View Single Post
Old September 11th, 2008 #1226
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp

Well, let’s see what poor little Gerdes has got today.

Post # 1216:

A copy-and-paste repetition of post # 1200, commented in my post # 1213 under .

Post # 1218:

Poor Gerdes tries to be smart and ends up showing what a dumb fuck he is, as so often before. In my post # 1213, I wrote the following:

The fragility of teeth subjected to fire is discussed, for instance, in an article in the 4/1990 issue of the Journal of Forensic Science, written by Harry H. Minces, Hugh E. Berryman, G. Allen Murray and Richard L. Dickens, that is headed "Methods for Physical Stabilization of Ashed Teeth in Incinerated Remains" and refers to methods "for physically stabilizing the extremely fragile ashed teeth[my emphasis] that are often encountered in incinerated human remains". The authors are not talking about cremation in a crematorium, but about incineration in cars following traffic accidents, fires in buildings and such. So whoever claims that teeth would not be destroyed in or after an open-air cremation process at very high temperatures (it was not possible to go near the fire, according to eyewitnesses) is obviously full of shit.
in response to Gerdes’ idiotic claim that:

Not only would it be impossible to "cremate" a single body like this, it would be even harder to "destroy" so much as a single tooth.
What I’m hereby saying is that, contrary to what Gerdes claims, teeth tend to be destroyed in a hot fire, or made so fragile that they will easily crumbled or be crushed thereafter.

What I’m not saying, of course, is that every single tooth would be destroyed by the fire or crumble or be crushed thereafter.

After I have shown and keep referring to eyewitness and documentary evidence that mentions teeth lying around or picked up by robbery diggers, stinking liar Gerdes should know better than try to pin so lame a straw-man on me.

A no less primitive and mendacious straw-man is found at the end of post # 1218:

Originally Posted by Gerdes
And what "fire" dull one? You mean the fire where the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires, where all it takes is a match to light them, where the corpses burned well enough without extra fuel, where pans would be placed beneath the racks to catch the fat as it ran off, where Blood too was found to be first-class combustion material, where the highly original discovery that the bodies of women burned better than those of men, where once the bodies caught fire they would continue burning by themselves? Is that the fire you are talking about dull one? The one that defies the laws of nature?
The answer to this hysterical howling is:

No, my dear friend.

I’m referring to the incineration procedure as described by sober eyewitnesses like SS-man Heinrich Matthes, quoted in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html :

At that time SS <em>Oberscharführer</em> or <em>Hauptscharführer</em> [Herbert] Floss, who, as I assume, was previously in another extermination camp, arrived. He was in charge of the arrangements for cremating the corpses. The cremation took place in such a way that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves.
and Ukrainian guard Pavel Vladimirovich Leleko, quoted in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...rather_18.html :

An incinerator from the burning of bodies was situated about 10 meters beyond the large gas chamber building. It had the shape of a cement pit about one meter deep and 20 meters long. A series of furnaces covered on the top with four rows of rails extended along the entire length of one of the walls of the pit. The bodies were laid on the rails, caught fire from the flames burning in the furnaces and burned. About 1000 bodies were burned simultaneously. The burning process lasted up to five hours.
I’m referring to the difference between the burning of decomposed, dehydrated corpses, which for reasons explained under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...belzec_28.html required relatively little fuel, and the burning of "fresh" corpses, which required higher amounts of fuel. A quote from this article:

