|
May 19th, 2009 | #1981 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo:
"Explain to our esteemed audience what the proof requirements of the NAFCASH challenge are." Look at retardo pretending that she can't understand this simple statement: For locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder. Well dull one, it's been over a year now since you claimed to have located at least 4 of Treblinka's "huge mass graves:" http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg Now look at the previous post and you will find this (which is taken directly from the nafcash.com site): Now, just how hard should it be to prove the existence of just one “huge mass grave” that contains just one tenth of one percent (3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth) of the alleged mass murder - IF the official story is true? Why the charade dull one? As dumb as you are, I know that even you can understand this. Now all you have to do is prove that one of those graves you claim to have located actually exists and currently contains at least (3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth If you're still having problems understanding what the definition of proof is, then, like I've told you many times before, contact your partner shermer. What are you waiting for stupid? What are you afraid of? And let's remind everyone that we've been through this charade before: Post #1294: It's done! Here it is faggot: http://www.nafcash.com/ Read it and weep dull one. Simplified and clarified. Lighter and tighter. So easy, even a retard like Roberta should be able to figure it out. We have an exact kind of evidence. We have an exact amount of evidence. We have an exact location where the evidence has to be located / proven to exist. (And it could all be located / proven to exist by a blind man with a toy plastic shovel.) So what are you waiting for faggot? What's wrong - 1/10th of 1% too hard for you? BTW, if you have any questions about what the definition of: locate / proven to exist Means, contact the "SKEPTICS" Society / "SKEPTIC" Magazine. And no, it doesn't mean: "Assumptions based on estimates based on descriptions." (What are you - retarded, or what?) And post #1313 Retardo: "What would you accept as proof that a certain minimum amount of bone fragments lies in the area?" Are you too stupid and lazy to read and understand the nafcash site and figure it out for yourself? http://www.nafcash.com/ What part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand dull one? Are you retarded, or what? Retardo: "When you have confirmed the above, please put it on the NAFCASH site. Then it will be clear what one has to provide in order to qualify for the NAFCASH reward." It's already on the nafcash site stupid. And if it isn't clear enough for you, then that is proof of why you're called the dullest of the dull. What part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand Roberta? Are you retarded, or what? Retardo: "NAFCASH wants a detailed physical quantification of bone fragments excavated from the mass graves of either Treblinka or Sobibor, in the form of an archaeologist’s report illustrated with photographs according to which the mass of bone fragments found amounts to at least 6,351 pounds at Treblinka or at least 1,825 pounds at Sobibor." Holy shit what a retard. That is proof that you haven't even read the site. It's all spelled out in/on the site stupid. In fact, it's been simplified to the point that even a retard could figure it out. But for some strange reason, the dullest of the dull can't understand it. Proving that retardo is dumber than your average retard. The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location for locating / proving the existence of said evidence of human remains is spelled out in/on the nafcash site. Again, only someone who is too lazy and/or too stupid to understand it would have to ask for clarification. Originally Posted by Gerdes Can you show us just 1/10th of 1%? Retardo: "I can show a lot more than that rather easily." Then what are you waiting for faggot? And if you're still having problems with the definition of proof, I suggest that you ask Michael Shermer / "SKEPTIC" magazine about it. As you well know, you have to have your "proof" published in "SKEPTIC" magazine first. If they will accept your "descriptions based on estimates based on assumptions based on photo captions" as proof, we will of course consider it. But we will of course ultimately define proof as - proven. BTW, just what part of the words prove / proof don't you understand dull one? And just what part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand? Are you retarded, or what? Retardo: "Proving that quantity of human remains at Treblinka is a piece of cake." Then what are you waiting for faggot? And post #1330: Retardo: "So it looks like proof of at least 1,000 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 8,000 teeth at Sobibor, Or 3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth at Treblinka Will get me $ 100,000." Holy shit the retard figured it out. It only took her 4 days, but hey, that's still pretty