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

Old July 28th, 2008 #861
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
More obfuscation; first a crime has to be provable before 'intentional evidence' can be admitted - ie, proof - eyewitness testimony does not fall under the category of 'intentional evidence'.
This is a lie. There is no such requirement.

Quote:
With exception to kangaroo court trials such as the Nurnberg Trials, intentional evidence is very specific and eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable and conviction cannot be based solely upon eyewitness testimony.

"Intentional Evidence" is commmonly used in cases concerning monetary fraud, which is a crime but certainly not a "holocaust" of epic jewish proportion. Especially since most accused of monetary fraud, wherein intentional evidence is used are jews themselves.

Not even common law suggests that eyewitness evidence is to be relied upon as the sole source of evidence.
This is a load of bullshit. Are you making this stuff up or what? Who, how, what !! What the fuck are you studying? Legal systems of wonderland?

Show me any law under any judicial system in which it is explicitdly stated that a criminal conviction can not be atained via eyewitness testimony alone?

C'mon Bitch, prove it!!

Shit, for that matter, tell us the legal definition of intentional evidence.

Here, I'll make it easy.

Federal Rules of Evidence (2007)


http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

Show us the legal definition of intentional evidence under the fedearl rules and how it is applied in criminal courts.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #862
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Default

Well,Rabbi, as someone who had worked for years in the criminal court system I can tell you that if the prosecution had to rely solely on eyewitness testimony they would never get a conviction, assuming the defense attorney was competent of course! No evidence is more easily discredited and debunked than that of the eyewitness, even if they think they're telling the truth! Sans corroborating evidence even the eyewitness testimony of the police can be demonstrated to be unreliable and impeachable! Imagine how easy it would be to call into question the veracity of a lying kike! Chew on that foreskin for awhile, Rabbi! LOL!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #863
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Well,Rabbi, as someone who had worked for years in the criminal court system I can tell you that if the prosecution had to rely solely on eyewitness testimony they would never get a conviction, assuming the defense attorney was competent of course! No evidence is more easily discredited and debunked than that of the eyewitness, even if they think they're telling the truth! Sans corroborating evidence even the eyewitness testimony of the police can be demonstrated to be unreliable and impeachable! Imagine how easy it would be to call into question the veracity of a lying kike! Chew on that foreskin for awhile, Rabbi! LOL!
Your bond hearings are hardly evidence - however, please cite the legal precedence that holds that eyewitness testimony alone CANNOT result in a conviction.

Because this is her claim.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot

Last edited by Slamin2; July 28th, 2008 at 08:45 PM.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #864
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Well,Rabbi, as someone who had worked for years in the criminal court system I can tell you that if the prosecution had to rely solely on eyewitness testimony they would never get a conviction, assuming the defense attorney was competent of course! No evidence is more easily discredited and debunked than that of the eyewitness, even if they think they're telling the truth! Sans corroborating evidence even the eyewitness testimony of the police can be demonstrated to be unreliable and impeachable! Imagine how easy it would be to call into question the veracity of a lying kike! Chew on that foreskin for awhile, Rabbi! LOL!
If eyewitness evidence alone could not result in a conviction, no one would ever get a ticket for a moving violation (well, there still could be tickets, but I think you get the meaning here).
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #865
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
jewsign

I'll not argue with you, Rabbi, as only White men are worthy of debate, just as only White men are worthy of the Common Law!
The only purpose you serve to those of us here, Rabbi, is as a foil, on exhibition, to be poked and prodded like a particularly nasty and loathsome annelid in a petri dish!
The only legitimate argument I could ever conceive of you and I having would be very direct and to the point:
Bullet or rope, Rabbi?

The way things ought to be!
LOL at the idea that Germans would need a kike to tell them how to build something!
LOL also at the ridiculousness of the notion of a yiddish she-brew getting her smegma-dips dirty by being physically involved with constructing something useful! Great scene though, gets funnier every time I see it!
I should post this in the Tales of the Holy Hoax thread!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #866
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

My favorite scene from that Spielberg shitfest is the chicken scene

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qSJHWHGyXV8
Apparently they also could mind read who stole the chicken.
 
Old July 28th, 2008 #867
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
This is a load of bullshit. Are you making this stuff up or what? Who, how, what !! What the fuck are you studying? Legal systems of wonderland?

Show me any law under any judicial system in which it is explicitdly stated that a criminal conviction can not be atained via eyewitness testimony alone?

C'mon Bitch, prove it!!
The results of a cursory ten-minute google search, jew. About all I'm willing to devote to your nonsense; and the most basic information, taking into consideration your general intelligence and ignorance.

A Dictionary of Psychology | Date: 2001

eyewitness testimony n. Evidence of events that occurred, actions that were performed, or words that were spoken, given in court by a person who observed the events or actions at first hand or heard the words being spoken. See also eyewitness misinformation effect, false memory, weapon focus.


© A Dictionary of Psychology 2001, originally published by Oxford University Press 2001.

Print
Related newspaper, magazine, and journal articles from HighBeam Research

Detectives get a lesson on faulty testimony; Learn techniques to avoid sending innocent to jail

The Patriot Ledger Quincy, MA; 7/16/2004; Sara Perkins; SARA PERKINS; 595 words ; The Patriot Ledger Few people can speak on the fallibility of eyewitness testimony with as much authority as Jennifer Thompson Cannino. Cannino, now 33, confidently identified her attacker after a 1984 rape, only to be told, in 1995, that the man she had sent to jail for life had been exonerated by Read more

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS CARRY LESS WEIGHT IN COURT.(FRONT)
The Virginian Pilot; 11/21/1999; Dolan, Matthew; 1530 words ; Byline: MATTHEW DOLAN, STAFF WRITER NORFOLK -- Elizabeth Simmons looked squarely at James Rodney Brown and knew he was the one. Simmons testified that Brown robbed her at gunpoint at the Be-Lo store where she worked the register on May 3, 1998. Her manager, Keri Howard, backed up Simmons' Read more

