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

Old June 14th, 2008 #61
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Fist off Roberta, as anyone with half a brain could tell, I'm not saying there was an alleged "lazarett" pit in Treblinka I. Your reading of that just shows your ignorance / stupidity / insanity / desperation etc.
No, it was just a simple misunderstanding, prompted by the fact that the figure 50,000 has also been mentioned in our discussion in connection with the "Lazarett". Big fucking deal. I’m sorry for that misunderstanding, though not nearly as sorry as I feel for the hysterically vituperating moron who makes a fuss about it (and who, considering the mendacious straw-men he has been throwing around, again and again even after they had been pointed out several times, should fucking refrain from whining).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Now back to my questions from posts # 46 & 47 & 50.

OK, let's do this again and make it so simple that maybe even a retard like Roberta can understand it:

Roberta, for the following photos, give us the name of the photographer, the date the photo was taken and the location in the camp that they were allegedly taken in. That is just a start. When you can do that, we will get into the analysis of the photos.

#1 -

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

#2 -

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


#3 -

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


#4 -

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html

#5 -

http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm
You’re demanding quite a lot for who bears the burden of proving that, contrary to what becomes apparent from all associated evidence as well as the source references, these photos are not photos taken at Treblinka.

Regarding # 1 and # 3, I suggest you re-read what I wrote in my post # 55:

Quote:
Of the six post-liberation Treblinka photos shown in my RODOH thread Mass Graves and Dead Bodies under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/596...ad-Bodies.html :

1. Skeletal remains at the site of the Treblinka extermination camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5807_1_web.jpg

2. Skeletal remains at the site of the Treblinka extermination camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg

3. Human skeletal remains in the Treblinka camp.

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5810_1_web.jpg

4. Heaps of ashes on the grounds of the Treblinka camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5809_1_web.jpg

5. One of the enormous pits in the Treblinka camp into which the victims' corpses (and later, ashes) were thrown.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

6. A heap of ashes in the Treblinka camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5814_1_web.jpg

, photographs 2 and 4 show the name of the photographer: "J. Byck, Warszawa", who is obviously identical with the "Jacob Byk" mentioned by Mattogno & Graf. This means that the photographs were taken during the site inspection/investigation carried out between 6 November and 13 November 1945. Photographer Byk/Byck seems to have been part of the investigation team headed by Examining Judge Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz, and all above photographs are from the same collection (Ghetto Fighters Museum), so it seems reasonable to assume that photographs 1, 3, 5 and 6 were taken by Mr. Byk/Byck as well.

The exact date of the photographs I don’t know, but it must have been between 6 November and 13 November 1945.
In photo # 3 under
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg you even see the photographer’s name ("J. Byck, Warszawa") on the photo. Take the tomato slices off your eyes.

Regarding photo # 2 under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5811_1_web.jpg , which is not mentioned in the above-quoted listing, I have no idea by whom it was taken. I might contact the Ghetto Fighter’s Museum and ask them whence they concluded that this might be a Treblinka photo, but I’m not exactly in a hurry to do so, as this photo fits what becomes apparent from other evidence about Treblinka and it is for Gerdes to disprove the prima facie indications that it is a Treblinka photo before I have to prove that it is actually one.

Photos # 4:
http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html

are attributed by all sources where I have seen them to Treblinka II's deputy commander Kurt Franz, and they are matched by all associated evidence to what they show, so it's for Gerdes to prove that their attribution to Kurt Franz and the Treblinka II extermination camp is wrong.

Nevertheless, I'll provide some background information about these photographs. The photo album of Treblinka’s deputy commander Kurt Franz was introduced as evidence at the first Treblinka trial in Düsseldorf in 1964/65, the summary of which can be found under http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/brd.../brdeng596.htm . The cover sheet of a dossier containing reproductions by the state attorney’s office of Kurt Franz’s photos, which is part of the trial files, is shown on page 90 of Yitzhak Arad’s book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. The Operation Reinhard Extermination Camps. The discovery of the photo album when Kurt Franz was arrested on 2 December 1959 is mentioned by German public prosecutor Manfred Blank on pages 46/47 of the book NS – Prozesse. Nach 25 Jahren Strafverfolgung: Möglichkeiten – Grenzen – Ergebnisse, edited by Adalbert Rückerl. Blank also mentions that the album was no longer complete when found, several photos having been torn out and their captions having been erased.

As to photo # 5:
http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm

all sources I have seen attribute it to Treblinka, but I’m not sure if it is also from Kurt Franz’s album. According to http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/photos.html , this photo is kept in the German Federal Archives under No. 183-F0918-0201-011. When I have time I’ll contact the Federal Archives and ask them what information they have about the photographer. Meanwhile, bigmouth Gerdes should do the following:

1. Provide any indication he can come up with that, contrary to what becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation;

2. Explain what, if not a corner of a mass grave in which the bodies are mostly covered by wooden planks and what looks like tarpaulin sheet, photo # 5 under http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm is supposed to show;

3. Regarding those of the excavator photos that Alex Bay managed to locate inside the area of Treblinka II as shown on the September 1944 photograph (see the quotes in my post # 54) explain what these excavators could possibly have been doing in what Gerdes claims was a "transit camp".

4. Regarding the marked-up air photo shown under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg , answer the question what, if not mass graves in a section of the camp where eyewitnesses described mass graves – namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory – the ground scarring shapes I pointed out are supposed to have been.

5. Regarding the ground photos shown under the following links:

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

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

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

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

, answer the question what, if not parts of the former Treblinka extermination camp and especially the burial area described in the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 quoted in my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html, these photos are supposed to show.

6. Regarding the above-mentioned site investigation reports, answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include these written descriptions of the physical evidence on site in the record of physical evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

7. Regarding the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 , answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include this documentary and eyewitness evidence in the record of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

8. Regarding his claim that Treblinka was a "transit camp", answer the question where the about 750,000 people deported to Treblinka in 1942/43 are supposed to have been "transited" to from there, and show evidence regarding their transportation to such places and their accommodation there. As the Germans would have had no reason to destroy the records of an innocuous resettlement operation, there should be plenty such evidence around.

8 questions for Mr. Gerdes to answer, most or all of which have been asked before.

When will Gerdes stop making demands the relevance of which he cannot explain while running away from my pertinent and substantiated questions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
As per your drawings of "mass graves" on the Sept. 1944 aerial photo:

Roberta:

"As to the aerial photo, it's also not my job to prove that these ground-scarring shapes are what they look like and what eyewitness testimonies suggest they were, i.e. mass graves."

Since you obviously can't prove that there are actually 'huge mass graves" under those shapes that you've outlined Roberta, then that photo is being stricken.
You are no one to "strike" anything, so cut the crap. Two indications that these ground scarring shapes are mass graves (their looks and the mention
of mass graves in the respective area by eyewitnesses) are proof that these were mass graves unless and until you can come up with a plausible alternative explanation, one that is compatible with your "transit camp" theory. When you have provided such explanation, the ball may be in my court again. Until then, it is in yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
However, this photo will be added into evidence (for the time being).

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg
You are no one to "add" or not "add" something into evidence, Mr. Gerdes. If you want to admit certain exhibits and dismiss others, you have to show rules and standards of evidence other than your irrelevant own according to which you decide what is and what is not admissible as evidence. And I doubt you can show such rules or standards of evidence, because all I know about criminal investigation and historical research is that criminal investigators and historians do not only look at photographs and don’t even necessarily consider photographs significant evidence, but are also and often more interested in written site investigation reports, contemporary documents produced by the perpetrators or otherwise pertaining to the perpetrators' activities, depositions of accused crime participants and testimonies of eyewitnesses to the crime.

So, Gerdes, what is your fucking justification for trying to restrict the record of evidence to photographs alone?

I’m eagerly waiting for your answer to this question, Mr. Gerdes. And I recommend that you try coming up with an answer and don't run away again, unless you want even your sympathetic "White" buddies to conclude that you are a repetitive charlatan without arguments who does more harm than good to their cause.
 
Old June 14th, 2008 #62
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Now Roberta, same as above, for the following photos, give us the name of the photographer, the date the photo(s) were taken and the location in the camp that they were allegedly taken in. That is just a start. When you can do that, we will get into the analysis of the photos.

1 -

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

2 -


http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg
Again quite an impertinent request, coming as it does from who carries the burden of proving that these photographs do not show what they show according to their sources and all associated evidence. What I know about these photographs I have written in post # 55:

Quote:
This photo of skulls on the Treblinka site:

18. http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg
, which is included in that newspaper article, may be related to the Ogrodowczyk inspection/investigation as well.

On the other hand, this photo:

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

shows the result of a Polish militia action against robbery diggers and must have been part of the corresponding militia report. In my translation of the Polish newspaper article about the "Gold Rush in Treblinka", this photo is addressed in some detail:
Quote:
In one of the huts in Wólka we got to see a unique photo of this action - perhaps the only one that survived. No one had so far published it. A scene in the open field: soldiers armed with machine pistols are standing around a group of villagers. The women with headscarves and long skirts, as if on harvest. Only there are spades instead of sickles in their hands. The men with berets and jackets, with spades. Piled up in front of them are skulls and limb bones. No consternation is to be seen on the faces. Those arrested know that they have nothing to fear.

We figure how many inhabitants of Wólka, Grądy and Prostyń may recognize their parents and grandparents on this photo. We read the report about the roundup, which the head of the unit from Ostrowa presented to his superiors: "With the grave robbers we found golden rings, crowns and porcelain teeth with gold and silver inlays."

In the archives there is no indication that anyone was put on trial for pilfering graves. The show-off action was completed, photos of those arrested were made, a report was sent out, the military returned to its barracks, the grave robbers - to Treblinka. The intensive rummaging doesn't stop for the next 15 years.

"The people have learned the difference between almonds and diamonds," says the house owner whom we show the photo. For a long time he studies the faces on the photograph. He doesn't want to reveal who he recognized, but he admits: "These are no anonymous people". Several times he repeats that, were we to mention his name in the "Gazeta", the neighbors would set fire to his house.
The photo shown under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_2.jpg is obviously from the militia report quoted in the Polish newspaper article about the "Gold Rush in Treblinka", whose authors interviewed a villager about this photo. The villager reluctantly admitted that he recognized acquaintances of his on this photo and asked the authors not to mention his name, as this would get him into trouble with neighbors who or whose relative had taken part in the "gold rush".

Don’t you read my posts before hitting the keyboard, Mr. Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
BTW Roberta, tell us how you first became aware of those last two photos.
Tell me, Gerdes, did you not read my translation of the Polish article about the "Gold Rush in Treblinka", the one that is available under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/588...Treblinka.html and has been mentioned many times throughout this discussion, and of which the "Gold Rush" photographs are a part?

Or did you read it with those usual tomato slices covering your eyes, which kept you from seeing the photographs included in that article?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
This is real simple Roberta. Just give the information that has been asked, nothing more, nothing less. But please feel free to expound on the last question I asked you.
What information I have has been given, even though Mr. Gerdes never even tried to explain the relevance of his demands and even though, in what concerns the photographs, it is up to him to provide indications that would call the accuracy of their sources' referring them to Treblinka into question, and not my job to provide further information about these photographs.

Now how about you doing something for a change, Mr. Gerdes?

How about you getting up your fat Nazi ass and doing something other than yell for exhibits of minor or no relevance or for information about such exhibits, instead of, say, trying to answer my above questions?

You’re in no position to play the expectant princess, Gerdes. My case has been made, with or without photographs. But I still have to see any evidence, however tiny and insignificant, that would support your "transit camp" theory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:
"Actually common sense suggests that the deputy commandant of Treblinka II extermination camp would photograph things inside Treblinka II extermination camp and not a labor camp that he had nothing to do with."

The sand / gravel quarry was not "in" the labor camp Treblinka I.
No, but it was by that labor camp and the reason for that labor camp’s existence, and had nothing to do with Treblinka II extermination camp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
But now that you mention it Roberta, If common sense suggests that the deputy commandant of Treblinka II would photograph things inside Treblinka II, then would you please present into evidence all the photos that "common sense" tells us that he would have taken?

You know, like the piles of the alleged hundreds and hundreds of thousands of bodies?
Thanks for showing how little common sense you have, Mr. Gerdes. Franz was not only acting against instructions received when taking those photographs (why did they have instructions not to take photographs at those camps, Mr. Gerdes?), he was taking them for his private memory album. And it would therefore not be surprising if he photographed only the "nice" parts of his job, like his comrades, the Treblinka "zoo" for the SS guards and the excavators as he seems to have been an excavator buff, but not the stinking piles of bodies inside the mass graves. Would you have included photos of stinking piles of bodies in your memory photo album if you had been in Franz's place, Mr. Gerdes? Think before writing.

