[Roberto Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Gerdes

See folks, I told you that this bitch is a real piece of work.

Especially for charlatans who have neither evidence nor arguments to support their Jew-hating, Nazi-loving articles of faith with – who in fact have little to show besides the self-projecting obsession with effeminateness that leads them to address their opponent the way they do.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

(And FYI, she's a self-hating German)

Actually I'm very proud of being German. I don't like Nazi fucks, but Nazi fucks are not a solely German phenomenon. You find them everywhere, even in Montana.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

* * * * *
Q - You can show us at least one tooth that can be proven to have been found at Treblinka, can't you Roberta?

Surely you can show us just one photo of just one tooth?

Roberta:

"No, I have no photo of "just one" tooth."

* * * *

Exactly, bigmouth. And you have never been and never will be able to explain what the hell the absence of a "tooth" photograph is supposed to matter, right?

Originally Posted by Gerdes

OK Roberta! FINALLY you admit that, out of the alleged 24 -96 million teeth that could found at Treblinka, IF your fantasy were true, you have been unable to present so much as a single piece of tangible physical evidence of so much as a single tooth.

Didn’t you want to cut out the straw-man about Grossman’s "3 million" overestimate, liar?

If so, then why do you keep repeating the "96 million teeth" crap?

As to the "single piece of tangible physical evidence" you babble about, there’s no reason compatible with the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence of the Treblinka killings why I should physically have a single tooth in my hands or a photo of a tooth at my disposal, so I’m not "admitting" anything (apart from never having claimed that I had such a physical exhibit or photo of such a physical exhibit at my disposal, as the liar well knows). I have shown eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence mentioning teeth, which is proof enough that not all ashed teeth were crushed after the burning of the corpses but some were left intact. And as Gerdes cannot explain why the evidence I have shown should be less conclusive than a physical exhibit, or what reason there is to doubt the accuracy of that evidence, his yelling for "one single tooth" is as irrelevant as a spoilt little brat’s yelling for a lollipop.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Good girl! We're already 20% through with this!

You mean, with more of Gerdes’ infantile yelling for "tangible" physical exhibits, the necessity and relevance of which he cannot demonstrate?
Yeah, I guess so.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Now, is there anything else you would like to add about the issue of teeth before we move on Roberta?

Only that I enjoy how you keep displaying the infantile charlatan you are, Gerdes. You’re as good a demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility as I can think of.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Also, I have modified the list of component issues that we will be discussing here.

1 - Teeth (evidence for? Zero, nada, zilch, nothing, not an iota, etc.)

No, just no "tangible" physical exhibit at my disposal. But as there is eyewitness and documentary evidence mentioning teeth on the Treblinka site, the accuracy of which you have provided no arguments against, that’s as irrelevant as can be.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

2 - Bullets & shell casings

No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of, but there’s no reason compatible with the historical record why such exhibits should necessarily have been found, while there is conclusive eyewitness testimony to the shootings at the "Lazarett" involving such bullets and shell casings themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any bullets or shell casings have been found.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

3 - "Lazarett"

No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of, but there’s no reason compatible with the historical record why such exhibits should necessarily exist, as the killers had all the time in the world to erase the physical traces of the "Lazarett". On the other hand, conclusive eyewitness testimony to the shootings at the "Lazarett" was provided at trials before West German courts, also and especially by the shooters themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

4 - Cremated / crushed bones

Considerable amounts of physical exhibits are documented in two Polish site investigation reports, and photographs showing parts of what these reports describe are also available.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

5 - Unburned corpses in a "wax-fat transformation"

Parts of corpses likely to have been preserved in a state of wax-fat transformation are mentioned in examining judge Lukaszkiewicz’s site investigation report of 13.11.1945, quoted in one of my previous posts on this thread. Lukaszkiewicz wrote that

Numerous human remains were found by these excavations, partially still in a state of decomposition.

Rachel Auerbach, quoted in my post of 9-May-2008 10:37 on the RODOH thread http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/245...-Accounts.html , also mentioned partially decomposed body parts:

In one place the simultaneous explosion of several bombs had created a huge crater. Deep down in the hole, some outlines could be dimly seen through the fog.

"Those aren't just bones," says the district attorney. "There are still pieces of half-rotted corpses lying there, bunches of intestines."

By now the district attorney and the judge knew every nook and cranny here. They had been conducting their investigation for some time. They had examined both Jewish and non-Jewish wit*nesses, taken measurements and carried out minor excavations.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

6 - "Huge mass graves"

At least one of these, 7.5 meters deep (or the part thereof that became a bomb crater with a diameter of 25 meters when robbery diggers set off explosives in their search for valuables), is described in Lukaszkiewicz’s site investigation report of 13.11.1945:

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.

Lukaszkiewicz’ report of 29.12.1945 describes what must have been the area of the mass graves in the "death camp", where ashes and bone fragments had been returned to the emptied mass graves and later projected to the surface by the activity of robbery diggers:

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.

In my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , I showed that these data allow for establishing the compatibility of the physical evidence with what becomes apparent from documentary evidence about the scale of the killing.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

So if you have nothing to add about the issue that no teeth have ever been proven to have been found at the Treblinka site Roberta, let's move on the issue of Bullets & shell casings, shall we?

