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

Old July 30th, 2008 #901
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
Show us a court decision in which a distinction is drawn between Intentional and Unintentional Evidence and how it is to be used.
I might tell you where I got this distinction from, but I’d like to see our darling squirm a little more.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #902
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

Quote:
“Note to our readers: Due to my numerous mental / emotional problems, I got so mad at Gerdes for showing everyone what a total dumbass I am, that I started smashing my keyboard with my head and two of my posts today came out several times. Thus posts # 872 to # 875 and # 877 are the same, and posts # 882 and # 883 are identical.

Mr. Gerdes pointed this out to everyone, but due to my low IQ and my extremely agitated state, I was unable to understand what he was talking about, and I then made myself look even dumber than usual by my response to his post.

Please ignore every post I've ever posted here. I apologize for all the problems my stupidity, incessant lying, utter hypocrisy, cowardice and my myriad mental / emotional problems may have created.”

Appology accepted Roberta.

Now answer the 27 questions that are on the table.
These are my answer to all your questions, as you well know:

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.
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.
Insofar as answering your questions 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,

they will be answered in an article that I shall try to get published in SKEPTIC magazine (the only publishing option that miserable coward Gerdes left to an applicant for the reward – if he had balls he would at least accept publication in any pertinent scientific magazine of the applicant’s choice) as soon as I have all the information together and authorization to make it public (authorization is needed because, unlike what I have shown you so far, this information is not yet in the public domain).

If you want your questions answered on this forum, then you’ll have to change the NAFCASH site in the sense that proof meeting the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge may also be published on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine.

Make that change, and then you can put questions – insofar as relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge requirements – on the table here.

Until you have made that change, shut the fuck up.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #903
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"I couldn’t care less... if you don’t want to see me around here anymore, just tell Gerdes to shut up and I’ll be gone. Next time you hear from me will then be when I got my article published by the only publisher that goal-post-shifting coward Gerdes now accepts, Shermer’s SKEPTIC magazine."

LOL!!! Sounds like some kind of an 8 year old, doesn't she?
No, I’m being very reasonable. My reason to come to this place was Gerdes’ howling, and when that howling stops I’ll be gone. Simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta is really looking for an out, isn't she?
Not at all, but thanks for again displaying your amazing capacity for wishful thinking. I know you’re anxious to get rid of me, but that’s not about to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And now she's stopped answering any questions about the alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor.

What a pathetic coward.
Actually the pathetic coward here is Gerdes, who keeps running away from my pertinent question about the relevance of his demands. For the purpose of historically proving the mass murder at Sobibor (which is historically proven already anyway), they have no relevance whatsoever. And insofar as they are relevant within the context of the NAFCASH challenge (which Gerdes has been requested to demonstrate) they shall be answered in the form required on the NAFCASH site, that is, in an article published in SKEPTIC magazine. Unless, of course, Gerdes changes the NAFCASH challenge requirements and also allows for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine).

And that’s not the only demonstration of the pathetic cowardice that Gerdes self-projectingly accuses me of.

Readers who have followed this discussion will surely remember how little of the evidence I have shown (last recap see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777) Gerdes even dared to address.

Readers who have followed this discussion will also remember how many questions (regarding evidence I have shown, regarding the relevance of his infantile "show me" – demands and regarding the rules and standards of evidence – if any – that these demands are based on, among other things) I have asked the fellow, and how few of these – if any at all – he has not run away from.

Readers will further remember Gerdes’ persistent refusal to define more precisely the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and to state what exactly he would accept as proof meeting those requirements, even though I made it real easy for him by providing a draft of such specification and asking him to modify it as he considered necessary (see my posts # 506 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=506 , # 528 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=528 , # 536 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=536 , # 540 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=540, # 545 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=545 , # 566 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=566 , among others) . The staple reply to my suggestion was the idiotic "what part of proof do you not understand?" – rhetoric. Asked if this meant submission to reasonable standards of proof such as applied in criminal investigation and historical research, Gerdes ignored the question.

Readers will further remember my suggestion that Gerdes make the NAFCASH challenge more transparent by clearly describing the procedure for selecting eligible applicants, submittal of evidence by such applicants, assessment of evidence submitted by NAFCASH and their decision about entitlement to the reward. The NAFCASH site is rather vague in this respect. Yet all requests that a potential applicant be informed more precisely about the procedures were met with the hysterical derision and Simian howling that is the hallmark of Gerdes’ "argumentation".

Another thing that I’m sure our readers recall is Gerdes’ refusal to introduce an escrow account provision (as is usually done in challenges of this nature, I’ve been told) or at least make it clear to a potential applicant that he may well have to run after x different challenge supporters (the number is 21 including Gerdes, according to the same) at y different places for z part of the reward amount to which each supporter has committed – a fact that would probably make a potential applicant whose first and foremost interest is the money think twice. Gerdes’ response to this reasonable suggestion was a most imbecile "why don’t you get the money from those filthy stinking-rich Jews" – rant.

As if these examples of Gerdian cowardice were not enough, Gerdes also excluded Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps from the challenge, obviously in order to limit a potential applicant’s opportunities to meet the challenge requirements. Asked why he had done so, the best he could come up with was some notoriously lame babbling about "simplification" and "focus", IIRC. Bullshit.

But that’s not yet all, folks. Apparently for no reason other than my apparent preference for ARCHAEOLOGY magazine over SKEPTIC magazine as the publisher of my future article containing evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements, miserable coward Gerdes excluded ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from the already limited list of accepted publishers (if he had balls, as I said before, he would at least have accepted any pertinent scientific magazine for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements) and limited a potential applicant’s choice of publishers to SKEPTIC magazine alone (to be sure, it was stated on the NAFCASH site that an applicant rejected by SKEPTIC "MAY" be given the chance to publish in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine instead, but Gerdes wouldn’t be Gerdes if that "MAY" did not mean "WILL NOT").

And what is more, Gerdes started making a fuss about an unfavorable opinion I had uttered on Topix about Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, obviously in order to make sure that Shermer’s resentment over such statement would hinder his publishing an article of mine in SKEPTIC magazine.

Shall I also mention Gerdes’ persistent failure, after mouthing off about my fellow HC bloggers and my subsequent request that he address them directly, to do so by posting a comment below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html , despite my several reminders in this sense?

Or Gerdes having opened a thread on the CODOH Revisionist Forum, a place he knows I am banned from, to mouth off about me there together with the fellow coward (Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis) who was so scared of me that he banned me from that place?

To cut a long story short, the fellow who calls me a "pathetic coward", and that just because I don’t respond here to questions that

a) have obviously been asked just because Gerdes knows that I cannot yet provide answers;

b) are of no relevance except perhaps within the context of the NAFCASH challenge, in which case the place to respond to them is an article in SKEPTIC magazine and not this forum,

is himself one of the most pathetic and miserable cowards in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, a buffoon who tries to mask his fear, and his inability to cope with that fear, between bigmouthed howling, foul invective and infantile "show me, show me, right here and now" – demands reminiscent of a spoilt brat’s yelling for a lollipop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
This folks, is all the "proof" that the retarded jewbitch has for said "huge mass graves:"

"Because Prof. Kola said so."
And because Prof. Kola is an archaeologist of note, and because other archaeologists seem to know quite precisely what he did, and because Prof. Kola’s description of his findings is in line with what becomes apparent from all other known evidence, Mr. Gerdes. An altogether reasonable conclusion that you can offer nothing against, which is why you misrepresent my argument like the stinking liar you are, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
LOL!!!

Have I ever told you that you were priceless Roberta? (Remember when your dad used to tell you all the time that you were useless Roberta? Well, send him these posts just to remind him that, even though you're a Hysterical and Cowardly HIV Contagious Homosexual Creep espousing Holocaust Claptrap and other Historical Canards, you still have some value to this world.

Thank you Roberta.
My father died nine years ago. And thanks for again showing what a self-projecting, worthless piece of garbage you are. The more often you spout your foul invective, the more often you will remind our readers of what you’re all about. So please keep the manure coming, Mr. Gerdes. It’s about the only thing your manure-filled brain can produce anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Goddess:

"Holocaustianity does not stand up to any challenge... The dogma of the holocaust fails when looked at from a scientific and logical view as well as legal."

Are you trying to say Goddess, that "Because Prof. Kola said so" isn't a scientific or legal argument?
For purposes of historical research, Prof. Kola’s press statement may well be an argument, considering the context of the evidence it is in line with.

For legal purposes of judicial enquiry it may not be sufficient – a court would probably require an archaeological report such as was published about Prof. Kola’s investigations at Belzec, or that Prof. Kola testify in person about his findings before the court.

But I’m surprised to learn that Gerdes is all of a sudden interested in legal arguments. Documentary evidence and eyewitness testimonies are definitely arguments for legal purposes of judicial enquiry.

Does this mean you have found the courage to address the evidence listed in my post 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777. that you have so far mostly ignored, Mr. Gerdes?

Let’s get on with it, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Bwaaaaahaahahahahahahahaha. Can't you just picture that in "SKEPTIC" magazine? Of course, it's basically the same argument Shammer has used to date - because the "eyewitnesses" said so. Shermer and Muehlenkamp are cut out of the same piece of used toilet paper, aren't they?
Toilet paper is what Gerdes is obviously made of, as he keeps showing with his hysterical, mendacious and cowardly behavior. I don’t think Shermer’s argument is "because the eyewitnesses said so" (not that there would be anything particularly wrong with such argument – after all eyewitness testimony is the main or only source of what we know about many a historical event, including such events that I’m sure Gerdes has not the slightest doubt about), and it also is not mine. Conclusions about historical events are reached on the basis of converging evidence from several sources independent of each other and preferably also of different categories – like eyewitness testimonies corroborated by documentary evidence and/or by expert assessments of the physical evidence, such as an archeologist’s assessments of mass graves and other traces left at the site of a crime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Goddess:

"I do not tell Herr Gerdes to "shut up" - there is no reason to; especially since he is winning this debate and you seem to be losing it."