A Matter of Memory
The Washington Post; 6/23/2000; 158 words ; Neither more available DNA testing nor higher standards for defense lawyers will solve the problem of wrongful death sentences based on eyewitness testimony [editorial, June 12]. DNA testing is useless unless biological material is available to test. This is frequently the case in sex crimes, but Read more

Pelo defense loses fight over expert
The Pantagraph Bloomington, IL; 4/8/2008; Edith Brady-Lunny; 436 words ; BLOOMINGTON - An expert expected to testify about the reliability of eyewitness testimony will not be allowed to testify at the upcoming trial of a former Bloomington police officer accused of sexually assaulting four women, a judge ruled Monday. Jeff Pelo, a 43-year-old former police sergeant Read more

Expert testimony: Does eyewitness memory research have probative value for the courts?

Canadian Psychology; 5/1/2001; A Daniel Yarmey; 6830 words ; Abstract Case studies, and more recently DNA testing in the United States, have shown that mistaken eyewitness identification is responsible for more wrongful convictions than all other causes combined. It is argued that scientific laboratory and field research can contribute to the court's better Read more

Mitigating the dangers of capital convictions based on eyewitness testimony through treason's two-witness rule.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; 3/22/2001; Jain, Monika; 13088 words ; ... issue in the United States, due to the news of the high number of innocents being released ... from prison and from death row. (1) This news is even forcing proponents of capital punishment ... Innocents Freed by Students, THE OBSERVER NEWS, July 7, 1996, at 21. (48) Williams, 588 ... Read more

Eyewitness accounts often inaccurate, study finds
New Haven Register; 6/21/2004; Abram Katz; 610 words ; Victims who get a good long look at violent criminals are unlikely to identify them accurately later, Yale and U.S. Navy researchers have found. This caveat follows from a unique study of 509 Navy and Marine officers undergoing elite survival training at Fort Bragg, N.C. Results suggest that police Read more

Demjanjuk attorneys say judge ignored eyewitnesses
Cleveland Jewish News; 4/19/2002; Karfeld, Marilyn H.; 579 words ; ... evidence to the defense. Prosecutors filed the current case in 1999, relying on Soviet-captured Nazi documents made available after the collapse of communism. The two-week trial was held last May. Article copyright the Cleveland Jewish News. V.84; Read more

A tripartite solution to eyewitness error.
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology; 3/22/2007; Wise, Richard A. Dauphinais, Kirsten A. Safer, Martin A.; 27816 words ; I. INTRODUCTION The vagaries of eyewitness identification are well-known; the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification. (1) [W]e regularly sentence innocent people to death. So the underlying question remains: Considering all the attention we devote to death penalty Read more

Spielberg's 'The Last Days': Eyewitness testimony and horrific

Cleveland Jewish News; 2/19/1999; 678 words ;
Cleveland Jewish News 02-19-1999 SPIELBERG'S `The Last Days': Eyewitness testimony and horrific archival footage mark fate of Hungarian Jews during Holocaust ... Read more

See all related premium articles


Related entries from encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thesauruses

eyewitness misinformation effect

A Dictionary of Psychology eyewitness misinformation effect n. A phenomenon whereby misleading post-event information distorts an eyewitness's recall of an event, as when a victim of a sexual assault who is subsequently told that an arrested suspect ... perpetrator's arm. The effect may be caused by the post-event information overwriting the ... Read more
witness

The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English ... statements from witnesses | a witness to the accident synonyms : eyewitness, observer, spectator, onlooker, looker-on, viewer, watcher ... clothes were witness of his poverty synonyms : evidence, testimony, confirmation, corroboration, proof. phrases: bear witness ... to bear witness synonyms : give evidence, ... Read more

Piaget kidnapping memory

A Dictionary of Psychology ... 1896–1980) and reproduced in English translation by the US psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus in her book Eyewitness Testimony (1979): ‘I was sitting in my pram, which my nurse was pushing in the Champs Élysées, when a man ... past in the form of a visual memory’ (pp. 62–3) ... . Read more

Impeachment
American Decades ... new job had nothing to do with her testimony in the Jones case. The congressman ... events at the time of the sworn testimony. Ruff also argued that Clinton's ... emphasized that House prosecutors had no eyewitnesses, tapes, or confessions indicating ... president obstructed justice in his testimony ... . Read more

Creatures of the Night
Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained ... and villagers in Puerto Rico and Central and South America. The beast has been observed by numerous eyewitnesses as it attacked their livestock, and they have described it as nightmarish in appearance. Standing erect ... Chupacabra on the mutilated corpses of sheep and other livestock. And the description provided by ... Read more See all related entries

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O87...testimony.html


Quote:
Shit, for that matter, tell us the legal definition of intentional evidence.

Here, I'll make it easy.

Show us the legal definition of intentional evidence under the fedearl rules and how it is applied in criminal courts
American Federal Rules of Evidence as applicable in post-war Germany were not observed at the Nurnberg Trials; it is irrelevant and disingenous of you to try to make them relevant now, jew.

Again "intentional evidence" as defined by English Common Law, is still a matter of debate in legal circles and holds no validity when a jew tries to apply such evidence to shore up holocaustian claims.

Such "intentional evidence", as I stated before is generally applied to financial misconduct; credit card fraud, debt fraud ect, and, it is no surprise that the majority of criminals involved in these "white collar crimes" are jews.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/la...003_2/allinson
http://www.springerlink.com/content/6uqgx2t39mn1202b/
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...viewport&shm=1
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=7&gl=us

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 28th, 2008 at 11:38 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #868
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Looks like Roberta has tucked tail and ran back to HC (Hysterical and Cowardly HIV Contagious Homosexual Creeps espousing Holocaust Claptrap and other Historical Canards). It seems the following questions were just too much for her to handle:

Now, here's what we're waiting for retardo to do:

Tell us on what dates his partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

Show us photographs that prove he was in said camps on said dates.

