NAFCASH and CODOH - A Public Embarrassment for HD

Since 2005, CODOH has publicly endorsed NAFCASH's bogus challenges, such as here. It allowed a Gerdes sockpuppet to claim here that "the members of NAFCASH have put their money where their mouths are." Yet it now transpires that NAFCASH had no members and that it continued to issue challenges on the NAFCASH site despite not having the status it claimed, as can be seen here and here. A Gerdes sockpuppet called Craig Curtis has attempted to excuse these facts here. Readers can make up their own minds about his sincerity from those replies. Bradley Smith and Jonnie Hargis may like to ponder how silly their endorsement of this charlatan makes them look.

UPDATE: As Dave Woolfe points out here, Gerdes congratulated Von Brunn.

Muehlenkamp-mania in the Cesspit

So apparently, Muehlenkamp has been to Sobibor; Belzec: a fraudulent excavation; My email reply from Greg Gerdes; Things have changed for me... [OR MAYBE NOT]; Muehlenkamp does Belzec / Chelmno; The Famous THIRTY TREBLINKA QUESTIONS;
Some more from Roberto; Treblinka study by Krege.

It seems that I have become the Cesspit's most bitched-about black beast, thanks to two particularly demented creatures pathetically obsessed with my humble person, "Drew J" and Greg Gerdes a.k.a. "Pepper".



I must figure prominently in those sorry punks' nightmares, judging by the number of threads in which they go yelping "Muehlenkamp this, Muehlenkamp that" and by how they even attribute to me blogs written by Jonathan Harrison, such as this one.

If Drew J and Gerdes are this hysterical already, what will become of them when they read my RODOH comments to some of their imbecilic mutterings?

The "Famous THIRTY TREBLINKA QUESTIONS"

This little Drew J freak seems to be really pissed about me …

Chicken challenge to Greg Gerdes

Further nonsense from Drew J and Gerdes (more from the former than the latter, who is capable of little other than repeating his cowardly "show me just one this and that" - yelping ad nauseam) will be dissected as time permits.

In the meantime, it will be fun to watch the old chimp and his apprentice freaking out a little more.

Update, 07.10.2009, 16:48 GMT

Cowardly liar Gerdes reacted as I thought he would. See my RODOH posts nos. 11495 and 11496.

Update, 10.10.2009, 20:18 GMT

Drew J is still the moron who shoots himself in the foot, Gerdes still the bitching fish-wife without testicles. See my RODOH posts nos. 11503 and 11504.

Update, 11.10.2009, 17:50 GMT

Kabbalistic ku-klux-klown Drew J increasingly insane, Gerdes as mendacious and gutless as ever. See my RODOH posts nos. 11507, 11508, 11510, 11511, 11512 and 11513.

Update, 12.10.2009, 17:22 GMT

Same as yesterday, plus Gerdes freaking out over Drew J. See my RODOH posts nos. 11518, 11519 and 11520.

Update, 13.10.2009, 12:47 GMT

See my RODOH posts nos. 11524, 11525 and 11530.

Update, 18.10.2009, 21:18 GMT

Gerdes: See my posts nos. 11546, 11547, 11549, 11556, 11557 and 11574.

"Drew J": See my posts nos. 11573 and 11580.

Scan Scam Sends Nazi Fan Into Full Nutter Mode: Lunatic Gerdes Takes Over the CODOH Asylum

Below are three extracts posted by Greg Gerdes in the last few days. They show him in his full nutter glory.



Firstly, when Drew J posted links to past HC blogs such as Nick's Jürgen Graf is a Liar, Gerdes accused Drew J of perpetrating a lie simply by posting the link and inviting comments:

Says the liar who was caught red handed falsely accusing Graf of lying while citing professional liar Nick Terry as his source and maliciously concealing evidence that proved his false accusation wrong and proved that it was in fact Nick Terry who was the liar and is now trying frantically to cover up the fact he's been caught telling a malicious lie.

[...]

Liar.

You falsely accused Graf of being a liar.

Your first comment was:

"Jürgen Graf is a Liar"

And you even commented on your own comment:

"He sure is"

So what would that be called?

A double lie?

Secondly, Gerdes has been frantically trying to show that this scan did not come from Krege, even though it is published on sympathetic denier sites. Gerdes rants:

There isn't an ounce of proof that the photo is of a scan taken at Treblinka.


Lamprecht

Krege only said it was from Treblinka's mass graves

Now you're flat out making things up.

Krege never said that THAT PHOTO was from Treblinka.

If you're not lying, then let's see the proof of what you just said.


Lamprecht

We have videos of him scanning the area, and he gave this photo, claiming it was the result.

And now you have just spewed another bald faced lie.

You're really digging yourself in a hole Lamprecht. You just said in the previous sentence:

I said I do not know where the scan is from - and I don't.

Then you say:

[Krege] gave this photo

With the obvious implication that the photo came from Krege himself.

My what a poor liar you are Lamprecht.


Lamprecht

No, I do not have proof of him actually scanning it.

Well then, you're finally admitting the truth. But if you don't have proof, then why did you say Krege himself "gave this photo, claiming it was the result?"

Contradiction after contradiction.


Lamprecht

The odd thing is that Krege concluded, from his scan, that there were no mass graves @ Treblinka

What's so odd about that Lamprecht?

His exact words from the video were: "After 3 weeks work the team had found nothing. No graves, no ash..."

And his exact words quoted in the IHR article were: "Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp's use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed," he says. "Personally, I don't think there was an extermination camp there at all."

No graves and no ash.

If that's such an "odd" statement Lamprecht, then please tell us where we might find graves and ash at Treblinka.

Look at the first photo that appears in this thread and tell us:

How many graves and how much ash are in sections A? B? C?



Pepper

Can you trace that photo back to Krege's actual GPR?

Lamprecht

How would I do that, Pepper?

Don't bother Lamprecht, I just did the work for you.

I knew something didn't smell right.

Gerdes then goes into full conspiraloon mode against his fellow denier jnovitz:

Is jnovitz David Irving?

Who but a rodohoaxer, a jew or David Irving woud say such a thing?

It never occurs to Gerdes to ask why Irving and other deniers would publish this scan had it not come from Krege. Instead, he seriously believes that attacking his fellow deniers in this manner will win him friends and influence people.

So how did yelping cowards "Drew J" and Greg Gerdes react ...

to the challenges in my article The Old Chimp and his Apprentice ?