Thank you Goddess, and you're making the retard look like the utter piece of shit she is also.
Actually what the lady is showing is that, as I once told her, she’s an excellent cheerleader – so good that she can make my opponent believe he is winning while he’s having his ass kicked all over the place. Bravo, EG!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW, I think watching the others here rip poor Retardo to shreds is as much fun as doing it myself.
Actually the others here are competing with Gerdes in who makes a bigger fool of himself/herself and contributes more to discrediting the "Revisionist" cause. Gerdes is winning the contest so far, but EG is close behind (her bloodthirsty "kill the kikes" – stance may even give her a lead in the eyes of some observers). And CS is also scoring points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
On behalf of all the people here making you look like the retarded, lying, piece of greasy dogshit jewbitch that you are Roberta, I would like to say -

THANK YOU!
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and usually the only thinking that self-projecting Gerdes – who is certainly enough of a retarded, lying piece of greasy dogshit to qualify as a "jewbitch" by his own standards – is capable of.

And his playing to his buddies again clearly shows the reason why Gerdes chose to debate me in this lovely place instead of the RODOH forum: miserable cowards like Gerdes only feel safe and brave when in company. Alone they are zero.

I, on the other hand, need no company to confront this trash. As my opponents' beloved Führer used to say:

The strong is strongest when alone.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #904
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

"unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at who commissioned his investigation")

Prove it liar.
Stinking liar Gerdes calling me a liar is like – what parallel may I use so as not to hurt your feelings, CS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Who commissioned his "investigation?"
Probably the same entity that commissioned his Belzec investigation. I’ll let you find out which entity that was, it’s mentioned somewhere on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What is Kola allegedly "pissed off" about?
Something I would probably also be pissed off about in his place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Let's see proof – or is this just another one of your baseless lies?
Lies are usually baseless and the hallmark of stinking liar Gerdes, who I wouldn’t trust to correctly tell me the time of the day. What I tell you, on the other hand, always has a source behind it.

Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay?
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #905
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
Your search is meaningless. I do not dispute eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. ..... You claimed a conviction cannot come from eyewitness alone - an absolute statement you have repeated often.

Good, but you obviously did not read the several cases wherein convictions, based solely upon eyewitness testimony, later; upon appeal, had to be overturned due to the many incidences of convicting innocent people to long term prison time as well as to death. This happened so often that generally, if you read all the articles and links - which you obviously did not bother to do before making your pronouncement - that eyewitness testimony is so easily challenged that Law Enforcement, Prosecutors and Defence no longer deem it viable enough for conviction alone.

Ask your local [or State] District Attorney if he is willing to go forward with prosecuting a case that is lacking in sufficient evidence and relies totally upon one or more eyewitnesses - in your query, include that the cases would have to be sufficient to earn either capital punishment or long-term to life imprisonment. For instance [and the article was writ by a kike, no less]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl...utput=viewport

Quote:
That statement is a lie. There is no prohibition under commmon law or in US jurisprudence that prohibits this. Back up your very specific claim or admit you are wrong.
I did back it up - Common law usually deals with "white collar fraud"; consumer fraud, ect - as does "Intentional" evidence - same thing really, consumer fraud, financial fraud - usually, jews are the largest group of criminals falling within this range. Same thing with "unintentional" evidence.

I gave several links - you and Mule do not bother to read nor follow up - at least if you are going to dispute my posts; provide back up

Google and research, do your own work and then come back with more than one link, and be willing to discuss them - likely another thread, since this is a subject that does not actually pertain to this thread. Though, I'm sure your pal, Mule would love further derailment so as to avoid answering fully Herr Gerdes questions. But, I am not going to be the one to give him that out - so, if you wish to discuss matters of law - start a thread on it. OV would be the right place.


Quote:
Just trying to figure out how you come about your legal theories.
Well, they are not based on jewish notions of jurisprudence - which pretty much is the whole of American justice system - but come from questioning the American Justice system; making comparison between non-jewish law - a rare thing these days - and jewish based, judeo-Christian notions of what is legal or illegal. How do you come by your theories.

Quote:
Intentional evidence is not strictly defined under English Common lLaw.
True, it's still under legal debate - it seems to be an area that jews cannot get ahold of - again, Intentional evidence deals mainly with petit fraud and crimes, as well as larger financial schemes in which there are several victims; again, crimes that are usually committed by large corporate entities; and mostly jew criminals. Perhaps the prevalence of jewish criminals in this area is one reason why the juden do not bother with trying to take control of English Common Law - idk, either that, or it's simply too foreign a notion for the jewish mind to fully comprehend.

Quote:
I do not try to apply it because I do not make the disctinction, neither have the courts. If you have precedence to show otherwise, please produce it.
Prove that you are not "trying to apply it" - elaborate.

Quote:
Show us a court decision in which a distinction is drawn between Intentional and Unintentional Evidence and how it is to be used.
I realise that, as a jew, you are not familiar with basing laws on ethics, but rather try to control ethics using law. Here's a google page dealing with ethics - start there, then go to the law, or the court decision and distinction you seek.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?nu...ce&btnG=Search
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #906
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote
Originally Posted by Bobby Mule:

If you mean archaeological evidence that meets the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and entitles the applicant to claim the NAFCASH reward, I suggest you read what I told Gerdes in my post # 889 under

I skim your posts, such as they are - I mean evidence, ample enough to not only win the NAFCASH reward; but to address Revisionist questions.

So far, you have done nothing about either.
On the contrary, baby. The evidence listed in my post 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 addresses any reasonable questions and leave no room for reasonable doubt as to what happened at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka. Unless, of course, you can prove that all this evidence resulted from coercion and manipulation and/or provide conclusive evidence supporting "Hypothesis B", the "Revisionist" transit camp theory. Feel free to give it a try.

What Gerdes is yelling for on the NAFCASH site, on the other hand, is not necessary to prove the crimes under discussion beyond a reasonable doubt. It also doesn’t contribute much to historical knowledge. It is mainly or exclusively relevant for the purpose of earning the NAFCASH reward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
And you are dissembling here:

Re your statement to continue your abuse of a female Member of this forum, myself - you stated

Quote:
just tell Gerdes to shut up and I’ll be gone

I do not tell Herr Gerdes to "shut up" - there is no reason to; especially since he is winning this debate and you seem to be losing it.
As I just told Gerdes, you’re a great cheerleader – so good that you can make my opponent believe he is winning while he’s having his ass kicked all over the place. Bravo, EG!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Then, today you state to me, personally in your ongoing abusive replies to me:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
...and my condition for leaving you alone was that Gerdes shut his trap, as you know.

So, you see, you continue to have no intention of stopping your verbal abuse - at least not until I see to it that Herr Gerdes stops questioning you.
Actually what I’m saying is that I’m not leaving this forum unless Gerdes shuts his trap. Whether or not that implies abusing you depends on your own behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Frankly, given the fact that you refuse to address any of his several questions, particularly the approximate date he can reasonably expect your 'proof and evidence' in his mail; it seems pretty obvious why you would wish for Herr Gerdes to "shut up".
Actually I don’t wish him to shut up at all, for he’s a big asset to me, as instructive a demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility as I could even have hoped for.

As to his questions related to the Sobibor mass graves, read what I have told him several times already: insofar as these questions are relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge (otherwise they are irrelevant, and irrelevant questions need not be answered), I shall answer them, when I have the necessary information, in the manner required on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in an article to be published in SKEPTIC magazine. If Gerdes wants the answers posted on this forum, he must change that site in the sense that evidence meeting the challenge requirements may also be provided by posting on this forum instead of an article in SKEPTIC magazine.

And as to the "when" question, which reveals both your and Gerdes’ nervousness and anxiety, what part of the following:

Quote:
Don't be silly, Gerdes. I can't tell you a specific or even approximate date, as even a numb nut like you should understand. But one thing is sure: there's no need for anyone to hurry, for the longer it takes for things to happen, the longer self-projecting coward Gerdes - who is obviously scared shitless of what is coming at him, otherwise he wouldn't be yelling around and jumping up and down like a frightened chimp - will suffer in anticipation of the day his nightmares come true.

Suffer, asshole. I'm enjoying the spectacle.
is too hard for you to understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
As to "eyewitness" proof- we know that you would love to belabour the issue, but it really is a moot point.
That’s how you admit that you didn’t know what you were talking about as concerns legal standards of evidence, isn’t it? Your considerations regarding "intentional evidence" were particularly amusing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Holocaustian eyewitness accountings, are not enough; legally shakey and generally unacceptable.
Historians, criminal investigators, prosecutors, judges and even defense attorneys throughout the past decades have found otherwise, my dear. And please forgive me if I prefer their assessement to your baseless babbling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Were these same eyewitnesses to take the stand today in a new trial; a fair to good defence attorney would rip their stories to shreds. And, the jews would lose.
Actually many a good defense attorney (ever heard of Dr. Laternser and Dr. Aschenauer, for instance?) tried his best to shred eyewitnesses incriminating his clients at trials before West German courts. Some succeeded, others did not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Holocaustianity does not stand up to any challenge; the eyewitnesses are the reason for the flawed faith, for the doubt; because these eyewitness lied, exaggerated. The dogma of the holocaust fails when looked at from a scientific and logical view, as well as legal, I would suppose - One has to first believe the unbelievable stories of eyewitnesses before devolving into full blown "true believer" such as yourself.
Sorry, lady, but that’s just a completely hollow statement of faith. The only thing in this context that can be considered a dogma, and that fails any test from a scientific and logical point of view (because all known evidence speaks against it and there’s no evidence whatsoever speaking in its favor) is your idiotic belief that the accepted historical record is the product of some monstrous, impossibly powerful and unbelievably discrete conspiracy of evidence manipulation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
The kangaroo court Trials of Nurnberg are not to be compared with any actual, lawful court proceeding; neither past and especially not present day.
Bold words, my dear, but I doubt you can even begin explaining how procedures before the IMT or the NMT (which were not the only courts dealing with NS crimes – most NS criminals stood trial before the courts of the Federal German constitutional state according to that constitutional state’s procedural laws) differ from "any actual, lawful court proceeding". And in at least one of the NMT trials, defense attorneys expressly acknowledged the fairness of the proceedings:

Quote:
Other than the evidence provided by the reports, there is direct testimony from those who committed the crimes and some of the bystanders who witnessed them. These witnesses testified at two criminal trials held concerning the crimes of the Einsatzgruppen. The first of these was the trial of Otto Ohlendorf and 22 other defendants who commanded the Einsatzgruppen in 1947. This was a trial before a Tribunal of five judges at which the U.S. laws of evidence and substantive law were applied. The second notable trial was of members of Sonderkommando 4a (attached to Einsatzgruppe C) for 33,771 murders committed at Babi Yar on September 29-30, 1941. This trial was held in Darmstadt pursuant to German law in 1967-8. In both case the courts heard direct evidence of the crimes committed and convicted the defendants.

