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

Old June 16th, 2008 #81
Greg Gerdes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,129
Greg Gerdes
Default

Roberta:

" - "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?" Ė "No ... those are from artillery shells. In 1944 the front line was here for some weeks."


OK Roberta, let's see some more of your photo analysis skills. Show us where those Soviet artillery shells landed in Treblinka on this aerial photo here:

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap8.jpg
 
Old June 16th, 2008 #82
psychologicalshock
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Gerdes View Post
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.
I am never against a suggestion.

Quote:

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.
I agree with you completely and it is a grave mistake on my part that I have crossed this line. It's rather arrogant of me to have done this .

Here is a demonstration of how this logic works and why you are right -
Not all eye witness testimony is true, so all the eye witnesses make sure to cover a large range of different possibilities. This way when something faulty is pointed out you cherry pick the story that is more so desirable and sensible while leaving the bad points out. Since eye witness is imperfect you can say that the rest is merely a mistake but what is important to you is not. In that sense it's possible to prove anything because the standards of proof are liquid, you can take many many stories and then start cutting it apart and making a Frankenstein of your own. Principally it's not hard to prove anything because it's all an if and if it's even a slight possibility then there is some way to prove it since you have a large tent of stories. When you combine these stories you get nonsense, when you start doing surgery it makes sense and to top it off - the important thing is that all the different observers agreed so it's alright to assume things and to pick out what you want to pick out. I can keep pointing out flaws all day but these flaws have all been pointed out before and thus have a back up story to them. The only way for me to observe this event is to use forensic evidence of which there is none.

Quote:
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.
Absolutely because I cannot make up the sort of story that I have against me, what I was doing is in itself counter-productive. I should be focusing on physical evidence as I have before.

Quote:
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.
Of course because as I said before if the physical evidence contradicts the witness then the witness was lying to the court and thus guilty of contempt for it.

Quote:
My mantra for this thread is - Physical evidence.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
I do and it was pointless to go after "he said, she said" White people should be above that.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #83
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Actually Iíve left my feelings out of this as best as I could, what assumptions I have made are reasonable and substantiated, and Iím 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 doesnít have to be Jewish to dislike "White" or Nazi or "Revisionist" or whatever BS. Get used to the idea.

You lied about being German.
No, I am German, even if that may not fit your preconceived notions. I can show you my German passport is you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
You, in typical pseudo aristocratic Jew style insult others whilst pretending to be objective.
Actually Iím as objective as warranted by my opponentsí attitudes. If they donít insult me, I donít insult them. Ask ps if he has a reason for complaint.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
You made assumptions about this forum and the posters here.
What, is this not a "White" forum whose posters tend to entertain "Revisionist" distortions of history?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
What's reasonable or substantiated about your homosexual insinuations?
Actually such insinuations came from two of my opponents. All I did was to point out that their insinuations smacked of self-projection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
What's reasonable about the way you assume this is a controlled environment?
Letís see:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Moderator brutus under [url
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=785506&postcount=22][/url] I'm not banning you because you're actually proving our case to our candid audience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cs under [url
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=789390&postcount=66][/url] 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.
It becomes apparent from both statements that opposition posters are only allowed to enter this forum or stay there as long as they are not held to be a threat to the "party line". If thatís not a controlled environment, I donít know what is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
What about the assumption that you understand the meaning of my faith?
My statement may have been provocative, but as concerns an apparent faith in the virtues of "White" ideology, Nazi Germany and "Revisionism" vs. the evil of the "Jew", Iíd say itís not too far away, considering stuff like

Quote:
Roberto, you're no "proud German"; you're another Jew imposter.
or

Quote:
I have no interest in talking revisionism with an assuming, delusional Jew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
By sheer verbosity you are the rant master.
Verbosity I leave to the likes of Gerdes, from whom I could learn ranting if I wanted to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
I'm not going to pretend ad hominem is debate.
Donít say that to me, say it to Gerdes.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #84
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
No, I am German,.
Ah, so here you are Roberto -

You are not German, mischlinge.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #85
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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."
Remember what I wrote in my post # 11 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...8&postcount=11 :

Quote:
Letís see if I understand this correctly:

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

Is that the point youíre trying to make, Gerdes?