The way one would expect yelping cowards to react, of course: by weaseling out and trying to explain their cowardly behavior to themselves and their fellow "Revisionists".



Let's first look at Drew J's pathetic yelping in his post of Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:27 pm on page 5 of the Cesspit thread Things have changed for me... [OR MAYBE NOT].

Drew J

I got tired of responding to Muehlenkamp's comments because as I said elsewhere on this board, he can battle with Mattogno over math equations, and wood requirements all he wants. He can battle all he wants about what was possible.

Read: Drew J has realized that he has no arguments against my shredding of Mattogno's pathetic attempts to make believe that what becomes apparent from the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence to mass murder at Belzec was physically/technically or logistically impossible, and thus decided that it is safer for him to play the infantile "show me just one this and that" – game taught to him by his mentor "Pepper" a.k.a. Greg Gerdes.

Drew J

The point is, can he prove it.

Definitely so. What becomes apparent from all known evidence without any evidence pointing to an alternative scenario is proven by such evidence to have happened, except insofar as it was physically, technically or logistically impossible. Mattogno has gone out of his way to demonstrate such physical, technical or logistical impossibility. And he has failed disastrously.

Drew J

Can he furnish photo, video or lab evidence of there being what Kola claims there was in his core samples? NO!

No, I have no access to "photo, video or lab" evidence supporting Prof. Kola's drawings and descriptions of what he found in the soil at Belzec. But that doesn’t mean such "photo, video or lab" evidence does not exist, only that it hasn’t been made accessible to the public. In fact, Prof. Kola tells his readers on pages 10/11 of his Belzec book where the kind of evidence mentioned by Drew J is probably kept (emphases mine):

Directed by that need The Council of Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom turned in 1997 to the Archaeological and Ethnological Institute of Nicholas Copernicus University in Toruń with a request of conducting probing archaeological works at the territory of the camp in Bełżec. The excavation started in autumn 1997 and was carried on in spring and autumn 1998 and in autumn 1999. The result of the excavation works was a detailed archaeological documentation together with the basic report delivered to The Council of Protection of Memory of Struggle and Martyrdom as to the principal, together with the preliminary reports. The other, non archaeological documentation collected simultaneously were chemical analysis and microscope studies of samples taken during the probing works. They were made to verify the conclusions emerging from archaeological analysis.

So if Drew J is interested (which I doubt) in seeing "photo, video or lab" evidence showing the accuracy of Prof. Kola’s drawings and descriptions of his core drill finds at Belzec, he should direct himself to the Archives of the Council of Protection of Memory of Combat and Martyrdom (Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa - ROPWiM) in Warsaw, Poland.

Now, why on earth should I have to prove to anyone the accuracy of what a renowned professional archaeologist like Prof. Kola wrote in his report about Belzec, moreover as Prof. Kola's finds are matched by all documentary and eyewitness evidence to what happened at that place, and also by earlier investigations of the physical evidence? The contents of Prof. Kola’s reports are at least prima facie evidence that Prof. Kola found what he described, and it is for howlers like Drew J to provide evidence pointing to some sort of manipulation in Prof. Kola’s reports if they want to reverse the burden of proof. So far they haven't provided such evidence. The absence of core sample photos in Prof. Kola report is no evidence to any manipulation. It's not even an indication in that direction.

Drew J

So in other words, Muehlenkamp might as well spend the rest of his time arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

What cowardly bigmouths like Drew J do not understand (unlike their more intelligent gurus like Mattogno) is that the ball is in their court. It is up to them to discredit the evidence exclusively pointing to mass murder by demonstrating that mass murder and body disposal as becomes apparent from the evidence was physically, technically or logistically impossible. Mattogno has tried and failed. Drew J is too cowardly and incompetent to even try.

Drew J

He also says he has no way to respond to me since he can't post at codoh. Funny he how claims he can't respond to me, yet he just admitted that he responded to my codoh belzec stuff over at rodoh and he has now devoted two blog entries to me in the past week.I guess his actions betray his words. I guess he can't keep his thoughts straight.

Poor Drew J, who does he think he's impressing by playing dumb? (Well, there are enough cretins on CODOH to be impressed.) Of course I can comment his CODOH tirades somewhere else, like on this blog spot or on RODOH. But that's not the same as having a direct discussion on the same forum, which was what I clearly referred to when I wrote the following:

One wonders why this fellow insists in spouting nonsense about me and my arguments on a forum to which (as he knows or should have realized by now) I have no access, instead of confronting me on the RODOH forum or another forum where I can respond to him directly.

Drew J

I don't see why I should waste time with him on vnn or rodoh.

Well, one good reason is the cowardly behavior you have shown so far by mouthing off about me to readers unlikely to see what I have to say about your mouthing, my friend. And you can be sure that it won't be a waste of time for any of us or for our audience, for I'll be exposing the imbecility of your "Revisionist" arguments (if such they can be called), and you will be efficiently contributing to that worthy undertaking.

So how about it, Drew J? Will you grow some balls or not?

Drew J

Especially the latter which was just exposed as engaging in covert censorship by spiriting away key posts such as Shyster's post on the Bischoff letter that I have quoted out of the view of the general, non rodoh registered public.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but if whatever you mean by "covert censorship" disturbs you, how come you keep posting on a forum like that of CODOH, where censorship is not "covert" but flagrant?

Ah, and I didn’t say it must be RODOH. What I said was this:

Drew J should stop being a yelping coward and engage me one a forum to which I have access and where we can discuss directly, without the intervention of partisan moderators for one or the other side. There are several such places on the web, including but not limited to RODOH, the Usenet and – believe it or not – the discussion forum of the "Vanguard News Network", where I debated Greg Gerdes and other "White" specimens over 105 pages on the thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka.

Drew J

Why? So he can act like a fundamentalist Christian who demands an atheist who wrote a good article say exposing the kalam cosmological argument over to his board just so he can insult him and continue to waste time dodging Treblinka questions?

No, you yelping coward. So I can show you acting like a fundamentalist Christian demanding proof of the non-existence of God from an atheist who points to the fact of there being no evidence to God’s existence and all known evidence pointing in the opposite direction. And so I can answer all your "Treblinka questions" like I answered the same questions asked by your mentor Greg Gerdes a.k.a. "Pepper" before, and then ask you some Treblinka questions of my own which unlike yours will be pertinent questions, and which you will run away from just like chicken-shit Gerdes ran away from well over 200 questions I asked his "tfsfcsupporter" sockpuppet in our RODOH discussions, not to mention the many questions he left unanswered before on Topix and the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka. That will be the show, my friend. After what I've seen from you so far, I'm not surprised that you're afraid of it.

