Archeological Investigations of Treblinka

[ced smythe]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

Actually my first response to your question what being a proud German meant to me was the following:

You made that into "hatred for Hitler" (which I did not object to because I don’t like the fellow indeed), and accused me of "mistaking hate for pride".

I've already posted your responses to a simple unchanging question:

Opposing apologists of the Nazi criminals who led Germany to shame and disaster, among other things.

Considering that he led my country to shame and disaster unparalleled in its milenary history, I don't see why I should not hate the fellow, and why hating him should be incompatible with being proud of my country.

Pride in my country implies hating who damaged it as badly as your beloved Führer did.

I don't need to make anything of your words other than that they were clearly misrepresenting hatred for pride.

I responded saying that I had responded to your original questions by referring to one of the implications or consequences of pride: hating what harmed the object of pride.

You then went splitting hair on not having asked about a consequence of pride but about the meaning of pride, as if meaning did not include consequence.

I pointed out that meaning includes consequence.

You ignored my reply an simply repeated your first stance with the following question:

I thereupon gave you the following possibilities for you to choose from:

Actually the way your question was worded allowed for exemplifying the meaning by pointing to a consequence, which was what I did. The specific example I picked arguably included an element of baiting, considering that it obviously conflicts with your notions of what pride in being German means.

The beauty of your staunch errorism is that you did actually get round to the meaning of pride in the end and this indecent behaviour diminishes the veracity of any claim you make.

No, I gave you "playing a game" as a possibility to choose from. Besides, exemplifying meaning on hand of a consequence and "playing a game" by antagonizing my opponent with the consequence chosen as an example are not mutually exclusive propositions. They may well go together.

Actually your ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments says much about yours.

Yep, from the world outside the cloud-cuckoo-land of ideological fanaticism.

A choice between you playing games and me not putting the crystal clear question clearly enough. You've been playing hair splitting games for nothing.

I don’t think you can explain what I’m supposed to have "deceived" you about and what I’m supposed to have desired confusion about.

You've tried very hard to assert that pride gives rise to hatred and recently you added that pride also gives rise to outrage.

Utter nonsense. I may be convinced of a possibility as I may be convinced of a certainty. And I’d say one has to be a more than a little paranoid to spot an "intention to deceive" in my statement.

No, it indicates differentiating observation that avoids undue generalization, while your comment indicates more than a little paranoia.

Make the conviction then.

It’s an introduction to what follows, and your supposition is baseless.

This is incoherent, non interactive misuse of terminology. Here you are in fine ignorant form:

Originally Posted by ced smythe

...excusing your own (insult) by calling it statement of opinion backed by research or denying the insult - and setting my homework - is petty and pretentious.

Originally Posted by Bert

That’s a bit too convoluted to waste my time on

Originally Posted by ced smythe

...yet you called my explanation that an insult is an insult whether truthful or not convoluted, thus plummeting to ignorance at will.

Originally Posted by Bert

Look who’s accusing me of complex or convoluted language.

I already provided such an example. You haven’t been paying attention.

I have. Make the statement without the italicised "may" or "possible" then.

I'm not whining, I'm having fun with that crap.

You avoid the point by having fun with an irrelevant matter and this again reflects on your character.

So considering something possible but not certain is supposed to be "deceitful", according to Occam’s razor? I’d say that’s simply nonsense.

This response is itself deceitful because Occam's razor as you well know is concerned with complexity.

More utter nonsense from you, actually. A forensic investigator is likely to take photographs of what he intends to document, a religiously motivated complainant is likely to consider taking photographs comparable to what he is complaining about. This is not about whether emotions are understandable or not, but about what kind of behavior they may lead to.

The original point was and still is that you claim the rabbi's speech was unintentional thus particularly credible evidence. I say this is a false claim outright and that the rabbi couldn't have picked a better way to spread his word than through a Jew magazine on issues of critical importance to world Jewry.

Actually I have no ideological posture at all but a strong aversion to ideologically motivated propaganda, and rather than enforce anything I’m exposing the fallacious reasoning and mendacity of who tries to enforce such propaganda.

The conclusion is not erroneous (see, for instance, the RODOH thread under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2487 about the Reich Association of Jewish Frontline Soldiers and the site that this thread links to), and you seem to equate "White" with adherence to articles of faith the foundation of which one hasn’t bothered to study let alone question. If that’s what it takes to be "White" then I’m not, what the heck.

Every move you make serves Jewry's interests.

There are also people who "hotly" dispute that the earth is round or that dinosaurs ever existed, and I guess they also complain about the "despotism" of who considers their theories a load of bullshit.

The current investigations are digging up objects that are of archaeological and historical interest, actually. And from what I’ve learned they will also proceed to digging up what you call "substance" and thus further demonstrate that the "unfaithful majority" are what all known evidence has already shown them to be: a lunatic fringe of self-projecting fanatics faithfully clinging to baseless, ideologically motivated and quasi-religious dogmas.

Such as expressed in the following prayerlike utterance:

whose author baselessly postulates that the facts he doesn’t accept are a "myth", that “science” would disprove that "myth" and that "Jew power" won’t let that happen – apparently without realizing the utterly unscientific, mythological nature of his postulations.

The standard is enforced to protect a lie and is compounded by laws forbidding debate elsewhere. Your repugnant strawman and "quasi religious dogma" talk has no foundation in empirical fact.

[ced smythe]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

Actually it's a non-Jewish organization of the Polish government, as far as I know.

Are you just letting off steam, or do you also have an argument? Prof. Kola is not a "supposed" but a professional archaeologist from the University of Toruń, Poland, who has among other things archaeologically investigated the Soviet murders of Polish officers at Katyn and other places in the spring of 1940. Was he also a "professional titillator" then, or do you only call him names when his findings don’t fit yor articles of faith?

Actually the "rabbi’s speech" is unintentional and thus particularly credible evidence, like a Wehrmacht commandant’s complaint about the stench of corpses emanating from Treblinka extermination camp. And Kola’s description is a public description from a renowned archaeologist who has proved his merit in undertakings like the aforementioned investigation of the so-called "Katyn crimes". What is more, it is matched by what becomes apparent from all known documentary and eyewitness evidence and belied by no evidence whatsoever.

Says who? CS? Give me something better. Something like rules or standards whereby an archaeologist is discredited by not "producing a satisfactory picture" of his findings. Did you see the pictures of core samples, by the way?


Actually the man in question happens to be an archaologist of note, and empirical proof corroborating his "claim" comes from the documentary and eyewitness evidence proving the mass murder at Sobibor and the absence of even the slightest indication of an alternative scenario. Corroboration of evidence by other evidence independent thereof and convergence of evidence from various sources towards a given conclusion – those are indeed the reasonable standards of evidence that are applied in historical research and criminal investigation.

Not unless they’re eager to make bloody fools of themselves, but there are always idiots willing to do that in the service of their ideological beliefs. Like certain defense attorneys at trials before West German courts who argued that no mass extermination in camps like Majdanek had ever taken place, for instance.

No, you are free to demonstrate that they manipulate their results or otherwise act in a fraudulent manner, if that’s what you think they do.

Wishful thinking is getting the better of you, CS. Who do you think I hope the archaeologists wil make evidence material available to?

And you talk of revisionist quasi religion. Very amusing, Berty.

Are you still up for the NAFCASH challenge or what?

[Slamin2]

Originally Posted by EireannGoddess

What a coward. You are the alleged kike attorney from California. Don't you want your own thread where you can extol the virtues of ambulance chasing and sleazy divorces?

Start your own thread. Remember, you said you were going to "rake" me over the "coals.

Well, let's see - I am not a kike, I am not an attorney, and I have never been to California.

[MikeTodd]

Originally Posted by Slamin2

Well, let's see - I am not a kike, I am not an attorney, and I have never been to California.

We will decide who is a jew and who is not a jew, Rabbi.
Your corporeal existence is of no consequence.
Here, you are a kike, you have always been a kike, and you will always be a kike!
Capiche, Rabbi?

[Greg Gerdes]

Looks like Retardo has tucked tail and ran back to rodoh where her boyfriend can cover her ass (pun intended).

15 unanswered questions about Sobibor.

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

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

2 - Show us photographs that prove he ever steped foot in the camp.

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

4 - Show us photographs that prove he ever steped foot in the camp.

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

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

7 - 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."

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

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

10 - 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. On what date can we expect this to be published Roberta?

* See bottom of post


Roberta:

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


11 - And where can we find this published report?

12 - Or did you lie about it being published?

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

14 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say those core samples are comprised of?

15 - Can you show us a single bone or a single tooth that has been found at Sobibor?

* * * * *

* Please notice Roberta's cowardly response to questions # 10 (notice I said response, not answer. And her response was:

* 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.

No lying cowardly jewbitch. You accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. That means, you will submit to "SKEPTIC" magazine your "proof." If - IF - "SKEPTIC" magazine rejects your submittal, then, we will discuss whether or not ARCHAEOLOGY magazine can be used as an alternative source in your attempt to become a claimant for the reward money.

You're so transparent retardo. Thank you again for showing the world what a cowardly liar you are.

BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that your priceless?

[Greg Gerdes]

Ced:

"Are you still up for the NAFCASH challenge or what?"

All the cowardly greasy jewbitch has done is try and run since she accepted the challenge. And if that aint enough, she's also trying to use her acceptance of the challenge as a way out of answering questions here.

Nothing she can post here will effect in any way her proving the existence of just one "huge mass grave" that contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and/or Treblinka. But she's cowardly trying to use that as an out.

What a coward.

[Slamin2]

Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes

You accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. That means, you will submit to "SKEPTIC" magazine your "proof." If - IF - "SKEPTIC" magazine rejects your submittal, then, we will discuss whether or not ARCHAEOLOGY magazine can be used as an alternative source in your attempt to become a claimant for the reward money.

As long as the article is published in a forum in which it will be subjected to peer review, why is Skeptic magazine the requirement? If this is about the truth, why not allow publication in the most prestigious publication available?

[EireannGoddess]

Originally Posted by Slamin2

As long as the article is published in a forum in which it will be subjected to peer review, why is Skeptic magazine the requirement? If this is about the truth, why not allow publication in the most prestigious publication available?

Heh, "peer" review - which means yourself, eh "lawyer" - [ I noted that you missed the word "alleged" in my post to you - claim whatever you want, mongrel; you are a jew and fancy yourself an expert on jewish/American law].

Actually, I would be interested to see the Mule's work in any magasine; but not all are offering reward monies. Mule accepted Herr Gerde's offer, so why not publish his work there, within a reasonable time.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

I’ll take that as a joke, otherwise I would have to call it a lie. Remember my post # 666 or my question about the relatives you allegedly lost in the Dresden bombing, for instance?

I did lose a few relatives; and I did reply to your post - go back and read my reply. But, I can recap it here. Basically, you gloss over the incineration of Dresden as nothing compared to the Hoax. Well, I disagreed. The jews got a "homeland"; Germany's future, and I do mean myself and all other young, indigenous Germans have nothing.

Bullshit, and my question about your relatives was the following, see post # 869:

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

Where and how did you answer to this question?

Originally Posted by EG

In my reply, I asked for my "reparations" - ie, the return of the Fatherland to Germany's children; and I will add to that, the ousting of all non-whites living in and claiming Germany as their ''home''; as well as a return of government to Germans; removal of the Occupation Government.

I’d say you can wait until hell freezes over for all that, baby – already because much of it (such as the "Occupation Government" – crap) exists in your fantasies alone.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
Not at all. If any of us two can safely claim to neither run away nor create smokescreens, it’s me.

Mellifluous verbiage ad nauseum is a smokescreen.

And all I have seen from you so far.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
I strongly doubt you read much of it before

You are right; I skim over your 'stuff' these days - you are in need of an editor; or learning how to edit yourself –

My posts are better formatted than those of your friend Gerdes, if that’s what you mean. You better teach him some HTML.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777

and in posts that this post links to. That should have been easy to understand.

I did not say your post was hard to understand; I still say your information is hackeneyed Holocaustian tripe that can be found all over the i-net and in books, ect.

Your unsubstantiated, baseless and altogether worthless opinion is taken note of. Such hollow quips are the best you can offer, right?

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
While not knowing much about the Nazi genocide of the Jews except for what I occasionally read in magazines and saw in TV documentaries or in movies,

Your education and writing on Holocaustianity reflects it's roots.

No, my writing on the Nazi genocide of the Jews reflects the scholarly books about the subject I acquired and read since meeting you beautiful people.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
If you people were smart, you would take advantage of the "fatigue" you mention and focus on pointing out how the Holocaust is being overemphasized and taken advantage of for political purposes.

This has been done.

If so, then not by you people, whose imbecile denial stance weakens the impression of overemphasis.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
The author of the article under http://www.opednews.com/articles/It-...80729-596.html , who seems to be a Gypsy (I also have some Gypsy blood from my great-grandmother’s side, by the way)

Ah, so there's the sympathetic link to the juden.

No, the sympathetic link comes from aversion to your nonsense, as I said.

Originally Posted by EG

You are jealous of them perhaps; of their holocaust, whilst the gipsy 'holocaust' is ignored.

Actually I’m more concerned with the ethnic Poles, Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians murdered by the Nazis. They were far more numerous than the Gypsy victims, you know. They were even more numerous than the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide, see my blog articles under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...ms-part-2.html and http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...hink-that.html

Originally Posted by EG

For that matter; you might as well toss in the irate faggots who rail against the jews for complaining about their having their very own holocaust memorial as well.

Apart from the number of people victimized by the Nazis on account of homosexuality being very reduced (there’s even a theory that National Socialism was a homosexual movement and homosexuals were rather to be found in the Nazis’ ranks, see under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika ), I’m not so much a bleeding-heart liberal as to care much for homosexual victims. If Hitler had focused on gay males instead of murdering millions of Jewish and Slav women and children, we probably wouldn’t be talking.

Originally Posted by EG

All the numbers of which still need to be proven - fluctuating as they are, there is still no hard evidence.

Which leads us to the question what you would consider "hard evidence" and what rules or standards of evidence your definition is based on, right?

In this context, there are some questions I would like to ask you:

1. How many ethnic Germans do you think perished during wartime flight and postwar expulsion from Germany’s eastern territories and countries of Eastern Europe?
2. What "hard evidence" is the figure you accept based on?
3. How many Germans do you think perished in the bombing attack on Dresden on 13/14 February 1945?
4. What "hard evidence" is the figure you accept based on?
5. How many Germans do you think perished in all bombing attacks on German cities during World War II?
6. What "hard evidence" is the figure you accept based on?

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
It’s amusing to note that you’re tuning down your bloodthirsty "kill the kikes" – stance of previous posts, by the way. You seem to have realized the self-damaging nature of that stance.

The kikes scream about getting killed, I concur that they should have their fantasy of holocaust - a recurring theme throughout their several millenia history - fulfilled at long last - it's one prophecy the jews keep whining about; if their identity as jews is dependent on it, and it does seem to be that way as their other behaviours in Host Nations provide; then, the jews should be accomodated. They are, after all confident in and accustomed to getting their way, if they bitch and scream long enough and loud enough.

So you do want them kikes killed, after all?

There’s my bloodthirsty little thing.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
All it takes to dislike your ideologically motivated attempt to falsify history is an interest in the study of history, as a matter of fact.

Well, I am still waiting for the "historical facts" behind the jewish claim to holocaust.

The documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence I have provided is proof of those historical facts in what concerns the Nazi extermination camps, and there’s more. If you don’t accept it as proof you should be able to demonstrate that and how this evidence differs from evidence underlying the historical record of German suffering during and after World War II, which you obviously accept.

Originally Posted by EG

When will they be forth-coming? For your Prof. Kola for instance, fails to provide.

For Belzec he has provided, in the form of a detailed archaeological report. And for Sobibor he may do the same in a not too distant future, if certain people manage to help him over his differences with the Polish government. But if your standards accept only detailed forensic or archaeological assessments of physical evidence as proof to a crime, why don’t you ask for such assessments when it comes to crimes committed against Germans by the Soviets or the Western Allies? Double standards don’t exactly help your credibility.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
What your "opposite" reason directly motivates is not investigation, ...But indirectly it arouses an interest in genuinely investigating the relevant events and obtaining as much evidence about them as possible. That’s why the reaction of serious researchers to your propaganda has greatly enhanced historical knowledge on the Nazi genocide of the Jews over the past years.

All that work, and still no evidence of a single, gassed unto death, holocausted jew. You all need to get to work.

Depends on what you mean by evidence, baby. For the gassing not of "one single" but of about two and a half million Jews, many of whom are known by name, we have eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence. What do we have for, say, the German civilians murdered by Red Army soldiers east of the Oder-Neisse Line in 1944/45?

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
What are you talking about? As I already suggested in post # 919, you should read my post # 916 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=916 . All of Gerdes' mostly irrelevant and sometimes instructively imbecile questions are addressed there.

That was not an answer you have given - it's a retort - there is a difference.

No, I have answered all questions to the best of my present knowledge. As my knowledge increases the answers will be expanded. Cut the crap.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
I’m not dancing at all, on the contrary. I have expressly stated that I cannot give a date. Tell me, why should I be obliged to give a date? And why the heck should I even be able to?

Because you accepted the challenge.

So?

Originally Posted by EG

It would follow would it not that you would then be able to provide a reasonable date that Herr Gerdes could expect the results of your work.

No, that doesn’t follow at all, especially as research depends on the progress of archaeological work on site, which I cannot influence, and I made that very clear.

Originally Posted by EG

Just common sense.

Common sense is something you shouldn’t invoke, darling. You have amply shown that you have none.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
What "anxieties", baby? I’m not the one who is jumping up and down yelling "show me, show me" and asking "when, when?". What exactly am I supposed to be "anxious" about, and how am I supposed to have expressed that?