The argument that these trials were "kangaroo courts" or "show trials" is simply not tenable. Both were conducted with scrupulous attention to the rights of the accused to a fair trial. They were allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, challenge documents, and present evidence on their own behalf without limitation.

The attention that the courts gave to allowing the defendants to present a full defense is best illustrated by a famous incident at the trial of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen. At one point in the trial, the prosecution objected to the argument that one of the defendants had been forced into duty with an Einsatzgruppe. Justice Musmanno, the presiding judge, overruled the objection stating:

The defense can introduce any evidence short of describing the lives of the penguins in the Antarctic and, if the defense can convince me the habits of the penguins are relevant evidence to the case, then the lives and times of those white-fronted creatures can also be admitted as evidence.

After the trial before the U.S. Tribunal, as a token of appreciation of the fair and honest manner in which their clients had been treated, the defense attorneys presented Justice Musmanno with a statue of a penguin. In subsequent trials, it was always the request of the defense that the "penguin rule" be applied.
The penguin resided on a shelf behind Justice Musmanno's desk until his death in 1968.

Despite the wide latitude given to them, at neither trial did the defendants claim that the massacres did not happen or challenge the authenticity of the reports. The defenses they presented to the charges against them was that they were forced into service with the Einsatzgruppen or, as did Otto Ohlendorf, that they were just following orders. All were convicted.
Source of quote: http://www.holocaust-history.org/intro-einsatz/ . Emphasis is mine.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #907
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
No, the consequence is part of the meaning.

Why would you want to talk about the consequence of pride when the simple question was what is pride? Why would you waste so much time doing this?
Maybe because you didn’t word your question clearly enough. Maybe because I felt like baiting you a little. You’ll never know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Look who’s accusing me of complex or convoluted language.

Feigning ignorance of such a simple statement changes nothing. Your complicated assertion:

Quote:
What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love. Both may lead to hate. I’d say the latter is even likelier to do that than the former.

was an attempt to spread the issue;
Actually it was neither complicated nor an attempt to spread the issue. It was a clear explanation of my position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
you've even brought outrage into a discussion on the meaning of pride. Hatred and outrage is not pride.
No, but both may result from pride when the object of pride suffers harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
However often you repeat your statement, that doesn’t make it any more logical.

Hatred and outrage is not pride, Jew. No amount of scorn will alter that.
Still no more logic, and I definitely like the "Jew". It illustrates the deplorable contents of your skull.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
In what respect am I supposed to have read you wrong, my friend?

I don't have to riddle like this:

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.

Occams' razor says you are a relentless liar.
That you’ll have to explain in some detail, my friend. What does Occam’s Razor have to do with an opinion of mine that happens to differ from yours?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Wow, now he’s down to "Jews always lie" – BS …

There's that incubus on your mind. The rabbi is supposed to have unintentionally testified yet his speech was disseminated in an international Jew magazine on an issue of extreme importance to Jewry.
Unless that issue was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, your argument is singularly irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
… and hollow conjectures based on equally hollow preconceived notions.

No meaningful photos though, so "hollow conjectures" etc. is hypocritical, nay just plain strange.
No, the postulation that there should be "meaningful photos" is hollow conjecture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.

This statement changes nothing.
No, it doesn’t make your "explanation" look any better indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.

The only agenda you're part of is the Jew ideological agenda, guaranteed.
By a true believer hooked on baseless preconceived notions? That’s the lousiest guarantee I can think of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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.

The standard - much like yourself - works for the Jew agenda only.
No, it works for or against any party at a judicial proceeding, depending on the circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
The origin of the standard is irrelevant and typically obfuscating.
It’s relevant insofar as you claimed it was a "Jewish" standard, and I don’t see where the obfuscation might be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
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 ).

This whole thread is about going there and finding answers; beating about the bush as the current investigations seem to be doing is more suspicious than ever.
We don’t have to go there to find answers about what happened; that has been proven on hand of other evidence already. Going there to enhance historical knowledge is fine, and that’s what the current investigations (like any archaeological investigations) are doing.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #908
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
On the contrary, baby. .
I am, again, giving you link to same reply I have given to Slammin, though, from reading his posts; he is either a rather old jew, perhaps in stages of early Alzheimer's or he is a a young kike, and not able to keep up with most discussion on this forum.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=905

Since you are pretty much his intellectual equal; either way, to save time and space on this thread - which is dealing with specific data, which is incumbent for you to prove, and using outdated and false information and charges that were illegal to begin with, there is little else for you to be discussing - other than how you jews can now go back over time and prove to Herr Gerdes your outrageous claims during the Nurnberg Trials and so forth.

As well, you state you have the evidence and proof that will destroy the Revisionist argument, which you will submit to Herr Gerdes, for an award. The thorny question seems to be when you will send it to him.

However, you state that you are putting off doing this so as to continue having fun on this board and thread. Well, o.k. - but, having made the claim, eventually you will have to settle down and mail your proofs to Herr Gerdes.

We are patient.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #909
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
I am, again, giving you link to same reply I have given to Slammin, though, from reading his posts; he is either a rather old jew, perhaps in stages of early Alzheimer's or he is a a young kike, and not able to keep up with most discussion on this forum.
The latter is rather one of your many problems, baby - one of the others being a tendency to talk about things you don't know a thing about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Since you are pretty much his intellectual equal; either way, to save time and space on this thread - which is dealing with specific data, which is incumbent for you to prove, and using outdated and false information
What information I have used is "outdated" and/or "false", and how so? Please be specific.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
and charges that were illegal to begin with,
What charges were "illegal to begin with", and how so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
there is little else for you to be discussing - other than how you jews can now go back over time and prove to Herr Gerdes your outrageous claims during the Nurnberg Trials and so forth.
Those "outrageous claims" have long been proven, and a chimp's baseless "show me this and that, right here and now" - demands won't change this. The only thing that entitles the chimp to make such demands is his having offered a money reward for their being met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
As well, you state you have the evidence and proof that will destroy the Revisionist argument, which you will submit to Herr Gerdes, for an award.
Actually "Revisionists" don't have an argument to begin with, so there's no argument to be be destroyed. If there's anything the evidence to be submitted to NAFCASH will destroy, it's a pretext for a hollow proparanda stance and a chimp's overblown ego - assuming that Gerdes' bigmouthed howling is not meant to cover up a deeply rooted inferiority complex, which would be altoghether appropriate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
The thorny question seems to be when you will send it to him.
That may be a thorny question for you, baby. As far as I'm concerned, the longer you and Gerdes suffer in anticipation of what is to come, the better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
However, you state that you are putting off doing this so as to continue having fun on this board and thread.
You must have misunderstood me, sweetheart. What statement of mine are you referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Well, o.k. - but, having made the claim, eventually you will have to settle down and mail your proofs to Herr Gerdes.
Of course, mein Schatz. But apart from the fact that it will take some time until I have access to results of archaeological work and related information, I'm in no hurry to put an end to your and Gerdes' anxiety, as I said before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
We are patient.
Are you? Then start showing some patience, instead of jumping up and down yelling "when will you show me this and that?". You will be shown what needs to be shown to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements when it is there to be shown, period.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #910
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Maybe because you didn’t word your question clearly enough. Maybe because I felt like baiting you a little. You’ll never know.
The question was clear: What is pride? What does being a proud German mean to you? Baiting is a futile, time wasting exercise. I think you imagined you were going to be able to talk your way out of an error and now that your imagination has reached it's limit you tacitly admit as much.

Quote:
Actually it was neither complicated nor an attempt to spread the issue. It was a clear explanation of my position.
It was an imaginative attempt to cover an error: your assertion that pride leads to hate; contrast that against your apparent inability to understand that an insult is still an insult whether truthful or not.

Quote:
No, but both may result from pride when the object of pride suffers harm.
Why bring outrage into a discussion on the meaning of pride? It's spreading and that's simple deception.

Quote:
Still no more logic, and I definitely like the "Jew". It illustrates the deplorable contents of your skull.
This grasping insult changes nothing.

Quote:
That you’ll have to explain in some detail, my friend. What does Occam’s Razor have to do with an opinion of mine that happens to differ from yours?
My argument is simple and consistent, yours is complicated, shifting and evasive. Occams' razor has nothing to do with differing from my opinion.

Quote:
Unless that issue was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, your argument is singularly irrelevant.
Non sequitur: the rabbi deliberately gave a speech which was spread via an international Jew magazine. He or one of the others present should've taken a picture for the sake of the unfaithful.

Quote:
No, the postulation that there should be "meaningful photos" is hollow conjecture.
Now you assert that the reasonable expectation of photographic proof of what is claimed to exist in abundance is hollow conjecture.

Quote:
No, it doesn’t make your "explanation" look any better indeed.
Still, this doesn't change the fact that you seperate sentences and respond out of context in niggardly fashion.