The following excerpt from Yitzhak Arad’s book about the extermination camps of Aktion Reinhard(t) shows that my above assumptions and conclusions are not merely of a theoretical nature but correspond to the experiences with the burning of the corpses testified to by camp staff and permanent inmates of the "Reinhard(t)" camps, on which Arad’s description is presumably based. Thus from Treblinka it was reported that, unlike the corpses burned right after the gassing in the camp’s final phase, which had to be sprayed with considerable amounts of liquid fuel, the corpses taken out of the mass graves required no additional flammables beyond those that were laid under the incineration grids for lighting the fire:
[…]After the cremation installation had been constructed, the process of removing the bodies from the pits began. The work was initiated by a single excavator; later, a second excavator was brought in. The shovel’s scoop removed six to eight corpses with each dip and dumped them on the edge of the pit. A special team of prisoners, working in twos, transferred the corpses to the crematorium on stretchers. There, another special team, called the "burning group" (Feuerkolonne) removed the corpses from the stretchers and arranged them in layers on the roaster to a height of two meters. Between 2,000 and 2,500 bodies – sometimes up to 3,000 – would be piled on the roaster. When all was ready, dry wood and branches, which had been laid under the roaster, were ignited. The entire construction, with the bodies, was quickly engulfed in fire. The railings would glow from the heat, and the flames would reach a height of up to 10 meters.
At first an inflammable liquid was poured onto the bodies to help them burn, but later this was considered unnecessary; the SS men in charge of the cremation became convinced that the corpses burned well enough without extra fuel.
The bodies of victims brought to Treblinka in transports arriving after the body-burning began were taken directly from the gas chambers of the roasters and were not buried in the ditches. These bodies did not burn as well as those removed from the ditches and had to be sprayed with fuel before they would burn.[…]

Source: Yitzhak Arad, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps, pages 173 f. Emphases are mine.
Despite some less-than-objective outbursts by survivor eyewitnesses, paraded out of context by straw-man toting "Revisionist" freaks, the objective descriptions of witnesses like Matthes, Leleko are not contradicted in their essence by survivor eyewitness testimonies. Eliahu Rosenberg, for instance, described the burning process as follows (see under , emphasis added):

"After Himmler inspected the camp he ordered the burning of all the bodies lying in the pit [...] For this purpose, two iron rails were placed on the ground parallel to each other, and the bodies that were dug out of the pit with excavators were stacked on top of each other like fire logs. It frequently happened that the corpses, especially those just freshly killed, didn't burn well, and so we had to pour gasoline over them [...] At that time we had only one burning site, and of course that wasn't enough, since we couldn't burn more than a hundred bodies a day. An SS-Oberscharfhrer, Herbert Floss by name, was brought in from the neighboring camp [...] He set up five or six burning sites and also introduced a new way to layer the bodies [...]"[90]
So much for the "all it takes is a match to light them" – straw-man, which IIRC is based on an emotional outburst by Rosenberg as a witness at the Demjanjuk trial. As to the "bodies of women were used for kindling the fires" – straw-man, that was dealt with in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html , from which the following quote is taken:

2. Bud’s second attempt to cheat his viewers is rather obvious. Bud points out the following passages of Wiernik’s account, which can be found in Chapter 9 of A Year in Treblinka:

It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires.
and claims (by asking a rhetorical question) that Wiernik tried to make believe that the women burned «on their own, like wood».

This is nonsense, of course. The context provided by other evidence shows that what Wiernik probably meant was that the bodies of women, which would burn better than those of man due to their higher fat content, were placed at the bottom of a pile of corpses to be incinerated so that they might help the incineration of the less fatty male corpses above them. This practice was described by another eyewitness, Yechiel Reichman, who is quoted as follows on page 175 of Yitzhak Arad’s book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Death Camps (emphases are mine):

The SS "expert" on body burning ordered us to put women, particularly fat women, on the first layer of the grill, face down. The second layer could consist of whatever was brought – men, women, or children – and so on, layer on top of layer … Then the "expert" ordered us to lay dry branches under the grill and to light them. Within a few minutes the fire would take so it was difficult to approach the crematorium from as far as 50 meters away ...

As we can see, the use of women for "kindling" in the way described by Reichman did not exclude the use of external flammables, expressly mentioned by this witness. This shows that there is no reason to assume that Wiernik intended to exclude the use of wood or other flammables when stating that the bodies of women were used for "kindling the fires"; he might have simply considered the use of wood or other external flammables as a given and therefore not worth mentioning. But actually Wiernik did mention other flammables in his description of the procedure in question. For if we read a little further on in Chapter 9 from the passage pointed out by Bud, we find the following:

Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn.