I have noticed that when men, jews and niggers in particular, and you are admitting to gipsy ancestry - do not get the desired attention they would want; they tend to become very anxious; taking to calling complete strangers "Baby"; ect - an attempt to make the unfamiliar, familiar so that they can feel less anxious –

That’s not anxiety, mein Schatz. That’s an expression of, let’s call it, a sort of tender contempt for you. Tender because you’re a woman, contempt because you’re a bloodthirsty fanatic.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
Actually I’m entitled to demand on this forum what I’m entitled to demand on any discussion forum. If my opponents are not able or willing to comply with my reasonable demands, I have no problem with that, however. It looks bad on them.

It depends on what considers "reasonable" - you have not been reasonable for several pages now; if you ever were on this thread.

By the standards of who wants all non-whites out of Germany and the "kikes" to "finally have their holocaust" or so? I can live with that.

Originally Posted by EG

Here, as elsewhere on the i-net, your low brow behaviour does not deserve the credit and special treatment you demand.

Why, baby, that’s exactly what I think of you. And where have I demanded special treatment?

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
I don’t mess with my opponents’ names and gratuitously call them faggots and such, do I?

No, you prefer to call me "Baby" for some odd reason.

Yep, I didn’t suggest that you’re a Lesbian. See the difference?

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
Your friend Gerdes is doing an excellent job making "Revisionism" look like shit, which is just what I’d expect a good infiltrator to do. And you are close behind.

Now you are sounding like a jewish inspired "neo-nazi" - As I stated before, you are a jew's wet dream.

No, I’d say that applies to you. You know, this poster they made a Jew run around with when they caught him with an Aryan woman:

Ich nehm’ als Judenjunge immer
nur deutsche Mädchen mit auf’s Zimmer.

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
Whereupon I ask you what would be credible to you, what your standards of credibility are based on and what evidence for a "hoax" you can offer.

I've made it very simple - show me proof of one gassed unto death, holocausted jew.

You mean proof that a specific Jewish individual was gassed to death?

And such proof would lead you to accept the veracity of the historical record of the Nazi genocide of the Jews?

Not a very logical position on your part, but OK. What would you accept as proof?

Originally Posted by EG

Quote:
Frankly I don’t give a flying fuck what you accept or not.

Yes, we know. You are not serious about your Holocaustianity; but a pseudo-intellectual poseur dabbling in jewish mythos and ''magik'". It's been obvious for some time; on other Boards, as well as this one.

What’s actually obvious is that I’m a reasonable fellow who follows the evidence where it leads and thinks your lame rhetoric suggests more than one loose screw inside your head.

Talk about other boards, how about coming to RODOH one of these days? I can assure you that an Aryan specimen like you would have many admirers there – and give others much to laugh about.

Think about it over the next three weeks, OK?

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Actually my first response to your question what being a proud German meant to me was the following:

You made that into "hatred for Hitler" (which I did not object to because I don’t like the fellow indeed), and accused me of "mistaking hate for pride".

I've already posted your responses to a simple unchanging question:

Quote:
Opposing apologists of the Nazi criminals who led Germany to shame and disaster, among other things.

Considering that he led my country to shame and disaster unparalleled in its milenary history, I don't see why I should not hate the fellow, and why hating him should be incompatible with being proud of my country.

Pride in my country implies hating who damaged it as badly as your beloved Führer did.

I don't need to make anything of your words other than that they were clearly misrepresenting hatred for pride.

Then you’re deliberately misrepresenting my words.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
I responded saying that I had responded to your original questions by referring to one of the implications or consequences of pride: hating what harmed the object of pride.

You then went splitting hair on not having asked about a consequence of pride but about the meaning of pride, as if meaning did not include consequence.

I pointed out that meaning includes consequence.

You ignored my reply an simply repeated your first stance with the following question:

I thereupon gave you the following possibilities for you to choose from:

Actually the way your question was worded allowed for exemplifying the meaning by pointing to a consequence, which was what I did. The specific example I picked arguably included an element of baiting, considering that it obviously conflicts with your notions of what pride in being German means.

The beauty of your staunch errorism is that you did actually get round to the meaning of pride in the end and this indecent behaviour diminishes the veracity of any claim you make.

Actually I was talking about the meaning of pride from the beginning, and your lame accusation of "indecent behavior" can be considered indecent indeed.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
No, I gave you "playing a game" as a possibility to choose from. Besides, exemplifying meaning on hand of a consequence and "playing a game" by antagonizing my opponent with the consequence chosen as an example are not mutually exclusive propositions. They may well go together.

Actually your ignoring or misrepresenting my arguments says much about yours.

Yep, from the world outside the cloud-cuckoo-land of ideological fanaticism.

A choice between you playing games and me not putting the crystal clear question clearly enough.

No, a choice between your question being less clear than you claim it to be and my having responded in a provocative manner.

Originally Posted by CS

You've been playing hair splitting games for nothing.

Actually that’s what I’ve seen you doing.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
I don’t think you can explain what I’m supposed to have "deceived" you about and what I’m supposed to have desired confusion about.

You've tried very hard to assert that pride gives rise to hatred and recently you added that pride also gives rise to outrage.

IIRC I described outrage as the predecessor of hatred when the object of pride is harmed. Where’s the confusion supposed to be?

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
Utter nonsense. I may be convinced of a possibility as I may be convinced of a certainty. And I’d say one has to be a more than a little paranoid to spot an "intention to deceive" in my statement.

No, it indicates differentiating observation that avoids undue generalization, while your comment indicates more than a little paranoia.

Make the conviction then.

OK. I’m convinced of the possibility, even the probability, of pride leading to hatred against who or what harms the object of pride.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
It’s an introduction to what follows, and your supposition is baseless.

This is incoherent, non interactive misuse of terminology.

Whatever makes you happy, as I’m not following you here.

Originally Posted by CS

Here you are in fine ignorant form:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe
...excusing your own (insult) by calling it statement of opinion backed by research or denying the insult - and setting my homework - is petty and pretentious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bert
That’s a bit too convoluted to waste my time on

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe
...yet you called my explanation that an insult is an insult whether truthful or not convoluted, thus plummeting to ignorance at will.

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

Quote:
I already provided such an example. You haven’t been paying attention.

I have. Make the statement without the italicised "may" or "possible" then.

I’m proud of my country.

Some crazy fellow leads my country (the object of my pride) to shame and disaster.

I hate that crazy fellow for having led my country (the object of my pride) to shame and disaster.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
I'm not whining, I'm having fun with that crap.

You avoid the point by having fun with an irrelevant matter and this again reflects on your character.

What point am I supposed to be avoiding, my friend?

Ah, and if you’re looking for someone who needs a lecture on character, I suggest your friend Gerdes.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
So considering something possible but not certain is supposed to be "deceitful", according to Occam’s razor? I’d say that’s simply nonsense.

This response is itself deceitful because Occam's razor as you well know is concerned with complexity.

Occam’s razor gives preference to the simplest explanation that takes all evidence into account. Which would that be in this case?

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
More utter nonsense from you, actually. A forensic investigator is likely to take photographs of what he intends to document, a religiously motivated complainant is likely to consider taking photographs comparable to what he is complaining about. This is not about whether emotions are understandable or not, but about what kind of behavior they may lead to.

The original point was and still is that you claim the rabbi's speech was unintentional thus particularly credible evidence. I say this is a false claim outright and that the rabbi couldn't have picked a better way to spread his word than through a Jew magazine on issues of critical importance to world Jewry.

Unless the issue of critical importance to world Jewry was proof of what happened at Chelmno and not violation of religious principles by desecration of human remains, what you say doesn’t affect the correctness of my assessment.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
Actually I have no ideological posture at all but a strong aversion to ideologically motivated propaganda, and rather than enforce anything I’m exposing the fallacious reasoning and mendacity of who tries to enforce such propaganda.

The conclusion is not erroneous (see, for instance, the RODOH thread under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2487 about the Reich Association of Jewish Frontline Soldiers and the site that this thread links to), and you seem to equate "White" with adherence to articles of faith the foundation of which one hasn’t bothered to study let alone question. If that’s what it takes to be "White" then I’m not, what the heck.

Every move you make serves Jewry's interests.

When talking to Jew-hating fanatics who spout nonsensical preconceived notions, that’s sort of unavoidable.

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
There are also people who "hotly" dispute that the earth is round or that dinosaurs ever existed, and I guess they also complain about the "despotism" of who considers their theories a load of bullshit.

The current investigations are digging up objects that are of archaeological and historical interest, actually. And from what I’ve learned they will also proceed to digging up what you call "substance" and thus further demonstrate that the "unfaithful majority" are what all known evidence has already shown them to be: a lunatic fringe of self-projecting fanatics faithfully clinging to baseless, ideologically motivated and quasi-religious dogmas.

Such as expressed in the following prayerlike utterance:

whose author baselessly postulates that the facts he doesn’t accept are a "myth", that “science” would disprove that "myth" and that "Jew power" won’t let that happen – apparently without realizing the utterly unscientific, mythological nature of his postulations.

The standard is enforced to protect a lie and is compounded by laws forbidding debate elsewhere.

No, the standard is enforced to avoid wasting a court’s time on proof of what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt already.