Quote:
By a true believer hooked on baseless preconceived notions? That’s the lousiest guarantee I can think of.
You do - as is shown by this thread - , and will critically assess all things in favour of Jewish interests; using material logic based on the premise that what is good for Jews is real, and what is bad for Jews is false, with some give and take for the sake of appearances.

Quote:
No, it works for or against any party at a judicial proceeding, depending on the circumstances. It’s relevant insofar as you claimed it was a "Jewish" standard, and I don’t see where the obfuscation might be.
It protects a dubious claim made by Jews, all else is irrelevant and intended to spread the issue.

Quote:
We don’t have to go there to find answers about what happened; that has been proven on hand of other evidence already. Going there to enhance historical knowledge is fine, and that’s what the current investigations (like any archaeological investigations) are doing.
We do have to go there to find answers; why do current investigations beat about the bush when hardcore evidence is supposed to be everywhere? We need to brush aside the emotionalistic defensive barriers that surround the centerpiece of this ostensibly inscrutable issue.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #911
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mule

What information I have used is "outdated" and/or "false", and how so? Please be specific.

Heh, well I would pretty much be forced to provide link to near every single relevant post you have made on this thread in order to be specific.

Quote:
What charges were "illegal to begin with", and how so?
Stop being specious, it's unbecoming since you lay claim to being a "proud" German; representative of the average German of today and are not a jew. You know full well which charges.

Quote:
Those "outrageous claims" have long been proven
,

Had they been sufficiently proven then my generation would not be so willing to give more credence to Revisionist discussion than the pap being produced by kikes and holocaustians and crammed down our throat since birth. If nothing else, my generation are the biggest proof that Holocaustianity and the Hoax have failed to ensnare and/or impress - and that's putting it mildly.


Quote:
Actually "Revisionists" don't have an argument to begin with,
Obviously Revisionists do have a very good argument or else you would not be here, attempting to debate Revisionism. Which is really what you have altered the thread to; rather than the original discussion.

Quote:
the longer you and Gerdes suffer in anticipation of what is to come, the better.
HA. Yes we will "suffer" - I suppose. However, in the end, we will not. And, this point has nothing at all to do with you and your jewish passive-aggressive resistance ploy, it, like the Hoax itself, is an over-played hand, no longer effective nor relevant to my generation. You really are out of touch.

Quote:
But apart from the fact that it will take some time until I have access to results of archaeological work and related information, I'm in no hurry to put an end to your and Gerdes' anxiety, as I said before.
Ah, but demanding to take as long a time as you deem has effectively put an end to your anxieties. Which means to me, you have conceded the more immediate discussion and debate - ie, this thread, your acceptance of the challenge - fluctuating gurantees that your work is in the mail; ect. Talk about jewish projection, you are a master of it.

Quote:
Are you? Then start showing some patience,
Yes. I am patient. And, after some several hundred odd posts of yours on this thread, the fact that you are still being allowed to post your nonsense here is proof of the overall patience of the forum in general.

Quote:
instead of jumping up and down yelling "when will you show me this and that?".
More jewish projection; actually it has been yourself, with occassional assistance from Slammin that have been "jumping up and down and yelling" ; making demands, then refusing to follow through on the required reading and research when your demands are met. You really do behave like a female, a jewish bitch in fact.

Quote:
You will be shown what needs to be shown to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements when it is there to be shown, period
Heh. This is your "grande finale" statement of concession; and you do not even realise it.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 30th, 2008 at 09:59 AM.
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #912
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Goddess:

"So, you see, you continue to have no intention of stopping your verbal abuse - at least not until I see to it that Herr Gerdes stops questioning you."


Retardo:

"Actually what I’m saying is that I’m not leaving this forum unless Gerdes shuts his trap."


Yes, and let's see what the cowardly faggot has erected around herself so as to avoid answering any of my questions (What's the point of being here Roberta if you cowardly refuse to participate?):


Retardo:

"I’m waiting for you to explain the relevance of your demands"

LOL!!! She challenges me to a debate about Sobibor, and now says I have to explain to her the relevance of my questions? Mmmmmm. Let's see, is the question: Where are theses alleged 7 "huge mass graves" located anyway Roberta? a relevant or irrelevant question to a person who challenged me to a debate based on the alleged volume of the alleged Sobibor graves?

What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)

Roberta:

"If you want your questions answered on this forum, then you’ll have to change the NAFCASH site in the sense that proof meeting the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge may also be published on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine. Make that change, and then you can put questions – insofar as relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge requirements – on the table here. Until you have made that change, shut the fuck up."

She then makes a most absurd demand that she knows will not (and for all practical purposes - can not) be made. And her telling me to "shut the fuck up" is simply a tacit admission that she's a cornered rat with nothing left but her childish antics.

What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)

Then she contradicts herself (imagine that!) with this gem:

"Actually I don’t wish him to shut up at all... As to his questions related to the Sobibor mass graves, read what I have told him several times already: insofar as these questions are relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge (otherwise they are irrelevant, and irrelevant questions need not be answered), I shall answer them, when I have the necessary information, in the manner required on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in an article to be published in SKEPTIC magazine. If Gerdes wants the answers posted on this forum, he must change that site in the sense that evidence meeting the challenge requirements may also be provided by posting on this forum instead of an article in SKEPTIC magazine."

What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)

And this one is really a gem. After I caught the lying jewbitch is yet another lie, she tries to dodge this fact with:

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Let's see proof – or is this just another one of your baseless lies?

Roberta:

"Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay?

What an utter liar and coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)

So she wants’ to leave so bad it's killing her, but she then says she won't leave unless I "shut my trap," but she continues to lie and refuse to answer the most simple questions all the while erecting conditions that she knows won't / can't be obliged. And of course, any inconvenient question she avoids answering by just saying that "it's not relevant."

What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you, thank you, thank you.)

Have I ever told you Roberta, that you're priceless?

BTW Roberta, I must have really touched a nerve when I mentioned your father. Just how many times did he tell you that you were worthless? How old were you when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot?
 
Old July 30th, 2008 #913
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Please notice Roberta's continued refusal to answer / provide the following. It seems the following is just too inconvenient for her to answer and/or provide:

30 Sobibor Qeustions That Roberta Refuses To Answer / Provide:


1 - Tell us on what dates her partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

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

3 - Tell us on what dates her other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

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

5 - Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves.

6 - Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.

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

8 - Tell us what the results were of the analysis of those soil core samples that she claims are: "ashes of human bone and tissue for the light gray stuff, wood ashes for the black stuff and pure bone ashes or lime for the white stuff."

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

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

11 - And last - but certainly not least, we're waiting for Roberta to publish, in "SKEPTIC" magazine, proof that there exists just one mass grave that contains just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka.

Just one camp - just one mass grave - just one percent.

Just one Roberta.

One.

12 - What are you waiting for Roberta?

13 - After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?

14 - Are you some kind of coward Roberta, or what?


Now, let’s remind everyone what the mentally ill jewbitch wrote earlier:

Quote: Originally Posted by Gerdes

She hasn't been able to even prove that the "huge mass grave" of Sobibor exists;


Roberta:

Actually I’m able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kola’s description.”


15 - Yes Roberta, could you tell us again what Kola “described” finding in the “huge mass graves” of Sobibor?


Roberta:

“Proof is contained in Prof. Kola’s published report about his findings on site, and in the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Sobibor, which is compatible with Kola’s findings.”


16 - And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta?

17 - And where can we find this published report?


Roberta:

“This proof is and has been accepted by historians and criminal investigators, Gerdes. So unless you can show relevant rules or standards of evidence that these people did not comply with or strong indications of evidence manipulation, it is proof for the purpose of our discussion as well (and may even be considered proof for the purpose of meeting your "challenge" by a court of law, so better be more specific about what kind of proof you want – that’s well meaning advice)... Because Prof. Kola said so and there’s no reason to doubt the statements of this renowned archeologist, especially as they are also in line with what all other known evidence tells us about Sobibor… And the reason to doubt the archeologist’s public statement that would support this "allegedly" is?”

18 - And what did Kola say again Roberta?

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

20 - BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from the queations about the soil core samples of Sobibor?

21 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is?

22 - They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right?

23 - They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

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

25 - Goddess: "When can Herr Gerdes expect to find it in his mail-box? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.)

26 - Retardo:

"Gerdes’ mouthing-off against the above-mentioned entities may turn out to be a shot in the foot, however. I can imagine members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project or the "Friends of Sobibor Remembrance" association getting angry enough, upon reading Gerdes' crap, to decide that it's time to teach the bigmouth a lesson and publish evidence meeting the NAFCASH challenge requirements just in order to humiliate the fellow, independently of whether or not they can realistically expect payment of the reward amount."

When can I expect this to happen Roberta? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.)

27 - If you were Andrzej Kola or Yoram Haimi, and the "huge mass graves" allegedly found at Sobibor are not a hoax, just how long would it take you to send off to "SKEPTIC" magazine all the proof in the world needed to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE reward?

28 - And what about Shammer - what the hell is he waiting for?

29 - How old were you Roberta, when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot?

30 - How long is it now that you've had AIDS?
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #914
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Poor Gerdes, I keep him freaking out.

And I’m enjoying every minute of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Goddess:

"So, you see, you continue to have no intention of stopping your verbal abuse - at least not until I see to it that Herr Gerdes stops questioning you."

Retardo:

"Actually what I’m saying is that I’m not leaving this forum unless Gerdes shuts his trap."

Yes, and let's see what the cowardly faggot has erected around herself so as to avoid answering any of my questions (What's the point of being here Roberta if you cowardly refuse to participate?):
I’m not refusing to participate, Gerdes. You are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

"I’m waiting for you to explain the relevance of your demands"

LOL!!! She challenges me to a debate about Sobibor, and now says I have to explain to her the relevance of my questions? Mmmmmm.
Exactly. Only relevant questions need to be answered. Irrelevant questions are just defense walls that cowardly charlatans like Gerdes erect around themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Let's see, is the question: Where are theses alleged 7 "huge mass graves" located anyway Roberta? a relevant or irrelevant question to a person who challenged me to a debate based on the alleged volume of the alleged Sobibor graves?
Did I challenge you to a debate on the volume of the Sobibor mass graves, Gerdes?