If so, youíre really a funny bone.

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

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

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

Looking at all evidence one can get hold of, leaving none out and trying to reach a conclusion that duly takes all evidence into account Ė thatís scientific, Gerdes. Restricting the record of evidence to one category which, by its very nature, cannot possibly be expected to allow for reconstructing a historical event on its own, as you are trying to do in limiting the Treblinka evidence your are willing to look at to physical evidence (and moreover the documentation of that evidence to photographs) is not scientific, as I already pointed out in one of my above-mentioned Topix posts. It is highly unscientific charlatanry.
And in my post # 21 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=21:

Quote:
Write that behind your ears, Gerdes.

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

So letís keep it scientific, shall we, Gerdes? Science means looking at all available evidence and seeing how it fits together, not trying to derive conclusions from one set and category of evidence alone when there are also other sets and categories of evidence available.
As he now unwittingly admits, Gerdes put the discussion on an "archaeological" forum because he wanted to have a justification for limiting the record of evidence under discussion to physical evidence alone.

Documentary and eyewitness evidence Gerdes prefers to leave out of the discussion. Not because he can show any rules or standards of evidence that would provide for such exclusion or because he can demonstrate the documentary and eyewitness evidence to be unreliable or inconclusive, but simply because he is afraid of it, afraid because he knows that when discussing evidence of these categories he will soon be caught in contradictions and faced with pertinent questions he cannot answer.

Thatís the reason for Gerdesí trying to push through this utterly unscientific limitation of the record of evidence to just one category of evidence, as if criminal investigators and historians reconstructing events of this nature proceeded in such fallacious manner rather than looking at all evidence of all categories, eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence, that they can get hold of.

The only reason.

And Gerdesí cowardly and mendacious attempt to limit the record of evidence doesn't stop there, for not only does he want to look at physical evidence alone, he also wants to limit the documentation of physical evidence he is willing to "admit" to one particular type of documentation of physical evidence, namely to photographic records, again without being able to justify this limitation.

Thanks for making it so clear that youíre a charlatan and an unscientific coward, Mr. Gerdes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta wants to "debate" with you because she's gotten you to respond to the nonsensical "eyewitness" crap she's peddling.
No, I prefer discussing with ps for several reasons:

1. He hasn't taken Gerdesí cowardly and unscientific approach of limiting the record of evidence to just one category of evidence and just one type of documentation of evidence of that category;

2. He tries to make points and address his opponentís arguments and the evidence he is shown (or at least most of it), whereas Gerdes unreasonably ignores all evidence except that which he thinks he can make a good fuss about, and essentially produces boring and unnecessary "recaps" and repetitive, irrelevant "just one" demands;

3. He seems to be more intelligent and knowledgeable than Gerdes.

In other words, discussing with ps is to a certain extent challenging and interesting. Discussing with Gerdes, on the other hand, is just boring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.
No, I prefer discussing with ps because his approach to the subject is closer to a sound scientific approach, i.e. one of looking at all evidence of all categories rather than

a) completely ignoring one category of evidence (documentary evidence, which Gerdes hasnít said a word about),

b) lamely and baselessly postulating that another category of evidence is all "fantasy" (ps at least makes more or less substantiated attempts to discredit a particular eyewitness, something that Gerdes briefly tried to do on Topix but soon gave up as he realized the shot was going out backwards), and

c) unreasonably limiting the documentation of physical evidence he is willing to look at to only photographic documentation of that evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.
His wishful thinking about ps kicking my ass and his hollow babbling about "physically impossible tall tales" aside (I donít remember Gerdes having yet demonstrated a physical impossibility in the evidence and arguments I have provided), Gerdes is here telling us that he knows just how full of shit his "Revisionist" stance is.