Tell us on what dates his other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

Show us photographs that prove he was in said camp on said dates.

Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves.

Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.

Tell us what Polish government entity that commissioned Kola's "work."

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."

Show us proof that the "huge ash mountain" of Sobibor is actually comprised of human ash.

Show us were the huge pit is that this "mountain of human ash" was dug out of.

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.

What are you waiting for Roberta? (After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?)

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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

Oh, and please give us a list of the "historians and criminal investigators" that have "accepted" this alleged "proof."

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

(Have I ever told you that you're priceless?)
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #869
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
quote=Roberto Muehlenkamp;814844] Next time you hear from me will then be when I got my article published

Obviously not, since you are still posting BS.
Unlike you I don’t post BS, and my condition for leaving you alone was that Gerdes shut his trap, as you know. Did you learn quote-mining from him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
What you call an "indefensible kike invention" happens to be a fact proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Revisionist Historians have raised enough reasonable doubt to cause the jews and holocaustians to make laws in Europe against them. Were the Hoax an indisputable "fact", there would be no need for such laws. America is next when it comes to laws against "holocaust denial", the juden are working hard on establishing them here - ie, "hate crime" laws
So your only argument against the accuracy of the historical record is the existence of hate speech laws in some countries, which you baselessly postulate to have been motivated by "reasonable doubt" raised by "Revisionist" BS (and not, as for instance the wording and position in the criminal code of the German provisions suggest, concern about disturbances of the public order that may be caused by losers and fuck-ups incited by "Revisionist" BS)?

That’s as piss-poor an argument as I can think of, baby.

And your horseshit about "reasonable doubt" gets us back to some of the still unanswered questions in my post # 666, doesn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
If you think that "Aryan Germans" don’t yell "holocaust" in what concerns Dresden, just run a search for "Dresden Holocaust" in the German Google. I just did and came upon the following sites on the first page (emphases mine):

Then why is Germany not free.
Germany is free, as far as I’m concerned. It’s just not free from reason, which seems to be what you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Why are German cries of "holocaust" ignored.
Because few if any states in the world other than the German state have the integrity and honesty required to own up to and pay compensation for crimes committed by them or their legal predecessors, apart from the differences between arguably criminal area-bombing and systematic genocide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
I lost relatives in the carpet bombing of Dresden - I want my reparations. I want Germany back, in fact. The juden got israel; I want my own Nation returned to me; not the cesspool the Occupied Government of Germany has turned my Fatherland into. You are just another self-loathing German, more jew than a jew, so many of you around. You are a kike's wet dream.
You sound like a spoilt brat yelling for a lollipop, darling. The "Occupied Government of Germany" – crap furthermore suggests a paranoically delusional spoilt brat. The "self-loathing German" - BS furthermore suggests that you are a mentally retarded spoilt brat (one doesn’t loath Germany or being German just because one doesn’t kiss your beloved Führer’s ass, get used to the idea), and the "kike’s wet dream" – thing furthermore suggests a piece of human garbage, just like your bloodthirsty cries for killing all Jews in a previous post.

You claim you lost relatives in the carpet bombing of Dresden? Prove it.. As I’m not a "Revisionist" creep, I won’t ask to show me their dead bodies or an autopsy report. But I would like to see documentary evidence that those relatives of yours existed and that they lived in Dresden at the time of the bombing, plus one or more documents from which it becomes apparent that they died in the Dresden bombing or, at the very least, the testimony of one or more eyewitnesses who saw them getting killed or found and identified their dead bodies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Second, I may not yet have access to evidence meeting the requirements of Gerdes’ challenge, but this doesn’t mean it cannot be provided. Just give it some time.

It's been 60 plus years since holocaustianity was invented.
Actually there was never such invention outside your cloud-cuckoo-land, my darling. Get used to the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Where is it? Where is that irrefutable evidence.
This particular irrefutable evidence (there are also irrefutable eyewitness testimonies, documents and demographic data) is in the soil of the Nazi extermination camps and has partially been documented in crime site investigation reports and reports or public press statements by archaeologists. If you had followed this discussion with more attention, you would know more about the existing documentation of the physical evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Actually what documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence there is has been and is still being accepted as conclusive proof of the mass murders in question by mostly West German criminal investigators and largely non-Jewish historians. You should do something about your ignorance, sweetheart.

Prove it then.
What, that the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence there is has been and is still being accepted as conclusive proof of the mass murders in question by mostly West German criminal investigators and largely non-Jewish historians? Read the West German court judgments published by the University of Amsterdam’s Justiz und NS-Verbrechen website undeer http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/inhaltsverzeichnis.htm , to start with. They can be ordered at € 25 apiece, IIRC. The judgments related to Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka are those summarized under the following links, among others:

Chelmno

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng557.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd...brdeng594.htm´

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Tatortfr.htm

Belzec

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng585.htm

Sobibor

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

Treblinka

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng270.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng596.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng746.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng761.htm

When you are through with the judgments, I suggest you read the works of non-Jewish German or Polish historians like Christian Gerlach, Dieter Pohl and Bogdan Musial, among others.

Then you’ll have done something about your current ignorance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
These so-called historians, and those of your ilk, accept a jew lie - the biggest lie the jews have ever told, with possible exception to the one that their desert god found them and made them "chosen". When, in fact, they stole a god and a goddess from the ancient Egyptians and it was really the other way around.