Where would I have done that? Show me. Exact quote and post number.

As to the question itself, the answer is: in the area of former Sobibor extermination camp, in the section of that camp known as "Camp III". That’s what I know for the moment. More detailed information will be accessible in the future, but for the moment that’s what I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)
I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"If you want your questions answered on this forum, then you’ll have to change the NAFCASH site in the sense that proof meeting the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge may also be published on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine. Make that change, and then you can put questions – insofar as relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge requirements – on the table here. Until you have made that change, shut the fuck up."

She then makes a most absurd demand that she knows will not (and for all practical purposes - can not) be made.
Why not, Gerdes? You are the webmaster of that site and free to change it as you like. And the requirement that proof must be published in one specific magazine and nowhere else is a cowardly restriction of a potential applicant’s chances anyway. If you were so sure of what you proclaim and not scared shitless that evidence meeting your challenge requirements might actually be forthcoming, you would not impose this restriction. You would not only accept publication in any scientific magazine of the applicant’s choice, you would also accept publication on a site like THHP or the HC blog, as well as publication on an online discussion forum like this one. What matters is the content of what is published, isn’t it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And her telling me to "shut the fuck up" is simply a tacit admission that she's a cornered rat with nothing left but her childish antics.
No, Gerdes, that’s just more of your customary wishful thinking. I’m telling to that I don’t feel like dancing as you whistle, that’s all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)
I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Then she contradicts herself (imagine that!) with this gem:

"Actually I don’t wish him to shut up at all... As to his questions related to the Sobibor mass graves, read what I have told him several times already: insofar as these questions are relevant in the context of the NAFCASH challenge (otherwise they are irrelevant, and irrelevant questions need not be answered), I shall answer them, when I have the necessary information, in the manner required on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in an article to be published in SKEPTIC magazine. If Gerdes wants the answers posted on this forum, he must change that site in the sense that evidence meeting the challenge requirements may also be provided by posting on this forum instead of an article in SKEPTIC magazine."
Where’s the contradiction, Mr. Gerdes? Please point it out, our readers may not be hallucinating the way you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)
I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And this one is really a gem. After I caught the lying jewbitch is yet another lie, she tries to dodge this fact with:

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Let's see proof – or is this just another one of your baseless lies?

Roberta:

"Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay?
Here’s what I wrote about yet another of your successful attempts to make a fool of yourself, in my latest update of comments on your cowardly CODOH conversations under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html :

Quote:
Now to the "most shameless thing" that Gerdes went whining to his CODOH buddies about.

First of all, the fellow mutilated my response, which in VNN post # 904 reads as follows:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:
"unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at
who commissioned his investigation")
Prove it liar.

Stinking liar Gerdes calling me a liar is like – what parallel may I use so as not to hurt your feelings, CS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Who commissioned his "investigation?"

Probably the same entity that commissioned his Belzec investigation. I’ll let you find out which entity that was, it’s mentioned somewhere on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What is Kola allegedly "pissed off" about?

Something I would probably also be pissed off about in his place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Let's see proof – or is this just another one of
your baseless lies?

Lies are usually baseless and the hallmark of stinking liar Gerdes, who I wouldn’t trust to correctly tell me the time of the day. What I tell you, on the other hand, always has a source behind it.

Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay?
Obviously Gerdes considered only the last paragraph of my response "safe" enough for the CODOH clowns to read and therefore left out the rest, especially the inconvenient reference to his own mendacity.

Second, there’s no lie whatsoever in what I wrote. The information about the nature of Prof. Kola’s problems with the Polish government is not in the public domain indeed; I obtained it in a private phone conversation with the director of the Sobibor Archaeological Project. And if I baited Gerdes by telling him that he would have to pay for this information, that was treating him with the contempt an asshole like he deserves (which obviously pissed him off a lot), but certainly not a statement against better knowledge.

Gerdes shouldn't project his own behavior onto his opponents. And he should get used to the idea that people are not lying or have anything to hide just because they don't dance as he whistles. He is being treated as corresponds to his obnoxious ways.

I have no problem with telling Gerdes just what Prof. Kola’s problems with the Polish government are, according to my conversation with Yoram Haimi. All he has to do is ask more politely.
Ask politely, Mr. Gerdes. Something like:

"Mr. Muehlenkamp, could you please tell us what you know about the reasons for Prof. Kola being upset with the Polish government regarding the archaeological work he did at Sobibor in 2001?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What an utter liar and coward you are Roberta. (Thank you.)
I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
So she wants’ to leave so bad it's killing her,
Not at all, Gerdes. I’m having a good time here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
but she then says she won't leave unless I "shut my trap,"
I’m saying that I won’t accommodate EG’s wishes that I leave (she was the one who wrote she was tired of me, remember?) as long as Gerdes is howling around here, because that was my reason for coming here in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
but she continues to lie
Come on, Gerdes, do yourself a favor and don’t continue making a fool of yourself by baselessly accusing me of doing what you do all the time. Here’s what I wrote about the subject in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html :

Quote:
Just like his accusations of cowardice, Gerdes’ claims that I have been caught lying have a distinctly self-projecting character. Gerdes has not caught me lying even once and made a fool of himself several times when accusing me of lying. I, on the other hand, have long stopped counting the straw-man misrepresentations, quote-mines and other lies of his that I have exposed. A particularly fat and equally stupid lie of Gerdes' was pointed out in my VNN post # 839: after the fellow had accused me of having reported for deletion "his" post # 797 in our discussion on the Topix forum, I showed that the deleted Topix post # 797 was actually one of my posts. I had even asked Gerdes what had happened to that post in my later post # 801, which the showpiece of "Revisionist" genius obviously had forgotten to report to the Topix moderator for deletion and also forgot to read before telling this ridiculously stupid lie.
Here’s the screenshot of my Topix post # 797 before it disappeared:



And that post, incidentally, refers to another of your lies: your claim that I had reported for deletion "your" posts Topix post # 373 and # 379. Here’s a screenshot of my post # 379:



This post is currently online, by the way: http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p19#c379

As is your post # 373: http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p18#c373

You’re not only a filthy stinking liar, Mr. Gerdes, you’re also a fucking dumb liar. And you have been caught lying more often than I care to count.

Next time you call me a liar we’ll have screenshots from our early Topix discussions where you were caught in up to ten or more lies in a single post, OK?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
and refuse to answer the most simple questions
No, Gerdes, I refuse to dance as Gerdes whistles by trying to answer any question he comes up with regardless of relevance. Big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
all the while erecting conditions that she knows won't / can't be obliged.
Actually my conditions are very reasonable: questions that are not relevant under any aspect need not be answered (if I answer them nevertheless, I’m just being a nice guy), and questions that are relevant within the context of the NAFCASH challenge will be answered in the form provided for on the NAFCASH site. Should the NAFCASH site provide for publication of challenge-relevant information on a web discussion forum like this one, they will be answered to the best of my knowledge on such forum. But that’s currently not the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And of course, any inconvenient question she avoids answering by just saying that "it's not relevant."
No, Gerdes, for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor as a historical fact your questions are irrelevant indeed. Of course you are free to try convincing me otherwise, if you disagree. Let’s see your explanation of your questions’ relevance, Mr. Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What an utter coward you are Roberta. (Thank you, thank you, thank you.)
I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Have I ever told you Roberta, that you're priceless?
Have I ever told you that – apart from other deplorable things – you’re also a lousy imitator of a term I appropriately applied to you, Mr. Gerdes? For you’re indeed a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" cowardice, mendacity and obnoxiousness. No one like you to make "Revisionism" look like the sick-minded filth it is, Mr. Gerdes. Thanks a lot for that, and please keep it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW Roberta, I must have really touched a nerve when I mentioned your father. Just how many times did he tell you that you were worthless? How old were you when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot?
I’m not asking you to reveal details about your private life and family life by projecting them onto your opponent, Mr. Gerdes. But if you want to do it nevertheless and thus increase your value as a demonstration object of "Revisionist" garbage, assuming that is still possible, you are welcome to do so.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #915
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default ATTN: The Mule

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Please notice Roberta's continued refusal to answer / provide the following. It seems the following is just too inconvenient for her to answer and/or provide:

30 Sobibor Qeustions That Roberta Refuses To Answer / Provide:


1 - Tell us on what dates her partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

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

3 - Tell us on what dates her other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

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

5 - Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves.

6 - Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.

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

8 - Tell us what the results were of the analysis of those soil core samples that she claims are: "ashes of human bone and tissue for the light gray stuff, wood ashes for the black stuff and pure bone ashes or lime for the white stuff."

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

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

11 - And last - but certainly not least, we're waiting for Roberta to publish, in "SKEPTIC" magazine, proof that there exists just one mass grave that contains just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka.

Just one camp - just one mass grave - just one percent.

Just one Roberta.

One.

12 - What are you waiting for Roberta?

13 - After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?

14 - Are you some kind of coward Roberta, or what?


Now, let’s remind everyone what the mentally ill jewbitch wrote earlier:

Quote: Originally Posted by Gerdes

She hasn't been able to even prove that the "huge mass grave" of Sobibor exists;


Roberta:

Actually I’m able to prove the existence of all of these mass graves by simply referring to Prof. Kola’s description.”


15 - Yes Roberta, could you tell us again what Kola “described” finding in the “huge mass graves” of Sobibor?


Roberta:

“Proof is contained in Prof. Kola’s published report about his findings on site, and in the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Sobibor, which is compatible with Kola’s findings.”


16 - And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta?

17 - And where can we find this published report?


