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

Old July 13th, 2008 #621
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Why so many words when "I have nothing but shit inside my head" would have been sufficient?
And you claim not to have a sense of humour, Berty.

Do you really imagine you're going to go where no Jew has gone before and actually prove something that has thus far only been alleged? Are you a better Jew than all previous/other Jews? Perhaps you're the one, the Messianic 'Caust Enforcer; the title kind of suits you.

Regards, the Furious Reverend.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #622
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Sorry, I missed this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by psychologicalshock View Post
This doesn't require examples as anyone in a court of law who fails to do this shouldn't be judging.

But okay ill play along, look at the court case posted

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZS.html

By those standards Krege would be fine, your Polack wouldn't be.
Err, this is about the standards that must be met by someone who is to testify before the court as an expert.

It has nothing to do with the level of detail that an examining judge's site investigation report on the physical evidence must comply with.

Two different pairs of boots, so please try again.

As to Krege's qualification to testify as an expert before a court of law on the subject matter of his "forensic examination", I guess Slanim has already said what needs to be said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PS
Nope the Court was over in Nuremberg, this is no longer a court since the one being judged is deciding if he is guilty or not. This is a kangaroo court if it's a court.
As Slanim said, there were many trials after the Nuremberg trials before the IMT and the NMT, which despite some shortcomings especially of the former can on the whole be considered a fair and honest effort to establish the relevant facts. Most of these trials were conducted according to the defendant-friendly procedural rules of the German Federal Republic.

And while our discussion is of course not a court of law, we should be clear among ourselves according to what rules of evidence we assess the evidence we look at. The disciplines assessing evidence for the purpose of reconstructing events past and proving them beyond a reasonable doubt are historical research and criminal justice, so either of them should be our guideline here. Criminal justice applies the stricter standards, at least under a constitutional state's legal system, because a citizen's life or freedom is at issue.

[Posted on 14-07-2008 at 0:17 GMT under http://206.41.117.128/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=73168 ]
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #623
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Sorry, I missed this post:



Err, this is about the standards that must be met by someone who is to testify before the court as an expert.

It has nothing to do with the level of detail that an examining judge's site investigation report on the physical evidence must comply with.

Two different pairs of boots, so please try again.

As to Krege's qualification to testify as an expert before a court of law on the subject matter of his "forensic examination", I guess Slanim has already said what needs to be said.



As Slanim said, there were many trials after the Nuremberg trials before the IMT and the NMT, which despite some shortcomings especially of the former can on the whole be considered a fair and honest effort to establish the relevant facts. Most of these trials were conducted according to the defendant-friendly procedural rules of the German Federal Republic.

And while our discussion is of course not a court of law, we should be clear among ourselves according to what rules of evidence we assess the evidence we look at. The disciplines assessing evidence for the purpose of reconstructing events past and proving them beyond a reasonable doubt are historical research and criminal justice, so either of them should be our guideline here. Criminal justice applies the stricter standards, at least under a constitutional state's legal system, because a citizen's life or freedom is at issue.

[Posted on 14-07-2008 at 0:17 GMT under http://206.41.117.128/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=73168 ]
You made it clear that Jew control of these so called disciplines is of no consequence. As non Jews we consider these standards to be bogus because of the duality of Jewish law. Claiming objectivity whilst acting in total complicity with the Jew agenda again?

What does pride mean to you? What is the difference between a German, proud and not?
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #624
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Roberta:

"I’m still waiting for that e-mail"

Here it is Roberta / Guadalupe:
My name is Roberto Muehlenkamp. Guadalupe Salcedo, the name in my e-mail address, was a Colombian guerrilla leader in the 1950s civil war.

Sorry, Gerdes, but this:

Quote:
Nafcash reserves the right to make additions, deletions and/or modifications to any challenge it offers at any time, as long as those additions, deletions and/or modifications don't alter in any way the original contractual agreement between nafcash and the supporters of the challenge reward or the fundamental requirements of laying claim to the reward offered.

All additions, deletions and/or modifications must comply and be in complete accordance with the contracts fundamental nature, so any additions, deletions and/or modifications cannot and will not alter the fundamental nature of the contracts ALREADY SIGNED by the supporters of the challenge reward.

Because all contracts entered into (in order to be legally binding) by nafcash and the supporters of it’s challenges are perishable, no monetary amount can be "locked in" unless and until the claimant to the challenge reward has met the EXPRESSED requirement of having the required proof published in the required publications. (Skeptic and/or Archaeology magazines.)

