View Single Post
Old September 2nd, 2008 #1058
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

"Actually what has been proven is that this pit with human remains to a depth of 7.5 meters... can only be a former mass grave 7.5 meters deep, later emptied of the bodies and then refilled with soil and partial human remains left over by cremation."

Where is it Retardo?


In the area of the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka extermination camp. Where else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Prove that this alleged "huge mass grave filled with partial human remains left over by cremation " exists.
No problem, as all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to the existence of this and other pits. See exhibits I.1 and I.2 in my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 , especially exhibit A.3.1.4 in my post # 172 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=172 :

Quote:
A.3.1.4 Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945, as quoted in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html . Relevant excerpts:

Quote:
The largest of the craters produced by explosions (numerous fragments attest to the fact that these explosions were set off by bombs), which is at maximum 6 meters deep and has a diameter of about 25 meters – its walls give recognizable evidence of the presence of a large quantity of ashes as well as human remains – was further excavated in order to discover the depth of the pit in this part of the camp. Numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition.[208] The soil consists of ashes interspersed with sand, is of a dark gray color and granulous in form. During the excavations, the soil gave off an intense odor of burning and decay. At a depth of 7.5 meters the bottom was reached, which consisted of layers of unmixed sand. At this point the digging was stopped here.
Quote:
In the northwestern section of the area, the surface is covered for about 2 hectares by a mixture of ashes and sand. In this mixture, one finds countless human bones, often still covered with tissue remains, which are in a condition of decomposition. During the inspection, which I made with the assistance of an expert in forensic medicine, it was determined that the ashes are without any doubt of human origin (remains of cremated human bones). The examination of human skulls could discover no trace of« wounding. At a distance of some 100 m, there is now an unpleasant odor of burning and decay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

"What I’m saying is that the bomb crater in which the digging was done need not have been the mass grave of the "Lazarett"

Then where is the Lazarett then dull one?
In the area of the former "reception camp" section of Treblinka extermination camp, where it should be possible to find traces of the mass grave unless it was cleared out and then turned into a deeper waste disposal pit during the camp’s dismantlement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Remember, the claim is that tens of thousands of jews were shot in this alleged pit.
Actually that’s the estimate of one eyewitness, which may well be off the mark. The shooters sentenced to lifetime imprisonment by a West German court maintained that the number of people shot at the Lazarett was much lower, and the court could reach no definite findings of fact as to the number.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Where is this pit that contains the remains of the alleged tens of thousands of murdered jews and the tens of thousands of bullets and shell casings?
See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

"And even in that profile it looks like a bunch of "things" in the ground on the right hand side that could easily be mass graves."

and:

"No, Gerdes is probably aware that Krege found exactly what he had hoped not to find - soil disturbances compatible with mass graves."

Where dull one? If Kola found "what he hoped not to find," i.e. - "soil disturbances compatible with mass graves," then the jews can find it also.
Maybe so, but why should they or anyone else bother? There’s no room for reasonable doubt about the mass murder at Treblinka, with or without GPR examinations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What are they waiting for dull one?
Not that it would be necessary to prove what is proven already, but maybe the folks of the SAP will be interested in examining the subsoil of Treblinka after they have concluded their documentation of what is in the subsoil of Sobibor. I sure hope they will, for the increase of archaeological and historical knowledge this would bring about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And Dr. Nowak’s article about archaeological research at Chelmno shows that the exact location of the mass graves at Chelmno has been established. All that now needs to be done, for the purpose of qualifying for the NAFCASH challenge, is to quantify the remains inside one of them, or obtain information that may already exist about such quantification.

So, when will you re-introduce Chelmno into the NAFCASH challenge, Mr. Gerdes?

Let me repeat this so the dull one can understand:

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

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

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

"Speaking for myself (the others you must ask directly, see above), I accept"

So get your team together Roberta. When you have jew-lie Golden and Archaeology magazine and all your fellow funnyboys at HC online, make a publich challenge to nafcash.