Drew J

So he can get angry that like others, I, won't accept low burdens of proof such as that Polish grave robbing article which I rightly called into question at the bottom of page four of this current codoh topic you the reader are in the middle of now?

Now this gets us to a few interesting questions, namely the following:

1. What exactly is the Polish article about the Gold Rush in Treblinka supposed to prove, and who said so?

2. What "low" standards of proof do you think this article would meet, and who applies such standards?

3. What are your "high" standards of proof, and who (other than "Revisionists" when it comes to anything that goes against their articles of faith) apply such "high" standards of proof? Are you talking about the standards of proof applied at a criminal trial under a constitutional state's defendant-friendly procedural rules, which are the highest standards known to me? If not, please explain in detail what would be sufficient to meet your "high" standards, and what (other than your desire to protect your articles of faith against inconvenient evidence) those standards are based on.

Drew J

I don't think so. If he can prove his case, he'll do it on his blog entry instead of bitching about how he has to reply on his blog entry to guys like me. If he doesn't like responding to people by way of his blog, then why does he even have a blog?

That’s just the kind of piss-poor excuse I would have expected from a yelping coward like you, Drew J.

First of all, "my" case is that of established historiography, and that case had been proven by the reasonable standards of both historiography and criminal justice long before I even started looking into these issues.

Second, the blog (which, incidentally, is not mine – I’m just one of several contributors) is for writing articles about pathetic "Revisionist" objections to the evidence that has satisfied historians, criminal investigators and judges throughout the world over the decades, in order to show to whoever might be interested how pathetic these objections are, and with a focus on book-writing gurus like Mattogno & Graf rather than on little internet howlers like Drew J. Though it allows for comments, the blog is not meant to be or replace a discussion forum. For that there are places like RODOH.

Drew J

Like I predicted, you would simply repeat yourself if I registered on VNN and complain about how others won't accept your low standards of proof, ala, the polish grave robbing article which basically went like this back in the forties. "Hey we have some guys who dug up Jewish remains. Their teeth and their gold." "Why that's great work partner. Let's photograph this evidence like a normal person trying to document evidence of any crime would so we can prove to the world what happened at Treblinka." "No, I have a better idea, let's skip photographing the actual evidence and just photograph the perps." Makes little sense right.

What actually makes little sense is the infantile nonsense written by Drew J. The Polish article contains or mentions rather interesting evidence (including but not limited to photographs) to the fact that the site of the former Treblinka extermination camp was the subject of intensive robbery-digging after the war, which it wouldn't have been but for the mass murder that had occurred there and that a wealth of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to, with not a shred of evidence pointing in another direction. It thus adds a few more exhibits to the evidence proving that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered at Treblinka.

Drew J

But as I said at the bottom of page four, it makes no sense to not document something you would want to or should if you have the opportunity to do so. Unless there is of course nothing to photograph.

Or unless written documentation was considered sufficient and nobody saw a point in photographing the objects found with the grave diggers along with the grave diggers themselves. And that's assuming that no such photographs were actually taken, which is not exactly a logical conclusion to be drawn from the fact that only one photograph of the police action in question survived to this day. But then, who would expect "Revisionist" knuckleheads to apply anything resembling logic?

Drew J

AOh yeah they have written testimonies about all the alleged stuff dug up by graverobbers at Treblinka, but that's not good enough.

Because Drew J says so, or for some reason worth considering?

Drew J

The holocaust industry has been filled with proven liars from day one.

Actually that’s true of "Revisionism", whereas I doubt that the howler can even demonstrate the existence of the kind of monolithic "holocaust industry" he fantasizes about.

Drew J

One case out of many was the fact that after no one believed the kabbalistic six million figure in world war one, Ilya Ehrenburg a Soviet propagandist promoted the six million figure after the second world war. This was the same man who admitted to atheist Jew Joseph Burg in the forties that he saw no evidence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. Yet, Ehrenburg didn't know at the time, that years later Joseph Burg would support the revisionist cause and testify under oath in a Canadian court in the Zundel 1985 trial that Ehrenburg privately confessed to him that he saw no evidence of gas chambers. Now we can understand why Burg, who apparently betrayed his own Jewish people was denied burial in a Jewish cemetary.

Drew J must have been eagerly swallowing some mendacious and particularly insane "Revisionist" rubbish. Maybe someone should tell the poor soul that

a) There was no "kabbalistic six million figure in world war". In the 31 October 1919 issue of The American Hebrew there appeared an article headed The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!, written by Martin H. Glynn, former Governor of the State of New York. The author was lamenting the poor conditions under which European Jews were living after World War I. Glynn referred to these conditions as a potential "holocaust" and asserted that "six million Jewish men and women are starving across the seas". "Revisionists" have given further proof of their imbecility by using this somewhat over-dramatizing call for helping impoverished European Jewry ("We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers.") to claim that the "six million figure" of Jews murdered by the Nazis was brought up after World War II bearing in mind Glynn’s 1919 article, or something like that.

b) The "six million figure after the second world war" did not come from Ehrenburg but was a rounding-up of the sum of demographic losses established for each affected country by the Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York in June 1945 and by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in April 1946, these demographic studies being corroborated by evidence to the Nazis' genocidal program compiled in the document collection Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume 1 - Chapter XII - The Persecution of the Jews.

c) Joseph Burg was a raving "Revisionist" lunatic and liar, thus a miserable source to rely on about whatever Ehrenburg is supposed to have told him.

d) Based on documentary and eyewitness evidence, West German criminal justice authorities have conducted a total of 912 trials involving 1,875 defendants between 1945 and 1997, regarding crimes committed at a huge number of camps and other crime locations. Some of these trials involved the interrogation of dozens or even hundreds of eyewitnesses, and the testimonies of these eyewitnesses were subject to careful scrutiny by prosecutors, by defense attorneys and by judges with a marked tendency to apply the in dubio pro reo principle (see my articles Jürgen Graf on Criminal Justice and Nazi Crimes, More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (Part 1) and Meet Karl Frenzel). Many of these testimonies were found to be essentially reliable following such scrutiny, many were not. I submit that "Revisionists" haven’t proven even a small fraction of these witnesses to have been liars (and not just mistaken about one or the other detail), if they have proven any eyewitness to have lied at all.