On the other hand, it may be that Franz was sick enough to also include such photos in his album, considering that, as was mentioned by German public prosecutor Blank, some photos had been torn out of the album and the captions erased by the time Franz was arrested.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
How about just one photo of just one dead body?

Just one Roberta.

One.
Your demand might be pertinent if the accuracy of the Treblinka evidence would necessarily imply that such a photograph exists. But as there are good reasons compatible with the Treblinka evidence why such photo need not exist, your demand is nothing more than a cheap publicity trick that may impress suckers but only looks silly to people with brains inside their heads.

And as you like to play silly games, I’ll add another question to the eight in my previous post, one that is closely related to question number 2 and therefore becomes number 3, the following questions being renumbered accordingly:

1. Provide any indication he can come up with that, contrary to what the becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation;

2. Explain what, if not a corner of a mass grave in which the bodies are mostly covered by wooden planks and what looks like tarpaulin sheet, photo # 5 under http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm is supposed to show;

3. Explain what, if not dead bodies or parts of dead bodies, the figures I pointed out on the “mass graves” photograph, see under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg , are supposed to be.

4. Regarding those of the excavator photos that Alex Bay managed to locate inside the area of Treblinka II as shown on the September 1944 photograph (see the quotes in my post # 54) explain what these excavators could possibly have been doing in what Gerdes claims was a "transit camp".

5. Regarding the marked-up air photo shown under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg , answer the question what, if not mass graves in a section of the camp where eyewitnesses described mass graves – namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory – the ground scarring shapes I pointed out are supposed to have been.

6. Regarding the ground photos shown under the following links:

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

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

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

, answer the question what, if not parts of the former Treblinka extermination camp and especially the burial area described in the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 quoted in my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , these photos are supposed to show.

7. Regarding the above-mentioned site investigation reports, answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include these written descriptions of the physical evidence on site in the record of physical evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

8. Regarding the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 , answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include this documentary and eyewitness evidence in the record of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

9. Regarding his claim that Treblinka was a "transit camp", answer the question where the about 750,000 people deported to Treblinka in 1942/43 are supposed to have been "transited" to from there, and show evidence regarding their transportation to such places and their accommodation there. As the Germans would have had no reason to destroy the records of an innocuous resettlement operation, there should be plenty such evidence around.

Nine questions for you, Mr. Gerdes. As I said before, it’s time for you to get up your fat and lazy Nazi ass.
 
Old June 14th, 2008 #63
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Roberta:

"Provide any indication that, contrary to what becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation"

Your being unable to provide the name of the photographer or the date the photo was taken and the fact that not an iota of physical evidence in photos # 1 & 5 can place the photo at Treblinka, makes photos # 1 & 5 inadmissible.

Photos # 1 & 5 - stricken.

Roberta:

"Regarding photo # 2, I have no idea by whom it was taken."

And of course you have no idea when it was taken or any proof what-so-ever that it was taken at Treblinka.

Photo # 2 - stricken.

Photo # 3 will remain in your evidence file (for the time being at least) and I'm still waiting for the date the excavator photos were taken.
 
Old June 14th, 2008 #64
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

I'll rephrase my question about the following photos:

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

Roberta, in what form did you read the "Treblinka Gold Rush" newspaper article you mention? Did you actually see the "paper" edition of this newspaper, or did you just see an internet webpage version?

Have you ever seen the actual paper edition of this "newspaper" article?

And again Roberta, for those two photos, give us the name of the photographer, the date the photos were taken and the location in the camp that they were allegedly taken in. If you don't know the name, tell us you don't know the name. If you don't know the date, tell us you don't know the date. If you don't know the alleged location in the camp, tell us you don't know the alleged location.

That's all the information we need for the moment Roberta, so please spare us another one of your insane diatribes.
 
Old June 14th, 2008 #65
Slamin2
gassed at least 5 times
 
Slamin2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Wolzek (get it?)
Posts: 1,176
Slamin2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
Roberta:

"Provide any indication that, contrary to what becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation"

Your being unable to provide the name of the photographer or the date the photo was taken and the fact that not an iota of physical evidence in photos # 1 & 5 can place the photo at Treblinka, makes photos # 1 & 5 inadmissible.

Photos # 1 & 5 - stricken.
When did you become the judge by which evidence is stricken?
__________________
RabbitNoMore

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

-----------

Define idiot
 
Old June 14th, 2008 #66
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamin2 View Post
When did you become the judge by which evidence is stricken?
I get it: the mods, in their infinite wisdom have decided that you're really an asset and allowed you into the forum proper. That's great as I think you're an ambassador par excellence de la 'caust. Shine on you crazy diamond.
 
Old June 15th, 2008 #67
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Provide any indication that, contrary to what becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation"

Your being unable to provide the name of the photographer or the date the photo was taken and the fact that not an iota of physical evidence in photos # 1 & 5 can place the photo at Treblinka, makes photos # 1 & 5 inadmissible.
By what rules or standards of evidence other than your irrelevant own would that be so, Gerdes? Quote them.

Not that it matters, but I can clearly identify the author of photo # 3 under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg and demonstrate on hand of Mattogno & Graf’s writings that the photographer belonged to the examining judge’s team that investigated the Treblinka site between 6 and 13 November 1945, which in turn means that the photo was taken in that time-span. I can also explain, and have explained, why it is reasonable to assume that photo # 1 under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg pertains to the same investigation and was thus taken within the same time-span by the same photographer. Regarding photos # 4 under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html , I have provided two further sources, including the writings of a public prosecutor about the arrest of Kurt Franz and the discovery of his Treblinka photo album, which confirm the information under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators.html that these photos were part of said album. And in regard to all 5 photos, I’m doing something that is not my encumbrance, for it is not for me to provide all data related to these photos. It is for Gerdes, the expectant princess and lazy Nazi bugger, to at least provide a good reason for suspecting that these photos were not taken where their sources state and all associated evidence show them to have been taken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Photos # 1 & 5 - stricken.
Not that I would mind Gerdes’ "striking" all photographs as I consider them mere illustrations of what becomes apparent from other, more telling evidence I have provided, but our desperate rambler is no one to decide what gets "stricken" and what remains. Got that, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Regarding photo # 2, I have no idea by whom it was taken."

And of course you have no idea when it was taken or any proof what-so-ever that it was taken at Treblinka.
When, during the time when Treblinka was in operation, if it is a Treblinka photo. As to "proof", mind what I wrote in post # 61:

Quote:
Regarding photo # 2 under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5811_1_web.jpg , which is not mentioned in the above-quoted listing, I have no idea by whom it was taken. I might contact the Ghetto Fighter’s Museum and ask them whence they concluded that this might be a Treblinka photo, but I’m not exactly in a hurry to do so, as this photo fits what becomes apparent from other evidence about Treblinka and it is for Gerdes to disprove the prima facie indications that it is a Treblinka photo before I have to prove that it is actually one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Photo # 2 - stricken.
Again, who are you to "strike" anything, Mr. Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Photo # 3 will remain in your evidence file (for the time being at least)
And who are you to arbitrarily decide what remains and what remains not in the evidence file?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
and I'm still waiting for the date the excavator photos were taken.
As it is unlikely that Treblinka’s deputy commander Kurt Franz recorded the exact date on which he took each photo while in service at Treblinka II extermination camp in1942/43, you may "wait" until hell freezes over. And there’s no reason why anyone should give a flying fuck about what you are "waiting" for, as I have told you before. Are you that slow on the uptake, Gerdes?
 
Old June 15th, 2008 #68
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
I'll rephrase my question about the following photos:

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

Roberta, in what form did you read the "Treblinka Gold Rush" newspaper article you mention? Did you actually see the "paper" edition of this newspaper, or did you just see an internet webpage version?
I saw the internet webpage version at a time when it still had the photos in it, and I also have a paper version of the article. IIRC correctly I already mentioned this on Topix and offered to provide a scan of the paper version on request. Is your memory that lousy, or are you again short of even your notoriously feeble arguments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Have you ever seen the actual paper edition of this "newspaper" article?
I have one paper version with me, and I’m amused by the quote marks. Are you so desperate as to call in question the nature of the publication featuring that article?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And again Roberta, for those two photos, give us the name of the photographer, the date the photos were taken and the location in the camp that they were allegedly taken in. If you don't know the name, tell us you don't know the name. If you don't know the date, tell us you don't know the date. If you don't know the alleged location in the camp, tell us you don't know the alleged location.
Hey Gerdes, what part of what I wrote in post # 55 is too hard for your tiny brain to understand?

Here it is again, to save you the trouble of scrolling back:

Quote:
Of the six post-liberation Treblinka photos shown in my RODOH thread Mass Graves and Dead Bodies under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/596...ad-Bodies.html :

1. Skeletal remains at the site of the Treblinka extermination camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5807_1_web.jpg

2. Skeletal remains at the site of the Treblinka extermination camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5808_1_web.jpg

3. Human skeletal remains in the Treblinka camp.

http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5810_1_web.jpg

4. Heaps of ashes on the grounds of the Treblinka camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5809_1_web.jpg

5. One of the enormous pits in the Treblinka camp into which the victims' corpses (and later, ashes) were thrown.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg

6. A heap of ashes in the Treblinka camp.
http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5814_1_web.jpg

, photographs 2 and 4 show the name of the photographer: "J. Byck, Warszawa", who is obviously identical with the "Jacob Byk" mentioned by Mattogno & Graf. This means that the photographs were taken during the site inspection/investigation carried out between 6 November and 13 November 1945. Photographer Byk/Byck seems to have been part of the investigation team headed by Examining Judge Zdzislaw Lukaszkiewicz, and all above photographs are from the same collection (Ghetto Fighters Museum), so it seems reasonable to assume that photographs 1, 3, 5 and 6 were taken by Mr. Byk/Byck as well.

The exact date of the photographs I don’t know, but it must have been between 6 November and 13 November 1945.

The collection of photographs under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html includes two photos:

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp40.jpg

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp39.jpg

that show exactly the same as the above numbers 4 and 6 and were thus obviously taken by the same photographer, with the same camera and at the same time.

Of the other photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html , these three:

7. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp41.jpg

8. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp43.jpg

9. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp42.jpg

look to my like they were taken with the same camera, so I would attribute them to Mr. Byk/Byck and the period between 6 and 13 November 1945 as well.

This photograph:

10. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp35.jpg

may also be from the same source, but it is equally possible that it was taken during the Soviet investigation preceding the Polish one.

This photograph:

11. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp44.jpg

is obviously from the Soviet investigation, as captioned.

The remaining photographs

12. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp46.jpg

13. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp47.jpg

14. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp48.jpg

15. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp49.jpg

16. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp50.jpg

17. http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bigp51.jpg

look like they have been taken with a camera other than that of Mr. Byk/Byck. As the investigators in the last photo look like civilians rather than Red Army soldiers, however, it is possible that these photos are related to a Polish site inspection/investigation other than the one headed by judge Lukaszkiewicz, maybe the inspection/investigation involving Mr. Karol Ogrodowczyk from Warsaw that is mentioned in the Polish newspaper article translated into English under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/588...Treblinka.html . This photo of skulls on the Treblinka site:

18. http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

, which is included in that newspaper article, may be related to the Ogrodowczyk inspection/investigation as well.

On the other hand, this photo:

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

shows the result of a Polish militia action against robbery diggers and must have been part of the corresponding militia report. In my translation of the Polish newspaper article about the "Gold Rush in Treblinka", this photo is addressed in some detail:
Quote:
In one of the huts in Wólka we got to see a unique photo of this action - perhaps the only one that survived. No one had so far published it. A scene in the open field: soldiers armed with machine pistols are standing around a group of villagers. The women with headscarves and long skirts, as if on harvest. Only there are spades instead of sickles in their hands. The men with berets and jackets, with spades. Piled up in front of them are skulls and limb bones. No consternation is to be seen on the faces. Those arrested know that they have nothing to fear.

We figure how many inhabitants of Wólka, Grądy and Prostyń may recognize their parents and grandparents on this photo. We read the report about the roundup, which the head of the unit from Ostrowa presented to his superiors: "With the grave robbers we found golden rings, crowns and porcelain teeth with gold and silver inlays."

In the archives there is no indication that anyone was put on trial for pilfering graves. The show-off action was completed, photos of those arrested were made, a report was sent out, the military returned to its barracks, the grave robbers - to Treblinka. The intensive rummaging doesn't stop for the next 15 years.