good for a retard. Now dull one, do you understand the EXACT location that these remains have to be located / proven to exist in? (I'll give you another 4 days to figure it out.) So there is now no need for any modern technology, except this: http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...sigh=11at7gqlc That is needed to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. Now what are you waiting for faggot? That leaves only one thing left for you to figure out - the meaning of: locate / prove the existence of And if you're still having problems with the definition of proof, I suggest that you ask Michael Shermer / "SKEPTIC" magazine about it. As you well know, you have to have your "proof" published in "SKEPTIC" magazine first. If they will accept your "descriptions based on estimates based on assumptions based on photo captions" as proof, we will of course consider it. But we will of course ultimately define proof as - proven. BTW, just what part of prove / proof don't you understand dull one? And just what part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand? Are you retarded, or what? What's wrong, is 1/10th of 1% too hard for you? Is $100,000.00 not enough of an incentive for you? (What about putting an end to holocaust denial? I thought that alone was incentive enough for you? After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?) Is 65 years not enough time for you? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 19th, 2009 at 02:19 PM. |
May 19th, 2009 | #1982 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Compulsive liar and whimpering coward Gerdes keeps holding monologues with his sockpuppet "T.F.Sheb" and running away from the very simple and straightforward questions asked in my RODOH post # 11127, which are transcribed below:
Question # 108: Would the demonstration of the location, size and contents of Sobibor grave # 4 in my RODOH post # 11127, if published in an article in SKEPTIC magazine, be considered sufficient proof of the minimum contents of at least one mass grave at Sobibor to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements, and thus entitle the author of such article to the $ 100,000 NAFCASH reward? YES or NO? Question # 109: If the answer to Question # 108 is "NO", why would the above demonstration not be considered sufficient proof of the minimum contents of at least one mass grave at Sobibor to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements, and thus entitle the author of such article to the $ 100,000 NAFCASH reward? What would be missing? Question # 110: If the answer to Question # 108 is "NO", what evidence exactly would be accepted as proof that Sobibor mass grave # 4 contains at least the amount of human remains required to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements and entitle the applicant to the NAFCASH reward? And then there is Question # 111: Unless you reintroduced them in the meantime, why did you take the Chelmno and Belzec extermination camps out of the NAFCASH challenge? Gerdes may answer these questions either here or on RODOH. Of course he'll continue running away from them and make a big bloody fuss to avoid providing simple and reasonable answers to very simple and reasonable questions, like the whimpering coward he has amply shown himself to be, especially when he ran from our appointment at Sobibor on 15 October 2008 (see my post # 1525 ). And of course the ignore situation on this forum remains, except as concerns the above questions, until Gerdes has posted this simple statement that he's scared shitless of posting: "I am prepared to, from now on, also answer questions and respond to challenges myself, and to address my opponent’s arguments and the evidence presented by my opponent (all of it)." Greg Gerdes, alias "T.F.Sheb", alias "tfsfcsupporter", alias whatever else the fellow may feel like calling himself, is a big mouth with nothing behind it. All bluff, no action. |
May 19th, 2009 | #1983 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo:
"Would the demonstration of the location, size and contents of Sobibor grave # 4 in my RODOH post # 11127, if published in an article in SKEPTIC magazine, be considered sufficient proof of the minimum contents of at least one mass grave at Sobibor to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements, and thus entitle the author of such article to the $ 100,000 NAFCASH reward?" What part of the word - prove / proof - don't you understand dull one? |
May 19th, 2009 | #1984 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Well, it's been over a year now since retardo accepted TFSFC. In case you've forgotten:
Quote:
And I've yet to find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine in my mailbox. What are you waiting for coward? So let's have your update dull one. Show us what you've shown the world retardo. How to win nafcash's ( www.nafcash.com/ ) $100,000.00 - The Final Solution Forenic Challenge - reward. Direct from - The National Association of Forensic Historians - website: * * * * * Lest you think there must be some truth to the alleged Treblinka holocaust (That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work) The National Association of Forensic Historians TM presents THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM $100,000.00 REWARD For locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder. * * * * * Now who in their right mind could believe the official story that millions of pounds of evidence were “utterly eradicated” by a layer of soil and couldn’t be detected today with the use of modern archeological / forensic science techniques? Compounding the obvious absurdity that the pseudo “science” of history gives eyewitness testimony more credence than tangible physical evidence (or the lack thereof) is the fact that every single “eyewitness” that helped to “historically” prove the preposterous Treblinka legend was a shameless PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. Don’t believe it? Well then, since Michael Shermer (who is also the president of the “Skeptics” Society and publisher of “SKEPTIC” magazine) has such disdain for real skeptics (i.e. - intelligent / logical people who refuse to share his delusion that millions of jews can magically vanish from the face of the earth without leaving a trace), “SKEPTIC” magazine should be more than willing to publish the results of any scientific investigation that claims to have proven that this asinine pure extermination center legend has been forensically proven to be a fact. Therefore, all one has to do to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM reward, is to have said claims / results first published in “SKEPTIC” Magazine. Now, just how hard should it be to prove the existence of just one “huge mass grave” that contains just one tenth of one percent (3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth) of the alleged mass murder - IF the official story is true? * * * * * Lest you think there must be some truth to the asinine pure extermination center canard (That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work) THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM Also includes the alleged Sobibor holocaust. * * * * * So the alleged “huge mass graves” of Sobibor have been intact there for the last 65 years? Filled with “charred human remains?” Say what? What happened to “utterly eradicated?” What happened to “totally obliterated?” Do you see the conundrum that the jews and their minions have lied themselves into? For years the official versions of the alleged Treblinka and Sobibor holocausts were virtually identical, then suddenly, the masters of the big-lie technique claim that the fraudulent Sobibor fable has been forensically proven, yet with the same breath they claim that not an iota of tangible physical evidence can be located at Treblinka! These contradictory claims can’t both be true. (But they can both be false!) This is pure ORWELLIAN doublethinking. (The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.) And if they have to “confirm scientifically that this camp existed,” then what are they waiting for? It’s been over 7 years since the Kola hoax and they still haven’t located / proven the existence of so much as one single grave or so much as one tenth of one percent (1,000 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 8,000 teeth) of this fraud. Here is all the rest of the information that you need to know to lay claim to the reward: 1 - http://www.geocities.com/treblinkafraud/ 2 - http://www.nafcash.com/ 3 - http://www.solargeneral.com/history/...kaHolohoax.pdf Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 20th, 2009 at 10:16 AM. |
|
May 19th, 2009 | #1985 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo:
"Explain to our esteemed audience what the proof requirements of the NAFCASH challenge are." Look at retardo pretending that she can't understand this simple statement: For locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder. Well dull one, it's been over a year now since you claimed to have located at least 4 of Treblinka's "huge mass graves:" http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg Now look at the previous post and you will find this (which is taken directly from the nafcash.com site): Now, just how hard should it be to prove the existence of just one “huge mass grave” that contains just one tenth of one percent (3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth) of the alleged mass murder - IF the official story is true? Why the charade dull one? As dumb as you are, I know that even you can understand this. Now all you have to do is prove that one of those graves you claim to have located actually exists and currently contains at least (3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth If you're still having problems understanding what the definition of proof is, then, like I've told you many times before, contact your partner shermer. What are you waiting for stupid? What are you afraid of? And let's remind everyone that we've been through this charade before: Post #1294: It's done! Here it is faggot: http://www.nafcash.com/ Read it and weep dull one. Simplified and clarified. Lighter and tighter. So easy, even a retard