Whatever amount is being offered by nafcash ON THE DAY OF PUBLICATION is the amount that becomes "locked in." And on that day, one meets the requirement as to becoming a CLAIMANT only. No guarantee has ever been expressed or implied by nafcash that by meeting the requirements to become a claimant automatically entitles said claimant to the reward, and no amount of bazaar mental gymnastics by certain mentally ill people will alter this fact.
is not to be read on the NAFCASH site under http://nafcash.com/ at this moment, unless I missed something (if so, please tell me where it is).

I neither saw it in your post # 495, in which you first announced the "bonus".

Nor was in your posts nos. 513, 543, 557 and 590, in which you repeated/updated the new wording of the challenge requirements.

Did you add it this afternoon, after I had already accepted the challenge according to the NAFCASH conditions as amended according to these posts?

That’s real cute.

And so is the babbling about the contracts between your "association" and the supporters of the challenge. What is an applicant to the reward to know about these contracts, and why should an applicant to the reward care about them? The only conditions that are of interest between NAFCASH and the applicant are those that are agreed between these two.

It’s also interesting to know that the challenge may disappear from one moment to the other, and that meeting the challenge requirements doesn’t guarantee receiving the reward but makes one a claimant only. What this means is "If you meet the challenge requirements with evidence published in ARCHAEOLOGY or SKEPTIC magazine, we may (not will) pay you the reward", isn’t it?

These conditions alone make it seem rather unsurprising that I – from what I have gathered – am the first applicant.

I wasn’t even concerned about "locking in" the amount, by the way. What I want to see "locked in", and I think I expressed myself clearly enough in this respect, are the requirements as currently stipulated:

Requirements for the main reward:
Quote:
You must prove the grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions - however, to qualify for the reward; You need only to prove that the grave contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder.
Requirements for the "bonus":
Mass grave must be from Sobibor + applicant (from limited number of named individuals) must furthermore «prove that Sobibors alleged “giant pile of human ash” is actually composed of human ash».

Are these unchangeable "fundamental requirements of laying claim to the reward offered" in the sense of your above-quoted addition, Mr. Gerdes? If they are, I have no further questions. So please confirm that they are, again by e-mail to [email protected]

The hysterical gibberish in your posts nos. 616 to 619 (the usual collection of nonsensical assertions and the staple Gerdian invective – calling his opponents cowards to cover up his own blatant cowardice, liars to cover up his own blatant mendacity, and homosexuals to cover up his own apparent homosexual tendencies) I will not dignify by detailed comments, I might as well comment a drunken beer-hall bum’s incoherent verbal vomit. Just one part that particularly amused me, from post # 619:

Quote:
Make no mistake, I absolutely love the fact that Roberta is saying she's going to publish things I've said on this site. I couldn't be happier. Is that supposed to intimidate me in some way Roberta? LOL!!!

BRING IT ON YOU DIRTY BITCH!
No, Gerdes, I’m not trying to intimidate you. I’m just letting you know that I’m putting together a collection of the most amusing showpieces of your rabid imbecility, which I may feel like entertaining the readers of HC with, and kindly asking you to keep contributing to that collection (a request you have so far done your best to comply with, thanks!). What do you think would be the best title for this collection: "Words of a Pathetic Loser Trying to Get Even with the World", “The best of Greg Gerdes all in one place”, or a combination of both?
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #625
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Do you really imagine you're going to go where no Jew has gone before and actually prove something that has thus far only been alleged?
No, I don’t need to prove something that largely non-Jewish criminal investigators and historians had proven long before my first acquaintance with the "Revisionist" belief system. My ambition is more in the sense of exhibiting you folks as particularly amusing specimens of the "Revisionist" zoo, and I must say you have been most cooperative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Are you a better Jew than all previous/other Jews? Perhaps you're the one, the Messianic 'Caust Enforcer; the title kind of suits you.
That was one of those most cooperative statements. Got more?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
You made it clear that Jew control of these so called disciplines is of no consequence. As non Jews we consider these standards to be bogus due to the duality of Jewish law. Claiming objectivity whilst acting in total complicity with the Jew agenda again?
Wow, this was even better: "We don’t care about criminal justice and historiography because we believe it is all controlled by the Jew". Amen.