"The people have learned the difference between almonds and diamonds," says the house owner whom we show the photo. For a long time he studies the faces on the photograph. He doesn't want to reveal who he recognized, but he admits: "These are no anonymous people". Several times he repeats that, were we to mention his name in the "Gazeta", the neighbors would set fire to his house.
As to the "alleged" (why so scared, Mr. Gerdes?) location in the camp where these photographs were taken, the likeliest choice is the area described as follows in Lukaszkiewicz’ report of 29.12.1945, quoted in my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html :

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.
However, Mr. Gerdes is free to point out another location described in this report or the one of 13.11.1945 that better fits what can be seen on the photographs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
That's all the information we need for the moment Roberta, so please spare us another one of your insane diatribes.
Insane diatribes I leave to Gerdes, who can provide nothing else. The above quote from post # 55 tells you exactly what I know and what I don’t know about the photographs in question, so I suggest you do something that seems to be rather difficult for you: read what I wrote.

And when you’re finished reading, I suggest you get up your fat and lazy Nazi ass and try answering my nine questions to you:

Quote:
1. Provide any indication he can come up with that, contrary to what the becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation;

2. Explain what, if not a corner of a mass grave in which the bodies are mostly covered by wooden planks and what looks like tarpaulin sheet, photo # 5 under http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm is supposed to show;
3. Explain what, if not dead bodies or parts of dead bodies, the figures I pointed out on the “mass graves” photograph, see under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg , are supposed to be.

4. Regarding those of the excavator photos that Alex Bay managed to locate inside the area of Treblinka II as shown on the September 1944 photograph (see the quotes in my post # 54) explain what these excavators could possibly have been doing in what Gerdes claims was a "transit camp".

5. Regarding the marked-up air photo shown under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg , answer the question what, if not mass graves in a section of the camp where eyewitnesses described mass graves – namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory – the ground scarring shapes I pointed out are supposed to have been.

6. Regarding the ground photos shown under the following links:

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

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

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

, answer the question what, if not parts of the former Treblinka extermination camp and especially the burial area described in the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 quoted in my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , these photos are supposed to show.

7. Regarding the above-mentioned site investigation reports, answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include these written descriptions of the physical evidence on site in the record of physical evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

8. Regarding the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 , answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include this documentary and eyewitness evidence in the record of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

9. Regarding his claim that Treblinka was a "transit camp", answer the question where the about 750,000 people deported to Treblinka in 1942/43 are supposed to have been "transited" to from there, and show evidence regarding their transportation to such places and their accommodation there. As the Germans would have had no reason to destroy the records of an innocuous resettlement operation, there should be plenty such evidence around.
You don’t have to stick to the order in which these questions are listed. Actually I would like you to start by questions nos. 7, 8 and 9, which are the most important ones.
 
Old June 15th, 2008 #69
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Roberto, you're no "proud German"; you're another Jew imposter. Intelligence doesn't stop you from being the most infantile ranting twat. You've spammed this thread with your feelings and assumptions.
 
Old June 15th, 2008 #70
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

I'm going to make this so simple that, hopefully, even a retard like Roberta can understand it.


Roberta:

"I saw the internet webpage version at a time when it still had the photos in it, and I also have a paper version of the article."


Ah yes, Roberta admits that the internet version of the article has no such photos, but she assures us that at one time it did. Mmmmmmm. We'll get to that later.

But notice that she didn't tell us whether or not the paper version of said article had the photos in question, or any photos, accompanying it. So....


Question #1 - Does the News"paper" version of this article have any photos accompanying it?

Yes or No?

Question #2 - If the answer to the above question is yes, then answer this follow-up question - Are they the same 4 photos that appear in your RODOH post?

Yes or No?

Question #3 - Do you know the name of the person who took this photo:

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

Yes or No?

Question #4 - Do you know the name of the person who took this photo:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

Yes or No?


So Roberta, your next post should have some very simple answers to some very simple questions, and those answers need only be a YES or a NO, unless of course you can provide us with the name of the person who took the photo(s).

That's all the information we need for the moment Roberta, so please spare us another one of your insane diatribes.
 
Old June 15th, 2008 #71
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post



I’m not impressed by what I’ve seen "here", especially your feeble attempts to discredit eyewitness testimony based on errors about measurements and other details (which eyewitnesses could well have observed or recollected mistakenly without this meaning that they lied) and with rather funny arguments (for instance, while drinking urine may dehydrate the body, do you expect someone dying of thirst to know that or care about that if he should know?), and your claim that "this individual found no mass graves and by WITNESS TESTIMONY concluded that they were now ashes" ("mass graves" in this context obviously means "pits full of stinking dead bodies", and you ignored the previously highlighted statement "as is to be concluded from the witness testimonies examined so far and from the results of the works carried out at the site", not to mention the description of abundant human remains found during the "works carried out at the site" earlier in the report). When I’m done here with Gerdes, I guess I’ll have some fun on that thread.
I have yet to see you provide any solid disproof of what I said. If a GPR radar is used to collect evidence of the site and it turns up nothing then none of the witnesses in the world will save you. No number of blogs will save you, you can write millions of convincing articles and it wont work. Scientific evidence (Forensic evidence) will always prevail over the easily-influenced witness evidence.




Quote:
Interesting, but what does horsepower have to do with how deep an excavator can dig? Horsepower influences the speed at which an excavator can dig and how much soil it can remove within a given time but not the depth it can reach, if you ask me. I also don’t see a point in comparing crawler excavators with cable-operated excavators, and your problem with the boom length is also difficult to understand. The fact is that cable-operated excavators like those shown in Kurt Franz's photographs were what construction had in the 1940s, so if they were not able to dig pit 7.5 meters deep and as long and wide as the pits at Treblinka are reported to have been, one wonders how they managed to dig the foundations of several-story building or even sky-scrapers at that time. Can you explain this?
What sky-scrapers would that be? This is a medium excavator and they do not use them to build sky scrapers because a medium excavator cannot dig the foundation required. A medium excavator can at best do a 12-20 floor building and that is pushing it. The only exception is if the clay layer is very deep, then yes it is possible to dig deeper; however, as your article noted this type of excavator wouldn't be able to handle it. The boom length problem isn't hard to understand - it's quite simple, how are you supposed to dig something when you can't reach the length? If you want to say you'd start from the middle then the problem is obvious there - there would be a collapse if you dug out 7.5 meters across. If you ever as a child went to the beach and dug into the sand and gotten to the clay layer you would understand why. If they had a well in Treblinka that means there was an aquifer which means that without support the walls would collapse.

Quote:
At the end of the 19th Century cable-operated excavators introduced an essential phase of the mechanization of construction sites. Their period of glory was only ended with the development of hydraulics in construction machines, through which machines with a higher performance and easier to operate became possible. Cable-operated excavators retained niches in which they stand their ground to this day: excavating sand and gravel, depth foundations and drillings as well as large-scale demolition measures, and since some time ago also dynamic depth sealing.
These modern excavators are some of the largest in the world, they dwarf the Mb easily. They are absolutely huge (1000 or so tons) and that is why they are used for the job. They are also not clam shell excavators they are dragline excavators with a large bucket. The reason is because dragging produces much greater force. The medium excavator we are talking about (A mere 40 tons) would not be able to dig very deep because the force required for the operation would not be achievable. Horse power is not merely how quickly something is done but if it can be done at all , if you connect a car to a sturdy brick building it wont be able to move it no matter how much you push on the pedal. The Earth becomes much more dense very quickly and if you've ever seen clay being dug (By hydraulics no less) you'd see why it would take an absurd amount of time and not only but once it rained the water would stay in the pit. Thus digging into clay is a stupid idea and no one would have done it that way.




Quote:
As you can see, cable-operated excavators are still in use today and seem to be especially suitable for excavating sand (as in Treblinka) and for doing work deep underground.
These are by far larger.

Quote:
As to how deep one can dig these days with a cable-operated excavator, just look at the Sennebogen product line under http://www.crane-division.com/hp456/Seilbagger.htm . The Sennebogen 630 D cable-operated excavator, presented under http://www.crane-division.com/hp515/630-HD.htm , is currently digging a well 37 meters deep in Münsing/Ammerland near the Starnberger See, according to a press release under http://sennebogen-press.com/hp3013/S...Brunnenbau.htm .
A well is not a building foundation. Medium excavators are NOT USED for building foundations. As stated before they would strike clay and the operation would become extremely slow. They would likely just stop at 5 meters.










Quote:
Some bombs or shells may have landed in the Treblinka area during fighting between Soviet and German forces in 1944, but the craters mentioned in the Polish site investigation reports seem to be mainly the work of robbery diggers. From my blog article Gold Rush in Treblinka under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html (quotes inside the quote are pointed out in the following by italics):
Uhm no, there were no targets in the Treblinka area and bombs don't just land. The high resolution optics would have made it very clear that there is nothing to bomb on the site. It's ridiculous to say that this was merely by accident because Soviets did not carpet bomb, Soviets used high precision bombers that hit very accurately. They were so precise (For that age) that they could even hit specific targets in a city without damaging anything around the target. If they bombed the site that means they were hitting something.







Quote:
Interesting. At what range?
Unlike what your article believes 9x19 doesn't start slowing down dramatically . The effective range of a Mp-40 is 100 meters and it is chambered for the same caliber. The reason the pistol has 50 meters is because the barrel is shorter and thus is less accurate, at 50 meters a hit would inflict a large wound. The effective range on the pistol signifies its accuracy not its stopping power because its big brother can fire double that distance and still be effective.


Quote:
How long, assuming a badly trained Ukrainian guard knew how to fix the jam?
If he had a pistol he was either a Lieutenant or a squad leader meaning that he was picked out as the cream of the crop. Ukranian Cossacks are infamously good shots and gun handlers. He would be able to take that pistol apart with his eyes closed and put it back together. Wiernik would be dead if that actually happened because the Cossack wouldn't have missed, it would have been a head shot.



Quote:
I’d say the "better ones" have been dealt with in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html , where I also pointed out parts of Wiernik’s testimony that are matched by evidence independent thereof and the reliability of which is thus confirmed. But feel free to point out any of the "better ones" that you think I did not address and would require revising my assessment. I agree that one should not take everything that Wiernik wrote at face value, but dismissing his entire testimony on account of one or the other inaccuracy, or even one or the other implausibility, is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Okay ill look at it. Here we go
Quote:
2. Bud’s second attempt to cheat his viewers is rather obvious. Bud points out the following passages of Wiernik’s account, which can be found in Chapter 9 of A Year in Treblinka:

It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires.

and claims (by asking a rhetorical question) that Wiernik tried to make believe that the women burned «on their own, like wood».
What Wiernik says
Quote:
Work was begun to cremate the dead. It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires. Since cremation was hard work, rivalry set in between the labor details as to which of them would be able to cremate the largest number of bodies. Bulletin boards were rigged up and daily scores were recorded. Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn. Whenever an airplane was sighted overhead, all work was stopped, the corpses were covered with foliage as camouflage against aerial observation.
Kindling fires, what about kindling fires do you not understand?

By the way where the fuck are the photographs of this camouflaged operation? It says aerial observation, where are the pictures?

Quote:
First of all, Wiernik’s pursuer did not fire a rifle, but a pistol, and he fired it from some distance away. It doesn’t take much familiarity with firearms to know that pistols are short-range weapons, ineffective at longer distances. For instance, the Walther P38 pistol used by German armed forces in World War II had an effective range of about 50 meters. A weapon’s effective range is the distance at which a weapon may be expected to fire accurately to inflict damage or casualties. So if Wiernik’s pursuer was carrying a Walther P38 and fired it from a distance of more than 50 meters, it is possible that, when it reached its target, the bullet no longer had sufficient force to go through all of Wiernik’s clothing (for understandable reasons, Wiernik may have been rather thickly clad on that day of his escape, and he mentions in the same chapter that «On that day, however, the men wore their clothes under their overalls. Before escaping, they would have to get rid of the overalls, which would have given them away at once.») and wound him seriously. The extent to which the bullet could still penetrate Wiernik’s body would also depend on what part of the shoulder it hit. If it was the shoulder blade – which is probable, as Wiernik had his back turned towards the shooter – the bullet was less likely to go any further beyond its effective range than it if had hit flesh.
This is wrong and misleading as I have already stated, if the Ukranian scored a hit it would go through. A 9x19 does not slow down significantly at 50 meters, this is simple - it's because the 9x19 bullet used in a Mp40 and a Luger/Walther have the SAME piercing capacity because they have the same amount of grain and the same propellant.