like Roberta should be able to figure it out. We have an exact kind of evidence. We have an exact amount of evidence. We have an exact location where the evidence has to be located / proven to exist. (And it could all be located / proven to exist by a blind man with a toy plastic shovel.) So what are you waiting for faggot? What's wrong - 1/10th of 1% too hard for you? BTW, if you have any questions about what the definition of: locate / proven to exist Means, contact the "SKEPTICS" Society / "SKEPTIC" Magazine. And no, it doesn't mean: "Assumptions based on estimates based on descriptions." (What are you - retarded, or what?) And post #1313 Retardo: "What would you accept as proof that a certain minimum amount of bone fragments lies in the area?" Are you too stupid and lazy to read and understand the nafcash site and figure it out for yourself? http://www.nafcash.com/ What part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand dull one? Are you retarded, or what? Retardo: "When you have confirmed the above, please put it on the NAFCASH site. Then it will be clear what one has to provide in order to qualify for the NAFCASH reward." It's already on the nafcash site stupid. And if it isn't clear enough for you, then that is proof of why you're called the dullest of the dull. What part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand Roberta? Are you retarded, or what? Retardo: "NAFCASH wants a detailed physical quantification of bone fragments excavated from the mass graves of either Treblinka or Sobibor, in the form of an archaeologist’s report illustrated with photographs according to which the mass of bone fragments found amounts to at least 6,351 pounds at Treblinka or at least 1,825 pounds at Sobibor." Holy shit what a retard. That is proof that you haven't even read the site. It's all spelled out in/on the site stupid. In fact, it's been simplified to the point that even a retard could figure it out. But for some strange reason, the dullest of the dull can't understand it. Proving that retardo is dumber than your average retard. The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location for locating / proving the existence of said evidence of human remains is spelled out in/on the nafcash site. Again, only someone who is too lazy and/or too stupid to understand it would have to ask for clarification. Originally Posted by Gerdes Can you show us just 1/10th of 1%? Retardo: "I can show a lot more than that rather easily." Then what are you waiting for faggot? And if you're still having problems with the definition of proof, I suggest that you ask Michael Shermer / "SKEPTIC" magazine about it. As you well know, you have to have your "proof" published in "SKEPTIC" magazine first. If they will accept your "descriptions based on estimates based on assumptions based on photo captions" as proof, we will of course consider it. But we will of course ultimately define proof as - proven. BTW, just what part of the words prove / proof don't you understand dull one? And just what part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand? Are you retarded, or what? Retardo: "Proving that quantity of human remains at Treblinka is a piece of cake." Then what are you waiting for faggot? And post #1330: Retardo: "So it looks like proof of at least 1,000 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 8,000 teeth at Sobibor, Or 3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth at Treblinka Will get me $ 100,000." Holy shit the retard figured it out. It only took her 4 days, but hey, that's still pretty good for a retard. Now dull one, do you understand the EXACT location that these remains have to be located / proven to exist in? (I'll give you another 4 days to figure it out.) So there is now no need for any modern technology, except this: http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...sigh=11at7gqlc That is needed to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. Now what are you waiting for faggot? That leaves only one thing left for you to figure out - the meaning of: locate / prove the existence of And if you're still having problems with the definition of proof, I suggest that you ask Michael Shermer / "SKEPTIC" magazine about it. As you well know, you have to have your "proof" published in "SKEPTIC" magazine first. If they will accept your "descriptions based on estimates based on assumptions based on photo captions" as proof, we will of course consider it. But we will of course ultimately define proof as - proven. BTW, just what part of prove / proof don't you understand dull one? And just what part of - locate / prove the existence of - do you not understand? Are you retarded, or what? What's wrong, is 1/10th of 1% too hard for you? Is $100,000.00 not enough of an incentive for you? (What about putting an end to holocaust denial? I thought that alone was incentive enough for you? After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?) Is 65 years not enough time for you? |
May 20th, 2009 | #1986 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Compulsive liar and whimpering coward Gerdes keeps running away from the very simple and straightforward questions asked in my RODOH post # 11127, which are transcribed below:
Question # 108: Would the demonstration of the location, size and contents of Sobibor grave # 4 in my RODOH post # 11127, if published in an article in SKEPTIC magazine, be considered sufficient proof of the minimum contents of at least one mass grave at Sobibor to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements, and thus entitle the author of such article to the $ 100,000 NAFCASH reward? YES or NO? Question # 109: If the answer to Question # 108 is "NO", why would the above demonstration not be considered sufficient proof of the minimum contents of at least one mass grave at Sobibor to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements, and thus entitle the author of such article to the $ 100,000 NAFCASH reward? What would be missing? Question # 110: If the answer to Question # 108 is "NO", what evidence exactly would be accepted as proof that Sobibor mass grave # 4 contains at least the amount of human remains required to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements and entitle the applicant to the NAFCASH reward? And then there is Question # 111: Unless you reintroduced them in the meantime, why did you take the Chelmno and Belzec extermination camps out of the NAFCASH challenge? Gerdes may answer these questions either here or on RODOH. As concerns questions nos. 108 to 110, I'll make answering them even easier to spineless coward Gerdes, as I have done in my RODOH post # 11136. I have located and proven the existence of the Sobibor mass grave numbered "4" by Prof. Andrzej Kola in his 2001 report about Sobibor (I could just as well have picked any other of the seven graves found by Prof. Kola, but I picked # 4 because it is the biggest). I have provided an renowned archaeologist's description of that grave's precise location and his plotting of that grave on a map. I have matched that map with a satellite photograph, on which grave # 4 is one of the graves that can be made out with the naked eye. I have provided the archaeologist's description of the grave's context, from which it can be concluded that well over 4,000 bodies in wax-fat transformation at least lie on the bottom of that grave. I have provided documentary and eyewitness evidence that proves the killing, burial and subsequent cremation of at least 150,000 people at Sobibor extermination camp, and I have demonstrated that grave # 4 can, given it's also containing cremation remains above the layers of bodies in wax-fat transformation and its volume in relation to the total volume of all graves together, be reasonably assumed to contain the remains of about half the people killed at Sobibor. So the question is: would this be enough, if published in an article in Shermer's Skeptic magazine, to qualify me for the $ 100,000 NAFCASH reward? YES or NO? If the answer should be "NO", what more would be required? There's only one additional requirement that I can think of, and that is physically finding the contents of this mass grave by excavation, core drilling or non-invasive subsoil imaging technologies, physically quantifying them to the extent possible, and documenting these physical finds and physical quantification in an archaeological report. If this is what it takes to satisfy the NAFCASH challenge requirements, please say so, Mr. Gerdes. In that case application for the reward will have to wait until the necessary archaeological works are carried out on site, which as things are now will not happen before October this year. If, on the other hand, the evidence to location, size and contents of Sobibor grave # 4 presented in my post # 11127 is sufficient to qualify for the NAFCASH reward if submitted in the required form (i.e. publication in SKEPTIC magazine), I shall contact Mr. Shermer right away. So, Mr. Gerdes, which of them is it? Of course Gerdes will continue running away from my questions and making a big bloody fuss to avoid providing simple and reasonable answers to very simple and reasonable questions, like the whimpering coward he has amply shown himself to be, especially when he ran from our appointment at Sobibor on 15 October 2008 (see my post # 1525 ). And of course the ignore situation on this forum remains, except as concerns the above questions, until Gerdes has posted this simple statement that he's scared shitless of posting: "I am prepared to, from now on, also answer questions and respond to challenges myself, and to address my opponent’s arguments and the evidence presented by my opponent (all of it)." Greg Gerdes, alias "T.F.Sheb", alias "tfsfcsupporter", alias whatever else the fellow may feel like calling himself, is a big mouth with nothing behind it. All bluff, no action. Last edited by Roberto Muehlenkamp; May 20th, 2009 at 05:06 AM. |
May 20th, 2009 | #1987 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Well, it's been over a year now since retardo accepted TFSFC. In case you've forgotten:
Quote:
And I've yet to find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine in my mailbox. What are you waiting for coward? So let's have your update dull one. Show us what you've shown the world retardo. How to win nafcash's ( www.nafcash.com/ ) $100,000.00 - The Final Solution Forenic Challenge - reward. Direct from - The National Association of Forensic Historians - website: * * * * * Lest you think there must be some truth to the alleged Treblinka holocaust (That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work) The National Association of Forensic Historians TM presents THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM $100,000.00 REWARD For locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder. * * * * * Now who in their right mind could believe the official story that millions of pounds of evidence were “utterly eradicated” by a layer of soil and couldn’t be detected today with the use of modern archeological / forensic science techniques? Compounding the obvious absurdity that the pseudo “science” of history gives eyewitness testimony more credence than tangible physical evidence (or the lack thereof) is the fact that every single “eyewitness” that helped to “historically” prove the preposterous Treblinka legend was a shameless PATHOLOGICAL LIAR. Don’t believe it? Well then, since Michael Shermer (who is also the president of the “Skeptics” Society and publisher of “SKEPTIC” magazine) has such disdain for real skeptics (i.e. - intelligent / logical people who refuse to share his delusion that millions of jews can magically vanish from the face of the earth without leaving a trace), “SKEPTIC” magazine should be more than willing to publish the results of any scientific investigation that claims to have proven that this asinine pure extermination center legend has been forensically proven to be a fact. Therefore, all one has to do to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM reward, is to have said claims / results first published in “SKEPTIC” Magazine. Now, just how hard should it be to prove the existence of just one “huge mass grave” that contains just one tenth of one percent (3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth) of the alleged mass murder - IF the official story is true? * * * * * Lest you think there must be some truth to the asinine pure extermination center canard (That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work) THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM Also includes the alleged Sobibor holocaust. * * * * * So the alleged “huge mass graves” of Sobibor have been intact there for the last 65 years? Filled with “charred human remains?” Say what? What happened to “utterly eradicated?” What happened to “totally obliterated?” Do you see the conundrum that the jews and their minions have lied themselves into? For years the official versions of the alleged Treblinka and Sobibor holocausts were virtually identical, then suddenly, the masters of the big-lie technique claim that the fraudulent Sobibor fable has been forensically proven, yet with the same breath they claim that not an iota of tangible physical evidence can be located at Treblinka! These contradictory claims can’t both be true. (But they can both be false!) This is pure ORWELLIAN doublethinking. (The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them.) And if they have to “confirm scientifically that this camp existed,” then what are they waiting for? It’s been over 7 years since the Kola hoax and they still haven’t located / proven the existence of so much as one single grave or so much as one tenth of one percent (1,000 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 8,000 teeth) of this fraud. Here is all the rest of the information that you need to know to lay claim to the reward: 1 - http://www.geocities.com/treblinkafraud/ 2 - http://www.nafcash.com/ 3 - http://www.solargeneral.com/history/...kaHolohoax.pdf |
|
May 20th, 2009 | #1988 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo:
"If the answer should be "NO", what more would be required? There's only one additional requirement that I can think of, and that is physically finding the contents of this mass grave by excavation, core drilling or non-invasive subsoil imaging technologies, physically quantifying them to the extent possible, and documenting these physical finds and physical quantification in an archaeological report. If this is what it takes to satisfy the NAFCASH challenge requirements, please say so, Mr. Gerdes. In that case application for the reward will have to wait until the necessary archaeological works are carried out on site, which as things are now will not happen before October this year." Why the charade retardo? You know that we've been through this before. You've known for months EXACTLY what the requirments are for laying claim to the challenge that you accepted a year ago. Here are some select quotes from the lying coward roberta: Quote:
And who are you trying to fool with this: "In that case application for the reward will have to wait until the necessary archaeological works are carried out on site, which as things are now will not happen before October this year." When you know for a fact it is in October that the fraudulent SAP closes up shop for the year? What you're saying is it won't happen at all because there are too many people paying attention to your fraudulent butt-buddy Yorum's sham "archaeology" project. This is so easy. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 20th, 2009 at 01:27 PM. |
|
May 20th, 2009 | #1989 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 46
|
It's real simple, Roberto. Forensic proof
This is a really big murder case. Forensic proof is needed to seal the deal. Produce your best piece of forensic evidence and collect the cash. We already have tons of conflicting eyewitness testimony. Don't need any more. And, stop with the grousing about the challenge, already. Produce the forensic evidence. If they don't pay up - sue them. You will be a hero and they will be the chumps. You never know who is in the wings waiting for you to produce. |
May 21st, 2009 | #1990 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, where is the part in which hysterical fish-wife Gerdes told me what exactly he would accept as proof of the existence of a given mass grave and of a given amount of human remains in that mass grave, instead of hysterically yelling at me to look up his stinking site? Unless he's lying through his teeth again, Gerdes should be able to quote at least one explicit statement in that sense, and provide the post number and the link. Anyway, with the above statement that "a person must physically locate a grave and prove the existence of the contents of said alleged grave by excavation and physical quantification of any physical finds" we are finally getting somewhere, so let's continue along this line. Gerdes is requested to answer the following questions regarding this statement: 1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology? 2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient? 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
May 21st, 2009 | #1991 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
Or why did you bring along your sock-puppet? |
|
May 22nd, 2009 | #1992 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo's question:
"1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 22nd, 2009 at 02:03 PM. |
|
May 22nd, 2009 | #1993 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Quote:
So the question is: Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it? Yes or No? Quote:
Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient? Yes or No? Quote:
Quote:
Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes? Yes or No? Three very simple and straightforward "yes" or "no" questions, Mr. Gerdes. I'm looking forward to three equally simple and straightforward answers. |
||||
May 22nd, 2009 | #1994 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo's question:
"1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 23rd, 2009 at 08:13 AM. |
|
May 22nd, 2009 | #1995 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo:
1 - "Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: Retardo: "But at least Gerdes seems to have understood that electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment are not exactly suitable to detect human cremation remains." Retardo: 2 - "Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: "What quantities of a specific type of human remains lie under ground cannot be established by core drilling alone, but requires excavation of remains, their physical extraction and their separation from the soil and wood ash they are surrounded by." 1 - We will consider any method that is accepted by shermer and published in "skeptic" magazine. 2 - We will accept as proof any method that proves what we are asking proof of. We will consider the use of a dowsing rod and a ouiji board if it's published in "skeptic" magazine. However, no determination of what will be accepted as proof can be made unless and until we see what is actually published in "skeptic" magazine. If what is published in "skeptic" magazine proves that a specific grave contains the required specific kind and amount of remains specified, then it will be accepted. If it doesn't, then it won't. Just what part of the words proof / prove dont' you understand stupid? Retardo: "In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes?" Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand dull one? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 23rd, 2009 at 08:15 AM. |
May 22nd, 2009 | #1996 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Now we've been through all this before:
Quote:
Why the charade retardo? You've known this for months. All determinations of "what proof we will accept" will be based on what is published in "skeptic" magazine. Any questions a potential applicant has as to what constitutes "proof" should be directed to shermer and / or "skeptic" magazine. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 23rd, 2009 at 08:15 AM. |
|
May 23rd, 2009 | #1997 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
|
Three lengthy and hysterical posts to avoid simple and straightforward answers to three simple and straightforward "yes or no" questions, Mr. Gerdes?