Before you move on, Gerdes, how about explaining why the eyewitness and documentary evidence to the presence of teeth on site should not allow for concluding that not all ashed teeth were crushed after the burning of the corpses but some were left intact? That is, you should justify your yelling for "tangible" physical exhibits, as I have often asked you to do. Without such justification, as I have also told you before, your yelling for "tangible" physical exhibits is as irrelevant as a spoilt brat’s yelling for a lollipop.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Q - Roberta, could you please tell us how many bullets and shell casing have been proven to have been found at Treblinka? If your answer is more than zero, please show us the photographs of said evidence, the names of those who allegedly found said evidence, the date said evidence was allegedly found and the EXACT location said evidence was found on the Treblinka site.

Gerdes, could you please explain the relevance of your demands, i.e. why you accept only the evidence you mention and no other, first of all? For unless you can explain why only the evidence you mention and none other (like for instance the shooters’ own testimonies) can prove the presence of your bullets an shell casings, there’s no reason why anyone should try to accommodate your demand.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Oh, and Roberta? You really need to put an end to your lying and whining. Why don't you try to stop it right here and right now?

What lying an whining, Gerdes? The only lying and whining in our discussions has been your own, as you well know, so why these blatantly false accusations? Is your paranoid mind seeing ghosts, or are you hoping for your "White" buddies to be such suckers as to be impressed by this crap?

Originally Posted by Gerdes

Also, just to remind you, we are discussing this issue on an archeology / scientific forum, so please, PLEASE, tale your magic glasses off, take your seer stones out of your pocket, and throw your magic holocaust decoder ring in the trash where it belongs.

Boy, how predictable your infantile "reasoning" is, Gerdes. I knew you would come up with that "this is an archeology / scientific forum so I want to see archeological evidence only" – trash before you did, which is why I wrote the following in one of my previous posts:

Gerdes is retreating to the "Archeology and Anthropology" section of a "White" forum because he figures that he can there invoke "science" to dismiss all evidence other than archeological/anthropological evidence.

Is that the point you’re trying to make, Gerdes?

If so, you’re really a funny bone.

Are we asked to believe that archeologists or anthropologists ignore all evidence other than the "scientific" evidence they find under ground or in human remains?

That archeologists reconstructing, say, life in Roman Pompeji and its destruction by the Vesuvius shunned all chronicles and other written records from Roman times and drew their conclusions exclusively on the basis of what they found on site? That they knew nothing about Roman culture and history from written records and learned it all from the physical traces that they found while excavating?

If archeologists had proceeded in this manner, looking only at the physical evidence and ignoring all other sources of evidence, their work would not have been a scientific undertaking. It would have been highly unscientific guesswork. What made the investigations of Pompeji scientific was that archeologists matched what they found on site with what they knew from written records about Roman culture and everyday life in a Roman city, and from the writings of Roman chroniclers about the destruction of Pompeji by volcanic ash from the Vesuvius.

Looking at all evidence one can get hold of, leaving none out and trying to reach a conclusion that duly takes all evidence into account – that’s scientific, Gerdes. Restricting the record of evidence to one category which, by its very nature, cannot possibly be expected to allow for reconstructing a historical event on its own, as you are trying to do in limiting the Treblinka evidence your are willing to look at to physical evidence (and moreover the documentation of that evidence to photographs) is not scientific, as I already pointed out in one of my above-mentioned Topix posts. It is highly unscientific charlatanry.

Write that behind your ears, Gerdes.

If this is a forum dedicated to archeology, what we should discuss here is whether and to what extent the physical findings on site corroborate or contradict what becomes apparent from the documentary and eyewitness evidence to the Treblinka killings. After all, matching physical findings with what is known from other sources about an ancient culture or a historical event is what archeologists do. What they certainly do not do is ignore all written or oral records and reconstruct an ancient culture or historical event on the basis of physical findings alone. That, as I pointed out in my previous post, would be not science but unscientific guesswork.

So let’s keep it scientific, shall we, Gerdes? Science means looking at all available evidence and seeing how it fits together, not trying to derive conclusions from one set and category of evidence alone when there are also other sets and categories of evidence available.

Originally Posted by Gerdes

And one more thing Roberta - just remember these two words and you will get along just fine here:

PHYSICAL EVIDENCE

Physical evidence can be quite useful in reconstructing a mass crime or other historical event, but I still have to see one single mass crime or historical event that has been reconstructed on the basis of physical evidence alone, without documentary and eyewitness evidence being taken into account as well. On the other hand, I have seen mass crimes and other historical events, whether related to the Nazis and World War II or not, reconstructed and proven beyond a reasonable doubt by criminal justice authorities and/or historians who had no access to the physical evidence, on the basis of documentary and eyewitness evidence alone. So if you want to ignore all evidence other than physical evidence, you have to a) explain why you want to limit the record of evidence to physical evidence and b) show who else does that when reconstructing a given event. It’s not Gerdes who gets to set the rules and standards of evidence. Got that?