Originally Posted by CS

Your repugnant strawman and "quasi religious dogma" talk has no foundation in empirical fact.

Setting up straw-men I leave to my opponents, and your "lie" postulation is dogmatic indeed.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by CS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Actually it's a non-Jewish organization of the Polish government, as far as I know.

Are you just letting off steam, or do you also have an argument? Prof. Kola is not a "supposed" but a professional archaeologist from the University of Toruń, Poland, who has among other things archaeologically investigated the Soviet murders of Polish officers at Katyn and other places in the spring of 1940. Was he also a "professional titillator" then, or do you only call him names when his findings don’t fit yor articles of faith?

Actually the "rabbi’s speech" is unintentional and thus particularly credible evidence, like a Wehrmacht commandant’s complaint about the stench of corpses emanating from Treblinka extermination camp. And Kola’s description is a public description from a renowned archaeologist who has proved his merit in undertakings like the aforementioned investigation of the so-called "Katyn crimes". What is more, it is matched by what becomes apparent from all known documentary and eyewitness evidence and belied by no evidence whatsoever.

Says who? CS? Give me something better. Something like rules or standards whereby an archaeologist is discredited by not "producing a satisfactory picture" of his findings. Did you see the pictures of core samples, by the way?

Actually the man in question happens to be an archaologist of note, and empirical proof corroborating his "claim" comes from the documentary and eyewitness evidence proving the mass murder at Sobibor and the absence of even the slightest indication of an alternative scenario. Corroboration of evidence by other evidence independent thereof and convergence of evidence from various sources towards a given conclusion – those are indeed the reasonable standards of evidence that are applied in historical research and criminal investigation.

Not unless they’re eager to make bloody fools of themselves, but there are always idiots willing to do that in the service of their ideological beliefs. Like certain defense attorneys at trials before West German courts who argued that no mass extermination in camps like Majdanek had ever taken place, for instance.

No, you are free to demonstrate that they manipulate their results or otherwise act in a fraudulent manner, if that’s what you think they do.

Wishful thinking is getting the better of you, CS. Who do you think I hope the archaeologists wil make evidence material available to?

And you talk of revisionist quasi religion. Very amusing, Berty.

No, very appropriate.

Originally Posted by CS

Are you still up for the NAFCASH challenge or what?

What part of the last quoted paragraph:

Wishful thinking is getting the better of you, CS. Who do you think I hope the archaeologists wil make evidence material available to?

did you not understand?

See you in three weeks, my friend.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by EireannGoddess

Actually, I would be interested to see the Mule's work in any magasine; but not all are offering reward monies.

I didn't know SKEPTIC is offering the reward money.

Originally Posted by EG

Mule accepted Herr Gerde's offer, so why not publish his work there, within a reasonable time.

What would be a "reasonable time" for research depending on ongoing archaeological work that the applicant cannot influence? I'll tell you: whatever time it takes for that archaeological work to produce results and for the applicant to have access to such results.

And the question is not why not SKEPTIC. There's nothing wrong with SKETPIC. The question is: why SKEPTIC alone?

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

In my post # 916 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=916 , I responded to a number of questions that bitching fish-wife Gerdes was making a big bloody fuss about. Each answer was introduced with an assessment of what relevance a given question or group of questions had (most of them have little if any relevance within the context of the NAFCASH challenge, not to mention within the context of proving the mass murder that happened at Sobibor) before I provided the answer proper according to the present status of my knowledge.

How did miserable coward Gerdes react to these answers?

One part of his reaction was his hysterical howling in posts # 937 and # 938, which I shall have fun with later.

The other, which is the subject of this post, was going to the CODOH "Revisionist" Cesspit (where, as the coward knows, I am not allowed to post ) and, on the thread he opened there under http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 , whine about me a little more to his bird-of-a-feather Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, a close match of Gerdes as concerns mendacity, cowardice, obnoxiousness and plain stupidity.

Previous conversations between these two showpieces of "Revisionist" scum and other enlightened spirits (including one who is a bit more intelligent than the rest and therefore stands out among the herd of imbeciles like a one-eyed among the blind, Mr. Laurentz Dahl) have been commented in my articles on the HC blog under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_28.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...enge_4802.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_29.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html

The latest CODOH posts of Gerdes and "Hannover" Hargis will be the subject of another update on the HC blog, which will have a link to the present post.

Here we go:

Originally Posted by Gerdes in CODOH post of Fri Aug 01, 2008 1:49 pm

The dullest of the dull has proven the existence of the "huge mass graves of Sobibor!

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.

*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.

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.

*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:

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.

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

*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).

Originally Posted by Gerdes
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."

*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.

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

*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.

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

*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.

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.

* 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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes
12 - What are you waiting for Roberta?

*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...

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

*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.

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?

*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...

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?

*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.

Excerpts from my post # 916 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=916 , Gerdes’ only comment being the remark at the beginning. The self-projecting invective aside, the remark was probably meant to be ironic. Yet the irony is likely to be lost on any reasonable person reading this post, which shows consistent answers to questions which hardly merit that much.

Contrary to what Gerdes apparently tries to make believe, however, I didn’t make any pretense that any of my answers or all of them together prove the existence of the Sobibor mass graves. I expressly pointed out, at the beginning of each answer, just how relevant – if at all – I considered the respective question to be in the context of proving the mass murder at Sobibor, and thus also the related mass graves. Most of Gerdes’ questions are of little if any relevance in this context. Thus my answer to question # 11, for instance, was the following:

When quoting my answer to this question in his above-mentioned post, and just like he did in regard to all other answers he quoted, Gerdes left out the introductory assessment of the question’s relevance with the link to a previous post (# 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 ) in which I had listed evidence that leaves no room for reasonable doubt about the mass murder at Sobibor extermination camp.

Gerdes thus once more – as so often before – indulged in misrepresentation of his opponent’s argument.

Originally Posted by Gerdes in CODOH post of Fri Aug 01, 2008

Time for a little recap to refresh everyones minds just how pathetically RM is doing in presenting proof of the Sobibor holocaust:

“Physical evidence” documented in photographs – presented to date - by and in the dullards own words:

“A mound of the ashes of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp, at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5938_1_web.jpg

“A mound of the remains of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp, at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5964_1_web.jpg

“A glass display case containing ashes and bones of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5968_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes found on the grounds of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6238_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes in the area of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6239_1_web.jpg

“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 – (Photo’s f5, f6 & f7):”

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...nia/index.html

“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.”

Despite his big words, Gerdes is not able to explain what is supposed to be "pathetic" about the photographic evidence he mentions – which, as he "forgets" to tell the CODOH clowns, is only a part, and not even an indispensable one, of the Sobibor evidence I have shown (the documentary and eyewitness evidence I mentioned in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 alone leaves no room for reasonable doubt that Sobibor was an extermination camp and at least 150,000 people were killed there, and all the documentation of physical evidence mentioned in that post and in post # 916 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=916 does is to further corroborate and reinforce this conclusion).

It is particularly noteworthy that Gerdes is still unable to provide an alternative theory as to what, other than ashes of human bones and tissue, wood ashes and bone ash or lime, the substances clearly distinguishable from the soil on these core sample photographs from Prof. Kola’s 2001 archaeological investigation:

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


could possibly be. That is truly pathetic.

And while this is not a big deal, it should be pointed out that lying Gerdes well knows that the captions of the photos from the Ghetto Fighters House included in his list are not mine, contrary to what he seems to be claiming. They are from the Ghetto Fighters House.

Originally Posted by Gerdes, in same post,

And of course, the dullard has repeatedly referred to the Sobibor Archaeology Project’s home page, with all the photos of the alleged “huge mass graves:”

http://undersobibor.org/

And let’s not forget what else the cowardly dullard has said:

"Boy, one can sense how carpet-biting mad Gerdes is at my having accepted the challenge... You will hear from me again on this subject when you find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHEOLOGY magazine with an article about my research findings in your mailbox... I’m doing my research independently of how big a chance there is that meeting the challenge requirements will get me any money. If I don’t get paid for submitting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, that’s fine. If I do get paid, that’s even better... but the next time you repeat that "looking for an angle out" - BS you’ll be telling another lie, asshole. I have already made clear that the reward money would be nice to have but is not the main motivation for my research... What made me decide to accept your challenge was a big mistake you made in one of your posts, one that considerably improved my chances of having access to the very evidence that is required to meet the challenge requirements... If you don’t want to accept my suggestions... that’s just fine with me. It won’t dissuade me from trying to obtain, publish and present to NAFCASH the required proof, for as you well know the money issue is secondary to me... As you well know, I’m not trying to change anything to my "liking"... what I’m showing the world is that I’m willing to play by the standards of the NAFCASH challenge... And just to make it clear once more, I intend to publish proof meeting the requirements in ARCHAEOLOGY or SKEPTIC magazine and submit such proof to NAFCASH as soon as I have it in my hands, independently of what my chances are of ever actually seeing any reward money. If I meet the challenge requirements but cannot obtain payment... that’s fine. If I can obtain payment, that’s even better.”