After displaying his own cowardice with his piss-poor excuses for not meeting me on a debating forum, Drew J turns to defending his mentor Gerdes, from whom he received an e-mail unsurprisingly full of the kind of repetitive self-projecting obnoxious hollering that anyone who has met the chimp is abundantly familiar with. Let’s look at Gerdes’ crap, then.

Gerdes

Ok, I looked over that thread agian, and you do have some things mixed up. (Though if you've been debating roberta, I can understand.) So let's get started:

Muehlenkamp:
"...Chelmno, at Belzec (both of which camps, incidentally, have disappeared from the NAFCASH challenge – Gerdes must have got cold feet)"

So I looked and I don't see those camps as part of the monetary reward just Treblinka.

OK, Drew, one more thing. If you're not already aware of the fact, everything that comes out of roberta's mouth, if not a bald faced lie, is at least some sort of sophistic, meallymouthed half truth at best. This is why these kinds of questions take so much time and effort, because usually there is some thruth to what he's said, but it has to be broken down to see the bits of truth from the lies and deceptions.

The chimp is obviously looking in the mirror (well, except for the "bits of truth").

Gerdes

So let me tell you what is included in The Final Solution Forensic challenge. It is Sobibor and Treblinka only.

We know that, chimp. You should have read my blog before hacking away.

Gerdes

One hundred grand for locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder. Pretty simple huh?

If Gerdes were reasonable enough and not too cowardly to accept as evidence what a US court of justice would accept as evidence that there is at least one mass grave containing at least "one tenth of one percent" of the "alleged" mass murder at Sobibor and Treblinka, it would be easy indeed. If, on the other hand, Gerdes accepts as evidence nothing short of a certain amount of bone fragments or teeth being unloaded at his doorstep together with a certificate of provenance, it's everything other than easy. And if Gerdes is so cowardly and dishonest as not to reveal what evidence would meet his challenge requirements, then his challenge is a hoax pure and simple, as anyone with two ounces of brain inside his skull should be able to see.

Gerdes

Is Muehlenkamp trying to imply those camps were once part of the money challenge but are not because apparently he has evidence on you?

Now here we go. The only real answer isn't a real answer. Its yes and no.

Were they once part of The Final Solution Forensic Challenge?

Yes.

Does he "have evidence on me?"

LOL! Not on your life Drew. If I recall correctly (nafcash went through many changes for its first few years, the challenge once even included Babi Yar. And it's going to be tough for me to rember how everything changed and why without doing a lot of digging through a lot of old forum posts. I'll do the best I can though.) roberta had over two years to submit evidence on the chelmno and belzec camps.

Actually I wrote my first blog about Gerdes on 15 May 2008 and started debating Gerdes on Topix in that month. By the end of that month, Gerdes decided to move the discussion (or most of it) to the "Vanguard New Network" forum, where he opened the thread Archaeological Investigations of Treblinka. My acceptance of the "challenge" was confirmed in my post # 596 on 12 July 2008. In my post # 777 on that thread, written on 22 July 2008, I listed all the documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence I had so far collected for the four Nazi extermination camps Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno, much of which I had already shown before on VNN and/or Topix. Very soon thereafter Gerdes excluded Belzec and Chelmno from the "challenge", as I pointed out in my post # 810 on 24 July 2008:

What even a retard can see is that Gerdes excluded Belzec and Chelmno from the challenge.

Current text, 24.07.2007 12:56 hours GMT:

Quote:
THERE WAS NO TREBLINKA HOLOCAUST

Lest you think there must be some truth to the asinine pure extermination center canard

(That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work)

THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM

Also includes the alleged Sobibor holocaust.

Previous text, as per screenshot made on 18.07.2008 14:17 hours GMT:

Quote:
Lest you think there must be some truth to the asinine pure extermination center canard

(That’s the psychology of the big-lie technique at work)

NO GRAVES = NO TREBLINKA HOLOCAUST

Page 17 of 24 The National Association of Forensic Criminologists, Archeologists, Skeptics and ...
18-07-2008 http://www.nafcash.com/

THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM

Also includes the alleged holocausts at Belzec, Chelmno and Sobibor.

So Belzec and Chelmno are not included in the challenge anymore, Mr. Gerdes?

Why is that? Did you get cold feet? Did someone tell you that Prof. Kola’s Belzec report alone, or Mrs. Golden’s article in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine, may be considered by a court of law as sufficient proof to meet the challenge requirements?

So Belzec and Chelmno disappeared from the "challenge" two days at most after I had posted a comprehensive submittal of all evidence at my disposal concerning those camps. Who wouldn't take this coincidence as an indication that Gerdes had got cold feet regarding these two camps, like I did?

Anyway, it should be as clear as can be that Gerdes shamelessly (and very dumbly, considering the online records) lied about my having "had over two years to submit evidence on the chelmno and belzec camps" and failed to do so. A full ten days elapsed between my acceptance of the "challenge" and my VNN post # 777, through which Gerdes could see what would be coming at him re Belzec and/or Chelmno if I submitted the evidence listed in that post to SKEPTIC magazine. Two days thereafter at most, Belzec and Chelmno had disappeared from the "challenge".

Gerdes

He didn't make an issue until I made the changes to simplify the challenge to include only Sobibor and Treblinka.

Of course I didn’t make an issue about Belzec and Chelmno disappearing from the "challenge" until they had disappeared, duh! As to the "simplify the challenge" crap, who does Gerdes think he is fooling?

Gerdes

I'll provide evidence of that as we go on.

I’d love to see that evidence.

Gerdes

If so, I can only recall in the past the Treblinka camp being expressly stated as the only camp as part of the money challenge on the nafcash site.

And so? What matters is that all four extermination camps were included in the "challenge" when I joined it and only two were left less than two weeks later, thereby cutting my chances of meeting the "challenge" requirements and claiming the reward in half, so to say. If Gerdes were not the lying hoaxer that he is, he’d have frozen the "challenge" as it was on the day I stated my acceptance.

Gerdes

It's Treblinka and Sobibor. Express details can be found on the site.

Express details? I see lots of multi-colored hysterical hollering but not the one essential statement (which Gerdes has been conspicuously silent about so far, instead making a big fuss about a minor point of my blog that I mentioned by the way and dedicated a bracketed half sentence to):

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

Gerdes

So if he is implying the money challenge used to include more than just Treblinka, would he be in fact lying?

Maybe not lying, but certainly not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Maybe not lying, but decieving with deliberate omissions.

And what exactly would I be deliberately omitting, Mr. Gerdes?

