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

Old July 14th, 2008 #641
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
I thought I heard some tapping, did our Hitler worshiper leave anything behind besides her usual turds?
Face it, Slammy duece, you'll never be anything more than bug juice on the windshield of her life!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #642
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Face it, Slammy duece, you'll never be anything more than bug juice on the windshield of her life!
She's the dog shit I try to avoid.
__________________
RabbitNoMore

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

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #643
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
She's the dog shit I try to avoid.
Since when do kikes try to avoid shit?
Generally you revel in it!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old July 14th, 2008 #644
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
She's the dog shit I try to avoid.
Free speech; the discerning recognize it as a self regulating paradigm; it allows intelligence and stupidity to parade.

Is there a dogshit that you seek out, Slameth?
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #645
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
More non sequitur: your quasi legalistic jargon responses do not follow; they demonstrate how well you deceive yourself or how stupid you can be, Mattoid.
Still waiting for an explanation as to what supposedly does not follow from what in each case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
I'd say this is proof of predetermination; your "meaningless catchphrase" catchphrase is the meaningless catchphrase.
No, it's a reasonable assessment, and what proof of predetermination there is I still have to see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
This "it is simply a fact" standard is a standard that protects who?
You mean the rule that facts of common knowledge require no evidence submission? It protects both parties in a civil lawsuit, depending on which of them invokes such facts. It protects ther prosecution or the defense at a criminal trial, depending on which side invokes such facts. Both sides are entitled to invoke facts of common knowledge in favor of their case.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #646
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeTodd View Post
Maybe you should have, you or some other Blabberstein! You can't have it both ways, Hymie. Despite what your Talmudic toilet paper (sc)rolls tell you! If you want to keep pimping your Holycost(tm) myth down the worlds collective throat either produce the forensic evidence, of which there should be literally tons of, or shut your bagel hole! The end is near for the gefilte gang, Hymie! Nobody believes your carp crap anymore!
Boy, this guy seems to believe in the crap he writes. Truly amazing.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #647
T.Garrett
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: TriState
Posts: 7,208
Talking could it be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
My name is Roberto Muehlenkamp. Guadalupe Salcedo, the name in my e-mail address, was a Colombian guerrilla leader in the 1950s civil war.
Mmmm, you know a guy named Joe Diaz "Roberto"?

Hahaha
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #648
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Isn't it just hilarious watching Roberta cry like a little girl over the fact she can't alter the conditions of the nafcash challenge to her liking?

Only a jew...
Stop telling such obvious lies, Gerdes. This is not about my altering anything but about what you may alter, as you well know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

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

You are not an "applicant." You haven't "applied" for anything. One cannot become an applicant / claimant unless and until your alleged "proof" is published in said magazines.
Then let's make that a potential applicant, to satisfy Gerdes' hair-splitting. My point remains the same: even after submitting proof that meets the challenge requirements, one is not legally entitled to get the reward, right? Submitting proof that meets the requirements, by publishing it in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, does not guarantee that you get the reward. You may get it, or you may not.

Is the above correct, Mr. Gerdes, or is it not?

YES or NO?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes
You have only made a public statement that you were accepting THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE. You can apply / lay claim to the reward when, again, your alleged "proof" is published in said magazines.
OK, Gerdes, let’s assume I have published proof that objectively meets your requirements in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.

What happens then?

I’ll tell you: regardless of what has been published in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, hoaxer Gerdes will say that the challenge requirements have not been met and he will therefore not pay a cent.

Then I might consider opening a lawsuit and having a court of law decide whether or not the requirements of the challenge have been objectively met by the proof published in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.

However, as Gerdes can point to his recent "clarification" and argue that meeting the challenge requirements does not grant a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward, trying to obtain the reward money in court would be a waste of time. I might obtain a moral victory if the court finds that the proof submitted objectively meets the challenge requirements, but I will never see a cent of the reward because Gerdes never made a binding commitment to pay the reward in case the challenge requirements are met by proof published in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.

Is that so or is it not, Mr. Gerdes?

YES or NO?

If "YES", you’ll have confirmed (if that confirmation was still necessary) that your challenge is a hoax.