What’s the self-projecting coward (even his brothers-in-spirit, at least the most intelligent among them, should meanwhile have realized that Gerdes’ accusing me of cowardice is as baseless as it is looking in the mirror) trying to tell his buddies with this montage of quotes from various posts of mine?

I didn’t exactly tell him that the results of my research would be available the day after tomorrow – on the contrary, I made it very clear that my research depended on the progress of archaeological work currently being done by the Sobibor Archaeology Project on site, that archaeological work takes time and that professional archaeologists don’t set their schedules according to the ramblings of a mad-man like Gerdes. Yet Gerdes seems to be mendaciously pretending that I announced a prompt submittal of evidence meeting his challenge requirements, and that his daily "show me, show me" - demands (which actually just express the nervousness and hysteria of a coward who is scared shitless of the day his nightmares will come true) are somehow justified.

But Gerdes is not the only one who is nervous about what physical evidence will eventually be rubbed under his nose and even about the comparatively small parts of that evidence that he has already been confronted with.

Chicken-shit liar Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, always brave when mouthing off about me where I cannot respond because he banned me from his place but never brave enough to confront me directly (not even on a forum of anti-Semitic white supremacists where he can count on peer support), thinks it’s time another of his lame attempts at rationalization:

Originally Posted by Hannover in CODOH post of Fri Aug 01, 2008 3:37 pm

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

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

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

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

My assumptions regarding the nature of these substances are supported by

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

- "While no photographs are required to prove that the mass graves actually exist ... "
Why aren't photos of the alleged mass graves required?

Because other evidence (eyewitness testimonies, documents and an archaeologist’s description of the physical evidence) are sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mass murder happened at Sobibor and mass graves related to that mass murder exist, Mr. Hargis. Think before writing.

Originally Posted by Hannover

They would be in a real court of law.

Oh, would they? According to what rules or standards of evidence you can show us, Mr. Hargis? I’ll tell you right away: none. Your claim is as ignorant as ever, and you know as much about what a evidence a "real court" requires as a pig does about Sunday. At trials before West German courts in the 1960s, for instance, the only information that was available about the Sobibor mass graves came from eyewitness testimonies and drawings made by former camp inmates and members of the camp staff. The court had no problem with accepting these testimonies and drawings as conclusive evidence of the mass graves and the mass murder they were related to. And I’m sure that Hargis cannot show us which of the defendant-friendly procedural rules of the Federal German constitutional state the courts in question thereby violated, for they didn’t violate any.

Originally Posted by Hannover

He makes a claim of enormous mass graves and cannot show us photographic proof. Pathetic.

What’s actually pathetic is the utter stupidity of arguing that the existence of mass graves can only be proven through photographic evidence. Apart from being at odds with rules and standards of criminal investigation and historical research, such reasoning isn’t even logical. If mass graves are described in a coincident manner by several eyewitnesses independent of each other and the place in question is one that other evidence shows lots of people to have been taken to but few if any to have left alive, there’s no room for reasonably doubting the existence of such graves even if no one ever photographs them.

Originally Posted by Hannover

- Why must his "light gray substance" be "ashes of human bone and tissue"?
How about just ashes from a trash heap?

I didn’t know there was a trash heap in the "Camp III" section of Sobibor, where these core drills were made and where Prof. Kola’s team identified 7 mass graves in 2001. All known documentary and eyewitness evidence points to mass graves in that area, none to a trash heap. How about assessing evidence in the context of other evidence, Mr. Hargis?

Originally Posted by Hannover

- "The black substance on the second photo must be wood ash."
Thank you & so what?

Wood ash suggests cremation, and so do eyewitness descriptions of the victims’ bodies being cremated at Sobibor. How about assessing evidence in the context of other evidence, Mr. Hargis?

Originally Posted by Hannover

- "The white substance on the third photo must be either bone ash or lime."
Why must it be? Why not more ash from a trash heap?

Because I doubt that Hargis can tell us what "ash from a trash heap" would have this aspect, whereas bone ash is white and lime is also white. And because there’s no evidence to there having been a trash heap in the area in question, while there is evidence to the use of lime poured on bodies in mass graves in that area, and there is evidence to cremation of dead bodies and the crushing of calcinated bones after cremation in that area. How about assessing evidence in the context of other evidence, Mr. Hargis? And how about getting yourself a brain?

Originally Posted by Hannover

Roberto goes on:
Quote:
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.

Aspect? In respect to what? Alleged enormous mass graves which he cannot show us?

Aspect in regard to enormous mass graves described by contemporary eyewitnesses and a present-day archaeologist, and also in regard to what I know from other sources or from personal observation about the aspect of certain substances.

Originally Posted by Hannover

Context? In context to shyster Kola's fraudulent claims as shown earlier?

No, in the context of a renowned archaeologist’s public statement about archaeological findings that are in line with what becomes apparent from all other known evidence, and that there is no reason to doubt just because an intellectual midget baselessly calls the man a "shyster" and his description "fraudulent".

Originally Posted by Hannover

Alternative theory? Well how about some facts .... there are no such mass graves as claimed, they cannot be shown, and
Quote:
There's no reason to believe that they have done anything more than poke a hole in a trash incineration site.

The alternative theory seems to be that the core samples are from a trash incineration site. Apart from there being no evidence to a trash incineration site in the area where these drills were made, whereas all known evidence points to the existence of mass graves containing cremains in that area, I doubt Hannover can tell us what substances burned at a trash incineration site would have the light-gray and white aspect of the substances visible on the sample photos.

So Hannover has once more shown the poverty of his reasoning and his lack of a plausible alternative explanation, i.e. one that takes all evidence to what happened in the area of these drillings into account.

But at least he tried, which is not what can be said of poor Gerdes. He gets points for that.

Originally Posted by Hannover

We can't blame Roberto Muehlenkamp alone, they all resort to the same absurd irrational, illogical, impossible, and unscientific silliness.

Actually it’s Hargis who has just provided an example of absurd irrational, illogical, impossible, and unscientific silliness, baselessly postulating a trash incineration site where no evidence suggests one to have existed while ignoring the fact that all known evidence points to mass graves in the area in question.

Originally Posted by Hannover

This is too easy.

It’s really a piece of cake to show how illogical folks like Hannover are every time they try to display logical reasoning, and what bloody fools they make of themselves every time they try to be smart. And that’s obviously the reason why Mr. Jonnie "This is too easy" Hargis never leaves his safe and cozy Führerbunker and stifles opposition by censorship and banning – otherwise it would be too easy to slap his nonsense around his ears.

Gerdes seems to think much of Hargis, however. It looks as if he visits Hargis' Cesspit every time he needs that genius's advice to respond to questions that are too much for his own meager intellect.

The meager intellect of Mr. Gerdes is again shown in his next CODOH post, in which he echoes his admired master and teacher:

[Gerdes in CODOH post of Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:33 pm]
Hannover:

"They all resort to the same absurd, irrational, illogical, impossible, and unscientific silliness."

Yes, and my most recent favorite is this:

*...these samples... pertain to Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation in 2001 - This means that if – as is probably the case – these core samples were analyzed to confirm that they contain what their aspect suggests"

So they were "probably" analyzed, and the analysis "confirmed" what "their aspects suggests?"

If the liar doesn't even know for a fact that they were analyzed, then how the hell would he know if "what their aspects suggests" was "confirmed?"

LOL![quote]

Poor Gerdes, he cannot even read. My answers to his questions 21, 22 and 23, in post # 916 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=916 , read as follows:

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.

Under number 3 I am saying that the samples were probably analyzed in order to confirm that they contain what their aspect suggests. I’m not categorically stating that such analysis, if done, confirmed that these samples contain human remains (though this was what the analysis probably did).

Originally Posted by Gerdes

So the question: They DID analyze the core samples – didn't they?

Remains unanswered,

Yep, until the results of Prof. Kola’s 2001 investigation are published, one can only presume that he did the analyses one would expect a competent professional archaeologist to do.

Originally Posted by Gerde

yet he's claiming that the samples "suggested aspects" have been "confirmed!"

No, I’m not claiming that at all. I just consider it reasonable to assume that such confirmation was obtained, because

a) the aspect of the samples suggests the presence of human remains,
b) Prof. Kola is known to have identified mass graves at Sobibor and these samples are from his investigation and
c) a competent professional archaeologist – which previous work by Prof. Kola has shown him to be – can be expected so have such samples analyzed.

What is more, Kola is known to have ordered an analysis of core drill samples found at Belzec, and this analysis established that they contained human remains. There’s no reason why he should have proceeded differently at Sobibor.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Absurd, irrational, illogical, impossible, and unscientific silliness indeed.

No, my dear Gerdes. A reasonable person’s reasonable probability considerations, as opposed to the misrepresentation of such considerations by a charlatan who can at best be given the benefit of very sloppy reading.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

And what could be more absurd, irrational, illogical, impossible, and unscientific than this:

“Hair, bones and ashes found on the grounds of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6238_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes in the area of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6239_1_web.jpg

Where’s the "absurd, irrational, illogical, impossible, and unscientific" part, Mr. Gerdes?