Heís telling us that, as soon as one looks at all records of all categories of evidence and doesnít artificially and unscientifically try to limit the analysis to just one type of record of just one category of evidence, "Revisionists" are confronted with arguments they can put up nothing against and questions they cannot answer, and thus shown up as the propagandistic charlatans that they are.

Gerdes knows that as soon as all evidence is brought into the discussion, it soon becomes clear that the "Revisionist" emperor has no clothes.

Bravo, Mr. Gerdes! Thanks for making it so clear why you are scared shitless of any records of any evidence other than photographic records of physical evidence. You get points for expressing the hollowness and fragility of your position so clearly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.
I donít ask the wrong questions, Gerdes. I ask the right questions, very pertinent and very important ones that "Revisionists" should be able to answer if they want to make a case. Like, for instance, the question what evidence there is that Treblinka was a "transit camp" and that people were transported to places of resettlement in the occupied Soviet territories from there. That question gives you nightmares, doesnít it, Gerdes?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
My mantra for this thread is - Physical evidence.
Exactly, Gerdes: your mantra. A rhetorical subterfuge for keeping your articles of faith safe, because you figure that physical evidence is the most difficult for your opponent to provide documentation for. And if your opponent can provide site investigation reports containing damning descriptions of the physical evidence, you furthermore hysterically yell that you're interested in photographs alone. And when photographs are provided, you ask idiotic questions about who took them and on what date exactly they were taken, as if it were not your job to explain what, other than what their sources say and becomes apparent from associated evidence, these photographs are supposed to show. Youíre just a coward setting up one artificial barrier after another to keep evidence incompatible with your belief system from getting to you, to avoid acknowledging facts that you cannot live with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
Oh yeah, it has been understood very well. Thanks again for the instructive self-portrait, Mr. Gerdes.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #86
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berty Bullshit View Post
No, I am German, even if that may not fit your preconceived notions. I can show you my German passport is you want.
Passport? Pissoff! Search your feelings Berty, you are a Jew.

Quote:
Actually I’m as objective as warranted by my opponents’ attitudes. If they don’t insult me, I don’t insult them. Ask ps if he has a reason for complaint.
"Nazi Fucks...", "revisionist freaks...", white pride loons...", "jack boot..." etc.
You hide behind pretend values.

Quote:
What, is this not a "White" forum whose posters tend to entertain "Revisionist" distortions of history?
More insult posing as question: "White", as though our very existence is imagined; "Revisionist", freaks, your feelings again.

Quote:
Actually such insinuations came from two of my opponents. All I did was to point out that their insinuations smacked of self-projection.
Liar. You will never stop Brad Pitting, Berty.

Quote:
Let’s see:

It becomes apparent from both statements that opposition posters are only allowed to enter this forum or stay there as long as they are not held to be a threat to the "party line". If that’s not a controlled environment, I don’t know what is.
You are imagining persecution Berty. You create mirrors into the Jew mind. All opposition is welcome into this wide open arena.

Quote:
My statement may have been provocative, but as concerns an apparent faith in the virtues of "White" ideology, Nazi Germany and "Revisionism" vs. the evil of the "Jew", I’d say it’s not too far away, considering stuff like
or
Verbosity I leave to the likes of Gerdes, from whom I could learn ranting if I wanted to.
Don’t say that to me, say it to Gerdes.
More niggardly insult.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #87
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

One will notice that mischlinge jew, Roberto, will write longer and longer screeds as he continues to post - it's his way of showing off, massive abuse of verbiage; along with reams of cut and paste - I'm somewhat surprised to find him on VNNF, where he will be made into mincemeat.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #88
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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
Actually, as Gerdes well knows, I showed this photograph only in response to his infantile yelling for "just one photograph", without making a big deal out of it let alone stating that I considered it important evidence, rather than a mere illustration of what becomes apparent from other evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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?
I currently have no access to the VHO site, but I presume it is this photograph I just scanned in from my PDF of Mattogno & Grafís Treblinka screed:



[quoter=Gerdes]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?[/quote]

As you know, I showed this photograph only in response to your infantile yelling for "just one photograph", without making a big deal out of it let alone stating that I considered it important evidence, rather than a mere illustration of what becomes apparent from other evidence. If I objected to your "striking" this or any other photo, itís because youíre not entitled to arbitrarily "strike" any exhibit, as I pointed out several times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
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.
Iíll make it even more simple, Gerdes.

The photo under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg , captioned by the Ghetto Fighters Museum as showing one of the Treblinka II mass graves, might show either one of these mass graves or a part of the Treblinka I gravel yard.

Indications supporting the interpretation that it is Treblinka II are the following:

a) The three objects in the foreground, which look like burned fence-posts;
b) The apparent presence of vegetation on the soil, which might be the lupines that the SS planted over the mass graves;
c) The mounds of upturned soil and the soilís uneven shape, suggesting random digging as was done by robbery diggers in the Treblinka area;
d) The bright spots on the soil in the foreground, especially by the objects mentioned under a), which might be parts of human skulls or bones.

Indications supporting the interpretation that it is Treblinka I are the following:

a) The elevation visible in the background, which seems more compatible with the Treblinka I gravel pit than with Treblinka II, also considering that there is a similar elevation on Mattogno & Grafís Treblinka I photograph.

It is therefore not clear whether this photograph shows Treblinka II or Treblinka I. As it is possible that it shows Treblinka I and the caption from the Ghetto Fighters Museum is therefore wrong, this photograph should be excluded from the record of Treblinka II physical evidence.

Bravo, Mr. Gerdes! You have finally responded to one part of my questions # 1 and # 6, which I shall therefore edit to take out the link to the photograph under http://www.infocenters.co.il/gfh_mul...5813_1_web.jpg. I shall also merge questions # 1 and # 6as they refer to more or less the same subject, and in the latter, now # 5, replace the link to http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/lasttracks.html with a link to each pertinent photograph there shown. In question # 5, former # 6, I will furthermore replace the link to the photo under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...GoldRush_3.jpg, which used to be in the online version of the Polish "Gold Rush in Treblinka" article, with a link to a better printout of this photo that I scanned in yesterday from my paper version of that article. I will furthermore add to question # 5 a bigger and better printout of the photo from the Polish militia roundup of robbery diggers, which I also scanned in yesterday from the paper version of the Polish article.

The job you still have ahead of you is therefore the following:

Quote:
1. 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 sheets, the photo under http://holocaust-info.dk/treblinka/i...mass_grave.htm is supposed to show;

2. Explain what, if not dead bodies or parts of dead bodies, the figures I pointed out on the photograph mentioned in item 1, see under http://s27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...grave_edit.jpg , are supposed to be.

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 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...0&postcount=54) explain what these excavators could possibly have been doing in what you claim 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 Ė namely what that would be compatible with your "transit camp" theory Ė the ground scarring shapes I pointed out are supposed to have been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

m) http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...a/GzwT_4_2.jpg

n) http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...a/GzwT_3_1.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 Ö 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 you can show us, you donít 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 you can show us, you donít include this documentary and eyewitness evidence in the record of evidence to the Treblinka mass killings.

8. Regarding your 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
And for gods sake spare us another one of your insane diatribes
Insane diatribes I leave to Gerdes, but he would do himself a favor if he replaced them by answers to the above 8 questions.

Come on, Gerdes, give it a try.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #89
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Berty, I have an issue with your comparison of Treblinka with Pompei:

Roman chroniclers/historians were not Jews. Do you get me?
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #90
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Roberta:

" - "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?" Ė "No ... those are from artillery shells. In 1944 the front line was here for some weeks."