As with their religion; which holocaustianity has become part of; and also which Christianity has accepted on faith, the jew crows whilst the world eats up their crap Lie and pronounces it a tasty jewish "manna" from heaven.
There’s no need for you to keep trotting out your baseless articles of faith, sweetheart. Unless, of course, you want to keep contributing to my collection of «The most imbecile utterances from "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land».

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Oh, and thanks for reminding me of the questions I asked you in post # 666 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=666 , which I’m still waiting for you to answer

It was answered by someone else; and they did a better job than I would have, my answer would have been redundant. Redundancy is a thing that you thrive on, Mule, I do not. As well, you have yet to answer them.
Sorry, baby, but who is supposed to have answered to the questions in my post # 666, and in what post or posts? Let’s have the numbers and links of those posts, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Actually eyewitness testimony is intentional evidence,

More obfuscation; first a crime has to be provable before 'intentional evidence' can be admitted - ie, proof - eyewitness testimony does not fall under the category of 'intentional evidence'.
Wow, I didn’t know that "intentional evidence" was even a judicial category. I use this term to express the idea that an eyewitness to a crime is testifying with the intention that his testimony be used as evidence to a crime, as opposed to, for instance, the Wehrmacht commandant complaining about the stench of corpses from Treblinka, who certainly had no such intention.

Could you please show me where you read the term "intentional evidence" in connection with crime investigation or judicial procedures?

And where you read that

a) "intentional evidence" can only be admitted if a crime is "provable", whatever you mean by that, and

b) eyewitness testimony (which I consider intentional evidence in the sense defined above) does not fall under whatever it is you mean by "the category of 'intentional evidence'" ?

Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
With exception to kangaroo court trials such as the Nurnberg Trials, intentional evidence is very specific and eyewitness testimony is considered unreliable and conviction cannot be based solely upon eyewitness testimony.
Why, then West German courts must have violated German procedural rules in many a trial against NS-criminals in which they relied mostly or solely on eyewitness testimony including the depositions of the defendants themselves.

Under http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StPO.htm you find an English translation of the German Criminal Procedure Code. Could you please point out the provisions you think were violated by the aforementioned German courts?

If a conviction cannot be based upon eyewitness testimony alone, one would also expect to find provisions in this sense in, say, the US Federal Rules of Evidence (index under http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre...html#article_i ).

Could you please point out these provisions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
"Intentional Evidence" is commmonly used in cases concerning monetary fraud, which is a crime but certainly not a "holocaust" of epic jewish proportion. Especially since most accused of monetary fraud, wherein intentional evidence is used are jews themselves.
Methinks you have no fucking idea of what you’re talking about, baby. Where did you pick up your notions of "intentional evidence" and when and for what it is used?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Not even common law suggests that eyewitness evidence is to be relied upon as the sole source of evidence.
What would be interesting to know is if even common law forbids relying upon eyewitness testimony as the sole source of evidence. Can you show us any source pointing in this direction?
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #870
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Yep, hatred for Hitler as a consequence of pride in what he damaged.

No, you’re trying to make believe that I equaled hate with pride when what I actually did was to point out an implication and consequence of pride: opposition to or hatred of what damages the object of pride.

I didn't ask after the consequence of pride; you just self-substantiated a non sequitur response to a very simple question.
No, the consequence is part of the meaning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Your inability to understand my arguments doesn’t make them convoluted.

I understand your words; look at how complex your language has become on this simple issue; yet you called my explanation that an insult is an insult whether truthful or not convoluted, thus plummeting to ignorance at will.
Look who’s accusing me of complex or convoluted language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate. The other is that the same applies to pride.

Pride does not give rise to hate; fear, directly gives rise to hate.
However often you repeat your statement, that doesn’t make it any more logical.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
As for your interpretation of what I said, I think you're grasping.
In what respect am I supposed to have read you wrong, my friend?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
I didn’t know a subjective argument could be based on objective foundation.

That's my point, you used a pilpul in an attempt to pass off emotionalism for objectivity and it failed.

Quote:
Actually eyewitness testimony is intentional evidence, which is not what the rabbi’s complaint about his hurt feelings can be called. And there’s nothing about that complaint to make the description of the complaint object – physical evidence of the mass murder at Chelmno – seem "dubious". On the contrary, the absence of intention to "bear witness" to a crime makes this description unintentional and thus particularly credible evidence.

The rabbi's description of what he claims to have seen is the word of a Jew; the absence of intention to bear witness is unlikely and insignificant.
Wow, now he’s down to "Jews always lie" – BS …

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
If there were anything to see we'd have photos as every Jew editor/producer/reporter in the world knows the value of a picture.
… and hollow conjectures based on equally hollow preconceived notions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
You don’t respond to a request for clarifying a catch phrase with the same catch phrase, do you?

You call that a point? I’d call it one of your baseless articles of faith.

The phrase was followed by an explanation; seperating the two sentences and responding out of context is what I expect from a niggard.
You're providing an appropiate designation for your friend Gerdes, who quotes people out of context all the time. As to your "explanation", I don’t see how it explains the catch phrase. Actually the "explanation" is such a showpiece of imbecility that the catch phrase would have been better off without it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
I side with Jews as victims of Nazi mass murder, just as I side with non-Jews as victims of Nazi mass murder or any other victims of any mass murder. Simple as that.

You, as all good Jews, do, and will side with Jews on important issues, guaranteed.
The only important issue I’m interested in is that of historical facts about a criminal regime’s crimes against innocent people and human garbage that denies such crimes in support of an ideological agenda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Your evasion is duly noted.

What you call the "is simply a fact standard" is a rule of evidence that has an old Anglo-Saxon tradition, and if it is applied today regarding the events you deny that’s because these events have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence assessed by criminal investigators and historians over the past six decades.

As to "digs", they have taken place and are currently taking place. Not because they are required to prove what has been proven already, but because their results are expected to enhance historical knowledge. And enhancement of knowledge is always an undertaking that merits approval, don’t you think so?