If these photos show what they are captioned to show by the source featuring them, they are further corroboration of what becomes apparent from all known documentary and eyewitness evidence and from other documentation of the physical evidence at Sobibor.

The only thing absurd, irrational and illogical here is the imbecile babbling of frauds like you. And what’s impossible and unscientific is the postulate of an invisible resettlement operation taking over 1.3 million people via the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps without leaving a single piece of documentary evidence or a single eyewitness when there should be a huge paper trail of the former and thousands upon thousands of the latter. Or the postulate of a monstrously powerful and invisible conspiracy that made all this evidence disappear and fabricated all known evidence that the camps in question were extermination camps.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Now to Gerdes’ hysterical babbling in posts # 937 and # 938.

# 937:

Originally Posted by Gerdes

15 unanswered questions about Sobibor.

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

Poor Gerdes, he’s obviously so desperate that he turns to lying in the most obvious and transparent manner. All of his questions have actually been given better answers than their silliness and irrelevance merits, in my post # 916 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=916 .

Originally Posted by Gerdes

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

2 - Show us photographs that prove he ever steped foot in the camp.

This was my answer:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

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

4 - Show us photographs that prove he ever steped foot in the camp.

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

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

This was my answer:

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

7 - 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."

This was my answer:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

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

This was my answer:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

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

This was my answer:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

10 - 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. On what date can we expect this to be published Roberta?

This was my answer to the first sentence:

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.

This was my answer to hysterical howling now summarized in the second sentence:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Roberta:

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

11 - And where can we find this published report?

This was my anwer to an identically worded previous question:

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.

12 - Or did you lie about it being published?

Answer to new question: No, unlike stinking liar Gerdes I don’t lie. In the above excerpt from a post of mine, which Gerdes is quoting out of context, I used the term "published report" in a sense that includes Kola’s brief description of his archaeological findings in an interview with a Polish news agency that is mentioned in the Reuters press release of 23 November 2001:

(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."

I’m sure that the context of my statement shows that I was referring to Prof. Kola’s statement in this press interview. Therefore, Gerdes is requested to provide the number of my post he took this quote from and a link to that post. Reading my post as a whole will surely reveal that I was referring to Prof. Kola’s statement in the press interview mentioned by Reuters, and that the liar here is the one who tried to make believe I was referring to the publication of a comprehensive and detailed archaeological report, i.e. Mr. Gerdes.

The post number and the link, Mr. Gerdes?

Originally Posted by Gerdes

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

This was my answer to an identically worded previous question:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

14 - What do the frauds at the Sobibor Archaeology Project say those core samples are comprised of?

This was my answer to a set of previous questions including the above:

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.

I might add that I don’t know what the members of the Sobibor Archaeology Project say about the composition of these samples. In my last phone conversation with Yoram Haimi, I forgot to ask this question. I shall ask it next time we speak.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

15 - Can you show us a single bone or a single tooth that has been found at Sobibor?

Answer to new 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 little if any relevance in the context of the NAFCASH challenge:

I have already shown a photo of artificial teeth found on the area of Sobibor:

http://www.undersobibor.org/excavation09.jpg

If I remember correctly (if not, I’m showing them for the first time), I have also already shown these photographs of bone fragments found in the area of Sobibor extermination camp:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject....fragments.html

http://www.holocaustresearchproject....n%20brick.html

This photo, included im my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 among others, also shows human bones among the ashes:

A glass display case containing ashes and bones of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5968_1_web.jpg

All 15 imbecile questions have thus been reasonable answered to the best of my present knowledge. Answers will be expanded as I learn more about the subject matter of the questions.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

* * * * *

* Please notice Roberta's cowardly response to questions # 10 (notice I said response, not answer. And her response was:

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.

First of all, 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.

Second, where’s the "cowardly" part of my reply? I’m only making a perfectly logical statement: the question will be answered in the form required on the NAFCASH site (i.e. by publishing the evidence in SKEPTIC magazine), provided that the editors of SKEPTIC magazine are interested in publishing this evidence. If the editors of SKEPTIC magazine are not interested in publishing this evidence, I cannot force them to do so, can I? Think before writing, you numb nut.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

No lying cowardly jewbitch.

Careful with the "lying" crap, Gerdes. He who sits in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones, as a German saying goes. You haven’t caught me lying once, whereas I have caught you lying so often that I long ceased to count your lies. Have a look at the screenshots from our Topix discussions in post http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=914 , for two good examples of what a filthy stinking liar you are. And as announced in that post, we will now take a look at our early Topix discussions, when I still bothered to count your lies. Emphases have been added.

Topix post # 70 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...L8H7P8C/p4#c70 :

Meanwhile, I note that the liar is still babbling about "750,000 to 3 million", which I never claimed, and furthermore quoting my statements out of context – my "inability", after all, was stated to be related either to obliteration of the grave structures by robbery digging or to my own lack of means, time and required authorizations, therefore having no relevance whatsoever.

Just keep on lying and twisting your opponent’s words, Gerdes. Every lie will be duly noted.

# 142 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...8H7P8C/p7#c142

Please notice how stinking liar Gerdes keeps lying through his teeth, obviously in the hope that readers are so dumb as to read his posts alone and believe everything he tells them. Let’s count the lies in this one paragraph:

1. I haven’t "refused" to show mass graves on the September 1944 photograph. I have clearly stated, quoting Alex Bay, that I don’t think mass graves can be made out in the churned-out mess of soil visible on this air photograph, not because they didn’t exist but because the various earth movements in that area that took place after these graves had been dug make it impossible to make out the outlines of any mass grave from the air. I also asked Gerdes why the ground looks so churned-up from the air as it does on this photo, if Treblinka was a mere "transit camp". Of course the stinking liar simply ignored my question.

2. What applies to mass graves applies all the more for the pits underneath the furnaces, which were hardly as huge as Vassili Grossman claimed; descriptions by defendants at trials before West German courts suggest a smaller size. Gerdes keeps waving the straw-man of Grossman’s exaggerated figures even though I never endorsed these figures, on the contrary. Incidentally, I once made a calculation of the size of the incineration grids and the pits underneath, based on the trial findings of West German courts and a description provided by one of the Ukrainian guards of Treblinka. It can be found in my article

Incinerating corpses on a grid is a rather inefficient method …
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20...

3. Gerdes keeps on pretending that I claimed "between 750,000 and 3 million people" murdered at Treblinka, even though I never stated that I considered the higher number even remotely possible and clearly stated that I consider 750,000 to be the likeliest and best supported order of magnitude.

Three misrepresentations of an opponent’s statements in one paragraph, three repeated rotten lies. I love the way Gerdes keeps showing himself up for the trash that he is.

# 262 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p13#c262 :

>Ok folks, time for another recap.

Read: it’s time for Gerdes to start lying again.

>To date, this is all the "proof" that Roberta has provided for the alleged Treblinka holocaust:

That’s the first lie, as we shall see below. Or no, let's be generous and assume that Gerdes simply forgot the documentary and eyewitness evidence I mentioned in my post # 103 on page 6.

>Exhibit A (This is the foundation of her claim that 750,000 to 3 million jews were murdered at >Treblinka.):

First lie: Grossman’s account was used only in what concerns Grossman’s mention of teeth on or in the soil of Treblinka. I made it very clear that I didn’t consider Grossman’s overblown estimate of 3 million dead even remotely possible and that I considered 750,000 the most probable order of magnitude.

>http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php ...

>Exhibit B (This is her “evidence” that she claims supports exhibit A):

>http://vho.org/GB/Books/t/4.html

Second lie: I never made any statement in the sense that exhibit this supports exhibit that. I also never stated that the site investigation reports quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/20... contain any quantification of the victims, let alone that they support the possibility of Grossman’s overblown estimate.

>Exhibit C (These are the photos that she claims supports exhibits B):

>http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttrac ...

Third lie: again the "supports exhibits" crap. My position has been that the site investigation reports are evidence to the physical aspects of the site by themselves and need no photographs to "support" them. All the photographs do is illustrate the reports' contents, or some of their contents.

>Exhibit D (Remember what she said about the following photo:"I think that 1, 2 and 3 are in all >probability pits for corpses which were used during the first phase of Treblinka and 4 is the >"Lazarett"):

>http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag ...
Remember that Gerdes keeps dodging my question about what, if not mass graves, the shapes I pointed out on the September 1944 air photograph could have been.

What, if not mass graves, could the shapes I pointed out on the September 1944 air photograph have been, Gerdes?

>Exhibit E (These are more photos that she claims supports her claim that there was "an area >of 20,000 square meters covered by human remains and human remains to a depth of 7.5 >meters."):

>http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.h ...

Fourth lie: My position has been that the site investigation reports are evidence of the site's physical aspects by themselves and need no photographs to "support" them. All the photographs do is illustrate the reports' contents, or some of their contents.

>Exhibit F (This is the article that she claims “proves” that there is a "huge concrete plate" that >covers every single square inch of the “area of 20,000 square meters covered by human >remains and human remains to a depth of 7.5 meters.")

The Polish newspaper article containing information that allows for this reasonable conclusion, yes. And Gerdes hasn’t yet explained what reason there is to doubt the accuracy of the information contained in that article.