Gerdes

It used to also include more than that. There has been a number of different challenges on the nafcash site over the years.

The only one that matters in this discussion is the one that was in place on 12 July 2008, when I accepted the NAFCASH "challenge". And was cut in half less than two weeks later.

Gerdes

It would seem to me that if nafcash is offering a reward just expressly for Treblinka, but also talks about number reduction of the dead at Belzec and Chelmno, then I can assume nafcash is not adverse to a challege on these camps either.

As I've said, Sobibor is part of the challenge. There are also challenges concerning Belzec and Chelmno that have never been taken off the table. They were ignored by roberta, shermer, golden, o'neil, etc. They were most certainly removed from The Final Solution Forensic Challenge, but the never did "disapear."

What's the difference supposed to be?

Gerdes

Roberta could still accept those challenges today and I would honor them.

Err, I accepted the "challenge" with Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno in it more than a year ago, on 12 July 2008. And how did Gerdes (here again projecting his own effeminacy, as it seems) honor my acceptance? By removing Belzec and Chelmno from the accepted challenge less than two weeks later.

Gerdes

OK, I think this will be a good place to stop, supper's on.

OK chimp, let’s see if your disciple Drew J is beginning to realize that you are the inveterate liar you falsely accuse your opponent of being.

Drew J

Hear that? Gerdes is not opposed to evidence on Belzec or Chelmno.

That's good news. What's he waiting for to put Belzec and Chelmno back into the "challenge" wording on the NAFH site, then?

Drew J

And apparently Roberto had years to furnish evidence but never made a stink about it until Gerdes took it down. Likely because due to nothing happening, he assumed nothing would happen. So could this Gerdes email in fact be revealing a tactic of Muehlenkamp's? Accept a challenge. Then do nothing. Then when the challege is removed due to no one fulfilling it, cry foul and cry wolf and make yourself look good? Is it possible this is the case? Could be. Could be a nice way to save face.

As I had less than two weeks to "furnish evidence" after accepting the "challenge" before Gerdes removed Belzec and Chelmno, apparently after taking a look at what the evidence submitted via SKEPTIC magazine might be, I'll attribute these speculations, which seem to project classic "Revisionist" behaviors, to the not very nimble mind of a gullible jerk who swallowed another of Gerdes' many lies.

Drew J

The main reason why I have not yet claimed the reward is known to who has been following my discussions with Gerdes and was last expressed in my post # 2089 on the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka: Gerdes persistently refused to state what evidence he would accept as proof meeting the requirements for claiming the reward, running away from every question in this sense or responding with meaningless hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – screams.

Again, this is Muehlenkamp complaining about people refusing to accept low standards of evidence as proof such as that barely substantiated polish article about theft of teeth and gold at Treblinka.

So now the standards of evidence applied by US courts of justice are "low standards of evidence", Drew J?

I'm asking because those are the standards that I expect the evidence at my disposal to hold up to, and accordingly what I want Gerdes to confirm is that the standards of evidence applied by US courts of justice are also his standards:

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

Drew J

Apparently, posts of mine on codoh that Muehlenkamp has obviously seen about the Jewish motive to lie and exaggerate, and also the evidence of Jews being caught in lies again and again means nothing. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5697&p=38223#p38223

Relax, Drew J, your imbecilic haggling about one or the other eyewitness’s "lies" does mean something to me. It means that little matters worry the minds of little cretins like you, and that you obviously have nothing but manure inside your skull. I'm sure that some of the Jewish eyewitnesses (there were also many eyewitnesses who had been visitors to the camps or lived by the camps or been part of the Ukrainian guard detachments or the SS supervisor staff, you know) exaggerated or otherwise embellished their accounts a bit, consciously or not. But that's something eyewitnesses do always and everywhere in regard to any given event, and the more catastrophic and traumatic the event is, the more such inaccuracies in eyewitness testimonies one will find. If that's an indication against the factuality of the event described, then there was never a US war in Vietnam. For there are literally thousands of phony Vietnam vets throughout the US, telling Rambo stories in a barroom on a Saturday night and stuff like that. Maybe you should get yourself a brain.

Drew J

Therefore, and in order to give Gerdes a last chance to make his "challenge" into something resembling a serious reward challenge rather than a transparent publicity act meant to fool hopeless suckers, I hereby challenge Gerdes to overcome his well-known cowardice and put the following statement on his NAFH website, in big bold letters (the color I leave to his dubious taste):

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

The next step would be NAFH placing the reward money (in the improbable case that Gerdes & friends can collect such amount) on an Escrow account, but let’s do one thing at a time. As soon as Gerdes has placed the required statement in the required form on the NAFH site, I shall contact SKEPTIC magazine and start preparing my submission of evidenceregarding Treblinka and/or Sobibor for publication in that magazine.

Will Greg Gerdes be able to muster the minimum amount of courage and honesty required to put this statement on the NAFH site and keep it there, or will he again go into a hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – act?

We shall see.

Think about the implications of Muehlenkamp's choice of words. Muehlenkamp has been sitting on evidence for years about human remains at Treblinka and Sobibor.

Actually I've not been sitting on such evidence but slapping it around the ears of Mattogno, Denierbud and other "Revisionist" jokers since I joined the Holocaust Controversies blog, not to mention my previous posting on various discussion forums. Except, that is, for the evidence I only started collecting after I met your mentor Gerdes, most of which is mentioned in my VNN posts nos. 172, 194, 777, 1710 and 1825 and my RODOH posts nos. 10971, 10995 (regarding Treblinka), 11216 and 11225 (regarding Sobibor). This evidence I used in my discussions with Gerdes and the "Muehlenkamp accepts nafcash's challenge" and Mass Graves at Sobibor blog series, while waiting for the day (which hasn’t yet arrived) on which Gerdes would muster the minimum amount of honesty and courage required to clearly state what his standards of evidence are and what evidence he would accept as proof of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains left in the soil from the mass murder at either camp.