We're waiting Retardo.
Horseshit, Gerdes.

The conditions you are setting are but a coward’s lame and transparent attempt to hide the fact that he’s afraid to reintroduce Chelmno into the NAFCASH challenge.

Doing so requires no specific applicant let alone a team and a joint announcement. So cut the crap and answer the question:

When will you re-introduce Chelmno into the NAFCASH challenge, Mr. Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:

"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.

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.

The above, my dear Gerdes, means "Yes, the mound does contain human ashes".

Let's see the proof retardo. Let's see the photos of the construction of the mound and where the "human ashes" were found and the pit that the "human ashes" were dug out of and the analysis of the ashes in question that prove that they were "human ashes."

This is so easy.
No, it’s not. Reconstructing the history of the mound requires access to people on site who know about it. Quantifying the human remains in the mound requires permissions and the work of archaeologists and forensic experts. Establishing what pit or pits these ashes come from, apart from being irrelevant, is impossible decades after the robbery digging that probably brought them to the surface.

Quantification of the remains and expert confirmation that they are human remains may be forthcoming one of these days, but it won’t be easy to obtain.

However there’s something that should be easy: Gerdes explaining why, according to what rules and standards of evidence or according to what logic, the kind of proof he demands is required to reasonably conclude that the mound in question, set up at what all known evidence shows to have been a place of mass murder where the victims’ bodies were eventually burned, consists of ashes from the burning of human beings.

So let’s have that explanation, Mr. Gerdes. Why, according to what rules or standards other than your irrelevant own, is the proof you demand supposed to be the only acceptable proof?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Thank you retardo. Have I ever told you that you're priceless?
I thought you would come up with something new after a relaxing holiday weekend, Mr. Gerdes.

Instead we’re treated to the same repetitive and irrelevant "show me" questions and demands and the same obnoxious, self-projecting rhetoric.

What a bore you are, Mr. Gerdes.

Even your fellow true believers seem to think so and have accordingly left us alone.

You will lose your value as a demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility if people stop reading this thread because your repetitive rambling puts them to sleep.

So how about, say, answering to the question I asked you at the end of my post # 1025 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1025 , Mr. Gerdes?

This question:

Quote:
One question I would especially like to see answered is the question at the end of my post # 916 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=916 , which I reminded you of in my post # 955 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=955 before going on vacation and in my post # 1011 after coming back:

Quote:
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?
There’s a good reason for my having asked this question. I have answered to the best of my current knowledge all your questions related to the physical evidence at the Nazi extermination camps we have been talking about. More information will be forthcoming as I follow the progress of archaeological work on the site of Sobibor extermination camp, but until it does we must decide what do with our discussion.

I see three alternatives:

Alternative # 1: We can bore the hell out of our audience with your endless "show me, show me" – yelling, your repetitive irrelevant questions and my yawning responses to both.

Alternative # 2: We can let this discussion rest until more news from the current Sobibor investigations come in.

Alternative # 3: We can do something productive in the meantime by taking a look at the questions I have asked you throughout this discussion and further questions I would like to ask you, questions related to the relevance of your demands, to the physical evidence we have looked at, to the documentary and eyewitness evidence I have shown and to the hypothetical scenarios other than mass murder that you believe in.

From the point of view of our audience, I’d say Alternative # 3 is the most interesting.

As concerns Greg Gerdes, Alternative # 1 is what he will choose if he decides to continue behaving like the lying coward he has so far shown himself to be, Alternative # 2 is the neutral choice and Alternative # 3 is the one he will choose if he should manage to overcome his cowardice and if he has a minimum of genuine interest in the historical events we have been talking about.

So which of them shall it be, Mr. Gerdes?

Alternative # 1 ?

Alternative # 2 ?

or

Alternative # 3 ?
So far you have shown a distinct preference for Alternative # 1.

How about at least expressly confirming it?