OK Roberta, let's see some more of your photo analysis skills. Show us where those Soviet artillery shells landed in Treblinka on this aerial photo here:

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap8.jpg
Trying to be smart again, Gerdes?

If you had read my article under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...treblinka.html , you would have noticed that I made exactly this point against museum director Kopůwkaís claim in that article, from which I quote (emphases added):

Quote:
Alex Bayís research about military operations around Treblinka in 1944 doesnít point to there having necessarily been any fighting in the Treblinka area, and the Luftwaffe air photo of September 1944, included in Bayís Reconstruction of Treblinka, does not show the presence of craters made by artillery shells and bombs that would correspond to Kopůwkaís claim. Explosions producing such craters must therefore have occurred after the September 1944 photograph.

Martyna Rusiniak, whose book about The extermination camp Treblinka II in collective memory is mentioned in the Gazeta Wyborcza article as due to appear the following month, disagrees with Kopůwka in that she attributes a part of the pits in the Treblinka woods to the ďhyenasĒ, especially to their ďloudĒ excavations involving the use of explosives.
Thatís why the statement you make a fuss about was worded as follows (emphases added):

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.
The "may" expresses a possibility, which Alex Bayís research about military operations around Treblinka in 1944 and the September 1944 air photograph show to be a remote one (though not completely out of the question considering the ruined buildings and some shapes that could but need not be holes on the photo under http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/pic/bmap8.jpg ). The "mainly", on the other hand, courteously gives Mr. Kopůwka the benefit of doubt.

You should also mind the context in which my statement was made, in post # 60 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=60:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Quote:
Who is supposed to have bombed it, and what evidence is there that such bombing too place? Whoever is supposed to have bombed the place "to remove evidence of it not being a death camp" must have been dumb as a door, for what he achieved instead was to bring to the surface death camp evidence (ashes, bones, skulls) that the SS had carefully hidden underground and planted vegetation on.
Uhm no, it was bombed after the Soviet Union advanced on it and took it, the only remaining buildings were not later found by the Polak.
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):[Ö]
Ö where I thereafter quoted from the aforementioned article the very part in which I expressed my doubts, based among other things on the September 1944 photograph, about the accuracy of the museum directorís claim.
Before I forget it: the scans from the Polish newspaper article that you made a fuss about under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...6&postcount=70 can now be viewed under http://rodohforum.yuku.com/reply/972...ml#reply-97205 .
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #91
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ps
Not all eye witness testimony is true, so all the eye witnesses make sure to cover a large range of different possibilities. This way when something faulty is pointed out you cherry pick the story that is more so desirable and sensible while leaving the bad points out. Since eye witness is imperfect you can say that the rest is merely a mistake but what is important to you is not.
The criterion for accepting as reliable certain parts of an eyewitness testimony while dismissing other is not convenience. It is

a) plausibility and

b) independent corroboration,

as in the example I mentioned in post # 75 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...4&postcount=75 :

Quote:
All this means is that, as I said, Wiernikís testimony should not be taken at face value in all respects. But thereís 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 Aradís book (emphases are mine):
Quote:
At that time SS OberscharfŁhrer or HauptscharfŁhrer [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 Budís misinterpretation of Wienikís account, the above-quoted testimony is of interest in that it identifies as ęSS OberscharfŁhrer or HauptscharfŁhrer FlossĽ 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 Ė Wiernik and Matthes Ė 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 Wiernikís 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
Of course because as I said before if the physical evidence contradicts the witness then the witness was lying to the court and thus guilty of contempt for it.
Thatís what this "archeological" discussion should be about, donít you think so?

Whether, and if so to what extent, the physical evidence, as documented by criminal investigators or other entities that a priori can be considered reliable (e.g. archeologists like Prof. Kola), corroborates or contradicts what becomes apparent from the eyewitness and documentary evidence.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #92
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
Ah, so here you are Roberto -

You are not German, mischlinge.
That would be "Mischlinge", baby.