Quote:
Second, there was obviously something wrong with the gun, as it jammed after the shot that reached Wiernik. Whether the gun’s malfunction may have had an effect on the range or the accuracy of the shot fired I cannot tell, but I also see no reason to exclude this possibility.
That's because you don't understand that the gun itself doesn't actually speed the bullet up physically (Well it does somewhat but it wouldn't be astronomical as you'd have the reader believe) a longer barrel merely means that it will hit the target at longer range.



Quote:
Third, the bullet may have penetrated Wiernik’s clothing from a lateral angle, grazed his shoulder and then gone again through his clothing and away. The grazing impact would still have been painful, without however doing any damage, and Wiernik may incorrectly have assumed that the bullet had "stopped" at his shoulder. Actually that was not what Wiernik stated in the original text of A Year in Treblinka, which was written in Polish and which Andrew took the trouble of having a look at.
A Tokarev round was proven to go through the thickest Winter clothing and cause grave wounds.


Unbelievable bullshit:


Quote:
On one occasion a girl fell out of line. Nude as she was, she leaped over a barbed wire fence three meters high, and tried to escape in our direction. The Ukrainians noticed this and started to pursue her. One of them almost reached her but he was too close to her to shoot, and she wrenched the rifle from his hands. It wasn't easy to open fire since there were guards all around and there was the danger that one of the guards might be hit. But as the girl held the gun, it went off and killed one of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians were furious. In her fury, the girl struggled with his comrades. She managed to fire another shot, which hit another Ukrainian, whose arm subsequently had to be amputated. At last they seized her. She paid dearly for her courage. She was beaten, bruised, spat upon, kicked and finally killed. She was our nameless' heroine.
If you have seen these fences you'd see why it was physically impossible to do this , and wrenching a gun from a Ukranian? Unbelievable. He would have killed her while she was climbing over (That's right climbing because no one can actually jump 3 meters in the air) And too close to shoot? Are we talking about the Karabiner? How could she even fire another shot anyways? This was a manual rifle, she'd have to actually manually work the bolt. A girl who never saw a gun in her life (Since she was from a Polish ghetto) wouldn't know this.
Quote:
Within a few days work was begun to empty the remaining 25 per cent of the graves and the bodies were cremated. As I pointed out before, the weather was extremely hot, and as each grave was opened, it gave off a nauseating stench. Once the Germans threw some burning object into one of the opened graves just to see what would happen. Clouds of black smoke began to pour out at once and the fire thus started glimmered all day long. Some of the graves contained corpses which had been thrown into them directly after being gassed. The bodies had had no chance to cool off. They were so tightly packed that, when the graves were opened on a scorching hot day, steam belched forth from them as if from a boiler.
What, it was a 100 degree day?


Quote:
Wiernik stated that arms and legs would fall off bodies being dragged from gas chambers to burial pits if the dragging was delayed by a few days
Impossible.

Quote:
Assuming chlorine is the only relevant factor – there are also other factors mentioned in the article, IIRC – how do you know that none was "found"? Assuming chlorine remained in place after the bodies were exhumed and burned (what makes you think it did?), who is known to have searched for traces of chlorine in the soil of Treblinka? Assuming the chlorine necessarily leaked into the Bug river (you seem to consider this a mere probability), would this necessarily have been reported? And would such reports necessarily have become known outside the adjacent Polish villages and towns, from which, as the Polish newspaper article about the Gold Rush in Treblinka that I translated shows, little is known outside and even inside Poland to these days? I don’t think so.
It seems everything magically disappears eh? NO!
There would be tons of trace chlorine still underground mixed with ashes.

Quote:
If so, someone should sue the webmaster of http://acreage.unl.edu/News/News/Xmastree.htm for dangerous misinformation:
Quote:
My name is Dr. Ken Tilt. I am a Professor in the Horticulture Department and work with the Nursery and Christmas Tree Industry in the state. The Fire Safety letter that is sent out every Christmas goes against the research at Auburn University and is based on North Carolina Christmas trees. This annual warning on the dangers of Christmas trees is contradicting the information we are sending out through Extension to the rest of the State. Fraser Firs, spruces, white pines, Scotch pines are more prone to drying out if not handled properly but even those trees have a minor chance of catching on fire. The papers stacked beside lamps have a greater chance of catching on fire. Our Southern Christmas Trees, the Leyland Cypress and the Arizona Cypress do not clog up like the northern trees and if put in water will stay fresh for at least 6 weeks. We did a study looking of the moisture content over time and a burn test on these trees. (Repeated for 2 years). When these trees were put in water after cutting them from a local farm they increased in moisture content and after 37 days they had more moisture than the day they were cut. We put branches of the trees over a Bunsen burner every 4 days for 37 days. We gauged the relative flammability by putting a brown paper bag over the same flame. The bag ignited at 5 seconds. We left the branches over the flame for 20 seconds. We rated the relative response on a 0 to 5 scale where 0 was no response, 1 slightly charred, 2 moderately charred, 3 charred but still no flame, 4 flame but went out and 5 ignited and continued to burn. Results showed after the 37 days while remaining in water, there was less than a 3 rating on the Arizona cypress and the Leyland Cypress (slight to moderate char after 20 seconds over the flame). The Virginia Pine was the only tree to reach a 5 at the end of the 6 weeks. Our red cedar hit a 4. We continue to fight misinformation on the dangers of Christmas Trees. Christmas trees do not catch fire through spontaneous combustion. If there is a fire, it is due to faulty wiring or being exposed to direct flames. This is a hold over from the days when people used candles on trees or we had lights that burned hot. Those days are gone. It is also perpetuated by the artificial tree people. *One of the biggest fires from Christmas trees last year was an artificial tree. These are our Alabama Farmers that are growing these Safe Southern Christmas Trees. We need to offer the facts at the University and not use information from Northern Schools. NC State has a great Christmas tree program but they concentrate on Fraser Firs. We can not grow those trees in Alabama although they are sold here. However, if people would not nail even the firs and spruces to a board and leave them up for 6 weeks, they would have no problem either. Another problem the northern trees have is that if they dry out, they are hard to rewet (sometimes this to late to re-hydrate the tree) without cutting the butt of the tree again.
Why do you think a house catches on fire when another house is burning next to it yet if you throw matches at it it wont ever catch fire? SIMPLE. Because once you ignite something dry the temperature rises dramatically. It would have been enough to have a few dry branches to ignite and then the whole fence would have went.

Quote:
If, as the above sources show, it was advantageous to the SS to have more and smaller gas chambers in the AR camps’ gas chamber buildings rather than fewer and larger ones, then the logical arrangement of the former was the one that the evidence shows to have been applied, i.e. a corridor with the gas chambers on either side. An arrangement without a corridor and interconnecting partitions would have required the same number of doors and made for a more cumbersome and difficult to control process of filling the gas chambers with people. Bud’s objection to this arrangement is that guards positioned by the gas chamber doors in the corridor arrangement would have had to make room for the incoming victims. This objection is pointless, however, not only because the corridor was wide enough (see the already mentioned CAD reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers) but also and especially because there was no reason to post guards by the gas chamber doors, which were locked as soon as the victims had been urged and chased into the gas chambers. There is also no evidence, to my knowledge, of guards having been posted by the gas chamber doors. From the perspective of the victims’ psychology, which as we have seen was an important consideration, the corridor arrangement was also arguably more favorable to the intended impression of a bath house than an arrangement without a corridor and with interconnecting partitions would have been.
Yeah and then the air was sucked out and the room imploded.

Quote:
Hardly an argument if these "theories" are based on the depositions of the folks who operated the gassing engines or were otherwise familiar with them. They must have known what they were talking about, don’t you think so?
Casual witnesses who only got close to the gas chamber building on occasion if at all, on the other hand, may have been mistaken about a lot of details.
Yeah keep talking, when the forensic evidence finds that what you're saying is impossible where will you and your witnesses be then? Your friendly Goy Shermer did a study but didn't publish it. Why? You know why. He would have had his balls ripped off for killing the legend.

Quote:
There are also two Treblinka eyewitnesses who mention a gasoline engine, Ivan Shevchenko and Oskar Strawczynski, see under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/246...l-Gassing.html . And they are the only ones who probably got it right, judging by the testimonies of eyewitnesses "in the know" from Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno and the Einsatzgruppen operations, who mention gasoline engines. Witnesses who spoke about air pumped out, vapor or diesel simply misunderstood what they casually saw or were told about, or indulged in speculations about the mechanism and devices involved. Big deal.
Yeah it seems that the witnesses just can't decide what lie they are going to say.

Quote:
The likeliest explanation then being that the Poles dug for the foundations at the wrong place, assuming the "disturbance of having a solid structure there" could necessarily have been made out after all the soil-churning that this area had been through during and after the dismantlement of the camp.
And if there is none? Your whole legend dies.

Quote:
That may have been so, but getting rid of the Jews was also an extremely important project, on a par with or even considered an essential part of the war effort. So why not allocate important resources to such an important project?
Baseless. There was a final territorial solution yes but I have as of yet to see any convincing evidence that Hitler made any such orders.

Quote:
That may be so, but the troops at the front don't seem to have had the salvaging mania that characterized the operation of Himmler’s concentration and extermination camps, where even spectacles and undergarments were salvaged. Besides, there was no reason for the SS to leave murder evidence like cartridges lying around when it could be easily collected.
Based on unbelievable eye witnesses who can't decide how they were being killed and saying things like body parts falling off 2 day old corpses or dying of a lack of air in a cattle car. Have you ever heard of a cow dying in one of these cars from a lack of air? I have yet to.

Quote:
The Polish investigation in November 1945 was conducted in conjunction with the Soviets? I didn’t know that. How do you know?
Because there were Russians everywhere, it wouldn't have been hard to just ask for a metal detector, there were tons of unused ones.

Quote:
I’m not admitting anything, just pointing out something that any trial judge is familiar with: eyewitnesses may be mistaken about many details, even fantasize or lie about one or the other detail, but rarely if ever does this mean that the eyewitnesses are wrong about the essence of the event they describe or made up all of their account. And if several eyewitnesses from several categories describe essentially the same thing independently of each other, at different times and places and before different entities, there is no room for reasonable doubt that the eyewitness testimonies are essentially correct, how ever many discrepancies or errors in certain details they may contain. This applies especially when, as in the case of Treblinka, what becomes apparent from the body of eyewitness testimony is also what the documentary evidence, demographic data and the physical evidence point to, and there's not a single indication that the place was anything other than what becomes apparent from all this evidence, an extermination camp.
Forensic evidence is superior and if it proves that these are baseless assertions not even a million eye witnesses will save you.

Quote:
Well, that seems to be exactly what you are doing when arguing about the possible pit depth on hand of data about modern crawler excavators, instead of looking at data about cable-operated excavators for this purpose.
Sand and gravel.

Quote:
The issue is not what you are personally "convinced" of and what it would take to "convince" you; that’s your problem alone. The issue is whether and how you can explain away the body of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence, all of which converges towards the conclusion that Treblinka was an extermination camp where hundred of thousands of people were murdered, and provide a plausible and evidence-backed alternative explanation for this evidence and for what happened to the deportees.
There were a lot of undocumented people during the war because it was impossible to keep track of all the casualties and missing people. Many people had their passports burned in fires or lost altogether and lost their identity. We cannot jump to conclusions for these people, we merely say that they were lost in action.

Quote:
Anyway, please keep up the discussion. Talking to you is far more interesting than talking to Gerdes, the repetitive bore (whose latest posts I will address later, just so as not to offend the poor fellow by ignoring them).
Thanks.

Last edited by psychologicalshock; June 15th, 2008 at 04:30 PM.
 
Old June 15th, 2008 #72
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Roberta:

"Some bombs or shells may have landed in the Treblinka area during fighting between Soviet and German forces in 1944, but the craters mentioned in the Polish site investigation reports seem to be mainly the work of robbery diggers."

Keep the above quote in mind, because this is one of Roberta's lies that she will be called on later. We're getting to that, but Roberta has gone into serious stall mode, as I'm sure you all can tell.

Roberta:

"Anyway, please keep up the discussion. Talking to you is far more interesting than talking to Gerdes, the repetitive bore (whose latest posts I will address later, just so as not to offend the poor fellow by ignoring them)."

Roberta's calling my questions repetitive and boring because she's struggling and stalling and trying her hardest to avoid having to answer them. You will notice how the more simple my questions become, the longer and more obfuscating her diatribes become. It's a sign of her desperation. She senses that she's getting cornered, like a rat being cornered by a terrier. Her answering psychologicalshock's questions are a way for her to try and avoid the inevitable. (It's not going to work Roberta.)