Drew J

However he has decided not to help out the holocaust lobby or the Simon Wiesenthal center and thus get his name in the paper and spread his message far and wide to refute revisionists once and for all. He has instead spent years bragging that he has it, but he has in effect been sitting on it and saving it and delaying it, thus feeding fuel to the revisionist fire. In other words, hurting the cause of his own people. How's that for interesting? :lol:

What’s interesting is the amount of wishful thinking and other nonsense that comes out of Drew J’s keyboard, actually. First of all, I don’t give a damn about the "holocaust lobby" or the Simon Wiesenthal center or about getting my name "in the paper". Second, Drew J has serious delusions about the significance of his mentor Gerdes’ "challenge" if he thinks meeting or not meeting that "challenge" makes a big difference to the debate between "Revisionists" and their critics. Third, feeding fuel to the fire of Gerdian "Revisionist" imbecility helps that "fire" consume what little is left of “Revisionist” credibility, and is therefore desirable. And fourth, without a prior statement by Gerdes as to what his standards of evidence are his "challenge" is a rather transparent hoax, for he can always say afterwards that whatever evidence is submitted doesn’t satisfy his standards and nothing short of the required amount of human remains being unloaded in front of his trailer will entitle an applicant to the reward. Unlike gullible creatures like Drew J, I'm not one to fall for hoaxes.

Drew J

By the way, Muehlenkamp's deliberate stepping over evidence of Jewish lying and exaggeration, all done in the spirit of revenge and fame, (as admitted by people quoted in that massive Paul Grubach article in my Demjanjuk thread), makes him able to justify that weak polish article I already talked about. But he can't justify this on any grounds.

What is the fellow talking about here? What "evidence of Jewish lying and exaggeration, all done in the spirit of revenge and fame" am I supposed to have "stepped over", to start with? I hope for Drew J that he’s not referring to his Ehrenburg-Burg babblings commented above.

Drew J

This combined with how witnesses who claimed to have seen diesel engines weren't really credible witnesses at all (his and Sergy's implications, not mine), proves that eyewitness accounts have to be balanced with science.

Sergey’s implications are that the witnesses weren’t credible as concerns the type of engine, not that they were not credible in any respects. A non-technical witness catching a brief glimpse of the gassing procedure could well be mistaken about the type of engine without that affecting his credibility otherwise. As to eyewitness accounts having to be "balanced with science": of course an eyewitness account cannot be accepted as accurate insofar as it is physically, technically or logistically impossible. But "Revisionists" have in vain tried to demonstrate that gassing and body disposal as described by eyewitnesses (at least the more sober and knowledgeable ones) would have been physically, technically or logistically impossible.

Drew J

Since Muehlenkamp is so hard up on physical evidence and the scientific method, it makes one wonder why he demands that Gerdes, myself and the revisionists accept such low standards of proof like that polish article about Treblinka graverobbing of teeth and gold that somehow were forgotten to be photographed - JUST BECAUSE OTHER HOLOCAUST HISTORIANS WOULD BLINDLY ACCEPT IT.

I'm demanding that Gerdes apply the standards of proof that a US court of justice would apply, for court standards are the most stringent reasonable standards around. I'm confident that the photos and other evidence mentioned in the Polish article would, if presented in due form (documents in original or as copies confirmed to coincide with the originals, photographs with confirmation of provenance by a witness and/or expert) be considered by a US court of justice as evidence of the extensive robbery-digging that took place on the Treblinka site after it was overrun by the Red Army in 1944. If what a court of justice would accept as evidence is not good enough for Gerdes, then he should be fucking specific about what would be good enough to claim his reward.

Drew J

The Diesel issue being irrelevant? Even so, that's a small battle, and you still haven't won the war as Berg, Occam's Razor and me Drew J show.

Poison Gas: Another Fuel for Motor Transport
by Friedrich Paul Berg
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5693

Wishful thinking, my friend. As long as Berg & friends haven't managed to demonstrate that

a) gassing with gasoline exhaust under the conditions of the ARC gas chambers must have killed by carbon monoxide poisoning only, and not also alternatively or concomitantly by suffocation due to lack of oxygen;

b) carbon monoxide poisoning would have necessarily given all victims a "bright cherry red" appearance despite their dying in a state of exhaustion and high anxiety, and despite the fact that most of them were malnourished inhabitants of Polish ghettos suffering from anemia and/or other malnutrition-related conditions that impaired they capacity to oxygenate;

c) the "bright cherry red" appearance would have been present immediately after death and thus at the time when the few eyewitnesses who described the victims' aspect got to see the corpses, and not only some time later when those witnesses no longer had the corpses in sight; and

d) the "bright cherry red" coloring would necessarily become apparent to the average human eye of casual observers who did not examine the bodies like a coroner or forensic investigator would, and who had other visual impressions and the emotional impact of the scene to distract them,

their claim that the eyewitnesses in question must have recalled "bright cherry red" corpses is just that, another unproven and probably baseless "Revisionist" claim. I still have to see them discredit the knowledgeable eyewitnesses who mentioned gasoline engines.

Drew J

Secondly, as Paul Grubach's article quoted in the Demjanjuk thread shows it was pointless of the Nazis to disagree with the prevailing propaganda.

Are you trying to tell us the SS defendants at trials regarding Chelmno and Sobibor mentioned gasoline engines because the "prevailing propaganda" at the time was diesel engines, or what is the above baloney supposed to mean? As to just how constrained Nazi defendants at West German trials were to accept any "prevailing propaganda", see my blog Jürgen Graf on Criminal Justice and Nazi Crimes.

Drew J

As for nafcash formerly mentioning Krege, that is true.

And quite significant, as a matter of fact.

Why do you think Gerdes took it out, except because he realized that Krege shot "Revisionism" in the foot, or at the very least that Krege has become a joke through his failure to publish a report about his loudly touted findings at Treblinka?

Drew J

That video, you can still right click and save as to your hard drive. And so yeah, Muehlenkamp is correct that Krege used to be mentioned on nafcash. Even mail-archive.com bears this out.
http://www.mail-archive.com/islamkriste ... 12281.html

Then it's about time you ask Gerdes, who you obviously exchange e-mails with, why the heck he removed mentions of Krege from his website. What are you waiting for?

Drew J

Muehlenkamp claims with hypertext that at this link Krege found evidence of soil disturbance which would allegedly prove a massive holocaust at Treblinka.
http://www.atheistparents.org/forum/vie ... c&start=25

Actually it is the opinion of an expert in GPR technology, Lawrence B. Conyers, that Krege’s ground scanning – apart from having been very incompetently done or processed – probably reveals the very presence of mass graves that Krege claimed to have ruled out. Conyers wrote the following:

I looked at the web site, and the image you sent. It is only one small part of his 'grid'. The picture shows him using a 200 MHz antenna and collecting about 1 meter spaced transects in a huge grid. That image is not processed, and only shows about a 5 meter long section in one line. And even in that profile it looks like a bunch of "things" in the ground on the right hand side that could easily be mass graves. It is apparent that this guy either does not know anything of GPR, or at the very least does not know how to process it. To really do a good job, the data need to be put into a 3-D cube of reflections and processed in a batch, including ALL the profiles collected. If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this you either need to get his data and let someone else process it, or re-collect it all and re-process your own data. This is NOT a scientific or representive study of the ground by any stretch.

