Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old June 7th, 2008 #21
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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:

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.
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:

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.
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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?
 
Old June 7th, 2008 #22
brutus
Senior Member
 
brutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: naples
Posts: 10,556
brutus
Default

RE: Roberto Muehlenkamp

Quote:
Thanks to the forum moderator for quickly approving my posts.

This seems to be an uncensored forum indeed.

I hope it stays that way.
I'm not banning you because you're actually proving our case to our candid audience.

To the typical VNN reader, you're as transparent as clear glass. Please keep spewing, we need more specimens like you for illustrative examples of jewish pathological liars and smear artists.

BTW: What the fuck kind of name is Roberto Muehlenkamp? Sounds like something only a kike could dream up in it's habitual lust for race-mixing fantasies.

.
__________________
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
 
Old June 7th, 2008 #23
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus View Post
RE: Roberto Muehlenkamp


I'm not banning you because you're actually proving our case to our candid audience.
If that's what the candid audience thinks, this would say a lot about the candid audience's capacity for wishful thinking and their distance from reality. I hope for the candid audience that you're wrong about them.

Ah, and what you just told me means that if you didn't think I'm making your ideology's case, you would ban me, right?

And I thought this was an uncensored forum ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus View Post
To the typical VNN reader, you're as transparent as clear glass. Please keep spewing, we need more specimens like you for illustrative examples of jewish pathological liars and smear artists.
Your hostility is taken note of. Isn't a moderator supposed to refrain from such hostility?

Anyway, thanks for showing that VNN and moderation on VNN are just what I thought them to be. This confirms Greg Gerdes' cowardice in seeking refuge here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus View Post
BTW: What the fuck kind of name is Roberto Muehlenkamp? Sounds like something only a kike could dream up in it's habitual lust for race-mixing fantasies.
Muehlenkamp is a German name from the region of Westphalia. Roberto is my Christian name because I was born and baptized in Colombia, South America.
They speak Spanish there.

What is your name, by the way?
 
Old June 7th, 2008 #24
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Ok, time for a little update, with a couple of editions / changes on the specific subjects.

To date, this is all the "evidence" that Roberta has provided which she claims "proves" the Treblinka holohoax story:


# 1 - Teeth (Between 24 and 96 million of them):

"The earth is throwing out crushed bones, teeth, clothes, papers."

As quoted by Vassili Grossman in this link here:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?topic=4194&forum=2

And:

“Grave robbers from Wólka Okrąglik and neighboring villages pose for a photo together with militiamen who caught them red-handed. In the peasant's pockets there were golden rings and teeth of Jews… "With the grave robbers we found golden rings, crowns and porcelain teeth with gold and silver inlays."

As quoted in this link here:

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/925...ml#reply-92506

Also:

Q - Please tell us the EXACT number of teeth that you can prove have been located at Treblinka, along with the photos of said teeth and the names of those who claim to have found them and on what date and EXACTLY where in the Treblinka camp they were found.

Roberta:

A - "None of the sources I quoted contains this information, and I don’t think it is of any relevance... No, I have no photo of "just one" tooth. And you cannot explain what the hell that is supposed to matter... there’s no reason why I should physically have a single tooth in my hands or a photo of a tooth at my disposal."


# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (50,000 each) / Lazarett:

Roberta (from topix post #611):

"No, I can’t “show” you any specific bullet or shell casing. And you can’t explain what the hell it is supposed to matter that I can’t show you any specific bullet or shell casing, which means that you can stick your idiotic “just one” babbling you-know-where."

And from VNN:

"No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of... involving such bullets and shell casings themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any bullets or shell casings have been found"

"No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of... it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified."


# 3 - Corpses / cremated - crushed bones:

Roberta:

"photographs showing parts of what these reports describe are also available:"

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5811_1_web.jpg

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_2.jpg


# 4 - The gas chamber:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...Figure36.shtml


# 5 - The "huge mass graves -

A - In the "receiving" area:

Roberta:

“In the south-western part of the camp, roughly corresponding to the area of the "receiving camp" ...there are four shapes of ground scarring I circled and marked as 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the September 1944 photograph. I think that 1, 2 and 3 are in all probability pits for corpses which were used during the first phase of Treblinka and 4 is the "Lazarett:”

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg

* Please notice her contradiction from what she stated in # 2 above.


B - In the "death camp" area (From topix post #543):

Q - Where EXACTLY is this "enormous pit" located Roberta?

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

Captioned: "One of the enormous pits in the Treblinka camp into which the victims' corpses (and later, ashes) were thrown."

Roberta:

"It is exactly located in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka extermination camp, Mr. Gerdes. That’s all criminal investigators and historians need to know."

C - "Somewhere" in the camp :

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg


# 6 - Photos of the camp itself, from the outside:

A - During its construction:

B - During its operation:

C - During its destruction:


Now look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten something. And please notice #6. What do you have for that Roberta?

Again, please look over the evidence carefully Roberta, and let me know if I missed anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."
 
Old June 7th, 2008 #25
brutus
Senior Member
 
brutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: naples
Posts: 10,556
brutus
Default

RE: Roberto Muehlenkamp

Quote:
If that's what the candid audience thinks, this would say a lot about the candid audience's capacity for wishful thinking and their distance from reality. I hope for the candid audience that you're wrong about them.
I've been here for quite some time and you haven't, and it's obvious to me that you're struggling with what's really going on here.

Quote:
Ah, and what you just told me means that if you didn't think I'm making your ideology's case, you would ban me, right?
Again you insult the intelligence of our readers. Take a look at the ratio of posters to readers and then try to scrape up a speck of critical rational and a small light might go on. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Quote:
And I thought this was an uncensored forum ...
This is the the closest to the uncluttered truth that you've come thus far.

Quote:
Your hostility is taken note of. Isn't a moderator supposed to refrain from such hostility?
This is VNN dickhead, get used to it.

Quote:
Anyway, thanks for showing that VNN and moderation on VNN are just what I thought them to be. This confirms Greg Gerdes' cowardice in seeking refuge here.
Gee willikers! Who wouda thunk! A biased moderator! God Damn you're a sharp one! Why not tell me about your mods you fucking hypocritical piece of shit? It appears that you're too dim witted to see the difference between and honest debate forum and gagging on horseshit. At least you know where I'm coming from, unlike your intellectual hovel where truth is flushed the moment it appears.

Quote:
Muehlenkamp is a German name from the region of Westphalia. Roberto is my Christian name because I was born and baptized in Colombia, South America. They speak Spanish there.
They speak Spanish in Columbia? Do Tell!