Any more contributions? Oh yeah:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
What does pride mean to you?
Not nodding to what crackpots say but speaking my mind about it, among other things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
What is the difference between a German, proud and not?
The proud one tells you people what he thinks of your articles of faith, for example.

The not-so-proud one prefers to mind his own business.
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #626
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
No, I don’t need to prove something that largely non-Jewish criminal investigators and historians had proven long before my first acquaintance with the "Revisionist" belief system. My ambition is more in the sense of exhibiting you folks as particularly amusing specimens of the "Revisionist" zoo, and I must say you have been most cooperative.



That was one of those most cooperative statements. Got more?



Wow, this was even better: "We don’t care about criminal justice and historiography because we believe it is all controlled by the Jew". Amen.

Any more contributions? Oh yeah:



Not nodding to what crackpots say but speaking my mind about it, among other things.



The proud one tells you people what he thinks of your articles of faith, for example.

The not-so-proud one prefers to mind his own business.
All non sequitur: the penultimate resort of a liar; the last being disengenuity; one of your predictable traits.

Kangaroo courts that use fallacious terminology such as "reasonably indisputable" should be considered enemy territory. The war of perception is waged in these bogus, predetermined scenarios.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #627
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Default

I see Gerdes has moved the goal posts on the reward. What an ass.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

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

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 13th, 2008 #628
Wayne
Senior Member
 
Wayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
I see Gerdes has moved the goal posts on the reward. What an ass.
I had a great weekend ... but still there isn't a gassed jew from either Roberto or his sycophant. I expected that. After all, it has been over 65 years and not a single gassed jew has ever been produced.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #629
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
I had a great weekend ... but still there isn't a gassed jew from either Roberto or his sycophant. I expected that. After all, it has been over 65 years and not a single gassed jew has ever been produced.
Trillions of cu.ft. of jew gas has been produced in that time but not one gassed jew!
Go figure!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #630
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
All non sequitur: the penultimate resort of a liar; the last being disengenuity; one of your predictable traits.
Non-sequitur? How so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Kangaroo courts that use fallacious terminology such as "reasonably indisputable" should be considered enemy territory.
Actually such "fallacious terminology" describes standards of proof that are meant to protect the defendant at a criminal trial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
The war of perception is waged in these bogus, predetermined scenarios.
Bar evidence to manipulation and predetermination, what we have here is just another meaningless catchphrase.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #631
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne View Post
I had a great weekend ... but still there isn't a gassed jew from either Roberto or his sycophant. I expected that. After all, it has been over 65 years and not a single gassed jew has ever been produced.
Shit, I knew I had forgotten something. I should have flown to Poland over the weekend, dug out a body in wax-fat transformation from the bottom of a Belzec or Sobibor mass grave and had it examined by an expert in forensic medicine. Maybe signs of carbon monoxide poisoning or suffocation are detectable in a 65-year-old rotten stiff.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #632
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
I see Gerdes has moved the goal posts on the reward. What an ass.
What has changed? Do you mean what I mentioned in post # 624, or something else?
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #633
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Non-sequitur? How so?

Actually such "fallacious terminology" describes standards of proof that are meant to protect the defendant at a criminal trial.

Bar evidence to manipulation and predetermination, what we have here is just another meaningless catchphrase.
More non sequitur: your quasi legalistic jargon responses do not follow; they demonstrate how well you deceive yourself or how stupid you can be, Mattoid.

Quote:
Under Evidence Code Section 452(h), this court does take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed to death at the Auschwitz Concentration Camp in Poland during the summer of 1944.... It is not reasonably subject to dispute, and it is capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. It is simply a fact.
I'd say this is proof of predetermination; your "meaningless catchphrase" catchphrase is the meaningless catchphrase.

This "it is simply a fact" standard is a standard that protects who?
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #634
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
jewsign

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Shit, I knew I had forgotten something. I should have flown to Poland over the weekend, dug out a body in wax-fat transformation from the bottom of a Belzec or Sobibor mass grave and had it examined by an expert in forensic medicine. Maybe signs of carbon monoxide poisoning or suffocation are detectable in a 65-year-old rotten stiff.
Maybe you should have, you or some other Blabberstein! You can't have it both ways, Hymie. Despite what your Talmudic toilet paper (sc)rolls tell you! If you want to keep pimping your Holycost(tm) myth down the worlds collective throat either produce the forensic evidence, of which there should be literally tons of, or shut your bagel hole! The end is near for the gefilte gang, Hymie! Nobody believes your carp crap anymore!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.

