View Single Post
Old August 2nd, 2008 #955
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
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:”

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

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

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

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

“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):”

“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:”

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 .

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 ) 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 ) 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 , 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 :

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 , # 528 under , # 536 under , # 540 under, # 545 under , # 566 under , 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, a link to the present VNN thread and links to my HC articles under the following links:






5. On the CODOH thread , 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.