If "NO", i.e. if I should have misunderstood you (which I don’t think is the case), then please expressly confirm that submitting proof which objectively meets the requirements of the challenge will grant the applicant a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward. This means that if the reward is not paid, the applicant can claim the payment before a court of law, the respondent in such lawsuit being the association called NAFCASH and, assuming that law holds Gerdes liable for the association’s debts, also the private citizen Greg Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whatever amount is being offered by nafcash ON THE DAY OF PUBLICATION is the amount that becomes "locked in." And on that day, one meets the requirement as to becoming a CLAIMANT only. No guarantee has ever been expressed or implied by nafcash that by meeting the requirements to become a claimant automatically entitles said claimant to the reward, and no amount of bazaar mental gymnastics by certain mentally ill people will alter this fact.
is supposed to be self-evident to whoever reads the NAFCASH page or your recent additions to it?

I’d say any attorney and any court of law would slap that assertion around your ears, Mr. Gerdes. What you may argue is that the above clarification should have been on the NAFCASH site from the very start, for whoever might consider the challenge to be clear about what the conditions are.

As I already made understood in post # 624 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=624 , my issue is not what the amount of the reward is on the day the required article in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine is published. It will be what it will be then. What I want to make sure is that the requirements for claiming the reward, whatever its amount, will still be the same on that day.

So again my question, Mr. Gerdes:

Present requirements for the main reward:
Proof of a specific mass grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions, and proof that the grave in question contains the remains of at least one percent of the victims murdered at the respective camp according to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust.

Present requirements for the "bonus"
The mass grave must be from Sobibor, and the applicant (who must be one of a limited number of named individuals) must furthermore prove that the mound of ashes of the victims of the Sobibor extermination camp on the Sobibor memorial site, pictured below:



is actually a mound of human ashes, i.e. that it consists of or is filled with human ashes.

Are the above unchangeable "fundamental requirements of laying claim to the reward offered" in the sense of your above-quoted addition, Mr. Gerdes?

Two answers to this question are possible:

Answer 1:
YES, the present requirements of the challenge described above are unchangeable "fundamental requirements of laying claim to the reward offered", which will be the same on the day proof to meet the requirements is published in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, whenever that happens, as they are today.

Answer 2:
NO, NAFCASH is free to expand these requirements or otherwise shift the goalposts whenever they feel like doing so.

So which is it, Mr. Gerdes? Answer 1 or Answer 2?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Also note:

Roberta's deafening silence on the videos of Chelmno and Sobibor.
Actually I pointed out Gerdes’ apparent need to calm himself down by making a fuss about those videos. The videos suggest that not much if any excavation has been done at these sites, big fucking deal. It may also be that what excavation has been done has been largely or mostly covered up again. Either way, it’s rather silly to make a fuss about what these videos do not show, like open mass graves and their contents. They need not show any of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta, what camp are you going to use? Have you heard from Shermer yet? Have you gotten a hold of OJ?
Answer to this and similar idiotic questions has already been provided. The more often you repeat them, the more you will show how nervous you are.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #649
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Still waiting for an explanation as to what supposedly does not follow from what in each case.
This is the last resort of a liar: disengenuity.

Quote:
No, it's a reasonable assessment, and what proof of predetermination there is I still have to see.
Pantomime veiled in obfuscation.

...It is simply a fact. That's a judge, in a kangaroo court, stating Jewish law. The proof is right there.

Quote:
You mean the rule that facts of common knowledge require no evidence submission? It protects both parties in a civil lawsuit, depending on which of them invokes such facts. It protects ther prosecution or the defense at a criminal trial, depending on which side invokes such facts. Both sides are entitled to invoke facts of common knowledge in favor of their case.
That's not what I mean at all; I never use enigmatic verbosity to confuse others. Your response is a disengenuous dissemblance that does not follow the point; that point being: the "it is simply a fact" standard protects Jew ex parte notions of events, which, greater Jews than you know cannot stand up to scrutiny.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #650
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

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

Can you prove this?