Last edited by MikeTodd; July 14th, 2008 at 10:22 AM.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #635
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

Isn't it just hilarious watching Roberta cry like a little girl over the fact she can't alter the conditions of the nafcash challenge to her liking?

Only a jew...

Roberta:

"These conditions alone make it seem rather unsurprising that I – from what I have gathered – am the first applicant."

You are not an "applicant." You haven't "applied" for anything. One cannot become an applicant / claimant unless and until your alleged "proof" is published in said magazines.

You have only made a public statement that you were accepting THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. You can apply / lay claim to the reward when, again, your alleged "proof" is published in said magazines.

Roberta:

"Did you add it this afternoon, after I had already accepted the challenge according to the NAFCASH conditions as amended according to these posts?"

There has been no amending Roberta. All the very simple things that I’ve had to spell out for you was simply done because of the fact that you are so stupid that I have to explain the most elementary things to you that most normal people of normal intelligence would have understood to be self evident.

Clarifying self evident information for a mentally retarded / ill person can only be defined as adding / modifying by a person of very limited intelligence and/or someone suffering from sever mental illness / brain damage. But thanks for parading you stupidity here again. It's always a pleasure to see you flaunt not only your mental illness but your stupidly as well.

Also note:

Roberta's deafening silence on the videos of Chelmno and Sobibor.

BTW Roberta, what camp are you going to use? Have you heard from Shermer yet? Have you gotten a hold of OJ?
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #636
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

Roberta:

"The mass graves at Sobibor seem to have been identified by core drilling rather than excavation"

Can you prove this?

Can you show us one single photo of Kola drilling a core?

Can you show us one single photo of the core samples taken?

And notice how Roberta just admitted that Kola lied when he said he had done excavations at Sobibor.

And BTW Roberta, how much human remains have been excavated to date from the "enormous pit filled with human bones" at Chelmno?

Have you heard from Archaeology magazine yet?

Have you heard from jew-lie-t Golden yet?
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #637
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

FYI Roberta, I am currently working on the next nafcash update that will continue to simplify and clarify the issues surrounding the nonsensical "pure extermination center" myth and the fraudulent claims that they have been proven via archeological excavations.

Rest your damaged little brain about the bonus Sobibor reward, as that will most certainly be included.

I will also address the issue of how long a certain reward requirement, once posted on the site, will be made available for someone to adequately research and lay claim to. However, I think the next update will boil things down to the point that it will be so simple and straightforward, that even a retard like you should be able to understand it.

What I will do is get things to the point - and express - that only minor changes can be made between certain dates - something like locking in certain requirements / reward amounts for a specified length of time. In other words, giving you the guarantee that things wont' change from moment to moment.

The whole process of updating the nafcash site as well as the contracts has been streamlined so it shouldn't be too long to wait for the updated information to get completed and uploaded.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #638
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
What has changed? Do you mean what I mentioned in post # 624, or something else?
Yep, and his weaselness will no doubt change it again.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

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

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #639
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
Yep, and his weaselness will no doubt change it again.
Slammin, never have I come across a jew that is so incapable of basic reading comprehension; either or, more likely you well understand Herr Gerdes last post - which has NOTHING to do with you at all - and, would insist to behave as jews do, ie, in your case, making feeble attempt at wit - something that jews, as a whole, singularly lack to the degree that they should not even make attempt at it.

I will repost Herr Gerdes statement here, for you to study for a few hours; perhaps you might get the jist of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes:

FYI Roberta, I am currently working on the next nafcash update that will continue to simplify and clarify the issues surrounding the nonsensical "pure extermination center" myth and the fraudulent claims that they have been proven via archeological excavations.

Rest your damaged little brain about the bonus Sobibor reward, as that will most certainly be included.

I will also address the issue of how long a certain reward requirement, once posted on the site, will be made available for someone to adequately research and lay claim to. However, I think the next update will boil things down to the point that it will be so simple and straightforward, that even a retard like you should be able to understand it.

What I will do is get things to the point - and express - that only minor changes can be made between certain dates - something like locking in certain requirements / reward amounts for a specified length of time. In other words, giving you the guarantee that things wont' change from moment to moment.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #640
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Default

I thought I heard some tapping, did our Hitler worshiper leave anything behind besides her usual turds?
__________________
RabbitNoMore

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

-----------

Define idiot
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42 AM.
Page generated in 0.62015 seconds.