The it is simply a fact standard is Jewish despotism, a sure sign of the legal domination which you conveniently ignore.
No, it is an expression of a procedural rule rooted in Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that has nothing to do with the "legal domination" you phantasize about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
These digs that have taken place, are they the ones where no photos have been produced for seven years?
I wouldn’t go there if I were you – at least as long as there’s no report from Mr. Krege, who unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at who commissioned his investigation) has no "technical" reason for not having published his report but has obviously refrained from publishing it because he found exactly what he had hoped not to find (see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 for details ).
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #871
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

So there’s going to be another "major change"?

Quote:
Quote:
If jew-lie Golden wants to accept THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE the way it was previously, which included Chelmno and Archaeology Magazine, I, and all twenty supporters will make any and all special accommodations for such an announcement. We will bend over backwards to make sure it happens. We will set up a new challenge independent of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE, just for her. Just like we modified the FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE just to make it easier for you retardo.

In fact, nafcash challenges jew-lie golden and ARCHAEOLOGY magazine to accept a Chelmno / Archaeology Magazine challenge. Perhaps you and your fellow funny boy freaks over at HC (Hysterical and Cowardly HIV Contagious Homosexual Creeps espousing Holocaust Claptrap and other Historical Canards) can help nafcash make it happen. After all, you do want to help stop holocaust denial - don't you retardo?

...The Chelmno / Archaeology magazine challenge is for jew-lie Golden and Archaeology magazine. If the faggots at HC want to join them, that's even better. But it needs to be a joint announcement.

What do the words "new challenge - independent of" mean to you stupid?

All that work Roberta, and you only made yourself look stupid (again.) How many times have I told you to think before you post Roberta?

BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that you're priceless?

Thank you Roberta.
As often before, gratitude is all on my side. My comment related to the following statement of yours in post # 847 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=847 (emphasis added):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
No Roberta, THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE is what it is. Just Treblinka and Sobibor. And no amount of your famous childish temper tantrums will change it. The only other major change will be - IF, like I said earlier:[…]
It’s not my problem if you’re not able to express yourself clearly, my friend. And thanks for freaking out over what was a misunderstanding on my part at worst. Hysterical chimps like you are rare even in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and that’s one of the things that make you a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility – even though you have some stiff competition.
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #872
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

Priceless.
What part of what I wrote in my post # 840 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=840 :

Quote:
It’s obvious what you’re trying to get at, Mr. Gerdes. You produced the same retarded shit in your post of Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm on the CODOH thread under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 . In today’s update of my HC article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html, I commented that retarded shit as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes, Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm

I kid you not folks, only a certifiable nut case or a paid professional liar could come up with this - This is Muehlenkamp's latest:

"Try explaining why charred human remains and remains in a state of decay should be visible on any given core-drilling sample from mass graves that can be expected to largely or mostly contain cremains Mr. Gerdes."

Mmmmm. She quotes Kola to say that his word alone is proof that the Sobibor holocaust has been proven by archeological means:

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said they have found mass graves at the site. The excavations could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims. “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” archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference.

Then asks how anyone could believe that what Kola says he found could be found!

This of course begs the question - If Muehlenkamp isn't a paid professional liar, then - Is he mentally ill or retarded?

Either way, she's priceless isn't she?

Like Hannover says - It's so easy.
What is actually easy is to once more demonstrate, on hand of his above babblings, what a sorry idiot Mr. Gerdes is.

The poor fellow seems to believe there is a contradiction between Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents in a press conference and the presence of what seems to be mixed ashes of human bone and tissue on these two photos of drill samples:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F5.html


http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F6.html


and what seems to be either bone ash or lime on this photo of a core drill sample:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F7.html


Why should there be such a contradiction?

First of all, I don’t know – as I expressly pointed out on VNN – if these core drill samples are related to Prof. Kola’s 2001 investigation or to later archaeological work.

Second, how does Gerdes know what core samples of "charred human remains" would look like and that they would look different from the light-gray substance visible on the core samples in the first two photographs shown above?

Third and most important, assuming that core samples of "charred human remains" would have a different aspect, how would the presence of "charred human remains" in the Sobibor mass graves rule out the presence of ashes? Even if some of the bodies were not reduced to mere ashes and bone fragments, the incineration of the bodies on grids at Sobibor must have produced lots of such smaller remains, and it stands to reason that these were not left lying around and neither necessarily taken somewhere to be scattered, but returned to the mass graves together with the incompletely burned remains that are suggested by the term "charred human remains" – assuming this is a correct translation of what Prof. Kola told the Polish news agency in Polish language.

So there’s no banana again for Mr. Gerdes, sorry. The chimp just showed once more that he forgot to think before writing.
And that’s one the things that make the chimp a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility. Just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

“Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.”

Better yet Roberta - why waste time talking about what my ideas might be?

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – DID THEY NOT – Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.
I don’t know if these samples belong to the 2001 Kola investigation, to posterior investigations mentioned by the Friends of Sobibor Remembrance association on whose website http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/ these photos are shown, or to investigations by the Sobibor Archaeology Project, whose website is under http://www.undersobibor.org/ . But I will try to find out as much as I can about these samples from both entities.

Meanwhile, I take note of and appreciate your admission that you have no alternative explanation for the light-gray substance suggesting ashes of human bone and tissue, the black substance suggesting wood ash and the white substance suggesting either bone ash or lime, that are clearly distinguishable from the light-brown soil one one or more of those three photographs.
could have been too difficult for Gerdes’ tiny manure-infested brain to understand?
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #873
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

Priceless.
What part of what I wrote in my post # 840 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=840 :

Quote:
It’s obvious what you’re trying to get at, Mr. Gerdes. You produced the same retarded shit in your post of Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm on the CODOH thread under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 . In today’s update of my HC article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html, I commented that retarded shit as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes, Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm

I kid you not folks, only a certifiable nut case or a paid professional liar could come up with this - This is Muehlenkamp's latest:

"Try explaining why charred human remains and remains in a state of decay should be visible on any given core-drilling sample from mass graves that can be expected to largely or mostly contain cremains Mr. Gerdes."

