Heh, well I would pretty much be forced to provide link to near every single relevant post you have made on this thread in order to be specific. Quote:
Quote:
Had they been sufficiently proven then my generation would not be so willing to give more credence to Revisionist discussion than the pap being produced by kikes and holocaustians and crammed down our throat since birth. If nothing else, my generation are the biggest proof that Holocaustianity and the Hoax have failed to ensnare and/or impress - and that's putting it mildly. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 30th, 2008 at 09:59 AM. |
|||||||||
July 30th, 2008 | #912 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Goddess:
"So, you see, you continue to have no intention of stopping your verbal abuse - at least not until I see to it that Herr Gerdes stops questioning you." Retardo: "Actually what I’m saying is that I’m not leaving this forum unless Gerdes shuts his trap." Yes, and let's see what the cowardly faggot has erected around herself so as to avoid answering any of my questions (What's the point of being here Roberta if you cowardly refuse to participate?): Retardo: "I’m waiting for you to explain the relevance of your demands" LOL!!! She challenges me to a debate about Sobibor, and now says I have to explain to her the relevance of my questions? Mmmmmm. Let's see, is the question: Where are theses alleged 7 "huge mass graves" located anyway Roberta? a relevant or irrelevant question to a person who challenged me to a debate based on the alleged volume of the alleged Sobibor graves? What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.) Roberta: "If you want your questions answered on this forum, then you’ll have to change the NAFCASH site in the sense that proof meeting the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge may also be published on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine. Make that change, and then you can put questions – insofar as relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge requirements – on the table here. Until you have made that change, shut the fuck up." She then makes a most absurd demand that she knows will not (and for all practical purposes - can not) be made. And her telling me to "shut the fuck up" is simply a tacit admission that she's a cornered rat with nothing left but her childish antics. What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.) Then she contradicts herself (imagine that!) with this gem: "Actually I don’t wish him to shut up at all... As to his questions related to the Sobibor mass graves, read what I have told him several times already: insofar as these questions are relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge (otherwise they are irrelevant, and irrelevant questions need not be answered), I shall answer them, when I have the necessary information, in the manner required on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in an article to be published in SKEPTIC magazine. If Gerdes wants the answers posted on this forum, he must change that site in the sense that evidence meeting the challenge requirements may also be provided by posting on this forum instead of an article in SKEPTIC magazine." What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.) And this one is really a gem. After I caught the lying jewbitch is yet another lie, she tries to dodge this fact with: Originally Posted by Gerdes Let's see proof – or is this just another one of your baseless lies? Roberta: "Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay? What an utter liar and coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.) So she wants’ to leave so bad it's killing her, but she then says she won't leave unless I "shut my trap," but she continues to lie and refuse to answer the most simple questions all the while erecting conditions that she knows won't / can't be obliged. And of course, any inconvenient question she avoids answering by just saying that "it's not relevant." What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you, thank you, thank you.) Have I ever told you Roberta, that you're priceless? BTW Roberta, I must have really touched a nerve when I mentioned your father. Just how many times did he tell you that you were worthless? How old were you when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot? |
July 30th, 2008 | #913 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Please notice Roberta's continued refusal to answer / provide the following. It seems the following is just too inconvenient for her to answer and/or provide:
30 Sobibor Qeustions That Roberta Refuses To Answer / Provide: 1 - Tell us on what dates her partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp. 2 - Show us photographs that prove he was in said camps on said dates. 3 - Tell us on what dates her other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp. 4 - Show us photographs that prove he was in said camp on said dates. 5 - Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves. 6 - Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist. 7 - Tell us what Polish government entity that commissioned Kola's "work." 8 - Tell us what the results were of the analysis of those soil core samples that she claims are: "ashes of human bone and tissue for the light gray stuff, wood ashes for the black stuff and pure bone ashes or lime for the white stuff." 