View Single Post
Old September 6th, 2008 #1113
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Notice how retardo had no comment on post #1064.

Why is that Retardo?
Poor Gerdes obviously didn’t read my post # 1070 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...postcount=1070 , where I (before reminding him of a few questions he still hasn’t answered) told him (again) what I think of the "magically disappearing" – straw-man he unbelievably tried to peddle again in his post # 1064:

Quote:
Wow. After we looked at the abundant physical evidence that exists at each of these camps, and despite my never having claimed that the killers made all physical evidence disappear (on the contrary), Gerdes still tries to pin the "magically disappearing" straw-man on me.

Thanks for showing (once more) what a dumb and primitive liar you are, Mr. Gerdes.
But I guess the fellow means to say that I didn’t comment on the quote in his post # 1064, in which he or some other retard makes a fuss around selectively quoted snippets from eyewitness testimonies in order to discredit the witnesses and make suckers believe that the bodies could not have been disposed of in the manner described by the witnesses. I have shredded this kind of crap in several articles on the HC blog, in which I demonstrated that what the witnesses describe is wholly plausible in its essence, despite one or the other detail inaccuracy or exaggeration that "Revisionists" make a big bloody fuss about as if it meant anything other than that eyewitness observation is sometimes mistaken. Gerdes is invited to read my articles of the "denierbud" series under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...nks.html#debuv , especially the following:

Historiography as seen by an ignorant charlatan … http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html (the "self-burning" crap and other trash is addressed there)

Incinerating corpses on a grid is a rather inefficient method … http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html (demonstration that, contrary to what "Revisionist" retards claim, the cremation on grids as practiced at the AR camps (and later at Dresden after the Allied bombing) was quite and efficient method of body disposal (though of course it left plenty of physical evidence behind, contrary to "Revisionist" straw-man claims that it is supposed to have left behind none).

If they did it the simple way, they didn’t do it!
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...-didnt_19.html

«B» as in «Bullshit»
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llshit_20.html

It’s raining empty claims …
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...claims_24.html

Gerdes is also invited to read section 4.2 of my article Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research, which he may find under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...belzec_28.html . I explain there, among other things, why decomposed and dehydrated bodies (as opposed to freshly killed bodies, which had to be doused in gasoline on top being exposed to fire from below the grid – much like the bodies burned at the Dresden Altmarkt except that the grid there was lower and thus allowed for fewer flammables to be placed beneath it) burned well with relatively little additional fuel.

Read my articles, Gerdes. You learn something from them, whereas blindly swallowing your scripture only makes you dumber than you are already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And notice that the dull one can't even prove that so much as a pound a crushed bone has ever been located at either Sobibor or Treblinka.

Not so much as a single pound of crushed bone.

Why is that Retardo?

Just imagine - the bones and teeth (35 million!) of 1/5 of the alleged holocaust victims were allegedly cremated by the most absurd, physically impossible manner (see post #1064), and their bones were allegedly crushed with wooden dowels (read sticks) and allegedly put into 13 "huge mass graves" (one of which has already been proven to contain NOTHING but refuse), and the dull one can't prove that so much of a single pound of crushed bone exists at these camps.

Go figure.

Priceless she is.
I can understand your being pissed at me, Mr. Gerdes, but do you really think that things will get better for you if you continue disgracing yourself with your repetitive BS?

As concerns the "physically impossible" - crap, read my above-mentioned articles. There was nothing physically impossible about body disposal by cremation at the AR camps, however often you repeat your prayers and spam-quote your scripture.

As to the wooden dowels, here’s what they must have looked like:



I’m looking forward to your trying to demonstrate a physical impossibility in the procedure (what I’ll probably get is the usual hysterical laughter).

As one of the mass graves having contained nothing but refuse, it is quite possible that the mass grave of the Treblinka "Lazarett" was cleaned out and then turned into a deeper refuse pit during the camp’s dismantlement, or then judge Lukaszkiewicz dug at the wrong place. Big deal.

As to crushed bone at Treblinka, I’d say it is mentioned in Lukaszkiewicz’ report of 29 December 1945, quoted in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html (emphases added):

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.
It takes more than just a few pounds of ground human bones to cover an area of 20,000 square meters, don’t you think so, Mr. Gerdes?

Of course we don’t even need the above site investigation report to consider it proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered at Treblinka, that their bodies were burned and that the bones left over from the burning were ground. All it takes to prove that is the documentary evidence showing the minimum number of people who disappeared from the face of the earth at Treblinka and the many eyewitnesses testimonies, including such from participants in the killing, that describe the killing and body disposal procedure.

The same applies to Sobibor. There we have information, from Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation in 2001, that gives an idea of the amount of human remains, be it crushed bones, ashes of human tissue or human remains only partially burned or not burned at all. This statement by Prof. Kola, quoted in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...-trash_18.html , contains data that allow for establishing the size of the graves:

Quote:
"We uncovered seven mass graves with an average depth of 15ft. 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," said Andrzej Kola, an archaeologist. He said the largest grave measured 210ft by 75ft, the others 60ft by 75ft.
The size of the graves, in turn, leads to the conclusion that, if human remains could be detected by core drilling and some excavation in graves of this size, there must be rather large amounts of human remains inside these graves.

So your claim that I can’t prove "one single pound" of any type of human remains is utter bullshit. I can prove any amount of any type of human remains that can be reasonably inferred from the known evidence of all categories, on hand of that very evidence. Proof of mass murder logically entails proof of any amount of human remains that the murderers left behind, even if you’re too dumb to understand this simple reasoning.

What you may claim is that I cannot visually, photographically show you a given amount of a given type of human remains from a given camp. And my answer to that irrelevant claim is a simple question:

So what?

Answer the question, Mr. Gerdes. Show us that your claims have any relevance.