Roberta:

“This proof is and has been accepted by historians and criminal investigators, Gerdes. So unless you can show relevant rules or standards of evidence that these people did not comply with or strong indications of evidence manipulation, it is proof for the purpose of our discussion as well (and may even be considered proof for the purpose of meeting your "challenge" by a court of law, so better be more specific about what kind of proof you want – that’s well meaning advice)... Because Prof. Kola said so and there’s no reason to doubt the statements of this renowned archeologist, especially as they are also in line with what all other known evidence tells us about Sobibor… And the reason to doubt the archeologist’s public statement that would support this "allegedly" is?”

18 - And what did Kola say again Roberta?

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

20 - BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from the queations about the soil core samples of Sobibor?

21 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is?

22 - They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right?

23 - They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?

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

25 - Goddess: "When can Herr Gerdes expect to find it in his mail-box? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.)

26 - Retardo:

"Gerdes’ mouthing-off against the above-mentioned entities may turn out to be a shot in the foot, however. I can imagine members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project or the "Friends of Sobibor Remembrance" association getting angry enough, upon reading Gerdes' crap, to decide that it's time to teach the bigmouth a lesson and publish evidence meeting the NAFCASH challenge requirements just in order to humiliate the fellow, independently of whether or not they can realistically expect payment of the reward amount."

When can I expect this to happen Roberta? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.)

27 - If you were Andrzej Kola or Yoram Haimi, and the "huge mass graves" allegedly found at Sobibor are not a hoax, just how long would it take you to send off to "SKEPTIC" magazine all the proof in the world needed to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE reward?

28 - And what about Shammer - what the hell is he waiting for?

29 - How old were you Roberta, when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot?

30 - How long is it now that you've had AIDS?
Just answer the questions, Mule. If you cannot, state it. Why are you now demanding that you be "politely" asked for your replies. Ridiculous. No one here is going to bother addressing you as MR. anything.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #916
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Now I’ll be a nice guy and try to stop the spoilt brat’s crying by taking a look at the questions he makes such a fuss about.

A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
1 - Tell us on what dates her partner shermer was physically in the Sobibor camp.

2 - Show us photographs that prove he was in said camps on said dates.
Questions irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant questions:

1. Shermer is not my "partner", however desperate poor Gerdes is to make him into that.

2. I don’t know if Shermer was physically in Sobibor camp and if there are any photos showing him there, and I couldn’t care less.

B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
3 - Tell us on what dates her other partner Kola was physically in the Sobibor camp.

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

5 - Show us photographs of Kola excavating the alleged graves.

6 - Show us photographs proving that said graves actually exist.
Questions irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ), and also of limited if any relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to these questions of limited if any relevance:

1. Prof. Kola is not my "partner", however desperate poor Gerdes is to make him into that. He is, if anything, a potential source of information.

2. The dates on which Prof. Kola conducted his investigations at Sobibor in 2001 must have been prior to the Reuters press release of 23 November 2001:

Quote:
(Reuters Nov., 23, 2001)

MASS GRAVES FOUND AT NAZI POLISH DEATH CAMP

"Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said on Friday they had found mass graves at the site, which was evacuated by German occupying forces in October 1943 after a prisoner uprising. The excavations were the first since World War Two at the former camp, which was subsequently forested over. They could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims, mainly Jews, who died in the Sobibor gas chambers. According to official Polish accounts, 250,000 people were killed in Sobibor, which was opened in May 1942 and lies close to the eastern border with Ukraine.''We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned,'' archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters.''We also found a hospital barracks. The people there were probably shot, as we found over 1,800 machine gun cartridges,'' Kola said.''In the woods we found remnants of barbed wire, which enabled us to reconstruct the boundary of the camp.'' Few prisoners survived Sobibor among them some of the 300 who broke out of the camp on October 14, 1943. Eighty were caught soon after escaping, but some survived the war."
2. No photos of Prof. Kola in person doing excavation work have to my knowledge been published. However, I have been informed by the director of the Sobibor Archaeology Project, Mr. Yoram Haimi, that the photos shown under http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...nia/index.html are related to Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation in 2001.

3. While no photographs are required to prove that the mass graves actually exist, the three photographs from the above-mentioned series obviously show substances taken with a core drill out of Sobibor mass graves, which are clearly distinguishable from the light brown soil of Sobibor.







The light gray substance on the first two photos must be ashes of human bone and tissue.

The black substance on the second photo must be wood ash.

The white substance on the third photo must be either bone ash or lime.

My assumptions regarding the nature of these substances are supported by

a) their aspect
b) their context (Prof. Kola’s investigation in 2001, the essential result of which was finding the mass graves) , and
c) the absence of any alternative theory (at least Gerdes has provided none) as to what these substances might be.

C.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
7 - Tell us what Polish government entity that commissioned Kola's "work."
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

On the site http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/historia/index.htm , which is quoted in my post # 807 on this thread (Gerdes should read my posts before hacking away), the following is stated:

Quote:
In 2000-2001 the proper archeological research was initiated by professor Andrzej Kola's team from the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, commissioned by the Council for Protection of Memory of the Battle and Martyrdom in Warsaw (Kola 2000, 2001).
D.

Quote:
8 - Tell us what the results were of the analysis of those soil core samples that she claims are: "ashes of human bone and tissue for the light gray stuff, wood ashes for the black stuff and pure bone ashes or lime for the white stuff."
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also of limited if any relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to question of limited if any relevance:

I am not familiar at this moment with the results of such analysis, which have not been published. However, it seems reasonable to assume that if such analysis was done – which is probably the case – , the results confirmed my assumptions mentioned in answer B.3 above.

E.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
9 - Show us proof that the "huge ash mountain" of Sobibor is actually comprised of human ash.
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ), but of relevance for the "bonus reward" of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to question of limited relevance:

All captioned photos showing this mound of ash, while not necessarily if at all describing it as "huge" or as a "mountain", refer to it as being made up of or containing human ash. Photos of this mound include, without limitation, the photos shown under item IV.2.3 in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 and those shown under the following links:

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor039.html

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor040.html

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor043.html

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...obibor082.html

The aspect of the substance that the mound consists of, which has a light gray coloration different from the light-brown color of the soil at Sobibor (see photos mentioned in answer B.3 above) suggests the accuracy of captions describing this mound as a mound consisting of or containing human ashes.

So does the associated documentary and eyewitness evidence proving that Sobibor was an extermination camp and that the bodies of the victims were disposed of by burning them, which is mentioned in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 .

The conclusion that the mound in question is comprised of human ash is thus the conclusion that is borne out by all known evidence and belied by none. It is also the conclusion towards which various sources of evidence independent of each other converge. This convergence of various sources of evidence independent of each other, alone or together with the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is proof that the mound in question is comprised of human ash.

F.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
10 - Show us were the huge pit is that this "mountain of human ash" was dug out of.
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ), and also without relevance for the "bonus reward" or the main reward of the NAFCASH challenge, as currently worded under http://www.nafcash.com/ .

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

The human ashes that the mound at Sobibor is comprised of may have been dug out of one of more of the pits discovered by Prof. Kola in 2001. They were probably brought to the surface by postwar robbery digging, which would mean it is impossible to determine which of the grave pits contained these specific ashes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
11 - And last - but certainly not least, we're waiting for Roberta to publish, in "SKEPTIC" magazine, proof that there exists just one mass grave that contains just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka.
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway with all the mass graves it entails, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ), but of relevance within the context of the NAFCASH challenge. It will be answered in the form required on the NAFCASH site when the necessary information is available, interest and availability on the part of SKEPTIC magazine provided.

G.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
12 - What are you waiting for Roberta?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

On a long-term perspective, I’m waiting for the results of archaeological work that is currently being carried out on site, and for a chance to gain access to such results.

On a short-term perspective, I’m waiting for Gerdes to further humiliate himself with his infantile"“show me, show me, right here and now" – demands, his obvious cowardice and his equally obvious mendacity.

H.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
13 - After all, you do want to put an end to holocaust denial - don't you?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

Sometimes I do, sometimes I find true believers like Gerdes so much fun that I think it would be a shame if they stopped their imbecile rants.

I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
14 - Are you some kind of coward Roberta, or what?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

I wouldn’t continue calling me a coward if I were you, Gerdes. That’s because every time you do, I can point to the flagrant examples of your own cowardice listed in post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 , as I shall do from now on, and thus show our readers time and again that you’re projecting your own behavior.

J.

Quote:
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.”

15 - Yes Roberta, could you tell us again what Kola “described” finding in the “huge mass graves” of Sobibor?

Roberta:

“Proof is contained in Prof. Kola’s published report about his findings on site, and in the documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Sobibor, which is compatible with Kola’s findings.”

16 - And what were Kola’s findings again Roberta?

17 - And where can we find this published report?

Roberta:

“This proof is and has been accepted by historians and criminal investigators, Gerdes. So unless you can show relevant rules or standards of evidence that these people did not comply with or strong indications of evidence manipulation, it is proof for the purpose of our discussion as well (and may even be considered proof for the purpose of meeting your "challenge" by a court of law, so better be more specific about what kind of proof you want – that’s well meaning advice)... Because Prof. Kola said so and there’s no reason to doubt the statements of this renowned archeologist, especially as they are also in line with what all other known evidence tells us about Sobibor… And the reason to doubt the archeologist’s public statement that would support this "allegedly" is?”

18 - And what did Kola say again Roberta?
Questions of limited if any relevance for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also of limited if any relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to questions of limited if any relevance:

1. What Prof Kola told a Polish news agency, according to the Reuters press release of 23 November 2001 quoted in answer B.2 above, was the following:

Quote:
''We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned,'' archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters.''We also found a hospital barracks. The people there were probably shot, as we found over 1,800 machine gun cartridges,'' Kola said.''In the woods we found remnants of barbed wire, which enabled us to reconstruct the boundary of the camp.''
2. While Kola made the above-quoted public statement about the findings of his archaeological research, he has not yet published an archaeological report like he did following his excavations at Belzec in 1997-1999.