Why, you are even more dishonest and cowardly than I thought you were. This is not about what I understood, or better guessed in the face of your persistent refusal to clearly state the requirements of your NAFCASH challenge. This is also not about my previous assumptions regarding what certain methods of soil investigation may or not achieve, which I may have revised in the meantime after what I have since learned about such methods. This is about your having failed to meet your obligation to be straightforward and unequivocal about your challenge requirements, rather than dishonestly leave a potential applicant guess what those requirements might be, at least as concerns what you would accept as proof of what you require to be proven. I’m giving you another chance to meet this obligation, Mr. Gerdes. The questions on the table are the following three simple and straightforward "yes or no" questions (you are a fan of "yes or no" questions, aren't you?): 1. Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it? Yes or No? 2. Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient? Yes or No? 3. I take your hysterical howling in post # 1992 as meaning that the only physical finds that will be accepted are bone fragments or teeth, whereas ashes, whole bones, skulls, hair and tissue don't count for anything. In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes? Yes or No? Three simple and straightforward "yes or no" questions, Mr. Gerdes. I want three simple and straightforward "yes" or "no" answers. No cowardly evasive, no hysterical "we have been through this before" – waffle. A "yes" or a "no" is all I want to read. Come on Mr. Gerdes, try to be a man for once in your lifetime. |
May 23rd, 2009 | #1998 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo's question:
"1. "Excavation": does it have to be excavation? How about core drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology?" If it's accepted as proof by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. Retardo's question: "2. "Physical quantification": what documentation of physical quantification is required? Will an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging be sufficient? If not, what documentation would be sufficient?" If it's accepted as documentation by shermer / "skeptic" magazine, we will consider it. 3. "Physical finds": I understand this means any type of human remains that can be used to establish that remains corresponding to a certain minimum number of persons are buried in a certain grave. Is this correct? If not, what qualifies as "physical finds"? Let's let retardo's own statements prove what a liar she is: Quote:
Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand stupid? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 26th, 2009 at 09:15 AM. |
|
May 23rd, 2009 | #1999 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Retardo:
1 - "Will you accept location of physical finds by core-drilling or non-invasive sub-soil imaging with GPR technology rather than excavation if Shermer accepts it?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: Retardo: "But at least Gerdes seems to have understood that electromagnetics, magnetometry and ground-penetrating radar equipment are not exactly suitable to detect human cremation remains." Retardo: 2 - "Will you accept as sufficient an archaeologist's report about physical finds counted following excavation or estimated on the basis of core drilling and/or non-invasive soil imaging if Shermer accepts it as sufficient?" LOL! Here's a previous retardo post: "What quantities of a specific type of human remains lie under ground cannot be established by core drilling alone, but requires excavation of remains, their physical extraction and their separation from the soil and wood ash they are surrounded by." 1 - We will consider any method that is accepted by shermer and published in "skeptic" magazine. 2 - We will accept as proof any method that proves what we are asking proof of. We will consider the use of a dowsing rod and a ouiji board if it's published in "skeptic" magazine. However, no determination of what will be accepted as proof can be made unless and until we see what is actually published in "skeptic" magazine. If what is published in "skeptic" magazine proves that a specific grave contains the required specific kind and amount of remains specified, then it will be accepted. If it doesn't, then it won't. Just what part of the words proof / prove dont' you understand stupid? Retardo: "In other words, one may for example find 4,000 dead bodies in a state of wax-fat transformation on the bottom of grave # 4 at Sobibor (which is way more than "one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder") and yet not qualify for the reward because whole bodies in wax-fat transformation are neither bone fragments nor teeth. Is this understanding correct, Mr. Gerdes?" Just what part of: The EXACT kind, the EXACT amount, and the EXACT location Do you not understand dull one? Just what part of the word EXACT do you not understand stupid? Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 26th, 2009 at 09:16 AM. |
May 23rd, 2009 | #2000 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
|
Now we've been through all this before:
Quote:
Why the charade retardo? You've known this for months. All determinations of "what proof we will accept" will be based on what is published in "skeptic" magazine. Any questions a potential applicant has as to what constitutes "proof" should be directed to shermer and / or "skeptic" magazine. Last edited by Greg Gerdes; May 26th, 2009 at 09:14 AM. |
|
Share |
Thread | |
Display Modes | |
|