Quote:
What is your name, by the way?
Even if Roberto Muehlenkamp were your real name, and I don't believe that it is, I still wouldn't tell you mine because quite frankly I think that you're an asshole, not worthy of another post from me.

I'd perfer to just sit back and watch Greg Gerdes carve you up some more.

.
__________________
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
 
Old June 9th, 2008 #26
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Ok, time for a little update, with a couple of editions / changes on the specific subjects.

To date, this is all the "evidence" that Roberta has provided which she claims "proves" the Treblinka holohoax story:
I’m looking forward to Gerdes showing where I claimed that the evidence he will list hereafter is by itself proof of the mass murder at Treblinka. Needless to say, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gerdes omitted

a) the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 and
b) the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 1 - Teeth (Between 24 and 96 million of them):
Didn’t you want to leave out the straw-man about Grossman’s "3 million" overestimate, which corresponds to the "96 million" teeth you’re babbling about?

Of course I have no problem with your showing again and again what a liar you are. Keep digging yourself in, Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
"The earth is throwing out crushed bones, teeth, clothes, papers."

As quoted by Vassili Grossman in this link here:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?topic=4194&forum=2

And:

“Grave robbers from Wólka Okrąglik and neighboring villages pose for a photo together with militiamen who caught them red-handed. In the peasant's pockets there were golden rings and teeth of Jews… "With the grave robbers we found golden rings, crowns and porcelain teeth with gold and silver inlays."

As quoted in this link here:

http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/925...ml#reply-92506

Also:

Q - Please tell us the EXACT number of teeth that you can prove have been located at Treblinka, along with the photos of said teeth and the names of those who claim to have found them and on what date and EXACTLY where in the Treblinka camp they were found.

Roberta:

A - "None of the sources I quoted contains this information, and I don’t think it is of any relevance... No, I have no photo of "just one" tooth. And you cannot explain what the hell that is supposed to matter... there’s no reason why I should physically have a single tooth in my hands or a photo of a tooth at my disposal."
Another of your mendacious "montages", Gerdes?

Let’s look at the whole of what I wrote, highlighting the parts that you picked out.

In post # 18:

Quote:
None of the sources I quoted contains this information, and I don’t think it is of any relevance. One can reasonably expect that most of the burned corpses' ashed teeth were crushed, together with most of what bones were not destroyed by the fire, but some were not, as the evidence I have provided shows. How many teeth were neither crushed nor fell apart is not known and need not be known.

But if you disagree and want to make your demand look like anything other than a showpiece of infantile silliness and a feeble attempt to question inconvenient evidence, please explain for what purpose exactly one would have to know how many teeth Grossman saw, how many teeth the Polish cops found with the grave-robbers, or where "exactly" in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka those teeth were seen or picked up.

Relevance, Mr. Gerdes.

Demands the relevance of which you cannot demonstrate need not be met.

They are just pointless distractions.
What part of the word "relevance" do you not understand, Gerdes?

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

And you cannot explain what the hell that is supposed to matter
, in the face of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence proving a mass murder that corresponds to as many teeth as 750,000 men, women and children had in their mouths.

So better drop that silly "just one" – rhetoric. It’s wearing thin, and I’m being polite.
Or do you have an explanation what the hell it is supposed to matter whether your opponent can show a photo of "just one" tooth, Gerdes? Judging by how you keep running away from this question, you have none.

In post # 21:

Quote:
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.
Note that Gerdes left out the part "compatible with the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence of the Treblinka killings", which is the one that matters. I guess he left it out because he cannot explain why the my having no photo of "one single tooth" at my disposal should be incompatible with the documentary, physical and eyewitness evidence of the Treblinka killings.

This is called quote-mining, Gerdes, leaving out a part of a quote to give it another meaning than it actually has. It’s a form of lying. But then, Gerdes starts lying as soon as he hits the keyboard, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (50,000 each) / Lazarett:

Roberta (from topix post #611):

"No, I can’t “show” you any specific bullet or shell casing. And you can’t explain what the hell it is supposed to matter that I can’t show you any specific bullet or shell casing, which means that you can stick your idiotic “just one” babbling you-know-where."
Exactly, Gerdes. Thanks for again confirming that you cannot demonstrate the relevance of your demands, which means that those demands are just pointless distractions. They may impress dumb suckers, but they don’t impress people with brains inside their heads.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And from VNN:

"No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of... involving such bullets and shell casings themselves. So it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any bullets or shell casings have been found"

"No "tangible" physical exhibits that I know of... it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified."
More quote-mining, Gerdes? Let’s look at the above-quoted statements from post # 21 as a whole, highlighting the parts you conveniently left out:

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Why did you leave out the highlighted parts, Gerdes? Because you cannot handle them, have no arguments against them? So it would seem.

Why are you not able to debate without lying through your teeth by quote-mining and straw-man misrepresentations of your opponent’s arguments, Gerdes?

Is it because you cannot handle what your opponent actually wrote, as opposed what you would like him to have written?

It would seem so.

Why did you leave out the important part, Gerdes? Let’s quote the whole thing, highlighting the part you omitted:

Quote:
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.
Are you so scared of what is written in those site investigation reports that you prefer to ignore them and make a fuss about what little of the reports’ contents is visible on photographs, as if I had ever stated that the photos and not the reports are the relevant records of the physical evidence?

It would seem so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Did I anywhere state that this photographs, which Alex Bay analyzes based on what he knows about the building from eyewitness testimonies, is proof of the gas chambers inside that building?

Show me where, Gerdes.

If you can’t, admit that you lied again.

Quote:
# 5 - The "huge mass graves -

A - In the "receiving" area:

Roberta:

“In the south-western part of the camp, roughly corresponding to the area of the "receiving camp" ...there are four shapes of ground scarring I circled and marked as 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the September 1944 photograph. I think that 1, 2 and 3 are in all probability pits for corpses which were used during the first phase of Treblinka and 4 is the "Lazarett:”

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg
My comment about this point in post # 21 was the following:

Quote:
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:

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.

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:

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.

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.
Why did you ignore this and instead quoted what I wrote about the mass graves in the "receiving camp" sector of Treblinka, Gerdes? Because you think that is easier for you to handle than the descriptions of at least one mass grave and of the whole mass graves area in the "death camp" sector in the quoted passages from examining judge Lukaszkiewicz’s reports?

It would seem so.