It is also the opinion of two apparently knowledgeable posters on the AHF thread The "ground-penetrating radar" study.

"Sallyg":

Significant purturbation of the "A" or topsoil horizon is present and the inconsistent returns from the "B" or subsoil horizon certainly merits investigation. As an example of undisturbed soil, this fails any test.

"Obdicut":

Mr. Mills,

Since the images do show disturbance of the topsoil consistent with graves (in the most generous sense), I hope he didn't follow your advice.

Drew J

It'll make for some intersting reading. Meanwhile, I will leave Muehlenkamp to continue to bitch about revisionists not accepting low standards of proof like that Polish grave robbing article just because his fellow extermination theorists in the field of history like MIchael Shermer would accept it.

Bitching I leave to the likes of Gerdes and Drew J. As the fellow is constantly babbling about the "low" standards of proof applied by historians in Holocaust matters, perhaps he can tell us

a) what his own "high" standards of evidence are all about, namely what they would demand as proof of mass murder at places like Treblinka;
b) what (other than convenience to his articles of faith) his "high" standards of evidence are based on, namely if there are manuals on historical research or rules of evidence applied in criminal justice that establish such "high" standards;
c) what historical events that he accepts as factual have been proven according to such "high" standards of evidence.

So much for the moron Drew J and what he transmitted of Gerdes’ cowardly beating-about-the-bush. Now Ill have a look at how Gerdes further disgraced himself in his post of Tue Sep 22, 2009 4:28 pm on page 5 of the Cesspit thread Things have changed for me... [OR MAYBE NOT], written under the handle "Pepper".

Gerdes

Looks like Gerdes is giving Muehlenkamp nightmares.

Actually it look like things are the other way around, judging by how "Pepper" aka Gerdes and his disciple Drew J obsessively ramble against my humble person.

Gerdes

And did you notice that over at rodoh they have Gerdes on the brain? Every other poster is a Gerdes sock-puppet. Gerdes is behind every tree. The only person in the world who asks to see evidence of the holocaust is Gerdes. If you ask to see the location of a mass grave, you're banned as a Gerdes sock-puppet. I'll bet Mr. Gerdes is laughing his ass off at how obsessed the rodohoaxers are over him.

Gerdes is obviously projecting the current Muehlenkamp-hysteria on the CODOH Cesspit when postulating that a similar hysteria has hit the RODOH forum. Actually only one sock-puppet ("mr hilter") was briefly assumed there to be Gerdes, as far as I remember.

Gerdes

Muehlenkamp

it is nowhere stated what evidence the NAFH would accept as fulfilling the requirements of its "challenge"

Is this the truth or a lie? I'll check the nafcash site. OK, here is what I found:

[…]

(3,500 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 27,000 teeth)

[…]

(1,000 pounds of cremated bone fragments or 8,000 teeth)

of this fraud.


It's plain as day what nafh is asking for.

Looks like Muehlenkamp has been caught in yet another lie.

Actually Muehlenkamp was never caught in a single lie but stopped counting the lies he caught Gerdes in at an early stage on the Topix forum. And the above is another of Gerdes’ lies, for he’s obviously playing dumb and deliberately misunderstanding my statement, which is not about what must be proven (that is stated) but about what will be accepted as proof of what must be proven to claim the reward. In other words:

What will be accepted as proof that at least 3,500 pounds of cremated bone or 27,000 teeth lie in one identified mass grave in the area of Treblinka extermination camp?

What will be accepted as proof that at least 1,000 pounds of cremated bone or 8,000 teeth lie in one identified mass grave in the area of Sobibor extermination camp?

If Gerdes said that what what will be accepted as proof is whatever would convince a US court of justice beyond a reasonable doubt, he would be setting high but reasonable standards, and his challenge would soon be met.

If Gerdes said that nothing short of the required amount of cremated bone or teeth unloaded at his doorstep with a certificate or provenance will be accepted as proof, he would be setting unreasonably high standards far beyond anything that was ever demanded in any pertinent discipline, but at least his challenge would be transparent enough to deserve the name.

But as Gerdes persistently refuses to state what he would accept as proof of at least 3,500 pounds of cremated bone or 27,000 teeth at Treblinka, or of at least 1,000 pounds of cremated bone or 8,000 teeth at Sobibor, his "challenge" is not transparent and therefore must be called a hoax and not a challenge. For whatever is presented as evidence, Gerdes will always have the possibility of saying "this is not what was demanded".

Hence my challenge that he make clear beforehand what must be submitted as proof of what must be proven to claim the reward.

Gerdes

So what is Muehlenkamp waiting for?

I'm waiting for the cowardly chimp to put this statement on his NAFH website in big bold letters, as the cowardly chimp well knows:

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

Gerdes

BTW, did you notice that he says he can only prove 4 graves at Sobibor?

Actually I said that I can prove all graves in the Sobibor area and physically locate at least four of them. Big difference. And I thought one only has to locate one mass grave and prove that it contains at least "one tenth of one per cent …".

Gerdes

What happened to the other 6?

Why 6, Mr. Gerdes?.

Last but not least, there’s Gerdes post of Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:11 pm, this time as himself, in which the chimp writes the following:

Muehlenkamp

"In January 2009, Greg Gerdes was banned from CODOH"


How many lies can one "man" tell in a lifetime?

Surely Muehlenkamp has set, or is nearing the record.

The record will be known when compulsive liar Gerdes beats the boots, assuming someone has kept count of the lies that come as naturally as breathing to the creature (at least two are exposed in this blog). And Gerdes’ obsession with Muehlenkamp obviously kept him from noticing that the blog he is referring to was not written by me but by my fellow blogger Jonathan Harrison (who would not have been lying in the unlikely case that he was mistaken about Gerdes having been banned from the Cesspit, of course).

There are further threads on the Cesspit showing how prominently I figure in the concerns of Gerdes, Drew J and other "Revisionist" scumbags (So apparently, Muehlenkamp has been to Sobibor, The Famous THIRTY TREBLINKA QUESTIONS). These will be commented in further blogs as time permits, unless I should decide to use the RODOH forum so as not to dedicate too much HC space to Gerdian CODOH manure.