So to help move this along....

Roberta, what this has come down to, mostly, is the photos from:

1 - The Aug. 22 & 23 1944 Soviet investigation.

2 - The Nov. 9, 10, 11 & 13 1945 Polish investigation.

3 - Those alleged "Kurt Franz album."

4 - Miscellaneous (Don't think this is a place to put your stricken photos. I only include this just so there is someplace to put photos that are still in question and/or no solid determination has been made.)

So Roberta, to give you a heads up (and to keep you from getting bored), start compiling your evidence file in those four categories. And get them compiled as individual photos. No more montages with irrelevant and stricken photos included are going to be allowed into evidence.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #73
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Roberto, you're no "proud German"; you're another Jew imposter. Intelligence doesn't stop you from being the most infantile ranting twat. You've spammed this thread with your feelings and assumptions.
Actually I’ve left my feelings out of this as best as I could, what assumptions I have made are reasonable and substantiated, and I’m not surprised that you call evidence and arguments incompatible with your faith "spam". The infantile ranting twats on this thread are you and Gerdes, while ps at least tries to make points. If Gerdes and you want to do "Revisionism" a favor, you should leave the discussion to ps.

Ah, and one doesn’t have to be Jewish to dislike "White" or Nazi or "Revisionist" or whatever BS. Get used to the idea.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #74
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
I'm going to make this so simple that, hopefully, even a retard like Roberta can understand it.

Roberta:

"I saw the internet webpage version at a time when it still had the photos in it, and I also have a paper version of the article."

Ah yes, Roberta admits that the internet version of the article has no such photos, but she assures us that at one time it did. Mmmmmmm. We'll get to that later.

But notice that she didn't tell us whether or not the paper version of said article had the photos in question, or any photos, accompanying it. So....

Question #1 - Does the News"paper" version of this article have any photos accompanying it?

Yes or No?
Yes. You’ll get a scan of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Question #2 - If the answer to the above question is yes, then answer this follow-up question - Are they the same 4 photos that appear in your RODOH post?

Yes or No?
You mean the post under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/5884 ? Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Question #3 - Do you know the name of the person who took this photo:

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

Yes or No?
No, I don’t know the photographer’s name. So what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Question #4 - Do you know the name of the person who took this photo:

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

Yes or No?
No, I don’t know the photographer’s name. So what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta, your next post should have some very simple answers to some very simple questions, and those answers need only be a YES or a NO, unless of course you can provide us with the name of the person who took the photo(s).

That's all the information we need for the moment Roberta, so please spare us another one of your insane diatribes.
Insane diatribes I leave to Gerdes, as usual.

Now that I have answered to your irrelevant questions, Mr. Gerdes, how about trying to answer my questions, which are rather more relevant?

These questions:

Quote:
1. Provide any indication he can come up with that, contrary to what the becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation;

2. Explain what, if not a corner of a mass grave in which the bodies are mostly covered by wooden planks and what looks like tarpaulin sheet, photo # 5 under http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm is supposed to show;
3. Explain what, if not dead bodies or parts of dead bodies, the figures I pointed out on the “mass graves” photograph, see under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg , are supposed to be.

4. Regarding those of the excavator photos that Alex Bay managed to locate inside the area of Treblinka II as shown on the September 1944 photograph (see the quotes in my post # 54) explain what these excavators could possibly have been doing in what Gerdes claims was a "transit camp".

5. Regarding the marked-up air photo shown under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg , answer the question what, if not mass graves in a section of the camp where eyewitnesses described mass graves – namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory – the ground scarring shapes I pointed out are supposed to have been.

6. Regarding the ground photos shown under the following links:

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

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

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

, answer the question what, if not parts of the former Treblinka extermination camp and especially the burial area described in the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 quoted in my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , these photos are supposed to show.

7. Regarding the above-mentioned site investigation reports, answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include these written descriptions of the physical evidence on site in the record of physical evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

8. Regarding the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 , answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include this documentary and eyewitness evidence in the record of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

9. Regarding his claim that Treblinka was a "transit camp", answer the question where the about 750,000 people deported to Treblinka in 1942/43 are supposed to have been "transited" to from there, and show evidence regarding their transportation to such places and their accommodation there. As the Germans would have had no reason to destroy the records of an innocuous resettlement operation, there should be plenty such evidence around.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #75
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp

I’m not impressed by what I’ve seen "here", especially your feeble attempts to discredit eyewitness testimony based on errors about measurements and other details (which eyewitnesses could well have observed or recollected mistakenly without this meaning that they lied) and with rather funny arguments (for instance, while drinking urine may dehydrate the body, do you expect someone dying of thirst to know that or care about that if he should know?), and your claim that "this individual found no mass graves and by WITNESS TESTIMONY concluded that they were now ashes" ("mass graves" in this context obviously means "pits full of stinking dead bodies", and you ignored the previously highlighted statement "as is to be concluded from the witness testimonies examined so far and from the results of the works carried out at the site", not to mention the description of abundant human remains found during the "works carried out at the site" earlier in the report). When I’m done here with Gerdes, I guess I’ll have some fun on that thread.
I have yet to see you provide any solid disproof of what I said.
We’ll get to that when I’m finished here with Gerdes, as I said. Meanwhile, let your missing the judge's reference to "the results of the works carried out on site" be recorded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
If a GPR radar is used to collect evidence of the site and it turns up nothing then none of the witnesses in the world will save you. No number of blogs will save you, you can write millions of convincing articles and it wont work. Scientific evidence (Forensic evidence) will always prevail over the easily-influenced witness evidence.
In case of contradiction between the two categories of evidence, that may be so. But we don’t have that just because some incompetent bungler (see under http://www.atheistparents.org/forum/...r=asc&start=25 for a GPR expert’s opinion on Krege’s performance) claims to have found no indications of soil disturbance on a site that not only eyewitness testimonies, but also site investigation reports and photographic illustrations thereof, as well as air photographs, show to have been considerably churned up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Interesting, but what does horsepower have to do with how deep an excavator can dig? Horsepower influences the speed at which an excavator can dig and how much soil it can remove within a given time but not the depth it can reach, if you ask me. I also don’t see a point in comparing crawler excavators with cable-operated excavators, and your problem with the boom length is also difficult to understand. The fact is that cable-operated excavators like those shown in Kurt Franz's photographs were what construction had in the 1940s, so if they were not able to dig pit 7.5 meters deep and as long and wide as the pits at Treblinka are reported to have been, one wonders how they managed to dig the foundations of several-story building or even sky-scrapers at that time. Can you explain this?
What sky-scrapers would that be? This is a medium excavator and they do not use them to build sky scrapers because a medium excavator cannot dig the foundation required. A medium excavator can at best do a 12-20 floor building and that is pushing it.
How deep are the foundations of a 12-20 floor building, and what "medium excavator" did you have in mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
The only exception is if the clay layer is very deep, then yes it is possible to dig deeper; however, as your article noted this type of excavator wouldn't be able to handle it.
Which article exactly is supposed to have noted that? Quote it, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
The boom length problem isn't hard to understand - it's quite simple, how are you supposed to dig something when you can't reach the length?
Do one side first and then the other, or have two excavators work from either side. What’s the deal supposed to be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
If you want to say you'd start from the middle then the problem is obvious there - there would be a collapse if you dug out 7.5 meters across. If you ever as a child went to the beach and dug into the sand and gotten to the clay layer you would understand why.
Don’t dig from the middle but from the sides, first from one and then from the other, or with two excavators from either side. How did you arrive at your boom length estimates, by the way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
If they had a well in Treblinka that means there was an aquifer which means that without support the walls would collapse.
They probably didn’t make the walls straight but sloping to avoid stability problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
At the end of the 19th Century cable-operated excavators introduced an essential phase of the mechanization of construction sites. Their period of glory was only ended with the development of hydraulics in construction machines, through which machines with a higher performance and easier to operate became possible. Cable-operated excavators retained niches in which they stand their ground to this day: excavating sand and gravel, depth foundations and drillings as well as large-scale demolition measures, and since some time ago also dynamic depth sealing.
These modern excavators are some of the largest in the world, they dwarf the Mb easily. They are absolutely huge (1000 or so tons) and that is why they are used for the job. They are also not clam shell excavators they are dragline excavators with a large bucket. The reason is because dragging produces much greater force. The medium excavator we are talking about (A mere 40 tons) would not be able to dig very deep because the force required for the operation would not be achievable. Horse power is not merely how quickly something is done but if it can be done at all , if you connect a car to a sturdy brick building it wont be able to move it no matter how much you push on the pedal. The Earth becomes much more dense very quickly and if you've ever seen clay being dug (By hydraulics no less) you'd see why it would take an absurd amount of time and not only but once it rained the water would stay in the pit. Thus digging into clay is a stupid idea and no one would have done it that way.
You’re making some interesting claims here, but can you back them up?
The issue is simply the following: there’s a hole 7.5 meters deep, described in a site investigation report, that both the contents of the report and all associated evidence suggest to have been a mass grave. You are claiming that the site investigation report was manipulated. The argument underlying your claim is that the type of excavator shown on Kurt Franz’s photos under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/excavators2.html couldn’t have dug pits this deep. Someone else doesn’t share this opinion but writes the following under http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp7.shtml :

Quote:
A pit 50 by 25 meters has a volume of 8500 cubic meters [300,186 cubic feet]. (See ( Appendix D) for an analysis of the Treblinka graves and of their capacities). Figure 41 presents a drawing of what such a pit would look like with an excavator for scaling comparison. An excavation of this magnitude would require weeks or months to dig by manual methods using picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows, depending on the number of laborers available. The Menck machines equipped with clam shell excavators had a capacity of .75 to .8 cubic meters [26.5 to 28 cubic feet[, so the time needed to complete these large pits would have been on the order of a two or three weeks. These factors point to the size of the extermination program. We see two, probably three machines whose presence can only be justified by the need to move massive amounts of earth.
If you want to discredit the above calculations and a criminal investigator’s site investigation report, you’ll have to provide something more than your private knowledge about civil construction and excavators. You’ll have to provide evidence that the excavators identified by Alex Bay (see under http://www.holocaust-history.org/Tre...thcampp6.shtml ) as one Menck Ma-1 No. 1, one Menck Ma-1 No. 2 and one Menck Mb-2, could not alone or together have dug pits 7.5 meters deep. Evidence would be the specifications of these machines or of other cable-operated excavators having a performance, shovel capacity and maximum boom length comparable to those of the machines manufactured at the time by Menck & Hambrock of Hamburg Altona.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
As you can see, cable-operated excavators are still in use today and seem to be especially suitable for excavating sand (as in Treblinka) and for doing work deep underground.
These are by far larger.
Are they? Please show those colossal cable-operated excavators.
More important, show what excavators this size they had in the 1940s to dig foundations of buildings more than 20 floors high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
As to how deep one can dig these days with a cable-operated excavator, just look at the Sennebogen product line under http://www.crane-division.com/hp456/Seilbagger.htm . The Sennebogen 630 D cable-operated excavator, presented under http://www.crane-division.com/hp515/630-HD.htm , is currently digging a well 37 meters deep in Münsing/Ammerland near the Starnberger See, according to a press release under http://sennebogen-press.com/hp3013/S...Brunnenbau.htm .

A well is not a building foundation.
The depth that a 30 ton cable-operated excavator like the Sennebogen 630 HD can reach is still five times the depth of the Treblinka pits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Medium excavators are NOT USED for building foundations. As stated before they would strike clay and the operation would become extremely slow. They would likely just stop at 5 meters.
So clay is the problem? If so, what do you know about the soil at Treblinka and the depth at which clay was present? If clay only showed up below 7.5 meters, there would have been no problem, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Some bombs or shells may have landed in the Treblinka area during fighting between Soviet and German forces in 1944, but the craters mentioned in the Polish site investigation reports seem to be mainly the work of robbery diggers. From my blog article Gold Rush in Treblinka under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html (quotes inside the quote are pointed out in the following by italics):
Uhm no, there were no targets in the Treblinka area and bombs don't just land. The high resolution optics would have made it very clear that there is nothing to bomb on the site. It's ridiculous to say that this was merely by accident because Soviets did not carpet bomb, Soviets used high precision bombers that hit very accurately. They were so precise (For that age) that they could even hit specific targets in a city without damaging anything around the target. If they bombed the site that means they were hitting something.
If bombs dropped from the air would have been aimed, that leaves artillery shells that landed in the wrong place during a massive bombardment of nearby areas and, of course, the bombs and shells set off by robbery diggers in order to make big holes in which to search for valuables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Interesting. At what range?
Unlike what your article believes 9x19 doesn't start slowing down dramatically . The effective range of a Mp-40 is 100 meters and it is chambered for the same caliber. The reason the pistol has 50 meters is because the barrel is shorter and thus is less accurate, at 50 meters a hit would inflict a large wound. The effective range on the pistol signifies its accuracy not its stopping power because its big brother can fire double that distance and still be effective.
I see, but what about the case mentioned under http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/publi...1/001163-1.htm ?