But OK, if you’d rather discuss the mass graves in the "reception camp" sector, there’s this question you have been often asked but never even attempted to answer:

What, if not mass graves in an area where at least two eyewitnesses mentioned the presence of mass graves, could the ground-scarring shapes I pointed out possibly have been, namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory?

When will you stop running away from this question, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
* Please notice her contradiction from what she stated in # 2 above.
Wow, Gerdes is trying to be smart again. But even his mutilated quote of what I stated "in # 2" contains the following period:

«… it doesn’t matter a damn thing whether any physical traces of the "Lazarett" could be identified»

"It doesn’t matter a damn thing whether it could" does not mean "it cannot", of course. Get a brain, Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
B - In the "death camp" area (From topix post #543):

Q - Where EXACTLY is this "enormous pit" located Roberta?

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

Captioned: "One of the enormous pits in the Treblinka camp into which the victims' corpses (and later, ashes) were thrown."

Roberta:

"It is exactly located in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka extermination camp, Mr. Gerdes. That’s all criminal investigators and historians need to know."
Why did you leave out the rest of what I wrote in Topix post # 543 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p27#c543 , Gerdes?

I’ll highlight the parts you left out:

Quote:
It is exactly located in the former "death camp" sector of Treblinka extermination camp, Mr. Gerdes. That’s all criminal investigators and historians need to know, if they need to know it at all in order to prove the mass murder at Treblinka (which I don’t think is the case). If you want to know the precise geographic coordinates, I’m looking forward to your explaining the relevance of your demand.
So, Gerdes, where is your explanation?

What part of the word "relevance" do you not understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Sorry, but I'm at loss about what the poet is trying to tell us here. Care to explain, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 6 - Photos of the camp itself, from the outside:

A - During its construction:

B - During its operation:

C - During its destruction:
Adding new irrelevant demands now, Gerdes? Why so? Have you become conscious of how chewed-out the irrelevant demands you have made so far are?

It would seem so.

I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any. But I know of photographs from the inside, taken in violation of instructions received by deputy commander Kurt Franz. They are among the photos shown under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html , and the link http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html shows all of Franz's excavator photos.

As you are such a photo-freak, here are two questions regarding these photographs:

Regarding the photo captioned

«MASS GRAVE
If Treblinka, the boards were added to the bodies in course of a test burning. Usually the victims were buried in mass graves, later cremated on roasts.

Photo: Bundesarchiv No. 183-F0918-0201-011»

the question is: what, if not a corner of one mass grave where the bodies have been covered with boards and what looks like tarpaulin sheets, do you think this photograph shows?

Regarding the excavator photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html, the question (asked several times already and always studiously avoided by Gerdes) is the following:

What would these excavators have been doing in what you claim was a "transit camp"?

Answer the questions, Gerdes!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Now look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten something.
You’ve "forgotten" a lot, a I pointed out above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And please notice #6. What do you have for that Roberta?
You mean photos of the camp from the outside? There’s none that I know of, but I’ll check. Meanwhile, try explaining why you added another demand, the relevance of which you haven’t bothered to explain, without having yet explained the relevance of your previous demands let alone answered any of the questions I have asked you.

Is this just an attempt to throw more sand into the eyes of the suckers you apparently expect your "White" buddies to be, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, please look over the evidence carefully Roberta, and let me know if I missed anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."
I don’t expect the "next phase" to contain anything but a repetition of Gerdes’ straw-men and pointless demands, but who does Gerdes think he is to unilaterally establish the "foundation" of our debate?
 
Old June 9th, 2008 #27
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
RE: Roberto Muehlenkamp
Quote:
If that's what the candid audience thinks, this would say a lot about the candid audience's capacity for wishful thinking and their distance from reality. I hope for the candid audience that you're wrong about them.
I've been here for quite some time and you haven't, and it's obvious to me that you're struggling with what's really going on here.
It’s obvious to me that you’re a wishful thinker divorced from reality, but you should give our readers the benefit of doubt and assume that maybe they are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Ah, and what you just told me means that if you didn't think I'm making your ideology's case, you would ban me, right?
Again you insult the intelligence of our readers.
Actually that’s what you have been doing by claiming that our "White" audience would see me as making "their" case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Take a look at the ratio of posters to readers and then try to scrape up a speck of critical rational and a small light might go on. However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
I doubt you would know what critical rationale is even if stepped on your foot, and I don’t quite understand what the number of readers has got to do with your statement implying that you would ban me if you didn’t think I’m making your ideology’s case. To be sure, 295 views to 25 replies on this thread as of 09.06.2008 14:35 hours GMT doesn’t look like your "White" folks are very interested in this discussion, but what are you trying to tell me? That you don’t ban me because the number of "White" minds I might get to think a little about their articles of faith is a small one?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
And I thought this was an uncensored forum ...
This is the the closest to the uncluttered truth that you've come thus far.
So it seems, judging by your statement that points to this being the exact opposite of an uncensored forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I'm not banning you because you're actually proving our case to our candid audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Your hostility is taken note of. Isn't a moderator supposed to refrain from such hostility?
This is VNN dickhead, get used to it.
I have no problem with your showing that this is a place run and moderated by hysterical fanatics, on the contrary. It is you who should see a problem with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Anyway, thanks for showing that VNN and moderation on VNN are just what I thought them to be. This confirms Greg Gerdes' cowardice in seeking refuge here.
Gee willikers! Who wouda thunk! A biased moderator! God Damn you're a sharp one!
There’s nothing wrong with a moderator showing what side he’s on when participating in the debate. But when acting as a moderator you should not reveal any bias, otherwise you make it even more obvious that the "uncensored forum" thing is a joke. A forum where the moderator, acting in this capacity, tries to harass posters whose arguments he doesn’t like, is not exactly an uncensored one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Why not tell me about your mods you fucking hypocritical piece of shit?
You tell me about them, my friend. You show me where on the RODOH forum ( http://rodohforum.yuku.com/brodohforum ) a newcomer from any side is received by a moderator the way you received me after I thanked you for what I considered proper moderation practice. Exact quote with link to the respective post, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
It appears that you're too dim witted to see the difference between and honest debate forum and gagging on horseshit.
Actually I can tell the difference very well. Gagging on horseshit seems to be what takes place here when there’s no opposition, judging by what my friend Gerdes has produced. And siding with and protecting such gagging seems to be what moderation on this forum is about, judging by your intervention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
At least you know where I'm coming from, unlike your intellectual hovel where truth is flushed the moment it appears.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, my friend. Any examples of "intellectual hovel" and "truth-flushing" from the RODOH forum that you can quote (with link to the respective post, of course)?