The text in Bud’s version reads as follows:

The results were very poor. The male corpses would not burn at all, although they were sprinkled with benzine. The expense was considerable and the results inadequate.

Not only did Wiernik clearly state that an external flammable – gasoline – was used to burn the corpses, he also pointed out that this procedure was ineffective and very expensive, because "the male corpses simply would not burn" despite the female bodies placed at the bottom of the piles of bodies to be burned and the gasoline that these piles were doused with.

So how come Bud didn’t tell his viewers about this passage, which completely invalidates his claim that Wiernik tried to make believe that women burned «on their own, like wood»? Did he miss it? Hardly so, as we can expect Bud to have read Wiernik’s account very carefully, looking for passages he could make a fuss about. The conclusion is inescapable that our friend Bud simply lied to his viewers, by deliberately omitting a passage that invalidated his claim.
Do I still have to tell you what you can do with your straw-men snippets dishonestly quoted out of context from eyewitness testimonies, Mr. Gerdes?

As I pointed out on my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...rather_18.html , the burning process at Treblinka and the other AR camps was essentially the same that was applied on the Dresden Altmarkt following the bombing on 13/14 February 1945, where 6,865 victims of the attack were successfully reduced to ashes and bone fragments, only more sophisticated, on a much larger scale and over a much longer period.

If you want to picture what grid cremation at the AR camps was like, take this picture from the Dresden Altmarkt:

and imagine a much larger grid over a pit containing the external flammables used to set the bodies on fire, and the ashes and bone fragments you see in the foreground of the Dresden photo in much larger quantity.

The Dresden Altmarkt cremations were a small-scale and more improvised and primitive version of cremations at the AR camps. But the principle was the same, and so was the end result.

As to your dreary, boring and endlessly repeated "not able to prove so much as a single this-and-that" - babbling, I don’t feel like repeating myself every time you spout that crappy rhetoric. As I have often explained to you, proof of every single body in wax fax-fat transformation, tooth, bone fragment, pound of crushed bone or other type of human remains that was left at the killing sites by the mass killing logically follows from proof of the mass killing, its scale and the body disposal procedure adopted, which proof is provided by the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence to the mass killing, its scale and the body disposal procedure adopted, including but not limited to the exhibits mentioned in my post # 777 under, complemented and further corroborated as concerns Sobibor by:

a) Photographs of core samples:

(When will you stop running away from my questions regarding these core samples, Mr. Gerdes?)

b) Photographs of bone fragments scattered on the Sobibor site:




(Ever thought how hard it would be to find such bone fragments on the Sobibor site if they were not lying around all over the place?)

c) A map from Prof. Kola’s archaeological investigation in 2001, of which a copy, which I’m trying to obtain permission to publish, is in my possession.

d) An air photo:

showing part of the area around the circular monument that is part of the Sobibor memorial:

with lush green areas signaling the presence of human remains below ground in areas where mass graves are shown on the map, presumably pursuant to Prof. Kola's archaeological investigation in 2001.

e) A satellite photo under , kindly provided by yourself and already discussed in the updates:

of my blog article about the mass graves at Sobibor under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...t-sobibor.html , duly crediting your valuable contribution to the deconstruction of "Revisionist" articles of faith.

And that, my dear Gerdes, is true independently of how many photographs of what quantities of what types of human remains I have at my disposal to show you, as even a chimp like you should be able to understand.

How about focusing on the evidence that is on the table instead of hiding behind irrelevant "let’s see just one photo of this-and-that quantity of this-and-that type of human remains at this-and-that place" as becomes the whimpering coward you have amply shown to be?

Post # 1219:

This post consists of a number of hysterical, foaming-at-the mouth questions.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

"I'm not saying that any graves disappeared... Regarding Treblinka, Krege found exactly what he had hoped not to find."

If Krege found it, you should be able to find it.


"I don’t know if Krege found this particular pit."