But I have to disappoint you, I'm German both from my father's and my mother's side.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #93
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
One will notice that mischlinge jew, Roberto, will write longer and longer screeds as he continues to post - it's his way of showing off, massive abuse of verbiage; along with reams of cut and paste -
Your standard phrase for evidence you cannot explain away and arguments you cannot address, right? You haven't changed, lady.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireannGoddess View Post
'm somewhat surprised to find him on VNNF, where he will be made into mincemeat.
I don't think so, darling. But thanks for the flowers.

And please keep on bitching, it looks good on you.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #94
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berty Bullshit
Getting hysterical already, Mr. Smythe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
No, I am German, even if that may not fit your preconceived notions. I can show you my German passport is you want.

Passport? Pissoff!
Afraid that it might affect your delusions, Mr. Smythe?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Search your feelings Berty, you are a Jew.
No, I just donít like bullshit, especially distortions of history. I donít think one needs to be a Jew for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Actually Iím as objective as warranted by my opponentsí attitudes. If they donít insult me, I donít insult them. Ask ps if he has a reason for complaint.

"Nazi Fucks...", "revisionist freaks...", white pride loons...", "jack boot..." etc.
You hide behind pretend values.
No, I just call a spade a spade. But if you control your hysteria and refrain from invective, you will be treated accordingly.

"Jack Boot" was the handle of a Stormfront forum moderator, by the way. Ask EG.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
What, is this not a "White" forum whose posters tend to entertain "Revisionist" distortions of history?

More insult posing as question: "White", as though our very existence is imagined; "Revisionist", freaks, your feelings again.
I didnít say freaks, I said distortions. And while there may be something like a white or Caucasian race, capitalizing "white" and making a big deal about it is for people who have nothing else to be proud of, if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Actually such insinuations came from two of my opponents. All I did was to point out that their insinuations smacked of self-projection.

Liar. You will never stop Brad Pitting, Berty.
Where am I supposed to have lied, Mr. Smythe? Exact quote and post number, please.

Ah, and who authorized you to get familiar with me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Letís see:

It becomes apparent from both statements that opposition posters are only allowed to enter this forum or stay there as long as they are not held to be a threat to the "party line". If thatís not a controlled environment, I donít know what is.

You are imagining persecution Berty. You create mirrors into the Jew mind. All opposition is welcome into this wide open arena.
Thatís not what the quoted statements suggest, on the contrary. But I hope you are right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
My statement may have been provocative, but as concerns an apparent faith in the virtues of "White" ideology, Nazi Germany and "Revisionism" vs. the evil of the "Jew", Iíd say itís not too far away, considering stuff like
or
Verbosity I leave to the likes of Gerdes, from whom I could learn ranting if I wanted to.
Donít say that to me, say it to Gerdes.

More niggardly insult.
Whereís the insult, Mr. Smythe?
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #95
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ced smythe View Post
Berty, I have an issue with your comparison of Treblinka with Pompei:

Roman chroniclers/historians were not Jews. Do you get me?
Not that it matters, but neither are many historians of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, and neither were the West German criminal investigators, prosecutors and judges who reconstructed the mass killings at Treblinka and the participation of individual defendants therein in the 1960s and 1970s.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #96
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Getting hysterical already, Mr. Smythe?
More mirrors. I told you, I'm not pretending ad hominem...

Quote:
"Jack Boot" was the handle of a Stormfront forum moderator, by the way. Ask EG.
"Yeah, and I guess they also have a "Jack Boot" who limits the number of opposition posts when things get too hot for the faithful".

I quoted your insulting assumption. Never mind splitting hairs.


Quote:
I didn’t say freaks, I said distortions. And while there may be something like a white or Caucasian race, capitalizing "white" and making a big deal about it is for people who have nothing else to be proud of, if you ask me.
"Very proudly thrashing “Revisionist” freaks since 2006."