Ah, and what is it that you call "truth"? Is it facts supported by evidence, or is it whatever unsupported nonsense you’d like to believe in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Muehlenkamp is a German name from the region of Westphalia. Roberto is my Christian name because I was born and baptized in Colombia, South America. They speak Spanish there.
They speak Spanish in Columbia? Do Tell!
I don’t think they speak Spanish in Columbia, but in Colombia they do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
What is your name, by the way?
Even if Roberto Muehlenkamp were your real name, and I don't believe that it is,
Want a scan from my German passport?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
I still wouldn't tell you mine because quite frankly I think that you're an asshole, not worthy of another post from me.
The feeling is mutual, and mine is even justified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
I'd perfer to just sit back and watch Greg Gerdes carve you up some more.
Actually Gerdes is making a bloody fool of himself and showing again and again what a liar and charlatan he is, but if you think that’s carving me up, I’ll let you be happy with your delusion.
 
Old June 9th, 2008 #28
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Roberta:

"Did I anywhere state that this photographs, which Alex Bay analyzes based on what he knows about the building from eyewitness testimonies, is proof of the gas chambers inside that building? Show me where, Gerdes. If you can’t, admit that you lied again."

Roberta, that is exactly why I asked you to review what I had just written, so you could correct any mistakes that I might have made. If I give you the opportunity to correct what I've written, and make those corrections, that can hardly be called lying now can it?

So, I take it you're saying you never claimed said photo is an actual photo of the gas chambers of Treblinka. OK, duly noted and I will delete it from the "evidence" file you have presented. Thank you for the correction Roberta.

Roberta (concerning subsection #6):

"You mean photos of the camp from the outside? There’s none that I know of, ...I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any."

Thank you Roberta, I will include that in the next recap.
 
Old June 9th, 2008 #29
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Ok, time for a simplified recap, with a couple of editions / changes in the specific subtopics.

To date, this is all the "physical evidence" that Roberta has provided regarding Treblinka:


# 1 - Teeth:

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single tooth has been found at Treblinka.


# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (at least 50,000 each):

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single bullet or shell casing has been found at Treblinka.


#3 - Lazarett:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg

(Roberta claims #4 is the "Lazarett.")


# 4 - Corpses / bones / cremated - crushed remains:

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5811_1_web.jpg

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_2.jpg


# 4 - The gas chamber:

Roberta: "Did I anywhere state that this photograph is proof of the gas chambers inside that building?"

Which is taken to mean: Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that the alleged homicidal gas chambers have ever been found at Treblinka.


# 5 - The "huge mass graves -

A - In the "receiving" area:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg

(Roberta claims that #’s 1, 2 and 3 are pits for corpses and # 4 is the "Lazarett.")

B - In the "death camp" area:

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

C - "Somewhere" in the camp :

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg


# 6 - Photos of the camp itself, from the outside, during its construction, operation or destruction:

Roberta: "I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation."

* * * * *
Again, please look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."

Should there be any other sub categories Roberta?

* * * * *

BTW folks, can’t you just sense the pressure that Roberta is feeling? The longer this goes on and the more it’s getting boiled down to just the tangible physical evidence, the more hysterical and nonsensical her responses get.

And please notice how this freaky bitch complains about “quote mining” when her entire argument is composed of cherry picked quotes from the glaringly contradictory and physically impossible “eyewitness testimony.”
 
Old June 9th, 2008 #30
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

The alleged photographic documentation of the "physical evidence" for the Treblinka holohoax as presented by Roberto Muehlenkamp in her “debate” with Greg Gerdes:


# 1 - The "huge mass graves -

A – Aerial photo:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg

B – Ground photos:

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg


# 2 - Teeth:

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single tooth has been found at Treblinka.


# 3 - Bullets & Shell casings:

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single bullet or shell casing has been found at Treblinka.


# 4 - Corpses - bones - cremated / crushed remains - miscellaneous photos:

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5811_1_web.jpg

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_2.jpg

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html


# 5 - Photos of the camp itself taken from the outside:

Roberta has provided no photographs what-so-ever taken from outside of the camp.

* * * * *

Again, please look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."
 
Old June 9th, 2008 #31
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Hello Greg id suggest you take a gander at this thread

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=72530

Especially towards the end. The 4 mass grave theory is impossible both by calculations and the machinery used. There's also no forensic proof for any of this either.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #32
brutus
Senior Member
 
brutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: naples
Posts: 10,556
brutus
Default

RE: Roberto Muehlenkamp

Quote:
It’s obvious to me that you’re a wishful thinker divorced from reality, but you should give our readers the benefit of doubt and assume that maybe they are not.
The only thing I'm divorced from is my first wife. As far as realty is concerned, what color are the unicorns in your universe?

Quote:
Actually that’s what you have been doing by claiming that our "White" audience would see me as making "their" case.
What you fail to take into account is the fact that most Whites have been brainwashed to believe the lies that you're spewing, I'm here to help deprogram them.

Quote:
I doubt you would know what critical rationale is even if stepped on your foot, and I don’t quite understand what the number of readers has got to do with your statement implying that you would ban me if you didn’t think I’m making your ideology’s case. To be sure, 295 views to 25 replies on this thread as of 09.06.2008 14:35 hours GMT doesn’t look like your "White" folks are very interested in this discussion, but what are you trying to tell me? That you don’t ban me because the number of "White" minds I might get to think a little about their articles of faith is a small one?
This is like trying to explain the color green to a blind man. But there the blind man would have a legitimate reason not to get it.

Quote:
So it seems, judging by your statement that points to this being the exact opposite of an uncensored forum.
My statement stands on it's own merits, if you choose to believe that I meant the opposite of what I clearly stated, go right ahead. I've already said that I think that you're an asshole, please continue validating my opinion.

Quote:
I have no problem with your showing that this is a place run and moderated by hysterical fanatics, on the contrary. It is you who should see a problem with that.
The adversaries of radical revolutionaries have to say something, I guess? Standing at a podium like a deaf mute with your thumb up your ass wouldn't go over too well in Peoria.

Quote:
There’s nothing wrong with a moderator showing what side he’s on when participating in the debate. But when acting as a moderator you should not reveal any bias, otherwise you make it even more obvious that the "uncensored forum" thing is a joke. A forum where the moderator, acting in this capacity, tries to harass posters whose arguments he doesn’t like, is not exactly an uncensored one.
Don't you dare try to tell me how to do my job you sniveling little creep.