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

Can you show us one single photo of the core samples taken?
I have no photographic or other proof at this moment that Kola’s method at Sobibor in 2001 was core drilling, but in the context of the fuss you made about what is and what is not to be seen in your Sobibor video (which I unfortunately didn’t manage to watch yet due to a problem with my JavaScript), I’d say it’s your job to prove that

a) Prof. Kola did not or not only locate the mass graves by probe drilling (of which one would not expect anything to be visible on a posterior video) but (also) carried out excavations;

b) What excavations he did were excavations of the whole area of every grave and not just small probing excavations to obtain some further information about what the drilling had revealed;

c) What excavations he did were not covered up for protection against being disturbed by the weather or by people at the end of the investigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And notice how Roberta just admitted that Kola lied when he said he had done excavations at Sobibor.
Did Kola state that he had done excavations, Gerdes?

Quote:
(Reuters - Nov., 23, 2001)

MASS GRAVES FOUND AT NAZI POLISH DEATH CAMP

"Polish archaeologists excavating the Nazi death camp in Sobibor said on Friday they had found mass graves at the site, which was evacuated by German occupying forces in October 1943 after a prisoner uprising. The excavations were the first since World War Two at the former camp, which was subsequently forested over. They could provide valuable new evidence on the number of victims, mainly Jews, who died in the Sobibor gas chambers. According to official Polish accounts, 250,000 people were killed in Sobibor, which was opened in May 1942 and lies close to the eastern border with Ukraine. ''We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of five meters. In them there were charred human remains and under them remains in a state of decay. That means that in the final stage the victims were burned,'' archaeologist Andrzej Kola was quoted by the Polish PAP news agency telling a news conference. He said the largest grave measured 70 meters by 25 meters, the others 20 by 25 meters."
Emphasis is mine.

The news agency speaks of “excavating”, but news agencies are often wrong about what they report. It may also be that Reuters used the term in a broader sense that includes core drilling.

Prof. Kola’s "uncovered", on the other hand, may mean drilling (one might say that the Belzec mass graves were uncovered by core drilling, for instance), excavation, or both. We can’t tell from Prof. Kola’s quoted statement, assuming it was correctly translated from Polish. Your fellow true believer quoted in my post # 610 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=610 mentioned only probe drilling, unless I missed something:

Quote:
The average depth stated for all seven mass graves was 15 feet (4.6 meter). The graves allegedly discovered by probe drillings were said to contain ”charred human remains” and under them a layer of ”remains in a state of decay”.
If there was excavation instead of or following the probe drillings, this means your fellow true believer omitted the excavation part.

If there was no excavation instead of or following the probe drillings, the likeliest possibility is that Reuters either considered core drilling a form of excavating or got their information wrong, not that Kola falsely claimed to have done something he had not done.

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

Have you heard from Archaeology magazine yet?

Have you heard from jew-lie-t Golden yet?
What part of this:

Quote:
Ah, and how I go about collecting the evidence and who I contact for this purpose is my business alone, of course. You will hear from me again on this subject when I you find an issue of SKEPTIC or ARCHEOLOGY magazine with an article about my research findings in your mailbox.
is too hard for your limited Simian intellect to understand, Mr. Gerdes?

Just keep exposing your nervousness and making a fool of yourself with your infantile "have you already this-and-that" questions, Mr. Gerdes. I’m enjoying the show.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #651
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

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

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

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

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

The whole process of updating the nafcash site as well as the contracts has been streamlined so it shouldn't be too long to wait for the updated information to get completed and uploaded.
I see Gerdes is admitting that I have a point in wondering how long a requirement posted on the NAFCASH site remains valid for the purpose of a submission of proof.

If he had left out the invective and the imbecile pretense that what he will now clarify is evident from what is presently stated on his website, one might even suspect that he was having a lucid moment.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #652
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Still waiting for an explanation as to what supposedly does not follow from what in each case.

This is the last resort of a liar: disengenuity.
That would be "disingenuousness", which is what is being displayed by who throws unsubstantiated catchphrases around and baselessly calls his opponent a liar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
No, it's a reasonable assessment, and what proof of predetermination there is I still have to see.