Lie and insult. You make a big deal of it; I noted it, that's all.


Quote:
Ah, and who authorized you to get familiar with me?
You are in the open now.


Quote:
Where’s the insult, Mr. Smythe?
"Verbosity I leave to the likes of Gerdes, from whom I could learn ranting if I wanted to.
Don’t say that to me, say it to Gerdes."

You are another Jew with no reflection. And Don't call me Mr. Smythe; call me smiggy!
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #97
ced smythe
Member
 
ced smythe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 535
ced smythe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Not that it matters, but neither are many historians of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, and neither were the West German criminal investigators, prosecutors and judges who reconstructed the mass killings at Treblinka and the participation of individual defendants therein in the 1960s and 1970s.
Not that it matters? You deranged yid.

The whole 'caust shebang is a Jew production. If not personally, by proxy.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #98
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Getting hysterical already, Mr. Smythe?

More mirrors. I told you, I'm not pretending ad hominem...
I see you edited out the previous "Berty Bullshit" invective. I take that as an apology, which is accepted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
"Jack Boot" was the handle of a Stormfront forum moderator, by the way. Ask EG.

"Yeah, and I guess they also have a "Jack Boot" who limits the number of opposition posts when things get too hot for the faithful".

I quoted your insulting assumption. Never mind splitting hairs.
You mean Jack Bootís having restricted my posting on Stormfront? You can read about that on the RODOH thread http://rodohforum.yuku.com/topic/1747

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
I didnít say freaks, I said distortions. And while there may be something like a white or Caucasian race, capitalizing "white" and making a big deal about it is for people who have nothing else to be proud of, if you ask me.

"Very proudly thrashing ďRevisionistĒ freaks since 2006."
Ah, you were still at the beginning of this thread reading my post # 8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Lie and insult. You make a big deal of it; I noted it, that's all.
Calling you people freaks may be insulting, but itís not a lie. Itís a statement of opinion backed up by what Iíve seen of you over the years Ė though of course some of you are less freaky than others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Ah, and who authorized you to get familiar with me?

You are in the open now.
I sure hope so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Whereís the insult, Mr. Smythe?

"Verbosity I leave to the likes of Gerdes, from whom I could learn ranting if I wanted to.
Donít say that to me, say it to Gerdes."
That was a statement of fact supported by observation of Mr. Gerdesí behavior. Whereís the insult?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
You are another Jew with no reflection.
I guess that was meant to be an insult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
And Don't call me Mr. Smythe; call me smiggy!
No, Iíd rather keep it formal. If you donít like being called by your last name, Iíll stick to "cs".
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #99
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,001
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp
Not that it matters, but neither are many historians of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, and neither were the West German criminal investigators, prosecutors and judges who reconstructed the mass killings at Treblinka and the participation of individual defendants therein in the 1960s and 1970s.

Not that it matters? You deranged yid.
I guess that was also meant to be an insult.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cs
The whole 'caust shebang is a Jew production. If not personally, by proxy.
Your baseless preconceived notions are taken note of.
 
Old June 17th, 2008 #100
EireannGoddess
Member
 
EireannGoddess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,979
Blog Entries: 5
EireannGoddess
Default

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roberto Muehlenkamp View Post
Your standard phrase for evidence you cannot explain away and arguments you cannot address, right? You haven't changed, lady.
O, I addressed your arguments on Sf, however, you were unable to respond to them - due to the one good notion Jack Boot had, which was to keep your verbiage to a minimum. So, now you have come here, where there is no such restriction and you take a snit over my "public service" announcement of what the Good Folk of VNNF can expect from you, you mincing mischlinge.

Quote:
And please keep on bitching, it looks good on you
When you produce something worthy of attention, jew, I will certainly do more than "bitch" - and you will not have to take my replies to your little web site and write a tome as response.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 PM.
Page generated in 0.25165 seconds.