Quote:
Actually I can tell the difference very well. Gagging on horseshit seems to be what takes place here when there’s no opposition, judging by what my friend Gerdes has produced. And siding with and protecting such gagging seems to be what moderation on this forum is about, judging by your intervention.
There are countless links to scads of proof that the jew's version of the holocaust is pure fantasy. The onus is on you to at least skim the material before making a jackass out of yourself.

Quote:
Ah, and what is it that you call "truth"? Is it facts supported by evidence, or is it whatever unsupported nonsense you’d like to believe in?
What does a pathological liar know of truth? If a million people believe a lie, it's still a lie. Now shall we discuss the possibilities of an entire nation of people with sociopath personality disorders and what sort of havoc that they might unleash upon the rest of humanity?


Quote:
I don’t think they speak Spanish in Columbia, but in Colombia they do.
Wow! Calling me on a misspelled word! You really are a cunt.

Quote:
Want a scan from my German passport?
No, not really. Any kid can fabricate official looking docs.

Quote:
I still wouldn't tell you mine because quite frankly I think that you're an asshole, not worthy of another post from me.
The feeling is mutual, and mine is even justified.
Many people find me quite charming. I guess that's because of my jaunty savoirfaire and my colossal bulldozer balls. And no! I won't show them to you, my wife is the jealous sort.

Quote:
Actually Gerdes is making a bloody fool of himself and showing again and again what a liar and charlatan he is, but if you think that’s carving me up, I’ll let you be happy with your delusion.
You follow Gerdes in here like a little puppy dog and then you have the audacity to call him a charlatan? That's like a jewish blivit - 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound sack. It's worse than buying retail! OY Vey Vat's the world coming to? Actually, I wanted to take this opportunity to mention my colossal bulldozer balls once again so that image is burned deep into you mind for the rest of your life. Go ahead and try not to think about them.

.
__________________
The ink of the learned is as precious as the blood of the martyr. For one drop of ink may make millions think.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #33
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Did I anywhere state that this photographs, which Alex Bay analyzes based on what he knows about the building from eyewitness testimonies, is proof of the gas chambers inside that building? Show me where, Gerdes. If you can’t, admit that you lied again."
Roberta, that is exactly why I asked you to review what I had just written, so you could correct any mistakes that I might have made. If I give you the opportunity to correct what I've written, and make those corrections, that can hardly be called lying now can it?
The problem is that this is not the first time you have tried the "gas chamber" thing. You tried it on Topix before, and I called your attention to it. The first time might be a misunderstanding, but if you repeat the same crap after having been shown that it’s crap, you’re either dumb as a door or lying. Which of them is it, Gerdes?

Besides, that’s one of the less serious misrepresentations or omissions I have pointed out. There are others you tried over and over again on Topix and here as well, they were pointed out every time and yet you kept repeating them. Case in point: the "96 million teeth" straw-man, which corresponds to the straw-man about Grossman’s "3 million" overestimate which you even said you would drop.

And then there are the quote-mining exercises I pointed out in post # 26, leaving out important parts of my statements when quoting them. That’s also lying.

Face it, Gerdes, you are a compulsive liar. It’s stronger than you. Better seek help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
So, I take it you're saying you never claimed said photo is an actual photo of the gas chambers of Treblinka. OK, duly noted and I will delete it from the "evidence" file you have presented. Thank you for the correction Roberta.
Do we have another deliberate misunderstanding here, or is that only your equally prominent stupidity? I’m not saying that the photo is a not a photo of the gas chamber building. Certain features visible on the photograph can, if compared with eyewitness descriptions of that building and the related procedures, be identified as features of the gas chamber building. But if you just look at the photograph without knowledge of the eyewitness descriptions, it tells you nothing. So, while the photo does show the gas chamber building, it is not by itself proof of that building’s existence. If anything, it is corroboration of eyewitness testimonies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta (concerning subsection #6):

"You mean photos of the camp from the outside? There’s none that I know of, ...I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any."

Thank you Roberta, I will include that in the next recap.
Quote-mining again, are we, liar?

If you want to include something in the next one of your mendacious "recaps", include the following (emphases added):

Quote:
Adding new irrelevant demands now, Gerdes? Why so? Have you become conscious of how chewed-out the irrelevant demands you have made so far are?

It would seem so.

I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any. But I know of photographs from the inside, taken in violation of instructions received by deputy commander Kurt Franz. They are among the photos shown under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html , and the link http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html shows all of Franz's excavator photos.

As you are such a photo-freak, here are two questions regarding these photographs:

Regarding the photo captioned

«MASS GRAVE
If Treblinka, the boards were added to the bodies in course of a test burning. Usually the victims were buried in mass graves, later cremated on roasts.

Photo: Bundesarchiv No. 183-F0918-0201-011»

the question is: what, if not a corner of one mass grave where the bodies have been covered with boards and what looks like tarpaulin sheets, do you think this photograph shows?

Regarding the excavator photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html , the question (asked several times already and always studiously avoided by Gerdes) is the following:

What would these excavators have been doing in what you claim was a "transit camp"?

Answer the questions, Gerdes!
Tell me, Gerdes, what do you keep making these silly "recaps" for? In order to obfuscate the evidence you cannot address, avoid answering my questions and fool the suckers you obviously expect your "White" buddies to be? It would seem so.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #34
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Ok, time for a simplified recap, with a couple of editions / changes in the specific subtopics.

To date, this is all the "physical evidence" that Roberta has provided regarding Treblinka:
The bets are on that lying Gerdes will again leave out the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November 1945 and 29 December 1945, even though I have stated many times that I consider these the key records of the Treblinka physical evidence and the photographs to be mere illustrations of what those records contain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 1 - Teeth:

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single tooth has been found at Treblinka.
I have provided one eyewitness testimony and one contemporary document mentioning teeth on the Treblinka site, and Gerdes the charlatan has not even tried to explain why these exhibits are not proof that this physical evidence was there and why only photographs should be considered evidence to the presence of teeth on the Treblinka site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (at least 50,000 each):

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single bullet or shell casing has been found at Treblinka.
As if that were a big deal. I have explained why no bullet or shell casing need have been found at Treblinka, and I have referred to eyewitness testimonies, including such from the shooters themselves, which prove the shootings at the "Lazarett" and hence any amount of bullets and shell casings this entailed. The relevance of his yelling for physical exhibits of bullets or shell casings Gerdes has not been able to explain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
#3 - Lazarett:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg

(Roberta claims #4 is the "Lazarett.")
A claim that is supported by several eyewitness descriptions of the "Lazarett" and its position inside the camp, without Gerdes having been able to provide anything like a plausible alternative explanation as to what, if not the mass grave of the "Lazarett", the ground scarring shape I pointed out on this photograph is supposed to be.