Pantomime veiled in obfuscation.
No, it’s none of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
...It is simply a fact. That's a judge, in a kangaroo court, stating Jewish law. The proof is right there.
No, what we have here is just the clarification of what a specific rule of evidence means and how it applies to the case in question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Quote:
You mean the rule that facts of common knowledge require no evidence submission? It protects both parties in a civil lawsuit, depending on which of them invokes such facts. It protects ther prosecution or the defense at a criminal trial, depending on which side invokes such facts. Both sides are entitled to invoke facts of common knowledge in favor of their case.

That's not what I mean at all; I never use enigmatic verbosity to confuse others. Your response is a disengenuous dissemblance that does not follow the point; that point being: the "it is simply a fact" standard protects Jew ex parte notions of events, which, greater Jews than you know cannot stand up to scrutiny.
It seems you didn’t read what you quoted in post # 558 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=558.

The quote refers to Section 452(h) of the California Evidence Code, the text of which you find under http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...ebody=&hits=20 . Section 452, see under http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=450-460 , has the following wording (emphases added):

Quote:
452. Judicial notice may be taken of the following matters to the extent that they are not embraced within Section 451:

(a) The decisional, constitutional, and statutory law of any state of the United States and the resolutions and private acts of the Congress of the United States and of the Legislature of this state.

(b) Regulations and legislative enactments issued by or under the authority of the United States or any public entity in the United States.

(c) Official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.

(d) Records of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.

(e) Rules of court of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States.

(f) The law of an organization of nations and of foreign nations and public entities in foreign nations.

(g) Facts and propositions that are of such common knowledge within the territorial jurisdiction of the court that they cannot reasonably be the subject of dispute.

(h) Facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.
What the court did was to express its opinion that item (h) applied to the fact that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is nothing wrong with this opinion. The gassing of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau is a fact not reasonably subject to dispute (one may unreasonably dispute anything, including the existence of the moon) because all known evidence points towards this fact and none points in any other direction. And it is also capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy, which are the assessments of the documentary and eyewitness evidence by historians and criminal justice authorities. One may reasonably argue that one or the other eyewitness was mistaken about or even embellished one or the other detail, but one cannot reasonably argue that all essentially matching eyewitness testimonies, provided independently of each other, often subject to cross- examination in court and including those of a considerable number of participants in the killing, are the result of some gigantic and invisible conspiracy of evidence manipulation. The same applies to the documents that refer to homicidal gassing, to what physical evidence the killers left behind and to the documentary and demographic evidence showing that about a million people were taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau but never left the place alive. Arguing that all this evidence was manipulated without anybody noticing, or with the complicity of governments, administrative and criminal justice authorities and historians all over the world, and that the Jews deported to AB mostly survived the war at places to which they were taken from there and later kept their mouths shut about who they were, where they had come from and what had "really" happened to them – is that a reasonable proposition? No, it’s just a baseless fantasy. A court’s decision is not biased just because it implies that your baseless fantasies are just that.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #653
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
That would be "disingenuousness", which is what is being displayed by who throws unsubstantiated catchphrases around and baselessly calls his opponent a liar.
Thanks for that, I admit I should get a dictionary.

Feigning ignorance; pretending not to understand is what a liar does as a last resort.

Quote:
No, it’s none of that.
Oh, the irony.

Quote:
No, what we have here is just the clarification of what a specific rule of evidence means and how it applies to the case in question.
What we have here is predetermination. The statement " It is simply a fact" implies that nothing will change the view of this court.

Quote:
It seems you didn’t read what you quoted in post # 558 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=558.