Mmmmm. She quotes Kola to say that his word alone is proof that the Sobibor holocaust has been proven by archeological means:

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said they have found mass graves at the site. The excavations could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims. “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” archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference.

Then asks how anyone could believe that what Kola says he found could be found!

This of course begs the question - If Muehlenkamp isn't a paid professional liar, then - Is he mentally ill or retarded?

Either way, she's priceless isn't she?

Like Hannover says - It's so easy.
What is actually easy is to once more demonstrate, on hand of his above babblings, what a sorry idiot Mr. Gerdes is.

The poor fellow seems to believe there is a contradiction between Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents in a press conference and the presence of what seems to be mixed ashes of human bone and tissue on these two photos of drill samples:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F5.html


http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F6.html


and what seems to be either bone ash or lime on this photo of a core drill sample:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F7.html


Why should there be such a contradiction?

First of all, I don’t know – as I expressly pointed out on VNN – if these core drill samples are related to Prof. Kola’s 2001 investigation or to later archaeological work.

Second, how does Gerdes know what core samples of "charred human remains" would look like and that they would look different from the light-gray substance visible on the core samples in the first two photographs shown above?

Third and most important, assuming that core samples of "charred human remains" would have a different aspect, how would the presence of "charred human remains" in the Sobibor mass graves rule out the presence of ashes? Even if some of the bodies were not reduced to mere ashes and bone fragments, the incineration of the bodies on grids at Sobibor must have produced lots of such smaller remains, and it stands to reason that these were not left lying around and neither necessarily taken somewhere to be scattered, but returned to the mass graves together with the incompletely burned remains that are suggested by the term "charred human remains" – assuming this is a correct translation of what Prof. Kola told the Polish news agency in Polish language.

So there’s no banana again for Mr. Gerdes, sorry. The chimp just showed once more that he forgot to think before writing.
And that’s one the things that make the chimp a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility. Just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

“Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.”

Better yet Roberta - why waste time talking about what my ideas might be?

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – DID THEY NOT – Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.
I don’t know if these samples belong to the 2001 Kola investigation, to posterior investigations mentioned by the Friends of Sobibor Remembrance association on whose website http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/ these photos are shown, or to investigations by the Sobibor Archaeology Project, whose website is under http://www.undersobibor.org/ . But I will try to find out as much as I can about these samples from both entities.

Meanwhile, I take note of and appreciate your admission that you have no alternative explanation for the light-gray substance suggesting ashes of human bone and tissue, the black substance suggesting wood ash and the white substance suggesting either bone ash or lime, that are clearly distinguishable from the light-brown soil one one or more of those three photographs.
could have been too difficult for Gerdes’ tiny manure-infested brain to understand?
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #874
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

Priceless.
What part of what I wrote in my post # 840 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=840 :

Quote:
It’s obvious what you’re trying to get at, Mr. Gerdes. You produced the same retarded shit in your post of Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm on the CODOH thread under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 . In today’s update of my HC article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html, I commented that retarded shit as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes, Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm

I kid you not folks, only a certifiable nut case or a paid professional liar could come up with this - This is Muehlenkamp's latest:

"Try explaining why charred human remains and remains in a state of decay should be visible on any given core-drilling sample from mass graves that can be expected to largely or mostly contain cremains Mr. Gerdes."

Mmmmm. She quotes Kola to say that his word alone is proof that the Sobibor holocaust has been proven by archeological means:

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said they have found mass graves at the site. The excavations could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims. “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” archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference.

Then asks how anyone could believe that what Kola says he found could be found!

This of course begs the question - If Muehlenkamp isn't a paid professional liar, then - Is he mentally ill or retarded?

Either way, she's priceless isn't she?

Like Hannover says - It's so easy.
What is actually easy is to once more demonstrate, on hand of his above babblings, what a sorry idiot Mr. Gerdes is.

The poor fellow seems to believe there is a contradiction between Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents in a press conference and the presence of what seems to be mixed ashes of human bone and tissue on these two photos of drill samples:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F5.html


http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F6.html


and what seems to be either bone ash or lime on this photo of a core drill sample:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F7.html


Why should there be such a contradiction?

First of all, I don’t know – as I expressly pointed out on VNN – if these core drill samples are related to Prof. Kola’s 2001 investigation or to later archaeological work.

Second, how does Gerdes know what core samples of "charred human remains" would look like and that they would look different from the light-gray substance visible on the core samples in the first two photographs shown above?

Third and most important, assuming that core samples of "charred human remains" would have a different aspect, how would the presence of "charred human remains" in the Sobibor mass graves rule out the presence of ashes? Even if some of the bodies were not reduced to mere ashes and bone fragments, the incineration of the bodies on grids at Sobibor must have produced lots of such smaller remains, and it stands to reason that these were not left lying around and neither necessarily taken somewhere to be scattered, but returned to the mass graves together with the incompletely burned remains that are suggested by the term "charred human remains" – assuming this is a correct translation of what Prof. Kola told the Polish news agency in Polish language.

So there’s no banana again for Mr. Gerdes, sorry. The chimp just showed once more that he forgot to think before writing.
And that’s one the things that make the chimp a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility. Just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

“Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.”

Better yet Roberta - why waste time talking about what my ideas might be?

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – DID THEY NOT – Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.
I don’t know if these samples belong to the 2001 Kola investigation, to posterior investigations mentioned by the Friends of Sobibor Remembrance association on whose website http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/ these photos are shown, or to investigations by the Sobibor Archaeology Project, whose website is under http://www.undersobibor.org/ . But I will try to find out as much as I can about these samples from both entities.