Quote:
The trial court did not err in an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflictingserious injury case by concluding that the evidence supports a finding that the victim was seriously injured, because: (1) the record shows a bullet pierced the victim's shoulder, ricocheted off his shoulder blade, and exited his body and created two holes in his upper body; (2) the victim testified that the pain really struck when everything calmed down and he looked at the bullet hole that was in his shoulder; and (3) the victim reported pain at the site of the injury to the emergency medical technicians.
This person was hit from the front, so the bullet pierced tissue before hitting the shoulder blade and ricocheting from it. In Wiernik’s case the bullet hit his shoulder blade from the back, and it may have been a grazing hit but not a direct hit. Is it really so improbable that the bullet deflected from Wiernik’s shoulder blade and caused no further damage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
How long, assuming a badly trained Ukrainian guard knew how to fix the jam?
If he had a pistol he was either a Lieutenant or a squad leader meaning that he was picked out as the cream of the crop.
In the confusion following the breakout from Treblinka, the pistol may also have been taken from an injured comrade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Ukranian Cossacks are infamously good shots and gun handlers. He would be able to take that pistol apart with his eyes closed and put it back together. Wiernik would be dead if that actually happened because the Cossack wouldn't have missed, it would have been a head shot.
Well, the Ukrainian guards at Treblinka were hardly Ukrainian Cossacks. They were POWs taken in the early stages of Barbarossa who had volunteered for serving the Germans in order not to starve to death in captivity. And they are not exactly known to have been rambos. IIRC Kurt Franz mentioned having had to teach them some military discipline at Trawniki before they were apt for guard duty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
I’d say the "better ones" have been dealt with in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html , where I also pointed out parts of Wiernik’s testimony that are matched by evidence independent thereof and the reliability of which is thus confirmed. But feel free to point out any of the "better ones" that you think I did not address and would require revising my assessment. I agree that one should not take everything that Wiernik wrote at face value, but dismissing his entire testimony on account of one or the other inaccuracy, or even one or the other implausibility, is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Okay ill look at it. Here we go
Quote:
2. Bud’s second attempt to cheat his viewers is rather obvious. Bud points out the following passages of Wiernik’s account, which can be found in Chapter 9 of A Year in Treblinka:

It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires.

and claims (by asking a rhetorical question) that Wiernik tried to make believe that the women burned «on their own, like wood».
What Wiernik says
Quote:
Work was begun to cremate the dead. It turned out that bodies of women burned more easily than those of men. Accordingly, the bodies of women were used for kindling the fires. Since cremation was hard work, rivalry set in between the labor details as to which of them would be able to cremate the largest number of bodies. Bulletin boards were rigged up and daily scores were recorded. Nevertheless, the results were very poor. The corpses were soaked in gasoline. This entailed considerable expense and the results were inadequate; the male corpses simply would not burn. Whenever an airplane was sighted overhead, all work was stopped, the corpses were covered with foliage as camouflage against aerial observation.
Kindling fires, what about kindling fires do you not understand?
The point is that Bud omits the corpses' being soaked in gasoline and makes it look as if they simply held a fire to the women and they started burning. Straw-man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
By the way where the fuck are the photographs of this camouflaged operation? It says aerial observation, where are the pictures?
How do you know this was an enemy plane doing reconnaissance? I don’t think either the Soviets or the Western Allies had planes with a range to fly reconnaissance into Poland in 1942/43, and they also wouldn’t have had any interest in doing so. The plane is likelier to have been a Luftwaffe plane, and the puny camouflage efforts (which are mentioned only in connection with the early and not very successful burning experiments, suggesting that they were dropped later when incineration on the grids was in full swing) were probably only meant to avoid questions from a branch of the armed forces that was not necessarily informed about what was going on in Treblinka. Once that had been clarified at higher level, no camouflage was any longer necessary (apart from the fact that it wouldn’t have been possible to camouflage those huge grid fires).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
First of all, Wiernik’s pursuer did not fire a rifle, but a pistol, and he fired it from some distance away. It doesn’t take much familiarity with firearms to know that pistols are short-range weapons, ineffective at longer distances. For instance, the Walther P38 pistol used by German armed forces in World War II had an effective range of about 50 meters. A weapon’s effective range is the distance at which a weapon may be expected to fire accurately to inflict damage or casualties. So if Wiernik’s pursuer was carrying a Walther P38 and fired it from a distance of more than 50 meters, it is possible that, when it reached its target, the bullet no longer had sufficient force to go through all of Wiernik’s clothing (for understandable reasons, Wiernik may have been rather thickly clad on that day of his escape, and he mentions in the same chapter that «On that day, however, the men wore their clothes under their overalls. Before escaping, they would have to get rid of the overalls, which would have given them away at once.») and wound him seriously. The extent to which the bullet could still penetrate Wiernik’s body would also depend on what part of the shoulder it hit. If it was the shoulder blade – which is probable, as Wiernik had his back turned towards the shooter – the bullet was less likely to go any further beyond its effective range than it if had hit flesh.
This is wrong and misleading as I have already stated, if the Ukranian scored a hit it would go through. A 9x19 does not slow down significantly at 50 meters, this is simple - it's because the 9x19 bullet used in a Mp40 and a Luger/Walther have the SAME piercing capacity because they have the same amount of grain and the same propellant.
Your opinion is taken note of, but I don’t think it takes care of the possibility that a hit on the shoulder blade, especially a grazing and not direct hit, would be reflected by the bone, also considering the above-quoted case mentioned under http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/publi...1/001163-1.htm .

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Second, there was obviously something wrong with the gun, as it jammed after the shot that reached Wiernik. Whether the gun’s malfunction may have had an effect on the range or the accuracy of the shot fired I cannot tell, but I also see no reason to exclude this possibility.
That's because you don't understand that the gun itself doesn't actually speed the bullet up physically (Well it does somewhat but it wouldn't be astronomical as you'd have the reader believe) a longer barrel merely means that it will hit the target at longer range.
I’m merely considering a possibility. If you can provide evidence that a gun’s malfunction has no effect on the range or accuracy of the shot fired, that possibility can be ruled out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Third, the bullet may have penetrated Wiernik’s clothing from a lateral angle, grazed his shoulder and then gone again through his clothing and away. The grazing impact would still have been painful, without however doing any damage, and Wiernik may incorrectly have assumed that the bullet had "stopped" at his shoulder. Actually that was not what Wiernik stated in the original text of A Year in Treblinka, which was written in Polish and which Andrew took the trouble of having a look at.
A Tokarev round was proven to go through the thickest Winter clothing and cause grave wounds.
Did it also hit a shoulder blade at or beyond its maximum effective range?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Unbelievable bullshit:
Quote:
On one occasion a girl fell out of line. Nude as she was, she leaped over a barbed wire fence three meters high, and tried to escape in our direction. The Ukrainians noticed this and started to pursue her. One of them almost reached her but he was too close to her to shoot, and she wrenched the rifle from his hands. It wasn't easy to open fire since there were guards all around and there was the danger that one of the guards might be hit. But as the girl held the gun, it went off and killed one of the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians were furious. In her fury, the girl struggled with his comrades. She managed to fire another shot, which hit another Ukrainian, whose arm subsequently had to be amputated. At last they seized her. She paid dearly for her courage. She was beaten, bruised, spat upon, kicked and finally killed. She was our nameless' heroine.
If you have seen these fences you'd see why it was physically impossible to do this
I have only seen "these fences" in the film "Escape from Sobibor". This is how the filmmaker thought they looked like: http://static.flickr.com/100/283842941_d47e03c6f3_o.jpg . Are you sure an athletic person could not have climbed up such a fence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
, and wrenching a gun from a Ukranian? Unbelievable. He would have killed her while she was climbing over
Assuming he spotted her while climbing over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
(That's right climbing because no one can actually jump 3 meters in the air)
Yep, the leaping instead of climbing may be a mistranslation from the Polish original, and the fence was probably not 3 but just 2 meters high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
And too close to shoot? Are we talking about the Karabiner? How could she even fire another shot anyways? This was a manual rifle, she'd have to actually manually work the bolt. A girl who never saw a gun in her life (Since she was from a Polish ghetto) wouldn't know this.
Why, she only had to watch gun-toting German guards bolting their rifle when shooting people, for instance during round-ups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Within a few days work was begun to empty the remaining 25 per cent of the graves and the bodies were cremated. As I pointed out before, the weather was extremely hot, and as each grave was opened, it gave off a nauseating stench. Once the Germans threw some burning object into one of the opened graves just to see what would happen. Clouds of black smoke began to pour out at once and the fire thus started glimmered all day long. Some of the graves contained corpses which had been thrown into them directly after being gassed. The bodies had had no chance to cool off. They were so tightly packed that, when the graves were opened on a scorching hot day, steam belched forth from them as if from a boiler.
What, it was a 100 degree day?
If you mean Fahrenheit degrees, easily so in the Polish summer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Wiernik stated that arms and legs would fall off bodies being dragged from gas chambers to burial pits if the dragging was delayed by a few days
Impossible.
Why so?

That seems to be it regarding Wiernik’s testimony. As you can see, even the supposed whoppers therein are not as outrageously implausible as you would like them to be. And even if they were, would this necessarily mean his whole testimony is unreliable? No, for Wiernik may have perceived or recollected certain details wrongly but other correctly, and he may also have included events he only knew from hearsay (the "leaping girl" episode is a likely candidate) in his account. All this means is that, as I said, Wiernik’s testimony should not be taken at face value in all respects. But there’s no problem with accepting it where it is not only plausible but also confirmed by other evidence independent of Wiernik. Examples of such independent corroboration are pointed out in my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...norant_03.html , for instance this one:

Quote:
Again, the context of other eyewitness testimonies also shows that absence of wood or other external flammables can hardly have been what Wiernik meant to describe. Besides the above-quoted testimony of Yechiel Reichman, these include depositions of former members of the Treblinka SS staff like that of Heinrich Matthes, quoted on page 174 of Arad’s book (emphases are mine):

Quote:
At that time SS Oberscharführer or Hauptscharführer [Herbert] Floss, who, as I assume, was previously in another extermination camp, arrived. He was in charge of the arrangements for cremating the corpses. The cremation took place in such a way that railway lines and concrete blocks were placed together. The corpses were piled on these rails. Brushwood was put under the rails. The wood was doused with petrol. In that way not only the newly accumulated corpses were cremated, but also those taken out from the graves.
Besides contributing to the refutation of Bud’s misinterpretation of Wienik’s account, the above-quoted testimony is of interest in that it identifies as «SS Oberscharführer or Hauptscharführer Floss» the gentleman who Wiernik referred to as follows in his account:

Quote:
Then, one day, an Oberscharfuhrer wearing an SS badge arrived at the camp and introduced a veritable inferno. He was about 45 years old, of medium height, with a perpetual smile on his face. His favorite word was "tadellos [perfect]" and that is how he got the by-name Tadellos. His face looked kind and did not show the depraved soul behind it. He got pure pleasure watching the corpses burn; the sight of the flames licking at the bodies was precious to him, and he would literally caress the scene with his eyes.
So here we have two eyewitnesses completely independent of each other – Wiernik and Matthes – who both tell us about a high-ranking SS-man who came to Treblinka and introduced an efficient procedure of burning the corpses on grids made of railway tracks. This independent corroboration of Wiernik’s account shows Wiernik to have been a reliable witness in what concerns the implementation of the corpse incineration procedure at Treblinka.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Assuming chlorine is the only relevant factor – there are also other factors mentioned in the article, IIRC – how do you know that none was "found"? Assuming chlorine remained in place after the bodies were exhumed and burned (what makes you think it did?), who is known to have searched for traces of chlorine in the soil of Treblinka? Assuming the chlorine necessarily leaked into the Bug river (you seem to consider this a mere probability), would this necessarily have been reported? And would such reports necessarily have become known outside the adjacent Polish villages and towns, from which, as the Polish newspaper article about the Gold Rush in Treblinka that I translated shows, little is known outside and even inside Poland to these days? I don’t think so.
It seems everything magically disappears eh? NO!
Nothing magically disappears (except perhaps the Jews that folks like you seem to think were abducted by flying saucers), but something not disappearing doesn’t necessarily mean that anybody spotted it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
There would be tons of trace chlorine still underground mixed with ashes.
I don’t see why. The chlorine was poured over the bodies and later removed together with the bodies when these were incinerated, except maybe for some traces that remained at the bottom of the graves. What makes you think these traces would necessarily have been made out among ashes and other partial remains during the only excavations of the mass graves that are known to have taken place, the ones mentioned in the report of 13.11.1945 I quoted under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
If so, someone should sue the webmaster of http://acreage.unl.edu/News/News/Xmastree.htm for dangerous misinformation:
Quote:
My name is Dr. Ken Tilt. I am a Professor in the Horticulture Department and work with the Nursery and Christmas Tree Industry in the state. The Fire Safety letter that is sent out every Christmas goes against the research at Auburn University and is based on North Carolina Christmas trees. This annual warning on the dangers of Christmas trees is contradicting the information we are sending out through Extension to the rest of the State. Fraser Firs, spruces, white pines, Scotch pines are more prone to drying out if not handled properly but even those trees have a minor chance of catching on fire. The papers stacked beside lamps have a greater chance of catching on fire. Our Southern Christmas Trees, the Leyland Cypress and the Arizona Cypress do not clog up like the northern trees and if put in water will stay fresh for at least 6 weeks. We did a study looking of the moisture content over time and a burn test on these trees. (Repeated for 2 years). When these trees were put in water after cutting them from a local farm they increased in moisture content and after 37 days they had more moisture than the day they were cut. We put branches of the trees over a Bunsen burner every 4 days for 37 days. We gauged the relative flammability by putting a brown paper bag over the same flame. The bag ignited at 5 seconds. We left the branches over the flame for 20 seconds. We rated the relative response on a 0 to 5 scale where 0 was no response, 1 slightly charred, 2 moderately charred, 3 charred but still no flame, 4 flame but went out and 5 ignited and continued to burn. Results showed after the 37 days while remaining in water, there was less than a 3 rating on the Arizona cypress and the Leyland Cypress (slight to moderate char after 20 seconds over the flame). The Virginia Pine was the only tree to reach a 5 at the end of the 6 weeks. Our red cedar hit a 4. We continue to fight misinformation on the dangers of Christmas Trees. Christmas trees do not catch fire through spontaneous combustion. If there is a fire, it is due to faulty wiring or being exposed to direct flames. This is a hold over from the days when people used candles on trees or we had lights that burned hot. Those days are gone. It is also perpetuated by the artificial tree people. *One of the biggest fires from Christmas trees last year was an artificial tree. These are our Alabama Farmers that are growing these Safe Southern Christmas Trees. We need to offer the facts at the University and not use information from Northern Schools. NC State has a great Christmas tree program but they concentrate on Fraser Firs. We can not grow those trees in Alabama although they are sold here. However, if people would not nail even the firs and spruces to a board and leave them up for 6 weeks, they would have no problem either. Another problem the northern trees have is that if they dry out, they are hard to rewet (sometimes this to late to re-hydrate the tree) without cutting the butt of the tree again.
Sure this supports your argument? Exposure of the Treblinka fences to direct fire was not likely, except maybe during the revolt on 2 August 1943 when, IIRC, the petrol tanks blew up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Why do you think a house catches on fire when another house is burning next to it yet if you throw matches at it it wont ever catch fire? SIMPLE. Because once you ignite something dry the temperature rises dramatically. It would have been enough to have a few dry branches to ignite and then the whole fence would have went.
A few dry branches igniting would not have brought up the temperature the way a burning house does, first of all. Second, the roasters were far enough from the fences to keep their fire from setting alight even dry branches (mind that dry branches were regularly substituted by fresh ones), as I explained under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...llshit_20.html . Third, the possibility of the inmates setting fire to the fences was also a reduced one, due to the reasons mentioned in the same article:

Quote:
So here we have the main obstacles that the escape initiative Bud fantasizes about would have faced, assuming that the tree branches on the inner fence had caught fire as quickly and intensively as Bud claims they would have. The barbed wire of that fence would of course not have been consumed by the fire, and the poles of that fence, even if made of wood and not of concrete, would not have burned as rapidly as the tree branches. So at least for some time after the fire of the tree branches had subsided, the inmates would have been faced with an inner barbed wire fence not only intact, but probably also hot as hell due to the fire, and therefore somewhat harder to approach and cut through with pliers. During that time, and of course during the time the tree branch fire lasted, they would have been sitting ducks for guards firing at them, especially from the tower in the center of the extermination area after that had been transferred there, the approximate location of which in relation to the workers’ barracks is shown on Peter Laponder’s map. Those of the inmates who eventually managed to cut through the hot wire, or leap over the fence after it had collapsed due to the burning of the poles, would still have had to negotiate the barren ground between the inner and outer fences, followed by the «Spanish horses» wrapped in barbed wire of the outer fence. Even if the guard towers along the fence caught fire, as Bud claims they would have, and were accordingly abandoned by their occupants as one would expect an average human being to do, there would still have been the tower in the center of the extermination camp and the guards from the guard house also shown on Peter Laponder’s map to shoot down the surviving escapees as they tried to cross the outer fence. It seems improbable, in light of these obstacles, that many if any inmates would have survived such an escape attempt.
Now, what about resistance by setting fire to the branch-clad fences, especially those of the «tube»? Bud’s claim that any group of persons of any culture in the Treblinka inmates’ situation would have undertaken this is based on his irrelevant personal opinion alone, against which it can be argued that the primary concern of any individual from any culture is his or her own survival and that an expectably self-sacrificing act of heroism would only have been undertaken, by any inmate in his right mind, if he thought he could achieve more than however severe temporary damage to the camp’s facilities and a bloodbath among arriving deportees and his fellow inmates by guards who would probably have reacted by firing their machine-guns and machine-pistols at anything that moved. Even if the fences had burned as quickly and easily as Bud claims – the small Christmas tree branches he ignited over his sink took a couple of seconds until they burned with a huge flame, which makes it seem unlikely that large sections of four wire fence enclosures 160, 555, 660 and 910 meters long, as Sergey measured here, would have been totally on fire in a matter of minutes, as Bud presumes – the value and effect of such heroic act would have been somewhat dubious.
And fourth, even if the branch-clad fences had represented a high fire risk, the decision to implement them would still have been a matter of weighing risk against benefit. Camouflaging the camp against view from the outside, and even more so camouflaging the "tube" and the "death camp" sector against view from the other camp sectors, was essential to the smooth running of extermination activities, and I don’t see how else than by cladding the outer and inner fences with tree branches they could have done it. If there had been a considerable fire risk, it would have been a risk that had to be borne in order to have the fence camouflage’s essential benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
If, as the above sources show, it was advantageous to the SS to have more and smaller gas chambers in the AR camps’ gas chamber buildings rather than fewer and larger ones, then the logical arrangement of the former was the one that the evidence shows to have been applied, i.e. a corridor with the gas chambers on either side. An arrangement without a corridor and interconnecting partitions would have required the same number of doors and made for a more cumbersome and difficult to control process of filling the gas chambers with people. Bud’s objection to this arrangement is that guards positioned by the gas chamber doors in the corridor arrangement would have had to make room for the incoming victims. This objection is pointless, however, not only because the corridor was wide enough (see the already mentioned CAD reconstruction of the Treblinka gas chambers) but also and especially because there was no reason to post guards by the gas chamber doors, which were locked as soon as the victims had been urged and chased into the gas chambers. There is also no evidence, to my knowledge, of guards having been posted by the gas chamber doors. From the perspective of the victims’ psychology, which as we have seen was an important consideration, the corridor arrangement was also arguably more favorable to the intended impression of a bath house than an arrangement without a corridor and with interconnecting partitions would have been.
Yeah and then the air was sucked out and the room imploded.
I don’t think so, and whatever eyewitness thought that the air was sucked out was obviously mistaken anyway. Why the straw-man?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Hardly an argument if these "theories" are based on the depositions of the folks who operated the gassing engines or were otherwise familiar with them. They must have known what they were talking about, don’t you think so?
Casual witnesses who only got close to the gas chamber building on occasion if at all, on the other hand, may have been mistaken about a lot of details.
Yeah keep talking, when the forensic evidence finds that what you're saying is impossible where will you and your witnesses be then?
You are free to dream as much as you like, but what forensic evidence is known from Polish site investigation reports and photographic illustrations thereof does not contradict the eyewitness testimonies, it corroborates them. It also corroborates the scale of the killing that becomes apparent from documentary evidence, as I explained under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html .

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Your friendly Goy Shermer did a study but didn't publish it. Why? You know why. He would have had his balls ripped off for killing the legend.
Hollow speculation seems to be the mother of "Revisionism", and not publishing the results of a study seems to be a cardinal seen when it’s not the likes of Mr. Krege who keep their "studies" to themselves. As to Shermer’s supposed "study" (of physical evidence to the killings at the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps, I presume you mean that), I still have to find the page in Denying History where Shermer claimed to have conducted such study. Could you point out that page, please? I asked your friend Gerdes to do so several times over on Topix, but he always ran away from this question (as he did from all other questions I asked him).

I’m also "Goy", by the way. One doesn’t have to be Jewish to dislike "White" or Nazi or "Revisionist" or whatever BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
There are also two Treblinka eyewitnesses who mention a gasoline engine, Ivan Shevchenko and Oskar Strawczynski, see under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/246...l-Gassing.html . And they are the only ones who probably got it right, judging by the testimonies of eyewitnesses "in the know" from Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno and the Einsatzgruppen operations, who mention gasoline engines. Witnesses who spoke about air pumped out, vapor or diesel simply misunderstood what they casually saw or were told about, or indulged in speculations about the mechanism and devices involved. Big deal.
Yeah it seems that the witnesses just can't decide what lie they are going to say.
No, it only seems that some witnesses were better observers than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
The likeliest explanation then being that the Poles dug for the foundations at the wrong place, assuming the "disturbance of having a solid structure there" could necessarily have been made out after all the soil-churning that this area had been through during and after the dismantlement of the camp.
And if there is none? Your whole legend dies.
You’d still have to explain the human remains found on site and the fate of the people proven by documentary evidence to have been taken to Treblinka who never left the place alive. But there’s no reason why the gas chamber foundations need absolutely have been identified during the Polish site investigations in November 1945, so there’s as lot more for your faith to deal with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
That may have been so, but getting rid of the Jews was also an extremely important project, on a par with or even considered an essential part of the war effort. So why not allocate important resources to such an important project?
Baseless. There was a final territorial solution yes but I have as of yet to see any convincing evidence that Hitler made any such orders.
The issue is not what orders Hitler gave, if he gave any orders at all and did not just authorize his paladins to do what they were eager to do. The issue is how important the "final solution of the Jewish question" was for the Nazi government and for Hitler himself. An idea of how important the "Jewish question" was for Hitler can be gained from his testament, as quoted under http://www.hitler.org/writings/last_testament/ :

Quote:
I have left no one in doubt that if the people of Europe are once more treated as mere blocks of shares in the hands of these international money and finance conspirators, then the sole responsibility for the massacre must be borne by the true culprits: the Jews. Nor have I left anyone in doubt that this time millions of European children of Aryan descent will starve to death, millions of men will die in battle, and hundreds of thousands of women and children will be burned or bombed to death in our cities without the true culprits being held to account, albeit more humanely.
And here’s how important Heinrich Himmler, as quoted under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/2462 , considered dealing with the Jews to be:

Quote:
All German people apart from some exceptions are also clearly aware that wouldnt have withstood or withstand the bombing war, the hardships of the fourth and maybe the fifth and sixth war year, if we still had this disintegrating plague in our body popular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
That may be so, but the troops at the front don't seem to have had the salvaging mania that characterized the operation of Himmler’s concentration and extermination camps, where even spectacles and undergarments were salvaged. Besides, there was no reason for the SS to leave murder evidence like cartridges lying around when it could be easily collected.
Based on unbelievable eye witnesses who can't decide how they were being killed and saying things like body parts falling off 2 day old corpses or dying of a lack of air in a cattle car.
No, not based on essentially believable witnesses, some of whom may have mistakenly thought the gassing engine was a diesel engine while others may (assuming your are right about the "2 day old corpses") have mixed up in their recollections the dismemberment of decomposed bodies removed from the mass graves with the transportation of bodies from the gas chambers to the mass graves, or at worst indulged in some unnecessary embellishment of what they saw, and still others (assuming you are right about it being impossibly suffocation that had killed people in the cattle cars by the time they arrived at the camps) may have misunderstood the reason why some of the deportees were dead upon arrival.