The quote refers to Section 452(h) of the California Evidence Code, the text of which you find under http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...ebody=&hits=20 . Section 452, see under http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=450-460 , has the following wording (emphases added):



What the court did was to express its opinion that item (h) applied to the fact that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz-Birkenau. There is nothing wrong with this opinion. The gassing of Jews at Auschwitz-Birkenau is a fact not reasonably subject to dispute (one may unreasonably dispute anything, including the existence of the moon) because all known evidence points towards this fact and none points in any other direction. And it is also capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy, which are the assessments of the documentary and eyewitness evidence by historians and criminal justice authorities. One may reasonably argue that one or the other eyewitness was mistaken about or even embellished one or the other detail, but one cannot reasonably argue that all essentially matching eyewitness testimonies, provided independently of each other, often subject to cross- examination in court and including those of a considerable number of participants in the killing, are the result of some gigantic and invisible conspiracy of evidence manipulation. The same applies to the documents that refer to homicidal gassing, to what physical evidence the killers left behind and to the documentary and demographic evidence showing that about a million people were taken to Auschwitz-Birkenau but never left the place alive. Arguing that all this evidence was manipulated without anybody noticing, or with the complicity of governments, administrative and criminal justice authorities and historians all over the world, and that the Jews deported to AB mostly survived the war at places to which they were taken from there and later kept their mouths shut about who they were, where they had come from and what had "really" happened to them – is that a reasonable proposition? No, it’s just a baseless fantasy. A court’s decision is not biased just because it implies that your baseless fantasies are just that.
This is an unbelievable tangent: verbose legalistic jargon. As we're on this tangent how can something be "reasonably indisputable"? Indisputable is not modifiable, it's good old subtlety in action.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #654
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
Feigning ignorance; pretending not to understand is what a liar does as a last resort.
Whatever it is, it's not what I'm doing. Requesting substantiation is not feigning ignorance. Refusing it, on the other hand, smacks of dishonesty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
What we have here is predetermination. The statement " It is simply a fact" implies that nothing will change the view of this court.
The statement expresses the court's conviction that the fact of gassings at AB is not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Any given court decision expresses a view that nothing (short of refutation by a higher court) will change, so you remark is tautological.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
This is an unbelievable tangent: verbose legalistic jargon.
No, this is a consistent explanation of why the court's decision is appropriate and your rambling against it is baseless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
As we're on this tangent how can something be "reasonably indisputable"?
In that there is no reason that might justify disputing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CS
Indisputable is not modifiable, it's good old subtlety in action.
Yeah, there's nothing that is reasonably indisputable. One day we may find that hens have teeth, that the Lord made man out of clay and that the Flat Earth movement is right. Just wait and see.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #655
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
The statement expresses the court's conviction that the fact of gassings at AB is not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Any given court decision expresses a view that nothing (short of refutation by a higher court) will change, so you remark is tautological.
I had a Catholic priest who pretty much told me the same thing you have just stated when I asked him why I was supposed to pray to saints to intercede for me. I asked him why I should do that when I could go to the direct source and take my prayers to Jesus or, even God. The response I got was a furious answer: "Because the Pope in Rome orders it; and, if the Pope and all the Cardinals in Rome tell you to stand on your head and pray to Saint [insert any saint's name] then you'll damn well do it! You have to believe and have faith!" - I rejected his premise, and continued to believe what made sense to me, and took my prayers and questions to the Source.

So, Holocaustian Priest, I do not believe your "high court" - the evidence is shoddy; based entirely upon "eyewitness" reports - and no court I respect convicts and condemns based solely on 'eyewitnesses' - for they each have a different version of the crime and the criminal. Physical Evidence, forensic and scientific, ect, and proof beyond reasonable doubt, must back up all eyewitness versions.

You ought to be glad that there are Folks who care enough to deny the holocaust. Most folks my age are indifferent to it, and indifference is the highest form of rejection. In the case of Holocaustianity, indifference should be fought.

Despite the fact that questioning the holocaust is the jews biggest fear, they would indeed prefer indifference since they are not challenged by it; no, jews and Holocaustians need to be held accountable for their Lies and deceit re the Hoax. And, they will continue to be forced to address the questions raised by Revisionists.

For, this is one jewish lie that cannot be made into a religion; a theme based on belief, faith and acceptance. As the truth becomes more exposed, Holocaustian, your fakery will fall down like a house of cards. And, that is the jews greatest fear. Not that people will forget; but that they will no longer believe, when the evidence or "articles of faith" prove to be false and an outright lie.