3. Gerdes seems to think that Prof. Kola’s description of the mass graves’ contents as "charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay" contradicts or is contradicted by the core samples mentioned in answer B.3. He is therefore once more invited to read what I wrote in post # 840 and repeated in several posts thereafter (which still applies, except I now know that the core samples are from Prof. Kola's investigation):

Quote:
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.
K.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
19 - Oh, and please give us a list of the "historians and criminal investigators" that have "accepted" this alleged "proof."
Questions of limited if any relevance for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also of limited if any relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to questions of limited if any relevance:

If the question refers to the physical evidence discovered by Prof. Kola alone, I think it has been mentioned in a recent book about Aktion Reinhard(t) by Polish historian Bogdan Musial, but I’m not sure and will check. I have not seen any historian or criminal investigator calling in question the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s description of his archaeological findings.

If, on the other hand, the question refers to the eyewitness and documentary evidence that alone is sufficient to prove the mass murder at Sobibor, some of which is mentioned in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 , here are the summaries of trials before West German courts at which defendants were sentenced, on hand of documentary and/or eyewitness evidence, for crimes committed at Sobibor extermination camp:

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng212.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng233.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng641.htm

http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng642.htm

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

The complete texts of the judgments at these trials can be individually ordered via the University of Amsterdam’s Justiz und NS-Verbrechen website under http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/inhaltsverzeichnis.htm . The price was € 25 apiece last time I ordered a judgment text.

As to historians who have written about the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps, including but not limited to Sobibor, I recommend the works of Yitzhak Arad, Christopher Browning, Christian Gerlach, Dieter Pohl and Bogdan Musial.

L.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
20 - BTW Roberta, why do you keep running from the queations about the soil core samples of Sobibor?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

As lying Gerdes well knows, the only one who has been running away from questions regarding these core drill samples:

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


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


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


is Gerdes himself. I have asked him several times what, other than ashes of human bone and tissue, wood ashes, bone ash or lime the substances distinguishable from the light-brown soil in these samples could possibly be. He has neither provided an alternative explanation and nor had the courage to at least openly admit that he has no alternative explanation.

M.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
21 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say it is?

22 - They’re the ones who analysed the core samples – right?

23 - They DID analyse the core samples – didn't they Roberta?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

1. Unlike Mr. Gerdes and others of his ilk, the members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project are not frauds. They are serious and competent archaeologists.

2. What I have learned from them about these samples is that they pertain to Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation in 2001, see above answer B.2.

3. This means that if – as is probably the case – these core samples were analyzed to confirm that they contain what their aspect suggests, this was done in 2001 by or on behalf of Prof. Kola’s team, and not by or on behalf of the Sobibor Archaeology Project.

N.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
24 - BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that you're priceless?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

Gerdes is a lousy imitator of a term I have appropriately applied to him, for if anyone here is priceless, it is Gerdes – priceless as a demonstration object of cowardice, mendacity and obnoxiousness such as is hard to find even in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.

O.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
25 - Goddess: "When can Herr Gerdes expect to find it in his mail-box? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.)

26 - Retardo:

"Gerdes’ mouthing-off against the above-mentioned entities may turn out to be a shot in the foot, however. I can imagine members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project or the "Friends of Sobibor Remembrance" association getting angry enough, upon reading Gerdes' crap, to decide that it's time to teach the bigmouth a lesson and publish evidence meeting the NAFCASH challenge requirements just in order to humiliate the fellow, independently of whether or not they can realistically expect payment of the reward amount."

When can I expect this to happen Roberta? (An approximate date, if not a specific one will be fine.)
Questions irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant questions:

When the archaeological work is done and the results have been evaluated. According to my last conversation with Yoram Haimi, this professional archaeologist considers it below his level to publish evidence just in order to address the claims of a hopeless crackpot. Archaeological evidence is published for the purpose of enhancing scientific and historical knowledge and for everyone’s benefit. When the results of the current archaeological investigations are published in a scientific magazine, they will include much more than just the evidence necessary to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements. And I will see to it that Mr. Gerdes gets a free copy of the scientific magazine in which this evidence shall be published.

P.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
27 - If you were Andrzej Kola or Yoram Haimi, and the "huge mass graves" allegedly found at Sobibor are not a hoax, just how long would it take you to send off to "SKEPTIC" magazine all the proof in the world needed to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE reward?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

As long as it takes for my archaeological work to be completed and duly remunerated, for the results to be evaluated and for an article that meets the requirements of a scientific magazine to be written. I wouldn’t necessarily publish such article in SKEPTIC magazine, which is not necessarily related to issues of archaeology and/or history, but prefer something like ARCHAEOLOGY magazine. And I wouldn’t give a flying fuck about some howling lunatic’s fraudulent "FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE" and a reward for which I would probably have to run after 21 characterless and probably also penniless frauds, made from the same used toilet paper as Mr. Gerdes, for the part of the reward amount to which each of them has supposedly committed.

However, I might make available evidence material to who feels like making those frauds put their money where their mouths are, or at least humiliate the most obnoxious of those frauds.

Q.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
28 - And what about Shammer - what the hell is he waiting for?
Question irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

Ask Mr. Shermer if he is interested in your transparently fraudulent "challenge". I have nothing to do with Mr. Shermer, and even if I had I would still not be stinking Gerdes’ messenger.

R.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
29 - How old were you Roberta, when your dad first figured out that you were a faggot?

30 - How long is it now that you've had AIDS?
Questions irrelevant for the purpose of proving mass murder at Sobibor (which has already been proven anyway, see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) and also without relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge.

Nice guy’s answer to irrelevant question:

You don’t have to tell us your personal and family history, Mr. Gerdes. But if you insist in doing so by projecting it onto your opponent, be my guest.

Now, Mr. Gerdes, can we move to the questions I have asked you and you have never answered, and to further questions I would like to ask you? The list is quite a long one, and unlike most of your questions, they are all pertinent and relevant. Can I post a list of my questions, and will you try to answer them to the best of your knowledge and ability as I have just answered your questions?

YES or NO, Mr. Gerdes?

While you think about an answer, I turn to the other two stooges – the company you obviously cannot do without.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #917
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
Maybe because you didn’t word your question clearly enough. Maybe because I felt like baiting you a little. You’ll never know.

The question was clear: What is pride? What does being a proud German mean to you?
Meaning includes consequence, doesn’t it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Baiting is a futile, time wasting exercise.
That’s why I don’t do it very often. But some of your brothers-in-spirit seem to love it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
I think you imagined you were going to be able to talk your way out of an error and now that your imagination has reached it's limit you tacitly admit as much.
I’m not conscious of an error. The most you can claim is that we misunderstood each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Actually it was neither complicated nor an attempt to spread the issue. It was a clear explanation of my position.

It was an imaginative attempt to cover an error: your assertion that pride leads to hate;
My assertion was that pride may lead to hate, just like fear, and it expresses a conviction that I see no need to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
contrast that against your apparent inability to understand that an insult is still an insult whether truthful or not.
Did I show such inability? I have no problem with accepting that calling someone an obnoxious asshole is an insult even if that someone is your friend Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, but both may result from pride when the object of pride suffers harm.

Why bring outrage into a discussion on the meaning of pride? It's spreading and that's simple deception.
No, outrage is related to pride, as a possible consequence of pride when the object of pride is harmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Still no more logic, and I definitely like the "Jew". It illustrates the deplorable contents of your skull.

This grasping insult changes nothing.
That’s right, it especially doesn’t make the "Jew" look any better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
That you’ll have to explain in some detail, my friend. What does Occam’s Razor have to do with an opinion of mine that happens to differ from yours?

My argument is simple and consistent, yours is complicated, shifting and evasive. Occams' razor has nothing to do with differing from my opinion.
Simple and consistent is what I consider my argument to be, somewhat incoherent is how your argument comes across to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Unless that issue was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, your argument is singularly irrelevant.

Non sequitur: the rabbi deliberately gave a speech which was spread via an international Jew magazine. He or one of the others present should've taken a picture for the sake of the unfaithful.
You are baselessly postulating that the issue of the article was proving the crimes committed at Chelmno, and even in that case the shortage of photographs (there’s one in the article, actually) wouldn’t mean a thing. Actually the issue was desecration of human remains, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the author had refrained from copiously photographing such remains lest he be guilty of some of the behavior he was complaining about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, the postulation that there should be "meaningful photos" is hollow conjecture.

Now you assert that the reasonable expectation of photographic proof of what is claimed to exist in abundance is hollow conjecture.
Photographic illustration of physical evidence might be a reasonable expectation in the context of a present-day forensic investigation, but in the context of a religiously motivated complaint about desecration of human remains it is rather unreasonable to expect such illustration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, it doesn’t make your "explanation" look any better indeed.

Still, this doesn't change the fact that you seperate sentences and respond out of context in niggardly fashion.
Did I? If so, my apologies. And you should be careful with describing one of Mr. Gerdes’ common practices in such terms, he might resent it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
By a true believer hooked on baseless preconceived notions? That’s the lousiest guarantee I can think of.

You do - as is shown by this thread - , and will critically assess all things in favour of Jewish interests; using material logic based on the premise that what is good for Jews is real, and what is bad for Jews is false, with some give and take for the sake of appearances.
That’s just more of the same "guarantee" from the same lousy source, actually. Unlike yours and that of your brothers-in-spirit, my reasoning does not follow the criterion of convenience to certain interests. If it happens to favor certain interests, that’s but an incidental consequence of following the evidence where it leads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, it works for or against any party at a judicial proceeding, depending on the circumstances. It’s relevant insofar as you claimed it was a "Jewish" standard, and I don’t see where the obfuscation might be.

It protects a dubious claim made by Jews, all else is irrelevant and intended to spread the issue.
No, the rule of evidence in question never protects dubious claims. It only protects claims that have already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
We don’t have to go there to find answers about what happened; that has been proven on hand of other evidence already. Going there to enhance historical knowledge is fine, and that’s what the current investigations (like any archaeological investigations) are doing.