Then what did he find stupid? You say - "he found exactly what he had hoped not to find.
Subsoil disturbances compatible with the presence of mass graves, my dear hysteric. See my post # 777 under , item I.2, Source Two.

Originally Posted by Gerdes
If Krege found it, you should be able to find it.
Sure. Just buy me a GPR, Mr. Gerdes. And your paying the fees of an expert handler would also be appreciated. The required permissions I would try to obtain.

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Where is it stupid?
What, the soil disturbances compatible with mass graves in the area of Treblinka? In the sections of that area shown on the few scans published by Krege. See my post # 777 under , item I.2, Source Two.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

"As to the volume of the cone:

Diameter d = 25 meters

Radius r = 12.5 meters

Height h = 7.5 meters, minus 2 meters for soil cover = 5.5 meters

Volume V = П x r2 x h = 3.14 x 156.25 x 5.5 = 2,698.44 cubic meters. Half thereof ashes and other partial human remains = 1,349.22 cubic meters of ashes and other partial human remains.

1,349.22 cubic meters of ashes and other partial human remains correspond to how many human beings, Mr. Gerdes?"

Over 1%. Now, you claim that none of the graves disapeared. So where is this pit filled with 1,349.22 cubic meters of human remains and teeth stupid?
In the former "death camp" section of Treblinka, no doubt about that.

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Find it, and you're half way home to the $100,000.00 reward.
What, no more special conditions for me? OK, no problem with that.

Originally Posted by Gerdes
What are you waiting for stupid?
I’m waiting for a certain gibbering hysteric to specify his proof requirements. By the reasonable standards of criminal justice and historical research, Lukaskiewicz’ description, together with the other Treblinka evidence I have listed, would be proof that there’s at least one mass grave with a minimum area corresponding to the craters’ diameter (25 meters) and a depth of 7.5 meters in the area of former Treblinka extermination camp, which is not exactly a large area. If that’s enough for you, there’s nothing for me to wait for.

If, on the other hand, you want more precise coordinates, we’ll have to wait until the SAP completes its work at Sobibor and Yoram Haimi focuses his attention on Treblinka, or until some other archaeologist takes interest in that camp. If you offer me a GPR for Christmas and finance an expert handler of the thing, I might be able to do some preliminary work.

Post # 1220:

Poor hysterical howler Gerdes regurgitates more of his beaten "prove it", "let’s see" and the inevitable "What part of the word proof don't you understand dull one" - crap, to cover up his understandable fear of doing what he should do: re-include at least Belzec extermination camp in the $100,000 NAFCASH challenge.

Post # 1221:

More of the idiotic "let’s see just one [photo of] this-and-that quantity of this-and-that type of human remains at this-and-that place" – mantra that Gerdes keeps hiding behind in order to avoid addressing the far more telling evidence that is on the table, and also to avoid specifying his proof requirements (the Simian "what I will accept as proof is proof" – crap was all too predictable, and IIRC I even did predict it) like the whimpering little coward and mendacious one-trick-pony he is.

Post # 1222:

Gerdes’ variation of the "let’s see just one [photo of] this-and-that quantity of this-and-that type of human remains at this-and-that place" - mantra: the no less imbecile and no less cowardly "not one [photo of] this-and-that quantity of this-and-that type of human remains at this-and-that place has been shown" – mantra. What a bore.

Post # 1223:

Gerdes messes with a question from my post # 1215 under in order to avoid answering that question, and spouts some more self-projecting invective.

Post # 1224:

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Originally Posted by Gerdes
1 - How much human remains did Kola actually find in Belzecs grave #10?


"As much as can be reasonably estimated based on his description."

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!


So we now have - "assumptions based on estimates based on descriptions!"

Thank you so much dull one -BTW, have I ever told you that you're priceless?
If Gerdes is so convinced that an archaeologist’s description of his archaeological findings is not evidence but a mere allegation, what’s he waiting for to re-include Belzec in the §100,000 NAFCASH challenge and thus increase that challenge’s publicity effect?