>Please note: Don’t forget her own words about this phantom “huge concrete plate”:“No, >Gerdes, I cannot show you a photo of the concrete plate underneath the memorial stones. I’ll >try to find one (though the plate should be hard to see if there’s grass or so above it.”)

>http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/92506/t/Gold ...
What is there to note? The absence of a photograph of the concrete plate in my hands doesn’t make the plate a "phantom", except perhaps in photo-freak Gerdes' cloud-cuckoo-land.

# 263 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p13#c263 :

>Exhibit G: We can't forget that Roberta claims that the 24 - 96 million teeth at Treblinka were >turned into "teeth meal" with plugs - just like this:

>http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c166/cortag ...
>Yes folks, that's why, according to Roberta, not a single tooth has ever been located at
>Treblinka!– All the teeth were turned into “tooth meal” with “plugs!” LOL!!!

Fifth lie: I never endorsed a number of dead that would correspond to 96 million teeth.

Sixth lie: I never claimed that all ashed teeth were crushed. On the contrary, I quoted one eyewitness testimony (Grossman’s) and one document from the Polish militia about an operation against robbery diggers, transcribed in the Polish newspaper article, that expressly mentioned teeth visible or picked up by robbery diggers on the Treblinka site.

>She even quotes Grossman again (See exhibit A):“The earth is throwing out crushed bones, >teeth."

Seventh lie: Grossman was never quoted for anything other than his statement "The earth is throwing out crushed bones, teeth.", which is evidence that human teeth were visible on the Treblinka site at the time of its liberation. Gerdes is dumb enough to expose his sixth lie as such with his seventh lie.

>Yes Roberta, the earth "throws" out the evidence just in time for the jews to say they saw it, >then the earth magically swallowed them up again so no one else can see it! LOL!!! And finally –

Eighth lie: Gerdes ignores the mention of teeth picked up by robbery diggers in the Polish militia report quoted in the Polish newspaper article, English translation under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/92506/t/Gold...

>Exhibit H (These are additional photos that Roberta claims “proves” the Treblinka holocaust >story):

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_multimedia/G ...

Ninth lie: I never claimed that photos prove anything by themselves. On the contrary, I repeatedly pointed out that, like any other elements of evidence, photos only have a meaning in connection with other evidence like eyewitness testimonies, deportation documents and site investigation reports.

Gerdes forgot to mention the eyewitness testimonies and documentary evidence that are referred to in the articles listed in my post # 103 on page 6. That may be so because he doesn’t consider eyewitness testimonies and documents to be "real" evidence. Needless to say, Gerdes has not yet been able to explain what is "real" evidence as opposed to evidence that is not "real", and what rules or standards of criminal investigation or historical research his distinction is based on.

Shall I continue, Mr. Gerdes?

Originally Posted by Gerdes

You accepted THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE.

And if I remember correctly, I did so before miserable coward Gerdes excluded Chelmno and Belzec from the challenge and limited an applicant’s publication choices to just SKEPTIC magazine. Right, Mr. Gerdes?

Originally Posted by Gerdes

That means, you will submit to "SKEPTIC" magazine your "proof."

I didn’t say anything to the contrary, you sorry prick. In order to find out if SKEPTIC magazine are interested in publishing my proof I must submit it to them, don’t you think so? Duh!

Originally Posted by Gerdes

If - IF - "SKEPTIC" magazine rejects your submittal, then, we will discuss whether or not ARCHAEOLOGY magazine can be used as an alternative source in your attempt to become a claimant for the reward money.

Thanks for bringing this up again, Gerdes. At the time I accepted the challenge, IIRC, an applicant had the choice between publishing in SKEPTIC magazine and publishing in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.

What we have now is that if SKEPTIC magazine are not interested in publishing my article, "we will discuss whether or not ARCHAEOLOGY magazine can be used as an alternative source in your attempt to become a claimant for the reward money" - which, for all I’ve seen of greasy slime-ball player Gerdes, will end in a NO to ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.

Why was to change made on the NAFCASH site, Mr. Gerdes? Why were an applicant’s already limited publication options further restricted?

I have submitted that you did this because you thought you had noticed a preference on my part for ARCHAEOLOGY over SKEPTIC magazine, an assumption that is supported by your fuss about unfavorable comments I made regarding Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, the obvious intention of which was to make sure that Shermer’s resentment against me would bar my access to SKEPTIC magazine and thus leave me with no publishing option at all. As you so aptly put it in one of your posts, you made that change just for me.

This, of course, means that you’re scared shitless of evidence meeting your challenge requirements being actually provided, and that you also know how full of shit your "Revisionist" articles of faith are. It makes you a liar and a coward par excellence.

But I’m open to hearing an alternative explanation for your having scratched ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.

Let’s hear, Mr. Gerdes.

Your cowardly silence shall be taken as meaning confirmation of my supposition.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

You're so transparent retardo.

That’s what I’m telling you, Mr. Gerdes.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Thank you again for showing the world what a cowardly liar you are.

And that’s also what I’m telling you. Besides the ease with which I can point to examples of your own flagrant lies and your own flagrant cowardice, there’s also another reason why you should quit calling me names that fit you and you alone: anyone with half a brain, even those of your brothers-in-spirit who are not totally blinded by ideological tomato slices covering their eyes, are sure to have realized that there was never any cowardice or mendacity in my behavior, and that your accusations in this sense, apart from being projections of your own behavior, are completely baseless.

But of course you’re free to continue making a bloody fool of yourself as often as you like, Mr. Gerdes. The more often you do, the worse for you and "Revisionism", and the better for me and elementary common sense.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

BTW Roberta, have I ever told you that your priceless?

I would also quit this lame imitation of a term I have appropriately applied to you, Mr. Gerdes. Every reasonable reader has probably long realized that the reason for my spending time on you is your being a priceless demonstration object of "Revisionist" mendacity, cowardice, obnoxiousness and imbecility.

Keep making yourself and "Revisionism" look like shit, Mr. Gerdes. I’m enjoying every minute of it.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Time for a little recap to refresh everyones minds just how pathetically Roberta is doing in presenting proof of the Sobibor / Treblinka holocausts:

“Physical evidence” documented in photographs – presented to date - by and in the dullards own words:

“A mound of the ashes of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp, at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5938_1_web.jpg

“A mound of the remains of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp, at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5964_1_web.jpg


“A glass display case containing ashes and bones of victims of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5968_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes found on the grounds of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6238_1_web.jpg

“Hair, bones and ashes in the area of the Sobibor extermination camp:”

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...6239_1_web.jpg

“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 – (Photo’s f5, f6 & f7):”

http://www.sobibor.edu.pl/angielska/...nia/index.html

“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.”


And of course, the dullard has repeatedly referred to the Sobibor Archaeology Project’s home page, with all the photos of the alleged “huge mass graves:”

http://undersobibor.org/

And let’s not forget what else the cowardly dullard has said:

"Boy, one can sense how carpet-biting mad Gerdes is at my having accepted the challenge... You will hear from me again on this subject when you find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHEOLOGY magazine with an article about my research findings in your mailbox... I’m doing my research independently of how big a chance there is that meeting the challenge requirements will get me any money. If I don’t get paid for submitting proof that objectively meets the challenge requirements, that’s fine. If I do get paid, that’s even better... but the next time you repeat that "looking for an angle out" - BS you’ll be telling another lie, asshole. I have already made clear that the reward money would be nice to have but is not the main motivation for my research... What made me decide to accept your challenge was a big mistake you made in one of your posts, one that considerably improved my chances of having access to the very evidence that is required to meet the challenge requirements... If you don’t want to accept my suggestions... that’s just fine with me. It won’t dissuade me from trying to obtain, publish and present to NAFCASH the required proof, for as you well know the money issue is secondary to me... As you well know, I’m not trying to change anything to my "liking"... what I’m showing the world is that I’m willing to play by the standards of the NAFCASH challenge... And just to make it clear once more, I intend to publish proof meeting the requirements in ARCHAEOLOGY or SKEPTIC magazine and submit such proof to NAFCASH as soon as I have it in my hands, independently of what my chances are of ever actually seeing any reward money. If I meet the challenge requirements but cannot obtain payment... that’s fine. If I can obtain payment, that’s even better.”

Gerdes posted the same "recap" on CODOH, so it has already been taken care of in my post # 953 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=953 .

Originally Posted by Gerdes

So the question that reamins is:

What are you waiting for Retardo?

You know the answer, Mr. Gerdes. It’s in my post # 916:

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.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Are you some kind of a coward, or what?

You also know the answer to that showpiece of self-projection, Mr. Gerdes. It’s in the same post:

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.

Now, Mr. Gerdes, I won't be here for the next three weeks, because I’m going on a holiday trip tomorrow. Two weeks in southern Spain with my daughters, then one week in Germany with my wife, little or no chance to be on the Internet during all this time. I’m telling you this because I don’t want you to have a pretext to claim that I have run away and you have won the day (I guess you’ll do that anyway, but you will thereby only be showing again what a pathetic liar and infantile jerk you are). I shall be back, and when I’m back, I would like to see the following:

1. A positive response to the question at the end of my post # 916:

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?