Looks like I won the bet. Gerdes again omitted the site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945, which describe the physical evidence far more completely than it could conceivably be shown on any photograph. From my post # 21:

Quote:
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:

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.

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:

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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 4 - The gas chamber:

Roberta: "Did I anywhere state that this photograph is proof of the gas chambers inside that building?"

Which is taken to mean: Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that the alleged homicidal gas chambers have ever been found at Treblinka.
Indeed the photograph is not proof of the gas chamber building by itself, for without background knowledge from eyewitness testimony it tells you nothing. But then, only charlatans like Gerdes ask their readers to believe that one can prove historical events or the existence of related installations on the basis of photographs alone, that there must always be photographs of a given event or the related installations, and that photographs are a must to prove either. The existence and functions of the Treblinka gas chamber building are proven by several eyewitness testimonies independent of each other, and all this photograph does is provide a visual record of what the eyewitnesses described and further confirmation of the accuracy of their descriptions. Under http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp4.shtml , Alex Bay explains what this photograph shows (emphasis added):

Quote:
In the enlargement of the excavator (Figure 37), a number of important and interesting details become visible and are of great interest. Annotation 1 points to two of the lager's Jewish worker 'Sonderkommando' carrying a stretcher. Two men and a stretcher were the means by which the corpses were moved, either from the gas chambers to the burial pits and cremation grates, or from the burial pits to the grates. Annotation 2 refers to a gate which is open. Number 3 indicates a small building. Its location is in the area where some sources show the location of a well, so it possible that it is a pump house. Viernick stated that the gas chambers were hosed down after use, which established that water under pressure was available. This structure stands outside of a security fence running from a gatepost north towards the new gas chambers. Number 4 indicates the western half of the gable end of the new large gas chambers. At 5 is a board fence serving to screen activity in the death camp from the view of the victims directed to the older facility. At six is a window into the motor room of the small gas chambers where the engines used to produce the killing gases were located.
Knowledge of what the annotated features mean is derived from eyewitness descriptions. I highlighted one of the features that eyewitnesses described and Bay identified on the photo, the removal of the corpses from the gas chamber building by means of stretchers. The photo doesn’t prove that corpses were removed from the gas chamber building in this manner, but it is further confirmation that eyewitness descriptions of the removal process are accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 5 - The "huge mass graves -

A - In the "receiving" area:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg

(Roberta claims that #’s 1, 2 and 3 are pits for corpses and # 4 is the "Lazarett.")

B - In the "death camp" area:

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

C - "Somewhere" in the camp :

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg
Again Mr. Greg "Recap" Gerdes omitted the Polish site investigation reports, even though these have been repeatedly stated to be the best source of information about the mass graves area and the depth of the mass graves. Readers without ideological tomato slices in front of their eyes might wonder why Gerdes keeps avoiding these reports and babbling about photographs alone, without even having tried to explain why on earth photographs should be considered the only relevant records of physical evidence. What is the charlatan afraid of?

Also note that Gerdes has not yet tried explaining what, other than mass graves in the "receiving camp" sector of Treblinka (where at least two eyewitnesses described the presence of such mass graves) the shapes pointed out on the photograph "A" are supposed to be. Why does he keep running away from this question?

Regarding annotated photograph "B", see below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
# 6 - Photos of the camp itself, from the outside, during its construction, operation or destruction:

Roberta: "I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation."

* * * *
Also quote what follows, liar (emphases added):

Quote:
I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any. But I know of photographs from the inside, taken in violation of instructions received by deputy commander Kurt Franz. They are among the photos shown under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html , and the link http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html shows all of Franz's excavator photos.

As you are such a photo-freak, here are two questions regarding these photographs:

Regarding the photo captioned

«MASS GRAVE
If Treblinka, the boards were added to the bodies in course of a test burning. Usually the victims were buried in mass graves, later cremated on roasts.

Photo: Bundesarchiv No. 183-F0918-0201-011»

the question is: what, if not a corner of one mass grave where the bodies have been covered with boards and what looks like tarpaulin sheets, do you think this photograph shows?

Regarding the excavator photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html , the question (asked several times already and always studiously avoided by Gerdes) is the following:

What would these excavators have been doing in what you claim was a "transit camp"?

Answer the questions, Gerdes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, please look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."

Should there be any other sub categories Roberta?
Cut the crap, Gerdes. Anyone with some brains inside his head and without ideological tomato slices covering his eyes should have seen that the purpose of your "recaps" is to obfuscate the evidence you cannot address and avoid answering my questions, and that you have forgotten nothing but deliberately omitted what you figure is more difficult for you to make a fuss about. Who do you think you’re fooling, Gerdes? Do you think your "White" buddies are that stupid?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW folks, can’t you just sense the pressure that Roberta is feeling?
Gerdes seems to be projecting his own situation in a desperate attempt to convince his "White" buddies that he’s winning. Poor Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
The longer this goes on and the more it’s getting boiled down to just the tangible physical evidence, the more hysterical and nonsensical her responses get.
Actually the only hysteria here is Gerdes’ own, and I appreciate his confessing to the flagrantly unscientific nature of his approach, in trying to limit the record of evidence to whatever it is he calls "tangible" physical evidence. But the charlatanry doesn’t end there, folks. Apart from trying to limit the record of evidence to just one out of several existing categories of evidence, Gerdes also tries to limit the "admissible" documentation of physical evidence to photographs alone, ignoring site investigation reports prepared by criminal investigators.

All of this he does without ever having tried, despite numerous requests in this sense, to show any rules or standards of evidence that would justify his approach – which is understandable insofar as there are no such rules or standards of evidence. A criminal investigator who limits the evidence he looks at to physical evidence and is only interested in photographs but not in written descriptions of that evidence is not a criminal investigator, but an incompetent bungler and a slobbering fool.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And please notice how this freaky bitch complains about “quote mining” when her entire argument is composed of cherry picked quotes from the glaringly contradictory and physically impossible “eyewitness testimony.”
Thanks for admitting to your quote-mining by claiming that "mine" is worse, Gerdes. And you seem to be fond of getting homework for yourself, because your accusation calls for your demonstrating that

a) my argument is entirely based on eyewitness testimony;
b) the eyewitness testimony I am supposed to have based my "entire" argument on (what about the site investigation reports and the German documents you keep ignoring, Gerdes?) is "glaringly contradictory" and "physically impossible", and
c) I "cherry-picked" from this eyewitness testimony, i.e. quoted from it out of context or according to no criterion other than convenience to my argument.