Revisionists have created more than reasonable doubt; they have proven the Lie. It's up to you Holocaustians to shore up your faith by evidence and proof. For whether you like it or not, Holocaustianity is not a faith. It is not to be accepted at face value as some holy truth - concocted by the juden as emissaries from from their desert god.

Facts, evidence, dna, Proof based upon logic - not belief - are required and, due to the enormity of the Lie, and the heavy price America and Europe paid and continue to pay at the altar of Holocaustianity, the proof had best be above reproach or question - there will be hell for you pay in the near future if you jews do not do this. You will FINALLY get your holocaust. A real one, one that will not have to be made up. And, there will be no eyewitnesses left to lie.

This is my generation speaking. You Holocaustians have to answer to us now. And, we have been exposed to all the propaganda, every lie. And, still we do not believe. A survey was conducted on Eastern University campuses, re whether one 'believed' in the 'Caust - I do not recall the exact percentage of those who wrote no, and added a short essay as to why they could not believe [lack of evidence, too much hype, illogical; ect] - but the majority who did enter "no" was overwhelming.

This is what you Holocaustians are up against, and these are the folks the Revisionists are to be writing for. We are the future and the future belongs to us.

Quote:
No, this is a consistent explanation of why the court's decision is appropriate and your rambling against it is baseless.
Continue to live in your bubble, Mule. It does not change your job. You are a bad Holocaustian priest, you shirk your duty. Get to work, you have several millions of young Aryans and non-white Gentiles to convince you're right. Your propaganda thus far, has failed. And, again, the price you will pay for your laziness is one that you do not want to accept; but so richly deserve.

Quote:
Just wait and see.
Best not make us wait too long, priest - we are an impatient and angry generation.

It's coming. The worm has turned for the jews.

Last edited by EireannGoddess; July 15th, 2008 at 09:03 AM.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #656
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post

I had a Catholic priest who pretty much told me the same thing you have just stated when I asked him why I was supposed to pray to saints to intercede for me. I asked him why I should do that when I could go to the direct source and take my prayers to Jesus or, even God. The response I got was a furious answer: "Because the Pope in Rome orders it; and, if the Pope and all the Cardinals in Rome tell you to stand on your head and pray to Saint [insert any saint's name] then you'll damn well do it! You have to believe and have faith!" - I rejected his premise, and continued to believe what made sense to me, and took my prayers and questions to the Source.
A few years back you'd have your head lopped off for this.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #657
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

I thought I would share the latest email exchange I had with Roberta:

Roberta wrote:

This is about whether or not the requirements that must be met by whatever you mean by "proof" - and if you keep yelling that the term is self-evident I'm entitled to conclude that you submit to reasonable standards of proof, i.e. those that are applied in criminal investigation and historical research - will be frozen for the purpose of my future submission of evidence to the challenge.

By requirements I mean the following:

Requirements for the main reward:
[quote]You must prove the grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions - however, to qualify for the reward; You need only to prove that the grave contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder.[quote]

Requirements for the "bonus":
Mass grave must be from Sobibor + applicant (from limited number of named individuals) must furthermore «prove that Sobibors alleged “giant pile of human ash” is actually composed of human ash».

This is not about the amount of the reward. It is also not about what evidence is considered by you to meet the challenge requirements. It's only about the challenge requirements themselves, about what one must prove to be "eligible" for your reward.


Greg Gerdes replied:

This will not change:

You must prove the grave’s exact location and its exact dimensions - however, to qualify for the reward; You need only to prove that the grave contains the remains of just one percent of the alleged mass murder.


The Sobibor bonus reward will read:

* $5,000.00 SOBIBOR BONUS REWARD! - If the winner of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM does so via Sobibor, NAFCASH TM will donate $5,000.00 in the winners name to the – SOBIBOR ARCHAEOLOGY PROJECT if said winner can also prove that Sobibors alleged “giant pile / mountain of human ash” is actually comprised of human ash.

And will not change.


Your brain damage / mental illness / low IQ severely impairs your ability to communicate effectively Roberta. Maybe in the future you can have your mommy assist you with your communications?
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #658
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

Roberta:

Quote:
OK, Gerdes, let’s assume I have published proof that objectively meets your requirements in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine. What happens then?
Then you have passed the first test and are entitled to submit said "proof" that you had published to nafcash for consideration - i.e. - apply / lay claim to the reward.