9 - Show us proof that the "huge ash mountain" of Sobibor is actually comprised of human ash. 10 - Show us were the huge pit is that this "mountain of human ash" was dug out of. 11 - And last - but certainly not least, we're waiting for Roberta to publish, in "SKEPTIC" magazine, proof that there exists just one mass grave that contains just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka. Just one camp - just one mass grave - just one percent. Just one Roberta. One. 12 - What are you waiting for Roberta? 13 - After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you? 14 - Are you some kind of coward Roberta, or what? Now, let’s remind everyone what the mentally ill jewbitch wrote earlier: Quote: Originally Posted by Gerdes She hasn't been able to even prove that the "huge mass grave" of Sobibor exists; Roberta: “Actually I’m able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kola’s description.” 15 - Yes Roberta, could you tell us again what Kola “described” finding in the “huge mass graves” of Sobibor? Roberta: “Proof is contained in Prof. Kola’s published report about his findings on site, and in the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Sobibor, which is compatible with Kola’s findings.” 16 - And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 17 - And where can we find this published report? Roberta: “This proof is and has been accepted by historians and criminal investigators, Gerdes. So unless you can show relevant rules or standards of evidence that these people did not comply with or strong indications of evidence manipulation, it is proof for the purpose of our discussion as well (and may even be considered proof for the purpose of meeting your "challenge" by a court of law, so better be more specific about what kind of proof you want – that’s well meaning advice)... Because Prof. Kola said so and there’s no reason to doubt the statements of this renowned archeologist, especially as they are also in line with what all other known evidence tells us about Sobibor… And the reason to doubt the archeologist’s public statement that would support this "allegedly" is?” 18 - And what did Kola say again Roberta? 19 - Oh, and please give us a list of the "historians and criminal investigators" that have "accepted" this alleged "proof." 20 - BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from the queations about the soil core samples of Sobibor? 21 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? 22 - They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? 23 - They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta? 24 - BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that you're priceless? 25 - Goddess: "When can Herr Gerdes expect to find it in his mail-box? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.) 26 - Retardo: "Gerdes’ mouthing-off against the above-mentioned entities may turn out to be a shot in the foot, however. I can imagine members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project or the "Friends of Sobibor Remembrance" association getting angry enough, upon reading Gerdes' crap, to decide that it's time to teach the bigmouth a lesson and publish evidence meeting the NAFCASH challenge requirements just in order to humiliate the fellow, independently of whether or not they can realistically expect payment of the reward amount." When can I expect this to happen Roberta? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.) 27 - If you were Andrzej Kola or Yoram Haimi, and the "huge mass graves" allegedly found at Sobibor are not a hoax, just how long would it take you to send off to "SKEPTIC" magazine all the proof in the world needed to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE reward? 28 - And what about Shammer - what the hell is he waiting for? 29 - How old were you Roberta, when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot? 30 - How long is it now that you've had AIDS? |
July 31st, 2008 | #914 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Poor Gerdes, I keep him freaking out.
And I’m enjoying every minute of it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Where would I have done that? Show me. Exact quote and post number. As to the question itself, the answer is: in the area of former Sobibor extermination camp, in the section of that camp known as "Camp III". That’s what I know for the moment. More detailed information will be accessible in the future, but for the moment that’s what I have. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
"Mr. Muehlenkamp, could you please tell us what you know about the reasons for Prof. Kola being upset with the Polish government regarding the archaeological work he did at Sobibor in 2001?" Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And that post, incidentally, refers to another of your lies: your claim that I had reported for deletion "your" posts Topix post # 373 and # 379. Here’s a screenshot of my post # 379: This post is currently online, by the way: http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p19#c379 As is your post # 373: http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p18#c373 You’re not only a filthy stinking liar, Mr. Gerdes, you’re also a fucking dumb liar. And you have been caught lying more often than I care to count. Next time you call me a liar we’ll have screenshots from our early Topix discussions where you were caught in up to ten or more lies in a single post, OK? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
July 31st, 2008 | #915 | |
Member
|
ATTN: The Mule
Quote:
|
|
July 31st, 2008 | #916 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Now I’ll be a nice guy and try to stop the spoilt brat’s crying by taking a look at the questions he makes such a fuss about.
A. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant questions: 1. Shermer is not my "partner", however desperate poor Gerdes is to make him into that. 2. I don’t know if Shermer was physically in Sobibor camp and if there are any photos showing him there, and I couldn’t care less. B. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to these questions of limited if any relevance: 1. Prof. Kola is not my "partner", however desperate poor Gerdes is to make him into that. He is, if anything, a potential source of information. 2. The dates on which Prof. Kola conducted his investigations at Sobibor in 2001 must have been prior to the Reuters press release of 23 November 2001: Quote:
3. While no photographs are required to prove that the mass graves actually exist, the three photographs from the above-mentioned series obviously show substances taken with a core drill out of Sobibor mass graves, which are clearly distinguishable from the light brown soil of Sobibor. The light gray substance on the first two photos must be ashes of human bone and tissue. The black substance on the second photo must be wood ash. The white substance on the third photo must be either bone ash or lime. My assumptions regarding the nature of these substances are supported by a) their aspect b) their context (Prof. Kola’s investigation in 2001, the essential result of which was finding the mass graves) , and c) the absence of any alternative theory (at least Gerdes has provided none) as to what these substances might be. C. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: On the site http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/historia/index.htm , which is quoted in my post # 807 on this thread (Gerdes should read my posts before hacking away), the following is stated: Quote:
Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to question of limited if any relevance: I am not familiar at this moment with the results of such analysis, which have not been published. However, it seems reasonable to assume that if such analysis was done – which is probably the case – , the results confirmed my assumptions mentioned in answer B.3 above. E. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to question of limited relevance: All captioned photos showing this mound of ash, while not necessarily if at all describing it as "huge" or as a "mountain", refer to it as being made up of or containing human ash. Photos of this mound include, without limitation, the photos shown under item IV.2.3 in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 and those shown under the following links: http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor039.html http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor040.html http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor043.html http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor082.html The aspect of the substance that the mound consists of, which has a light gray coloration different from the light-brown color of the soil at Sobibor (see photos mentioned in answer B.3 above) suggests the accuracy of captions describing this mound as a mound consisting of or containing human ashes. So does the associated documentary and eyewitness evidence proving that Sobibor was an extermination camp and that the bodies of the victims were disposed of by burning them, which is mentioned in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 . The conclusion that the mound in question is comprised of human ash is thus the conclusion that is borne out by all known evidence and belied by none. It is also the conclusion towards which various sources of evidence independent of each other converge. This convergence of various sources of evidence independent of each other, alone or together with the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is proof that the mound in question is comprised of human ash. F. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: The human ashes that the mound at Sobibor is comprised of may have been dug out of one of more of the pits discovered by Prof. Kola in 2001. They were probably brought to the surface by postwar robbery digging, which would mean it is impossible to determine which of the grave pits contained these specific ashes. Quote:
G. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: On a long-term perspective, I’m waiting for the results of archaeological work that is currently being carried out on site, and for a chance to gain access to such results. On a short-term perspective, I’m waiting for Gerdes to further humiliate himself with his infantile"“show me, show me, right here and now" – demands, his obvious cowardice and his equally obvious mendacity. H. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: Sometimes I do, sometimes I find true believers like Gerdes so much fun that I think it would be a shame if they stopped their imbecile rants. I. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior. J. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to questions of limited if any relevance: 1. What Prof Kola told a Polish news agency, according to the Reuters press release of 23 November 2001 quoted in answer B.2 above, was the following: Quote:
3. Gerdes seems to think that Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents as "charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay" contradicts or is contradicted by the core samples mentioned in answer B.3. He is therefore once more invited to read what I wrote in post # 840 and repeated in several posts thereafter (which still applies, except I now know that the core samples are from Prof. Kola's investigation): Quote:
Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to questions of limited if any relevance: If the question refers to the physical evidence discovered by Prof. Kola alone, I think it has been mentioned in a recent book about Aktion Reinhard(t) by Polish historian Bogdan Musial, but I’m not sure and will check. I have not seen any historian or criminal investigator calling in question the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s description of his archaeological findings. If, on the other hand, the question refers to the eyewitness and documentary evidence that alone is sufficient to prove the mass murder at Sobibor, some of which is mentioned in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 , here are the summaries of trials before West German courts at which defendants were sentenced, on hand of documentary and/or eyewitness evidence, for crimes committed at Sobibor extermination camp: http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng212.htm http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng233.htm http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng641.htm http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng642.htm http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng746.htm The complete texts of the judgments at these trials can be individually ordered via the University of Amsterdam’s Justiz und NS-Verbrechen website under http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/inhaltsverzeichnis.htm . The price was € 25 apiece last time I ordered a judgment text. As to historians who have written about the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps, including but not limited to Sobibor, I recommend the works of Yitzhak Arad, Christopher Browning, Christian Gerlach, Dieter Pohl and Bogdan Musial. L. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: As lying Gerdes well knows, the only one who has been running away from questions regarding these core drill samples: http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F5.html http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F6.html http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F7.html is Gerdes himself. I have asked him several times what, other than ashes of human bone and tissue, wood ashes, bone ash or lime the substances distinguishable from the light-brown soil in these samples could possibly be. He has neither provided an alternative explanation and nor had the courage to at least openly admit that he has no alternative explanation. M. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: 1. Unlike Mr. Gerdes and others of his ilk, the members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project are not frauds. They are serious and competent archaeologists. 2. What I have learned from them about these samples is that they pertain to Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation in 2001, see above answer B.2. 3. This means that if – as is probably the case – these core samples were analyzed to confirm that they contain what their aspect suggests, this was done in 2001 by or on behalf of Prof. Kola’s team, and not by or on behalf of the Sobibor Archaeology Project. N. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: Gerdes is a lousy imitator of a term I have appropriately applied to him, for if anyone here is priceless, it is Gerdes – priceless as a demonstration object of cowardice, mendacity and obnoxiousness such as is hard to find even in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land. O. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant questions: When the archaeological work is done and the results have been evaluated. According to my last conversation with Yoram Haimi, this professional archaeologist considers it below his level to publish evidence just in order to address the claims of a hopeless crackpot. Archaeological evidence is published for the purpose of enhancing scientific and historical knowledge and for everyone’s benefit. When the results of the current archaeological investigations are published in a scientific magazine, they will include much more than just the evidence necessary to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements. And I will see to it that Mr. Gerdes gets a free copy of the scientific magazine in which this evidence shall be published. P. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: As long as it takes for my archaeological work to be completed and duly remunerated, for the results to be evaluated and for an article that meets the requirements of a scientific magazine to be written. I wouldn’t necessarily publish such article in SKEPTIC magazine, which is not necessarily related to issues of archaeology and/or history, but prefer something like ARCHAEOLOGY magazine. And I wouldn’t give a flying fuck about some howling lunatic’s fraudulent "FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE" and a reward for which I would probably have to run after 21 characterless and probably also penniless frauds, made from the same used toilet paper as Mr. Gerdes, for the part of the reward amount to which each of them has supposedly committed. However, I might make available evidence material to who feels like making those frauds put their money where their mouths are, or at least humiliate the most obnoxious of those frauds. Q. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: Ask Mr. Shermer if he is interested in your transparently fraudulent "challenge". I have nothing to do with Mr. Shermer, and even if I had I would still not be stinking Gerdes’ messenger. R. Quote:
Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question: You don’t have to tell us your personal and family history, Mr. Gerdes. But if you insist in doing so by projecting it onto your opponent, be my guest. Now, Mr. Gerdes, can we move to the questions I have asked you and you have never answered, and to further questions I would like to ask you? The list is quite a long one, and unlike most of your questions, they are all pertinent and relevant. Can I post a list of my questions, and will you try to answer them to the best of your knowledge and ability as I have just answered your questions? YES or NO, Mr. Gerdes? While you think about an answer, I turn to the other two stooges – the company you obviously cannot do without. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 31st, 2008 | #917 | ||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||||||||||
July 31st, 2008 | #918 | |||||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And even if your generation consisted entirely of bloodthirsty fanatics like yourself, that still wouldn’t change the fact that the "outrageous claims" you ramble against (because they don’t fit your preconceived notions and for no other reason) have long been proven. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||
July 31st, 2008 | #919 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Read # 916. |
|
July 31st, 2008 | #920 | |||||||||||||
Member
|
[quote]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the meantime, this man is not WN or NS, he's written an interesting article vis a vis his own awakening to the vagaries of the holocaust and the jews generally; seems like he just figured it out. http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-...80729-596.html Quote:
Quote:
I do not ask nor demand to be "believed" - I do suggest that the holocaust be thouroughly questioned and investigated - particularly by my generation, if they are even interested in the subject at all, most are not - and I agree with you, they should be very interested; though not for the reason you espouse. Rather the opposite, obviously. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|