What I wrote about the Nazis salvaging even spectacles and undergarments is based on the Nazis’ own documentation about the plunder of the people they murdered, some of which you may read under http://www.death-camps.org/reinhard/arloot.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Have you ever heard of a cow dying in one of these cars from a lack of air? I have yet to.
Well, I still have to understand how especially the older and/or weaker ones among the deportees could survive being packed 100-150 or more into cars made to transport 40 soldiers or six horses, without food or water in the summer heat, rather than dying of thirst or heart failure or being suffocated or crushed in the struggle to get to the parts of the car where some air came in, not to mention those prompted by despair to commit suicide on the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
The Polish investigation in November 1945 was conducted in conjunction with the Soviets? I didn’t know that. How do you know?
Because there were Russians everywhere, it wouldn't have been hard to just ask for a metal detector, there were tons of unused ones.
I didn’t know the Russians were that cooperative towards Polish criminal justice authorities, especially when the latter were investigating a murder site where Soviet troops had also taken part in robbery-digging. What makes you think they were?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
I’m not admitting anything, just pointing out something that any trial judge is familiar with: eyewitnesses may be mistaken about many details, even fantasize or lie about one or the other detail, but rarely if ever does this mean that the eyewitnesses are wrong about the essence of the event they describe or made up all of their account. And if several eyewitnesses from several categories describe essentially the same thing independently of each other, at different times and places and before different entities, there is no room for reasonable doubt that the eyewitness testimonies are essentially correct, how ever many discrepancies or errors in certain details they may contain. This applies especially when, as in the case of Treblinka, what becomes apparent from the body of eyewitness testimony is also what the documentary evidence, demographic data and the physical evidence point to, and there's not a single indication that the place was anything other than what becomes apparent from all this evidence, an extermination camp.
Forensic evidence is superior and if it proves that these are baseless assertions not even a million eye witnesses will save you.
Sorry, but by what rules and standards you can show us is forensic evidence considered "superior" to other categories of evidence?

I agree that where forensic evidence contradicts what becomes apparent from eyewitness testimony there must be something wrong with the latter, but that’s not what we have here. What documented forensic evidence we have does not contradict the other evidence, but corroborates it (as was, by the way, already stated in the paragraph you quoted – you missed the term "physical evidence").

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Well, that seems to be exactly what you are doing when arguing about the possible pit depth on hand of data about modern crawler excavators, instead of looking at data about cable-operated excavators for this purpose.
Sand and gravel.
You’re not trying to tell us that there’s a crawler excavator that can dig a well 37 meters deep, are you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
The issue is not what you are personally "convinced" of and what it would take to "convince" you; that’s your problem alone. The issue is whether and how you can explain away the body of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence, all of which converges towards the conclusion that Treblinka was an extermination camp where hundred of thousands of people were murdered, and provide a plausible and evidence-backed alternative explanation for this evidence and for what happened to the deportees.
There were a lot of undocumented people during the war because it was impossible to keep track of all the casualties and missing people. Many people had their passports burned in fires or lost altogether and lost their identity.
And they also had no other means of proving who they were and lost their memory as well, I suppose. Millions of cases of amnesia. Try coming up with something less far-fetched and fantastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
We cannot jump to conclusions for these people, we merely say that they were lost in action.
How come over 60 % of the pre-war Jewish population of Europe was "lost in action" while even the country hit hardest by the war, the Soviet Union, lost "only" about 14 % of its prewar population?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Anyway, please keep up the discussion. Talking to you is far more interesting than talking to Gerdes, the repetitive bore (whose latest posts I will address later, just so as not to offend the poor fellow by ignoring them).
Thanks.
You’re welcome, but you’ll have to do better to keep it interesting.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #76
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Some bombs or shells may have landed in the Treblinka area during fighting between Soviet and German forces in 1944, but the craters mentioned in the Polish site investigation reports seem to be mainly the work of robbery diggers."

Keep the above quote in mind, because this is one of Roberta's lies that she will be called on later. We're getting to that, but Roberta has gone into serious stall mode, as I'm sure you all can tell.
I don’t make things up, Gerdes. What I wrote is supported by the following part the translated Polish newspaper article under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/925...ml#reply-92506 :

Quote:
" - "When we went around the memorial we found slots in the area," we say when bidding farewell to the director. "Judging by the trees growing inside them they must be several dozen years old. Are these pits from the diggings?" – "No ... those are from artillery shells. In 1944 the front line was here for some weeks."
[…]
Martyna Rusiniak thinks that a part of the pits are the hyena's heritage. Especially from the time when bombs were used for "extraction". The young historian shows us photos of the largest postwar excavation sites. The pits have a length of ten meters, one of them looks like the construction pit of a several-story building.

"Loud" excavations may have taken place until the end of the 1950s. However, no one wanted to have heard the detonations in the former camp.
Emphases added.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

"Anyway, please keep up the discussion. Talking to you is far more interesting than talking to Gerdes, the repetitive bore (whose latest posts I will address later, just so as not to offend the poor fellow by ignoring them)."

Roberta's calling my questions repetitive and boring because she's struggling and stalling and trying her hardest to avoid having to answer them.
No, your idiotic "just one" – questions have easily been answered like «not that it matters, but here is "one"» or «no, I don't have "just one" this-and-that, and so what?». The "so what" is one of the questions I have often asked you, which unlike your "just one" – publicity act are relevant and which you have been running away from throughout our discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
You will notice how the more simple my questions become, the longer and more obfuscating her diatribes become.
No, it may only be noticed that I sometimes refer Gerdes to previous statements of mine he hasn’t bothered to read in response to needlessly repetitive questions that have already been responded in such statements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
It's a sign of her desperation. She senses that she's getting cornered, like a rat being cornered by a terrier. Her answering psychologicalshock's questions are a way for her to try and avoid the inevitable. (It's not going to work Roberta.)
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and obviously the only thinking that Gerdes is capable of – assuming he’s not just projecting his own plight onto his opponents or hoping that his buddies are dumb enough to fall for his lame victory dances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
So to help move this along....

Roberta, what this has come down to, mostly, is the photos from:

1 - The Aug. 22 & 23 1944 Soviet investigation.

2 - The Nov. 9, 10, 11 & 13 1945 Polish investigation.

3 - Those alleged "Kurt Franz album."

4 - Miscellaneous (Don't think this is a place to put your stricken photos. I only include this just so there is someplace to put photos that are still in question and/or no solid determination has been made.)
You don’t get to arbitrarily decide what "this has come down to" or to "strike" anything, so cut the crap. You also don’t get to stipulate that photographs are the only evidence we will look at, at least until you can provide a sound justification for ignoring written site investigation reports, German documents and eyewitness testimonies including those of participants in the killing on trial before West German courts. Got that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
So Roberta, to give you a heads up (and to keep you from getting bored), start compiling your evidence file in those four categories. And get them compiled as individual photos. No more montages with irrelevant and stricken photos included are going to be allowed into evidence.
You don’t get to arbitrarily decide what photos are "irrelevant and stricken", as you also don’t get to decide that this is just about photos and all other evidence doesn’t count.

I’ll be glad to provide a complete list of the German documents, eyewitness testimonies, site investigation reports describing the physical evidence and photographs of that evidence I have shown, quoted or referred to throughout this discussion – after Gerdes has answered my questions.

These questions:

Quote:
1. Provide any indication he can come up with that, contrary to what the becomes apparent from all source references and all associated evidence, photos # 1 to # 5 were not taken in the area of Treblinka extermination camp during or after its liberation;

2. Explain what, if not a corner of a mass grave in which the bodies are mostly covered by wooden planks and what looks like tarpaulin sheet, photo # 5 under http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm is supposed to show;

3. Explain what, if not dead bodies or parts of dead bodies, the figures I pointed out on the “mass graves” photograph, see under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg , are supposed to be.

4. Regarding those of the excavator photos that Alex Bay managed to locate inside the area of Treblinka II as shown on the September 1944 photograph (see the quotes in my post # 54) explain what these excavators could possibly have been doing in what Gerdes claims was a "transit camp".

5. Regarding the marked-up air photo shown under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...r1944_edit.jpg , answer the question what, if not mass graves in a section of the camp where eyewitnesses described mass graves – namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory – the ground scarring shapes I pointed out are supposed to have been.

6. Regarding the ground photos shown under the following links:

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

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

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

http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg

, answer the question what, if not parts of the former Treblinka extermination camp and especially the burial area described in the Polish site investigation reports of 13 November and 29 December 1945 quoted in my article Polish investigations of the Treblinka killing site were a complete failure … under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , these photos are supposed to show.

7. Regarding the above-mentioned site investigation reports, answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include these written descriptions of the physical evidence on site in the record of physical evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

8. Regarding the documentary and eyewitness evidence listed in my Topix post # 482 under http://www.topix.com/forum/history/T...H7P8C/p23#c482 , answer the question why, i.e. on the basis of what rules or standards of evidence he can show us, Gerdes doesn’t include this documentary and eyewitness evidence in the record of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

9. Regarding his claim that Treblinka was a "transit camp", answer the question where the about 750,000 people deported to Treblinka in 1942/43 are supposed to have been "transited" to from there, and show evidence regarding their transportation to such places and their accommodation there. As the Germans would have had no reason to destroy the records of an innocuous resettlement operation, there should be plenty such evidence around.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #77
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Actually I’ve left my feelings out of this as best as I could, what assumptions I have made are reasonable and substantiated, and I’m not surprised that you call evidence and arguments incompatible with your faith "spam". The infantile ranting twats on this thread are you and Gerdes, while ps at least tries to make points. If Gerdes and you want to do "Revisionism" a favor, you should leave the discussion to ps.

Ah, and one doesn’t have to be Jewish to dislike "White" or Nazi or "Revisionist" or whatever BS. Get used to the idea.
You lied about being German. You, in typical pseudo aristocratic Jew style insult others whilst pretending to be objective. You made assumptions about this forum and the posters here.

What's reasonable or substantiated about your homosexual insinuations? What's reasonable about the way you assume this is a controlled environment?
What about the assumption that you understand the meaning of my faith?

By sheer verbosity you are the rant master. I have no interest in talking revisionism with an assuming, delusional Jew. I'm not going to pretend ad hominem is debate.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #78
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

I have no faith in the Jew presentation of German efficiency. This is what happened to the bones of hundreds of thousands of Jews; behold The Megacrusher:



Note the meek Jews, heads bowed while the burly guard is alert and menacing with pointed gun. Jew fantasy as usual.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #79
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Roberta:

"The infantile ranting twats on this thread are you and Gerdes, while ps at least tries to make points. If Gerdes and you want to do "Revisionism" a favor, you should leave the discussion to ps."

PS, may I make a suggestion? Please don't take this wrong, I don't mean to tell you what to say or how to say it.

BUT

I brought this "debate" here because it was an archeology forum, and I wanted to keep the debate focused on the physical evidence - i.e. - evidence that could be described as that having being found via archeological methods and the photographic documentation of the "evidence." Roberta wants to "debate" with you because she's gotten you to respond to the nonsensical "eyewitness" crap she's peddling. Not that your response about the German firearms and cartridges / bullets wasn't very good or scientific in it's scope, and you've offered many other good scientifically valid points, but I think she wants to "discuss" this with you because you've ventured into the fantasy world of the "eyewitness" testimony.

Again, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or say, but may I suggest that you not go into any of the "eyewitness" BS. And again, it's not because you couldn't and aren't kicking her ass, it's just that she wins no matter what when the focus of this "debate" gets away from the physical evidence (or more correctly - lack thereof) and gets into her Alice in Wonderland physically impossible tall tales.

What I'm trying to say is, if she can get you to ask the wrong questions, it doesn't matter what answers you come up with. As long as the subject gets off course - she wins. That's her / the jew way. So just don't go there.

My mantra for this thread is - Physical evidence.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #80
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

OK, let's do a little photo analysis, shall we?

Below is the photo that Roberta has entered into evidence and insists is a photo of:

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


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


And below is a photo of the gravel pit of Treblinka I. (© Carlo Mattogno, 1997.)


http://vho.org/GB/Books/t/Image175.jpg


Now folks, what do you see?


And here is a question specifically for Roberta:

In the top photo, what do you see? Please show us your photo analysis skills and point out everything you can that can be identified. You say you want the photos that you entered into evidence to stay in evidence? Then prove how good you are at photo analysis.

Again Roberta, point out every detail in your photo that can be identified. Just make a list and try to keep it simple.

And for gods sake spare us another one of your insane diatribes.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 AM.
Page generated in 0.15376 seconds.