The very simple requirement of having any such alleged proof vetted by "Skeptic" and Archaeology magazines is intended to limit those who lay claim to the reward to serious applicants only. What I didn't want to happen is to have every mentally ill / retarded holocaustian in the world bothering me with "proof" that in no way, shape or form could be considered proof by any sane / rational human being.

But, as anyone can see, that isn't exactly the case, because as Roberta has shown, certain mentally ill / brain damaged / low IQ people can still try to get around my "only serious applicants only please" attempt by simply wishing that certain requirements are what she wants them to be. Apparently, Roberta doesn't have the mental capacity to understand the difference between becoming eligible to lay claim to a reward and meeting the requirements necessary to receive a reward.

Only a jew / mental ill...

Roberta:

Quote:
I’ll tell you: regardless of what has been published in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, hoaxer Gerdes will say that the challenge requirements have not been met and he will therefore not pay a cent.
No Roberta, unlike you and the moral midgets in the homosexual underworld that you surround yourself with, the supporters of THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE are people of character and will pay up.

If in fact you do meet the requirements to receive the reward, you will receive the reward.

Roberta:

Quote:
However, as Gerdes can point to his recent "clarification" and argue that meeting the challenge requirements does not grant a legally valid and enforceable claim to the reward, trying to obtain the reward money in court would be a waste of time. I might obtain a moral victory if the court finds that the proof submitted objectively meets the challenge requirements, but I will never see a cent of the reward because Gerdes never made a binding commitment to pay the reward in case the challenge requirements are met by proof published in SKEPTIC or ARCHAEOLOGY magazine.
I want to thank you again for showing the world just how mentally ill / retarded you are Roberta. Thank you.

Roberta:

Quote:
This means that if the reward is not paid, the applicant can claim the payment before a court of law, the respondent in such lawsuit being the association called NAFCASH and, assuming that law holds Gerdes liable for the association’s debts, also the private citizen Greg Gerdes.
No shit dumb ass. (Thanks again Roberta.)
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #659
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Default

Let's remind Retardo again of this simple fact:

Quote:
No guarantee has ever been expressed or implied by nafcash that by meeting the requirements to become a claimant automatically entitles said claimant to the reward, and no amount of bazaar mental gymnastics by certain mentally ill people will alter this fact.
Thanks again Roberta.
 
Old July 15th, 2008 #660
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Whatever it is, it's not what I'm doing. Requesting substantiation is not feigning ignorance. Refusing it, on the other hand, smacks of dishonesty.
One substantiation leads to another; you then ask for proof that my father was the man I thought he was. After that you might ask for proof that my father existed at all.

Substantiation is apparent to the honest reader, biased or not. This self deception is habitual; a means of not having to admit error. Thus you stand, untouchable, above all others including international Jewry's think tanks, which insist on censorship.

Quote:
The statement expresses the court's conviction that the fact of gassings at AB is not reasonably subject to dispute and capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy. Any given court decision expresses a view that nothing (short of refutation by a higher court) will change, so you remark is tautological.
The statement expresses the power of money, media and legal control. We Jews say it is so, thus it is so. No other tribe on Earth can enforce such standards as " It is simply a fact".

Quote:
No, this is a consistent explanation of why the court's decision is appropriate and your rambling against it is baseless.
My statement was short and very clear; your response was evasive, lengthy, legalistic jargon.

Quote:
In that there is no reason that might justify disputing it.
Ex parte Jewish law. Again, it implies that nothing will change the view of the court. However you interpret reasonable, indisputable is indisputable; this Jew myth is disputable because we throw down the Jew book of rules.

Quote:
Yeah, there's nothing that is reasonably indisputable. One day we may find that hens have teeth, that the Lord made man out of clay and that the Flat Earth movement is right. Just wait and see.
Straw yid disingenuity (look it up genius). Reasonably indisputable is like reasonably dead.
__________________
Fear not the path of truth for the lack of those upon it.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.
Page generated in 0.76591 seconds.