Meanwhile, I take note of and appreciate your admission that you have no alternative explanation for the light-gray substance suggesting ashes of human bone and tissue, the black substance suggesting wood ash and the white substance suggesting either bone ash or lime, that are clearly distinguishable from the light-brown soil one one or more of those three photographs.
could have been too difficult for Gerdes’ tiny manure-infested brain to understand?
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #875
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

Priceless.
What part of what I wrote in my post # 840 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=840 :

Quote:
It’s obvious what you’re trying to get at, Mr. Gerdes. You produced the same retarded shit in your post of Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm on the CODOH thread under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 . In today’s update of my HC article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html, I commented that retarded shit as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes, Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm

I kid you not folks, only a certifiable nut case or a paid professional liar could come up with this - This is Muehlenkamp's latest:

"Try explaining why charred human remains and remains in a state of decay should be visible on any given core-drilling sample from mass graves that can be expected to largely or mostly contain cremains Mr. Gerdes."

Mmmmm. She quotes Kola to say that his word alone is proof that the Sobibor holocaust has been proven by archeological means:

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said they have found mass graves at the site. The excavations could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims. “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” archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference.

Then asks how anyone could believe that what Kola says he found could be found!

This of course begs the question - If Muehlenkamp isn't a paid professional liar, then - Is he mentally ill or retarded?

Either way, she's priceless isn't she?

Like Hannover says - It's so easy.
What is actually easy is to once more demonstrate, on hand of his above babblings, what a sorry idiot Mr. Gerdes is.

The poor fellow seems to believe there is a contradiction between Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents in a press conference and the presence of what seems to be mixed ashes of human bone and tissue on these two photos of drill samples:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F5.html


http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F6.html


and what seems to be either bone ash or lime on this photo of a core drill sample:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F7.html


Why should there be such a contradiction?

First of all, I don’t know – as I expressly pointed out on VNN – if these core drill samples are related to Prof. Kola’s 2001 investigation or to later archaeological work.

Second, how does Gerdes know what core samples of "charred human remains" would look like and that they would look different from the light-gray substance visible on the core samples in the first two photographs shown above?

Third and most important, assuming that core samples of "charred human remains" would have a different aspect, how would the presence of "charred human remains" in the Sobibor mass graves rule out the presence of ashes? Even if some of the bodies were not reduced to mere ashes and bone fragments, the incineration of the bodies on grids at Sobibor must have produced lots of such smaller remains, and it stands to reason that these were not left lying around and neither necessarily taken somewhere to be scattered, but returned to the mass graves together with the incompletely burned remains that are suggested by the term "charred human remains" – assuming this is a correct translation of what Prof. Kola told the Polish news agency in Polish language.

So there’s no banana again for Mr. Gerdes, sorry. The chimp just showed once more that he forgot to think before writing.
And that’s one the things that make the chimp a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility. Just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

“Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.”

Better yet Roberta - why waste time talking about what my ideas might be?

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – DID THEY NOT – Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.
I don’t know if these samples belong to the 2001 Kola investigation, to posterior investigations mentioned by the Friends of Sobibor Remembrance association on whose website http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/ these photos are shown, or to investigations by the Sobibor Archaeology Project, whose website is under http://www.undersobibor.org/ . But I will try to find out as much as I can about these samples from both entities.

Meanwhile, I take note of and appreciate your admission that you have no alternative explanation for the light-gray substance suggesting ashes of human bone and tissue, the black substance suggesting wood ash and the white substance suggesting either bone ash or lime, that are clearly distinguishable from the light-brown soil one one or more of those three photographs.
could have been too difficult for Gerdes’ tiny manure-infested brain to understand?
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #876
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Please notice Roberta's continued refusal to answer the following. It seems the following questions were just too much for her to handle:

Now, here's what we're waiting for retardo to do:

Tell us on what dates his partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

Show us photographs that prove he was in said camps on said dates.

Tell us on what dates his other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

Show us photographs that prove he was in said camp on said dates.

Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves.

Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.

Tell us what Polish government entity that commissioned Kola's "work."

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."

Show us proof that the "huge ash mountain" of Sobibor is actually comprised of human ash.

Show us were the huge pit is that this "mountain of human ash" was dug out of.

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.

What are you waiting for Roberta? (After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?)

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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

Oh, and please give us a list of the "historians and criminal investigators" that have "accepted" this alleged "proof."

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

(BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that you're priceless?)
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #877
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.”


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.”


And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta? 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?”

And what did Kola say again Roberta?

BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from this queation about the core samples of Sobibor:

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.

Priceless.
What part of what I wrote in my post # 840 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=840 :

Quote:
It’s obvious what you’re trying to get at, Mr. Gerdes. You produced the same retarded shit in your post of Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm on the CODOH thread under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 . In today’s update of my HC article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html, I commented that retarded shit as follows:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes, Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:28 pm

I kid you not folks, only a certifiable nut case or a paid professional liar could come up with this - This is Muehlenkamp's latest:

"Try explaining why charred human remains and remains in a state of decay should be visible on any given core-drilling sample from mass graves that can be expected to largely or mostly contain cremains Mr. Gerdes."

Mmmmm. She quotes Kola to say that his word alone is proof that the Sobibor holocaust has been proven by archeological means:

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said they have found mass graves at the site. The excavations could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims. “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” archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference.

Then asks how anyone could believe that what Kola says he found could be found!

This of course begs the question - If Muehlenkamp isn't a paid professional liar, then - Is he mentally ill or retarded?

Either way, she's priceless isn't she?

Like Hannover says - It's so easy.
What is actually easy is to once more demonstrate, on hand of his above babblings, what a sorry idiot Mr. Gerdes is.