Let’s see how you support your idiotic accusation, Gerdes. Get cracking.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #35
yankee jane
Mene, Mene, Tekel Upharsin
 
yankee jane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,588
yankee jane
Default

Is there a reason you all don't like img tags for your pics? You just need to push the little "insert image" button when entering the pic's address ... a reader can't keep opening images for that many pictures.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #36
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
The alleged photographic documentation of the "physical evidence" for the Treblinka holohoax as presented by Roberto Muehlenkamp in her “debate” with Greg Gerdes:
Another of you mendacious "recaps", limited for no reason you can explain to a) physical evidence and b) photographic documentation of the physical evidence, Gerdes?

Who do you think is stupid enough to fall for yet another repetition of your "recap" baloney?

Ah, and please note that Gerdes is afraid of even the artificially limited evidence he is willing to "admit", for he calls into question it’s authenticity by babbling about "alleged" photographic documentation. What a show.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Again, please look at this closely Roberta and let me know if I've forgotten anything, because this will be the foundation for the next phase of our "debate."
Cut the crap, Gerdes. I couldn’t care less if you have included all the photographs I have shown, for as long as you don’t include a) written records as documentation of the physical evidence and b) documents and eyewitness testimonies as evidence no less important than physical evidence, you are deliberately "forgetting" everything but what you obviously think is hardest for your opponent to obtain and/or easiest for you to make a fuss about.

But as you insist in my reminding you of what part of the artificially limited record of evidence you are not scared to deal with you have "forgotten", I’ll mention just what immediately comes to my mind. This:

Quote:
I don’t know of photos from the outside of any of the phases of the camp’s operation, and I doubt you can explain why there should necessarily be any. But I know of photographs from the inside, taken in violation of instructions received by deputy commander Kurt Franz. They are among the photos shown under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html , and the link http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html shows all of Franz's excavator photos.

As you are such a photo-freak, here are two questions regarding these photographs:

Regarding the photo captioned

«MASS GRAVE
If Treblinka, the boards were added to the bodies in course of a test burning. Usually the victims were buried in mass graves, later cremated on roasts.

Photo: Bundesarchiv No. 183-F0918-0201-011»

the question is: what, if not a corner of one mass grave where the bodies have been covered with boards and what looks like tarpaulin sheets, do you think this photograph shows?

Regarding the excavator photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html , the question (asked several times already and always studiously avoided by Gerdes) is the following:

What would these excavators have been doing in what you claim was a "transit camp"?

Answer the questions, Gerdes!
If you haven't "forgotten" the photographs (maybe I missed them in your laters "recap", which I didn't look at very closely), you have certainly "forgotten" to answer the related questions. So please answer them. Now.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #37
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
RE: Roberto Muehlenkamp
Quote:
It’s obvious to me that you’re a wishful thinker divorced from reality, but you should give our readers the benefit of doubt and assume that maybe they are not.

The only thing I'm divorced from is my first wife. As far as realty is concerned, what color are the unicorns in your universe?
Why, are there unicorns in yours? In mine there are none.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Actually that’s what you have been doing by claiming that our "White" audience would see me as making "their" case.

What you fail to take into account is the fact that most Whites have been brainwashed to believe the lies that you're spewing, I'm here to help deprogram them.
Yet cannot demonstrate any of what you call "lies" to actually be lies, right? Good luck with your "deprogramming", then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
I doubt you would know what critical rationale is even if stepped on your foot, and I don’t quite understand what the number of readers has got to do with your statement implying that you would ban me if you didn’t think I’m making your ideology’s case. To be sure, 295 views to 25 replies on this thread as of 09.06.2008 14:35 hours GMT doesn’t look like your "White" folks are very interested in this discussion, but what are you trying to tell me? That you don’t ban me because the number of "White" minds I might get to think a little about their articles of faith is a small one?

This is like trying to explain the color green to a blind man. But there the blind man would have a legitimate reason not to get it.
I cannot possibly fail to "get" what you haven’t got, i.e. arguments to support your un-reflected quips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
So it seems, judging by your statement that points to this being the exact opposite of an uncensored forum.

My statement stands on it's own merits, if you choose to believe that I meant the opposite of what I clearly stated, go right ahead. I've already said that I think that you're an asshole, please continue validating my opinion.
It’s not the opposite of what you stated, but a logical conclusion derived from your statement. If you say "I'm not banning you because you're actually proving our case to our candid audience", you’re also saying "I would ban you if you were not actually proving our case to our candid audience". And that’s censorship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
I have no problem with your showing that this is a place run and moderated by hysterical fanatics, on the contrary. It is you who should see a problem with that.

The adversaries of radical revolutionaries have to say something, I guess? Standing at a podium like a deaf mute with your thumb up your ass wouldn't go over too well in Peoria.
Is this "radical revolutionary" trying to tell me something, or is he just babbling some unrelated and incoherent stuff he hopes might be mistaken for an argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
There’s nothing wrong with a moderator showing what side he’s on when participating in the debate. But when acting as a moderator you should not reveal any bias, otherwise you make it even more obvious that the "uncensored forum" thing is a joke. A forum where the moderator, acting in this capacity, tries to harass posters whose arguments he doesn’t like, is not exactly an uncensored one.

Don't you dare try to tell me how to do my job you sniveling little creep.
Or else what, super moderator? You’re going to kick me out of this lovely place? Just go ahead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Actually I can tell the difference very well. Gagging on horseshit seems to be what takes place here when there’s no opposition, judging by what my friend Gerdes has produced. And siding with and protecting such gagging seems to be what moderation on this forum is about, judging by your intervention.

There are countless links to scads of proof that the jew's version of the holocaust is pure fantasy. The onus is on you to at least skim the material before making a jackass out of yourself.
Actually I have not only "skimmed" that "proof" but delight in showing it up for the mendacious and imbecile crap that it is. On the Holocaust Controversies blog under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/ , for instance, and with the valuable assistance of folks like Gerdes. And if you think anyone other than Gerdes and his supportive super moderator is making a jackass of himself, you’re in urgent need of a reality check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Ah, and what is it that you call "truth"? Is it facts supported by evidence, or is it whatever unsupported nonsense you’d like to believe in?