We do have to go there to find answers;
Answers to what relevant and reasonable questions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
why do current investigations beat about the bush when hardcore evidence is supposed to be everywhere?
How exactly are current investigations supposed to be beating about the bush?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
We need to brush aside the emotionalistic defensive barriers that surround the centerpiece of this ostensibly inscrutable issue.
The centerpiece of this "ostensibly inscrutable issue" has long been laid bare without regard for any "emotionalistic defensive barriers". Nobody cared about the emotions of survivor eyewitnesses when they were "grilled" in cross-examination before West German courts, and the essential facts of this "issue" have been laid bare by participants in the killing, in court or in documents issued at the time of the killing. What we need to do now is brush aside any barriers – emotionalistic, administrative or whatever – that hinder expanding our knowledge about this "issue" through archaeological research.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #918
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mule

What information I have used is "outdated" and/or "false", and how so? Please be specific.

Heh, well I would pretty much be forced to provide link to near every single relevant post you have made on this thread in order to be specific.
Another of your smokescreens of nonsense to cover your retreat. Don’t run away. Most of the evidence I have provided is listed in post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 and in posts that this post links to, so you can stick to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
What charges were "illegal to begin with", and how so?

Stop being specious, it's unbecoming since you lay claim to being a "proud" German; representative of the average German of today and are not a jew. You know full well which charges.
No I don’t, and judging by your evasive answer you don’t know either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Those "outrageous claims" have long been proven

Had they been sufficiently proven then my generation would not be so willing to give more credence to Revisionist discussion than the pap being produced by kikes and holocaustians and crammed down our throat since birth. If nothing else, my generation are the biggest proof that Holocaustianity and the Hoax have failed to ensnare and/or impress - and that's putting it mildly.
You must suffer from a serious bout of megalomania to claim that you speak for your generation.

And even if your generation consisted entirely of bloodthirsty fanatics like yourself, that still wouldn’t change the fact that the "outrageous claims" you ramble against (because they don’t fit your preconceived notions and for no other reason) have long been proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Actually "Revisionists" don't have an argument to begin with,

Obviously Revisionists do have a very good argument or else you would not be here, attempting to debate Revisionism.
That’s a classic non-sequitur, my darling. There are several reasons why people may want to discuss with you beautiful people. One is concern that your lies may be believed by an ignorant and gullible public. Another is that the filth you spout is simply too disgusting to be left unanswered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Which is really what you have altered the thread to; rather than the original discussion.
In what posts am I supposed to have altered the thread to exactly what, my dear? Show me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
the longer you and Gerdes suffer in anticipation of what is to come, the better.

HA. Yes we will "suffer" - I suppose. However, in the end, we will not. And, this point has nothing at all to do with you and your jewish passive-aggressive resistance ploy, it, like the Hoax itself, is an over-played hand, no longer effective nor relevant to my generation. You really are out of touch.
First sentence after the "HA" a reluctant admission of anxiety, second an attempt to cope with that anxiety (and also a touching statement of faith), third and fourth just nonsensical babbling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
But apart from the fact that it will take some time until I have access to results of archaeological work and related information, I'm in no hurry to put an end to your and Gerdes' anxiety, as I said before.

Ah, but demanding to take as long a time as you deem has effectively put an end to your anxieties.
Sorry, darling, but you don’t sound convincing at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Which means to me, you have conceded the more immediate discussion and debate - ie, this thread, your acceptance of the challenge - fluctuating gurantees that your work is in the mail; ect.
I don’t remember having said that my work was "in the mail" or announced that the challenge requirements would be met any time soon. What I remember is having said that archaeological work takes time and results will be available when they are available.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Talk about jewish projection, you are a master of it.
I don’t think you can explain what I’m supposed to be projecting. And you better don’t make projection Jewish, for that would make your friend Gerdes a Jew and maybe yourself as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
Are you? Then start showing some patience,

Yes. I am patient. And, after some several hundred odd posts of yours on this thread, the fact that you are still being allowed to post your nonsense here is proof of the overall patience of the forum in general.
Unlike you and your brothers-in-spirit, I don’t post nonsense. And thanks for admitting that it takes "patience" not to censor or ban opposition posters. The finger on the "delete" button is always itching, isn’t it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
instead of jumping up and down yelling "when will you show me this and that?".

More jewish projection; actually it has been yourself, with occassional assistance from Slammin that have been "jumping up and down and yelling" ;
No, I’ve kept my cool, especially if compared to your hysterical friend Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
making demands,
Like demanding that my pertinent questions be answered and the evidence I show as well as the reasonable arguments I make are addressed? I’d say I’m entitled to that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
then refusing to follow through on the required reading and research when your demands are met.
Boy, I’d like to see some examples of that. With post numbers and links, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
You really do behave like a female, a jewish bitch in fact.
Actually you are aptly describing bitching fish-wife Gerdes. I would check his Aryan background, if I were you (and as we’re at it, I would also check your Aryan background if I were any of the other White folks here, considering how splendidly you contribute to making "Revisionism" look like the sick-minded filth it is).

Quote:
Originally Posted by EG
Quote:
You will be shown what needs to be shown to meet the NAFCASH challenge requirements when it is there to be shown, period

Heh. This is your "grande finale" statement of concession; and you do not even realise it.
I see you’re desperate enough to read a concession into what is just a plain statement of fact. But you’re not alone in this wishful thinking, it’s a common trait in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #919
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
Just answer the questions, Mule. If you cannot, state it. Why are you now demanding that you be "politely" asked for your replies. Ridiculous. No one here is going to bother addressing you as MR. anything.
Panicking already, my oh-so-patient sugar?

Read # 916.
 
Old July 31st, 2008 #920
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
Another of your smokescreens of nonsense to cover your retreat. Don’t run away.
Heh, I do not run away. Nor create smokescreens. More projection.
Quote:

Most of the evidence I have provided is listed in post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 and in posts that this post links to, so you can stick to that.
No, I do not have to "stick to that"; it's a shoddy reply and provides nothing new.


Quote:
You must suffer from a serious bout of megalomania to claim that you speak for your generation.
No, it's actually a matter under discussion; particularly amongst jews and in Germany/Europe; though not so much in America. The lack of belief amongst my generation has even been given a name, it's called "holocaust fatique" - particularly when discussing German youth. I read an article about it just this morning- If I have the time and inclination, I will locate the link - I had thought to post it in the News section of the forum, but didn't bookmark the page.

In the meantime, this man is not WN or NS, he's written an interesting article vis a vis his own awakening to the vagaries of the holocaust and the jews generally; seems like he just figured it out.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-...80729-596.html


Quote:
And even if your generation consisted entirely of bloodthirsty fanatics like yourself, that still wouldn’t change the fact that the "outrageous claims" you ramble against (because they don’t fit your preconceived notions and for no other reason) have long been proven.
Heh - however my generation of "bloodthirsty fanatics" could easily bring about the end of holocaustian insanity and claims - and do it without shedding a drop of blood, neither our own nor anyone elses.

Quote:
One is concern that your lies may be believed by an ignorant and gullible public. Another is that the filth you spout is simply too disgusting to be left unanswered.
Pretence to moral indignation is shakey ground for you Mule. I would try to avoid it were I you.

I do not ask nor demand to be "believed" - I do suggest that the holocaust be thouroughly questioned and investigated - particularly by my generation, if they are even interested in the subject at all, most are not - and I agree with you, they should be very interested; though not for the reason you espouse. Rather the opposite, obviously.

Quote:
In what posts am I supposed to have altered the thread to exactly what, my dear? Show me.
Well, your reply to me in this post is as good an example as any. I had merely reprinted Herr Gerdes questions, a post you have ignored, both his original and my reprint. Then, there are the rest.

Quote:
I don’t remember having said that my work was "in the mail" or announced that the challenge requirements would be met any time soon. What I remember is having said that archaeological work takes time and results will be available when they are available.
That's not what you stated over several, several posts when you first decided to "accept" the challenge; however, refresh my memory if I am wrong - I do however, admit that you did not state when you put your "stuff" in the mail. That's a subject you have been dancing around for several pages.

Quote:
I don’t think you can explain what I’m supposed to be projecting. And you better don’t make projection Jewish, for that would make your friend Gerdes a Jew and maybe yourself as well.
You are projecting your own anxieties onto Revisionists, Revisionism and Folks who are involved with it. And, it is a jewish trait, one learned or taught to non-jews.

Quote:
Unlike you and your brothers-in-spirit, I don’t post nonsense. And thanks for admitting that it takes "patience" not to censor or ban opposition posters. The finger on the "delete" button is always itching, isn’t it?
Nah, it's becoming entertaining actually to watch you increasingly twist and turn and spin with every post. I have no mod powers, nor would I want them; but if I did, I would most definitely continue to allow you to post, Mule.

Quote:
Like demanding that my pertinent questions be answered and the evidence I show as well as the reasonable arguments I make are addressed? I’d say I’m entitled to that.
Yes, you may be "entitled" to that, however, you are not entitled to demand anything on this forum; particularly since you are using abuse to do so.
Quote:

I would check his Aryan background, if I were you (and as we’re at it, I would also check your Aryan background if I were any of the other White folks here,
The juden have already attempted to attack my Aryan background; and, they have failed. I would imagine that any one of the other White Folk here could become subject to the same i-net attack.

Quote:
considering how splendidly you contribute to making "Revisionism" look like the sick-minded filth it is).
How so. I ask that you provide proof, evidence that is credible to me about the hoax. I was raised a National Socialist as that is my personal family background. I do not automatically accept Holocaustianity just because that is what you would desire. I do not make claim to being a Revisionist; however, I have been raised sensibly and to ask questions.
Quote:

I see you’re desperate enough to read a concession into what is just a plain statement of fact. But you’re not alone in this wishful thinking, it’s a common trait in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land
Well, until you provide coherent answers to Herr Gerdes rather simple questions, I continue to take your flat statement as concession. Spin it any way you like.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:55 AM.
Page generated in 0.37224 seconds.