He obviously doesn’t believe his own bigmouthed babbling and is afraid that, if he should re-include Belzec in the NAFCASH challenge, he will soon have to put his money where his mouth is.

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Originally Posted by Gerdes
2 - Out of the alleged 1,920,000 teeth allegedly in said "huge mass grave," how many teeth did he find?


We don’t know how many teeth he found. It’s a silly and pointless question based on one assumption that is speculative and another that is as wrong as can be, but I have already answered it nevertheless... The answer to this silly question (reformulated so as to lessen its stupidity) has been provided: we don’t know how many teeth Prof. Kola found among the crematory remains in grave # 10, if any, because he provides no breakdown of the “crematory remains” found... The question has been answered, Mr. Gerdes. If you think that my answer is wrong and Prof. Kola’s descriptions of the mass graves, or any other part of his report, contain sufficient information to establish how many teeth he found in a given grave, then please provide the respective quote or excerpt from Prof. Kola’s Belzec report. I shall then stand corrected on the reply I gave, but this will not mean that I did what you compulsively do all the time, i.e. lie. A lie is a deliberate statement against better knowledge, my dear Gerdes. What better knowledge contrary to my answer, and becoming apparent from Prof. Kola’s report, am I supposed to have had? Please tell me... Question about teeth has been answered to the best of my knowledge.

Now look at retardo's - topix post #762:

Not that it matters because Gerdes’ demand is as idiotic as ever, but I can prove the existence of at least one loose canine tooth and of as many teeth as the bodies in wax-fat transformation found by Kola’s drilling can be expected to contain. Both are mentioned in the core samples from grave # 10 shown under

The lying jewbitch new the answer all along.

One tooth out of an alleged 1,920,000!
Poor blind hen Gerdes thinks he finally found a grain.

Or should that be "Gerdes the chimp thinks he’s finally in for a banana"?

In Figure 13 of his Belzec book:

Prof. Kola shows graphic drawings of seven core drills in grave # 10. The third sample from the left includes a mention of "canine tooth". The sample, as far as I can recognize based on the labeling of graphics in Figure 12:

contains sandy soil, burned charcoals and burned human bones.

What does the term "canine tooth" refer to? Does it mean "one single canine tooth"? Or does it mean "the substance canine tooth"? In the latter case, what is being referred to is not a single canine tooth, but an unspecified number of canine teeth.

The latter interpretation is supported by Figure 15:

In one of the samples of grave 3/97, the following types of remains are mentioned: "tooth" and "human hair".

Does "tooth" mean "one single tooth"? Or does the term refer to the substance "tooth", thus meaning an unspecified quantity of teeth? The term "human hair" obviously means the substance "human hair" and not "one single human hair", so it is reasonable to assume that the same applies to "tooth", also considering how thick the layer of the mentioned substances is. From Mattogno’s Belzec book, quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...007754580.html :

The thickest layer is the one belonging to sample 332/XV-85-40 (described as "tooth/human hair/water/human hair"), which corresponds to approximately 15% of the depth of the grave ( = 5 meters), thus to about 0.75 meters.
It would be nonsensical to assume that a layer 0.75 meters thick of "tooth/human hair/water/human hair" contains just one single tooth. Mattogno is obviously assuming that the term "tooth" refers to the substance, and not to a specific single object made of that substance.

Applying this reasoning to the samples of grave # 10, one can conclude that "canine tooth" means not one single canine tooth, but an unspecified quantity of canine teeth.

A further point to consider is that grave # 10 was located on the basis of 16 drills:

The grave pit No 10 (Fig 27)
One of the biggest graves, in bottom view of a rectangular shape with the size of about 24,00 x 18,00 m. Situated in the north-central part of ha XV, basing on 16 deep drills (No 482-490, 494, 496-499, 501, 520)[emphasis added]; in some neighbourhood, much more shallow drills (with the ground bottom of about 1,50 m) crematory remains were reported. The grave was very deep (the drills in particular places were stopped at the depth of 4,25 to 5,20 m, because of bodies in wax-fat transformation and underground waters presence). One drill (No 483) at the depth of 4,40 m revealed the appearance of several cm layer of white sand mixed with rich lime. Over body layers there were some levels of crematory remains mixed with charcoal in turn with layers of sandy soil (20 cm). The edge parts of the pit are filled shallow, to the depth of about 1,50 m, probably because of getting some soil to make next layers between the bodies. That fact caused widening of the grave which was filled with next body remains. The estimated volume of the grave amounts about 2100 m3.
Figure 13 shows only 7 of these 16 drills. The other nine drills are not shown. As I mentioned under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...007754580.html, Kola does not show samples from all graves, and he also doesn’t show all samples from the graves from which he shows samples. The samples he shows are meant to be illustrations of the soil patterns found in some of the graves, and it is likely that the samples not shown contain similar soil patterns as those of the samples shown. So there may well be more samples among those not shown with the same soil pattern as sample 484/XV-30-50, i.e. also containing "canine teeth" at a certain depth inside the ground.

So the reasonable and prudent answer to Gerdes’ question how many teeth Prof. Kola found in grave # 10 is and remains: we do not know.

No grain for blind hen Gerdes.

No banana for Gerdes the chimp.

Another of Gerdes’ puny attempts to portray me as what he demonstrably is – a liar – has resulted in Gerdes making a fool of himself.

Now I’m looking forward to Gerdes’ showing us the calculation of behind "1,920,000 teeth" in grave # 10.

And to his explaining why, in doing this calculation, he glossed over the fragility of teeth subjected to fire, which is discussed, for instance, in an article in the 4/1990 issue of the Journal of Forensic Science, written by Harry H. Minces, Hugh E. Berryman, G. Allen Murray and Richard L. Dickens, that is headed "Methods for Physical Stabilization of Ashed Teeth in Incinerated Remains" and refers to methods "for physically stabilizing the extremely fragile ashed teeth[my emphasis] that are often encountered in incinerated human remains".

Originally Posted by Gerdes
How many lies have we caught you in now retardo? Hundreds yes, have you gone over 1,000?

My assumption based on estimates is yes you have.
There’s no need for estimates in our fully recorded discussions on Topix and on this forum. Bigmouth Gerdes is requested to go through all my posts, pick out every single lie I have supposedly been caught in and post the respective quote with the number of the post and a link to that post. Then I’ll do the same regarding his posts. I predict that he won’t find one example that can stand up to scrutiny, whereas I shall find many that are pretty obvious.

Wanna play this game, Mr. Gerdes? Just fire away.

Post # 1225:

Another sorry attempt to impress suckers with the "not one [photo of] this-and-that quantity of this-and-that type of human remains at this-and-that place has been shown" – mantra, one of the rhetorical subterfuges that the coward keeps hiding behind, as pointed out above.

To once more illustrate the utter imbecility of this mantra, let’s look again at the following parallel:

Between 120,000 and 225,000 people murdered by Stalin’s thugs (which Gerdes probably believes to have been Jewish) are reportedly lying in the ground at Bykivnia near Kiev, see under

That’s between 3,600,000 and 6,750,000 teeth, Mr. Gerdes, as there was never any cremation involved.

And I submit that you cannot show me any of those 3,600,000 to 6,750,000 teeth, Mr. Gerdes. You cannot show me a photo of one tooth, or (like I have done in regard to Treblinka, Chelmno and Belzec) quote an eyewitness testimony, administrative document or archaeological report that mentions a specified or unspecified number of teeth found at Bykivnia. So my questions are the following:

1. Must we therefore suspect that the Bykivnia killings never took place, Mr. Gerdes?

[b]2. Does your having or not at your disposal documentation of a given quantity of a given type of human remains at Bykivnia tell us anything at all about the factuality of the reported Stalinist mass killing at Bykivnia? Yes or No?[b]

3. If the answer to the previous question is "Yes", what do you think it tells us, and why?

4. If the answer to the previous question is "No", do you understand how idiotic your "just one" mantra is? Yes or No?

Answer these questions, coward. Don’t run away from them.