What does a pathological liar know of truth? If a million people believe a lie, it's still a lie. Now shall we discuss the possibilities of an entire nation of people with sociopath personality disorders and what sort of havoc that they might unleash upon the rest of humanity?
I didn’t ask you to voice your paranoid opinion about who you call an "entire nation of people with sociopath personality disorders", but to tell me what it is you consider the "truth". Is it facts supported by evidence, or is it something else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
I don’t think they speak Spanish in Columbia, but in Colombia they do.

Wow! Calling me on a misspelled word! You really are a cunt.
Just trying to adapt to my "White" environment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Want a scan from my German passport?

No, not really. Any kid can fabricate official looking docs.
If you can easily fabricate modern computer-readable passports, please tell me how you do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
I still wouldn't tell you mine because quite frankly I think that you're an asshole, not worthy of another post from me.
The feeling is mutual, and mine is even justified.

Many people find me quite charming. I guess that's because of my jaunty savoirfaire and my colossal bulldozer balls. And no! I won't show them to you, my wife is the jealous sort.
I already told Gerdes to be careful with such statements, for they smack of self-projecting crypto-homosexuality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
Quote:
Actually Gerdes is making a bloody fool of himself and showing again and again what a liar and charlatan he is, but if you think that’s carving me up, I’ll let you be happy with your delusion.

You follow Gerdes in here like a little puppy dog
What’s that supposed to mean? Gerdes, realizing that he was not doing too well out in the open, challenged me to debate him where he would feel safer with his "White" buddies around and a friendly moderator to back him up. And by coming here I have shown that I'm not a coward like Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
and then you have the audacity to call him a charlatan?
Not only the audacity, but the well-supported conviction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus
That's like a jewish blivit - 10 pounds of shit in a 5 pound sack. It's worse than buying retail! OY Vey Vat's the world coming to? Actually, I wanted to take this opportunity to mention my colossal bulldozer balls once again so that image is burned deep into you mind for the rest of your life. Go ahead and try not to think about them.
You don’t really have much to say, do you, super moderator? At least be careful with that self-projecting homo crap. Your wife might not like to find out about it.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #38
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Roberta, as far as your nonsensical accusations that I've been "quote mining," you seem to forget that you see a Nazi conspiracy in every post and your insane ramblings go on and on and on and on and on. For the sake of saving space in my own posts, I can only pick out the highlights of your crazy drivel. Could you imagine how much time and space would be taken up if I copied verbatim all your mentally ill / retarded blather? The recaps that I do are done just to help people cut through all that nonsensical BS you vomit up in every single one of your posts. It's called clarification stupid. And regardless, it's a moot point now isn't it? So why are you still bitching about it? Just to bitch?

Ok Roberta, you have mentioned the photos of the alleged gas chamber and the excavators. But if you will look closely at this link you have provided:

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html

Those photos are included in that collection. That collection of photos also includes this alleged mass grave photo:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg

So I will delete it from my next recap.

Again Roberta, all the alleged photographic "proof" of the physical evidence you have presented is either included singularly or is included somewhere in the two links with the collection of photos - excavators, gas chambers and the one "mass grave."

Correct?

Ok Roberta, I think we’re done here. I have given you more than enough opportunities to present the physical evidence for the Treblinka holocaust.

After my final summation, we can move on to the next phase of our "debate."

Brutus:

Quote:
"I'd perfer to just sit back and watch Greg Gerdes carve you up some more."
Thank you Brutus, but I think what I'm doing to Roberta is more like what a Boa Constrictor does to a goat. Can't you just sense the pressure Roberta is feeling right now? The panic and desperation in her posts is palpable as she senses what kind of a mess she's gotten herself into and she realizes what a huge mistake it was to challenge me on this subject.

BTW folks, if you think the asskicking I'm giving Roberta on the subject of Treblinka is brutal, you should see what I've done to her on the subjects of Chelmno and Sobibor. I will start threads on those subjects here soon.
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #39
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Oh, before we go on folks, I really do have to point out something that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, just how mentally retarded / ill Roberta is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes

# 2 - Bullets & Shell casings (at least 50,000 each):

Roberta has provided no physical evidence / photographic proof what-so-ever that so much as a single bullet or shell casing has been found at Treblinka.
Roberta:

Quote:
"As if that were a big deal. I have explained why no bullet or shell casing need have been found at Treblinka"
Ok now folks, lets take a look at how Roberta "explained" why no bullets or shell casings "need have been found" at Treblinka. From the topix site:

Roberta:

"Gerdes howling about "tens of thousands of bullets and shell casings" obviously presumes that these objects, easy to identify and pick up after each shooting, were just left lying around by his SS-heroes."

Q - Oh that's a good one Roberta. That's going into the archives. Please do explain why the SS picked up their brass and please do explain how they picked up their spent bullets.

A - "The spent cartridges they could just pick off the ground."

Q - Please explain how they recovered the bullets that passed through the bodies they shot and please explain how they recovered the bullets that stayed within the bodies they shot?

A - "Ever heard of bullet-catchers and sand bags, smart-ass?"

Q - So Roberta, can you prove that so much as a single bullet or spent cartridge / shell casing was ever so much as seen at Treblinka?

A - "That depends on what you mean by "prove", asshole."

Q - So you're trying to say that the detection of 50,000 bullets and 50,000 shell casings in one pit couldn't be located with forensic / archeological methods?

A - "No, I’m asking you to explain why there should be that many bullets and shell casings in the area... considering that the bullets are likely to have been reduced to molten lead while the cartridges are likely to have been salvaged by your SS heroes. When you have done that, we can chat about "forensic / archeological methods" to find what cartridges are left and identify the molten bullet lead in the soil of Treblinka."

Q - Can you show us just one shell casing Roberta? How about just one bullet? Just one Roberta. One.

A - "No, I can’t “show” you any specific bullet or shell casing. And you can’t explain what the hell it is supposed to matter that I can’t show you any specific bullet or shell casing, which means that you can stick your idiotic “just one” babbling you-know-where."

So Roberta, before we go on, can you show us a photo of the German "bullet-catchers" that were employed at Treblinka?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
 
Old June 10th, 2008 #40
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

How/why do you conclude that there would be 50,000 shells and shell casings at Treblinka?
__________________
RabbitNoMore

But all jews do speak in absolutes though. Just like you.

-----------

Define idiot
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:38 AM.
Page generated in 0.28605 seconds.