The poor fellow seems to believe there is a contradiction between Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents in a press conference and the presence of what seems to be mixed ashes of human bone and tissue on these two photos of drill samples:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F5.html


http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F6.html


and what seems to be either bone ash or lime on this photo of a core drill sample:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...adania/F7.html


Why should there be such a contradiction?

First of all, I don’t know – as I expressly pointed out on VNN – if these core drill samples are related to Prof. Kola’s 2001 investigation or to later archaeological work.

Second, how does Gerdes know what core samples of "charred human remains" would look like and that they would look different from the light-gray substance visible on the core samples in the first two photographs shown above?

Third and most important, assuming that core samples of "charred human remains" would have a different aspect, how would the presence of "charred human remains" in the Sobibor mass graves rule out the presence of ashes? Even if some of the bodies were not reduced to mere ashes and bone fragments, the incineration of the bodies on grids at Sobibor must have produced lots of such smaller remains, and it stands to reason that these were not left lying around and neither necessarily taken somewhere to be scattered, but returned to the mass graves together with the incompletely burned remains that are suggested by the term "charred human remains" – assuming this is a correct translation of what Prof. Kola told the Polish news agency in Polish language.

So there’s no banana again for Mr. Gerdes, sorry. The chimp just showed once more that he forgot to think before writing.
And that’s one the things that make the chimp a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility. Just one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

“Any other idea what those light grey, black and white substances in the light-brown soil of Sobibor might be, Mr. Gerdes? Let’s hear.”

Better yet Roberta - why waste time talking about what my ideas might be?

What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is? They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right? They DID analyse the core samples – DID THEY NOT – Roberta?

Thank you Roberta.
I don’t know if these samples belong to the 2001 Kola investigation, to posterior investigations mentioned by the Friends of Sobibor Remembrance association on whose website http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/ these photos are shown, or to investigations by the Sobibor Archaeology Project, whose website is under http://www.undersobibor.org/ . But I will try to find out as much as I can about these samples from both entities.

Meanwhile, I take note of and appreciate your admission that you have no alternative explanation for the light-gray substance suggesting ashes of human bone and tissue, the black substance suggesting wood ash and the white substance suggesting either bone ash or lime, that are clearly distinguishable from the light-brown soil one one or more of those three photographs.
could have been too difficult for Gerdes’ tiny manure-infested brain to understand?
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #878
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
...and my condition for leaving you alone was that Gerdes shut his trap, as you know.
I see, so attempting to attack a woman is your method of forcing Herr Gerdes to "shut his trap" - interesting, very jewish. And, you fail, again


Quote:
What would be interesting to know is if even common law forbids relying upon eyewitness testimony as the sole source of evidence. Can you show us any source pointing in this direction?
You have no real understanding of English Common Law; just as your Friend Slammin - you did not read my post to him, in your extremity of hysterics; so I am offering it here to you now; with the same message I gave to Slammin as applicable to yourself.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=866

If what it takes for you to "put up or shut up" when it comes to Herr Gerdes challenge is your insistent threat to continue to verbally and deliberately abuse a female Member of this Forum, then so be it.

Where is your evidence. Your proof. When can Herr Gerdes expect to find it in his mail-box. An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 29th, 2008 at 01:22 PM.
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #879
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Proof is contained in Prof. Kola’s published report about his findings on site"

And

"Kola’s report has not been published (apparently because he had some problems with the Polish government entity that had commissioned his work)"

Oooops, Roberta cought in yet another lie.
Unlike stinking liar Gerdes, whose lies I long ceased counting, I have not yet been caught in a single lie, and poor Gerdes makes a fool of himself every time he tries to "catch" me in one.

The first of my above-quoted statement either refers to Prof. Kola’s report about Belzec (in which case Gerdes has at best shown once more how stupid he is), or uses the term "published" in a sense that includes a public press statement, whereas the latter does not (in which case the same applies).

How about providing links to the posts where I made the quoted statements, Mr. Gerdes? The context usually cuts your allegations to pieces, which is why you like to throw out-of-context snippets around, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Who / what is this Polish government entity that commissioned his "work" Roberta?
Probably the same that commissioned his Belzec work. If you have followed our discussions with a minimum of attention, you’ll know which one that is.
 
Old July 29th, 2008 #880
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Now, here's what we're waiting for retardo to do:

Tell us on what dates his partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

Show us photographs that prove he was in said camps on said dates.

Tell us on what dates his other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

Show us photographs that prove he was in said camp on said dates.

Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves.

Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.

Tell us what Polish government entity that commissioned Kola's "work."

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."

Show us proof that the "huge ash mountain" of Sobibor is actually comprised of human ash.

Show us were the huge pit is that this "mountain of human ash" was dug out of.

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.

What are you waiting for Roberta? (After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?)
What part of what I wrote in post # 850 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=850 :

Quote:
I’m waiting for you to explain the relevance of your demands, most of which I’m seeing for the first time now, by the way (another indication of how desperate you are).

For the purpose of historically proving the mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka (which is historically proven already anyway), they have no relevance whatsoever.

The only thing they could be relevant for is the NAFCASH challenge.

To the extent that meeting your above demands is part of

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,

the place where the respective information must be provided is an article that must be published by the only publisher you now accept, after again displaying your cowardice by scratching ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from an applicant’s already limited publishing options, i.e. SKEPTIC magazine. (If, of course, you want to replace publication in SKEPTIC magazine by publication on this forum, I shall do my best to address your above demands – to the extent that this is relevant for meeting the conditions of the NAFCASH challenge – on this very thread. That’s a major change of the NAFCASH site I wouldn’t hold against you.)

And to the extent that meeting your above demands has nothing to do with the NAFCASH challenge, you can print them out, roll them up and stick them you-know-where.
could have been too difficult for Gerdes’ depleted neurons to grasp?
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 AM.
Page generated in 0.19084 seconds.