2. Changes on the NAFCASH site that make good for the following examples of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in my post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 :

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.

3. A post addressing my fellow HC bloggers below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html, in order to make up for another example of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in post # 903.

4. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059, a link to the present VNN thread and links to my HC articles under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_28.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...enge_4802.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_29.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html

5. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 , an invitation to Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis to report for debate on this VNN thread starting 25 August 2008.

You have three weeks for all the above, Mr. Gerdes. You can use these three weeks to make up for the cowardly behavior you have displayed throughout our discussions, or you can keep showing yourself as a mendacious and obnoxious bigmouth with no balls. The choice is yours.

[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Ced:

"Are you still up for the NAFCASH challenge or what?"

All the cowardly greasy jewbitch has done is try and run since she accepted the challenge. And if that aint enough, she's also trying to use her acceptance of the challenge as a way out of answering questions here.

Two lies in one sentence, Gerdes.

I have tried to make the NAFCASH challenge more fair and transparent, but at the same time made clear that your keeping it as the hoax it was when I accepted it and even introducing further restrictions reducing an applicant’s chances (excluding Chelmno and Belzec from the challenge and ARCHAEOLOGY magazine as a publication choice) wouldn’t dissuade me from trying to obtain and provide evidence that meets the challenge requirements.

And while I think there’s not much of a point in asking and answering questions about matters are either irrelevant to the challenge or that proof meeting the challenge requirements will address, I have provided reasonable answers, to the best of my present knowledge, to all your hysterically worded questions.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Nothing she can post here will effect in any way her proving the existence of just one "huge mass grave" that contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder at Sobibor and/or Treblinka. But she's cowardly trying to use that as an out.

No, Gerdes, I’m just stating the reasonable position that irrelevant questions need not be answered and questions relevant for the purposes of the NAFCASH challenge will be answered in the form provided for on the NAFCASH site, i.e. in SKEPTIC magazine. And notwithstanding this position, I have answered all your questions to the best of my present knowledge. Your mendacious attempt to make believe that I’m evading anything is as transparent as all other dumb lies you have told before.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

What a coward.

… is what I am entitled to call you, Mr. Gerdes. You are arguably the most cowardly creature in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, except perhaps for your bird-of-a-feather Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis.

Again, when I come back from vacation I want to see the following:

1. A positive response to the question at the end of my post # 916:

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?

2. Changes on the NAFCASH site that make good for the following examples of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in my post # 903 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=903 :

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.

3. A post addressing my fellow HC bloggers below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html, in order to make up for another example of Gerdian cowardice mentioned in post # 903.

4. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059, a link to the present VNN thread and links to my HC articles under the following links:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...challenge.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_28.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...enge_4802.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_29.html

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llenge_30.html

5. On the CODOH thread http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=5059 , an invitation to Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis to report for debate on this VNN thread starting 25 August 2008.

And just to make this very clear, in case you feel like claiming that I’m looking for a way out: your compliance with the above is no condition for anything, especially not for my sticking with the NAFCASH challenge. I’m just giving you a chance to make good for the cowardly and obnoxious behavior you have displayed throughout this discussion. Whether you want to take this chance or not is your problem alone. If you want to ignore all my requests and continue showing that you’re a piece of chicken-shit, that’s just fine with me.

[Slamin2]

Originally Posted by EireannGoddess

Heh, "peer" review - which means yourself, eh "lawyer" - [ I noted that you missed the word "alleged" in my post to you - claim whatever you want, mongrel; you are a jew and fancy yourself an expert on jewish/American law].

Actually, I would be interested to see the Mule's work in any magasine; but not all are offering reward monies. Mule accepted Herr Gerde's offer, so why not publish his work there, within a reasonable time.

You obviously do not know what peer review means or how it functions.

[EireannGoddess]

Originally Posted by Mule.

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

Now you are just being idiotic.

I am not going to post my family history and name on an i-net Board; especially to answer a jew's question, information I am certain the juden would love to have just on general principle.

Also, neither my family nor myself have demanded reparation or museums to memorialise our private loss as well Germany's - a museum that is favourable to the Reich and it's dead.

Promise me the return of my Fatherland to us, the removal of foreign, non-White and non-Aryans from Germany, an end to the Occupying government; a repeal with apology of all holocaust denial laws and release of Revisionists and lawyers that are now incarcerated in Germany; then, perhaps, it would be worth exposing my family name to the juden and other enemies.

You are trying to compare Germany's loss to holocaustian claims and make the loss equal to that of a jew - well, Germany's loss has been far greater than any jewish lie, especially their holocaustian Hoax.

I won’t ask to show me their dead bodies

Why not. You are enough of a ghoul to warrant a few fotos.






There's many more fotos of course; but I try to adhere to VNNF standards regarding gory fotos.

[ced smythe]

Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

Then you’re deliberately misrepresenting my words.

They're your words and they represent your feelings. You've tried harder than anyone I've known to twist and wriggle out of these first three or four strange answers you gave to a simple question. This makes you a staunch errorist and really does put a question mark over your ability to tell the truth on any issue whether important or not.

Actually I was talking about the meaning of pride from the beginning, and your lame accusation of "indecent behavior" can be considered indecent indeed.

I've already posted your initial strange, hateful mistakes on the meaning of pride. After those mistakes you posted this:

Originally Posted by Berty

Let's say being proud of Germany's cultural, technical, scientific and economic achievements and of the stable democracy that Germany has managed to become over the past decades.

which is more or less pride. As I said, the beauty of your errorism is that it's unnecessary and makes you seem unreachable and untrustable.

No, a choice between your question being less clear than you claim it to be and my having responded in a provocative manner.

The question is very clear, infact, crystal is opaque by comparison so I discount your jest that it's unclear; and I mentioned that baiting is futile, the reason being I don't take neurotics seriously.

OK. I’m convinced of the possibility, even the probability, of pride leading to hatred against who or what harms the object of pride.

"Possibility, probability". This is not conviction.

Whatever makes you happy, as I’m not following you here.

Feigning ignorance is indecent behaviour from you again.

I’m proud of my country.

Some crazy fellow leads my country (the object of my pride) to shame and disaster.

I hate that crazy fellow for having led my country (the object of my pride) to shame and disaster.

Kind of non sequitur but:

The fear of the object of pride being damaged or hurt leads to hate and everlasting determination to exact revenge in your case - and many others who fear the resurgence of authority.

What point am I supposed to be avoiding, my friend?

Ah, and if you’re looking for someone who needs a lecture on character, I suggest your friend Gerdes.

You're such a fastidious, meticulous man. Consider your modus operandi: your legalistic, prim lawyer type posturing; frequently pointing to previous posts here and elsewhere to reiterate a point you've made as though you keep track of everything. This makes asking for these explanations seem like deceitful game playing and evasive manoeuvres; meaning that's all you have. Again it demonstates a niggardly personality.

Occam’s razor gives preference to the simplest explanation that takes all evidence into account. Which would that be in this case?

I say fear, directly leads to hate; you say:

Originally Posted by Berty

Your statement is wrong in two respects. One is that fear may but must not lead to hate.

What applies to the fear of what may harm what you love also applies to the outrage about harm done to what you love.

Besides, exemplifying meaning on hand of a consequence and "playing a game" by antagonizing my opponent with the consequence chosen as an example are not mutually exclusive propositions.

This whole thread is full of tedious verbosity from you. Occam's razor says you are a relentless liar and I agree.

Unless the issue of critical importance to world Jewry was proof of what happened at Chelmno and not violation of religious principles by desecration of human remains, what you say doesn’t affect the correctness of my assessment.

Non sequitur: this statement has no bearing on the original points made. Indecent behaviour from you again.

When talking to Jew-hating fanatics who spout nonsensical preconceived notions, that’s sort of unavoidable.

This statement changes nothing: you stand ideologically against the interests of White children.

No, the standard is enforced to avoid wasting a court’s time on proof of what has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt already.

You conveniently - and typically - omitted the bit where I said "and is compounded by laws forbidding debate elsewhere."

Setting up straw-men I leave to my opponents, and your "lie" postulation is dogmatic indeed.

This is clearly a lie considering your world is flat and dinosaur strawman. As for dogma, revisionists don't accept the word of men without question on matters of extreme importance; scientists ask for empirical evidence, as in proof, not religious reverence for the words of priests such as the rabbi and Kola etc.

[psychologicalshock]

Originally Posted by EireannGoddess

Promise me the return of my Fatherland to us, the removal of foreign, non-White and non-Aryans from Germany, an end to the Occupying government; a repeal with apology of all holocaust denial laws and release of Revisionists and lawyers that are now incarcerated in Germany; then, perhaps, it would be worth exposing my family name to the juden and other enemies.

The promise of a sub-human is worthless, it wont ever be accomplished

You are trying to compare Germany's loss to holocaustian claims and make the loss equal to that of a jew - well, Germany's loss has been far greater than any jewish lie, especially their holocaustian Hoax.

And the rest of Europe.