Gerdes Attacks Hannover's Sourcing

On CODOH, Gerdes is claiming that this scan is of dubious origin and that there is no proof that it was taken at Treblinka or that it came from Krege's study. However, the scan was posted on CODOH by none other than Hannover, aka forum moderator Jonnie Hargis. So Gerdes is now playing the 'show me' game with Hargis's own source. Ooops.

The CODOH Non-Debate Forum

Mr. Gerdes, aka Pepper, has spelled out what we already knew:

Play the debating shell game with the jews until the cows come home, and what have you accomplished?

Nothing.

The Old Chimp and his Apprentice

In this thread of the "CODOH Revisionist Forum", already pointed by Jonathan, two dumb followers of the "Revisionist" faith are having a somewhat agitated conversation about this writer, who both of them for some reason seem to be obsessed with.



One of the true believers is the over-eager "Revisionist" novice "Drew J", who, after getting tired of trying to respond to my comments to his somewhat-less-than-reasonable considerations regarding parts (1), (2) and (3) of my riposte to Mattogno, is pulling an act aptly characterized by Jonathan as "pretending to doubt the revisionist case then being miraculously reconverted to it by the flimsiest of 'show me a tooth' arguments".

One wonders why this fellow insists in spouting nonsense about me and my arguments on a forum to which (as he knows or should have realized by now) I have no access, instead of confronting me on the RODOH forum or another forum where I can respond to him directly. He must have the yellow streak that is so common among regulars of the CODOH Cesspit, who prefer throwing manure from the safety of their warm and cozy online Führerbunker to venturing into the cold world of the very open debate they so loudly proclaim.

I have little patience (even mine is limited) and less time to wade through and comment Drew J's CODOH gibberish. And why should I? Drew J should stop being a yelping coward and engage me one a forum to which I have access and where we can discuss directly, without the intervention of partisan moderators for one or the other side. There are several such places on the web, including but not limited to RODOH, the Usenet and – believe it or not – the discussion forum of the "Vanguard News Network", where I debated Greg Gerdes and other "White" specimens over 105 pages on the thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka.

I thus look forward to Drew J showing just a little character and informing me that he has opened a thread or joined an existing thread in any of these places.

The other true believer, the one I call the old chimp, uses the handle "Pepper" and is obviously none other than my old friend Greg Gerdes (a.k.a. "tfsfcsupporter", "T.F.Sheb" and "Celtic Patriot"), a barely human creature whose obnoxious stupidity is only topped by his mendacity, which in turn is only exceeded by his paranoia, which in turn is outdone by his fathomless cowardice alone.

After having had his piss-poor "arguments" of the "show me just one tooth" variety slapped around his ears over and over again (first on Topix, then on the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka, and finally on the RODOH forum, where under the handle "tfsfsupporter" Gerdes disgraced himself in a number of threads (Look how stupid Roberto is, How many graves at Sobibor?, The Treblinka holohoax and the insane rodohoaxers - game, set and match, Outrageous lies from Yoram Haimi and The great debate, among others), Gerdes apparently decided that it would be better for him to mouth off about me without confronting me directly, and accordingly turned to spouting his characteristic mixture of lies, self-projecting invective and downright imbecility only among fellow followers of the "Revisionist" faith. (Gerdes is a fan of Solshenizyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, by the way. If my intellect were at the same low level as his, I might demand that he show me "just one" tooth from a victim of the Soviet Gulag.)

Gerdes' CODOH antics are fine with me insofar as his repetitive hollering is too silly even for fellow "Revisionists", at least the more "reasonable" ones like "Laurentz Dahl" a.k.a. Thomas Kues, who seem to be concerned about the image of "Revisionism" whenever troglodytes like Gerdes hit the stage.

But I'm always open to some having some more fun with the chimp, hence the following challenge.

Gerdes is the "president", and apparently also the only member, of an association that now calls itself the "National Association of Forensic Historians" (it used to be "National Association of Forensic Criminologists, Archaeologists, Skeptics and Historians" – "National Association of Fish-Wives, Cretins and Screaming Hysterics" would have been more appropriate, as the president fulfills all membership requirements) and hosts a website that is hard to match for paranoid hollering and colorful hysteria even in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.

On this website Gerdes announces a reward of $ 100,000 for "locating / proving the existence of just one grave that contains just one tenth of one percent of the alleged mass murder" at either Treblinka or Sobibor extermination camp. Applicants to the reward are supposed to submit their evidence in an article published in SKEPTIC magazine ("Therefore, all one has to do to become an applicant for THE FINAL SOLUTION FORENSIC CHALLENGE TM reward, is to have said claims / results first published in "SKEPTIC" Magazine"), and of course the reward offer is a big fat hoax, already because it is nowhere stated what evidence the NAFH would accept as fulfilling the requirements of its "challenge" and entitling the applicant to the reward (one would also not expect characters like Gerdes and his hillbilly friends to put together anything like $ 100,000, of course – they probably can barely manage to pay their trailer park rents).

I accepted this "challenge" in a previous version (which still included Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps IIRC - both have since vanished for some reason) but have not yet claimed the reward, even though I'm positive that the eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence I can show would convince any historian or any court of justice in Germany or the US that the remains of a number of human beings immensely higher than Gerdes’ idiotic "one tenth of one per cent" lie in the soil of both Sobibor and Treblinka and am also able to locate at least four of the Sobibor mass graves.

The main reason why I have not yet claimed the reward is known to who has been following my discussions with Gerdes and was last expressed in my post # 2089 on the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka: Gerdes persistently refused to state what evidence he would accept as proof meeting the requirements for claiming the reward, running away from every question in this sense or responding with meaningless hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – screams.

Therefore, and in order to give Gerdes a last chance to make his "challenge" into something resembling a serious reward challenge rather than a transparent publicity act meant to fool hopeless suckers, I hereby challenge Gerdes to overcome his well-known cowardice and put the following statement on his NAFH website, in big bold letters (the color I leave to his dubious taste):

"In order to claim the reward, the applicant must submit evidence that would be considered by a US court of justice duly applying the pertinent rules of evidence as proving beyond a reasonable doubt the location and contents of at least one mass grave at Treblinka or Sobibor containing human remains that correspond to at least one tenth of one per cent of the amount of bones, bone fragments, teeth, ashes or other human remains that can be reasonably expected to lie in the soil of the respective former camp if a minimum of between 700,000 and 800,000 Jews were killed at Treblinka and between 150,000 and 250,000 Jews were killed at Sobibor."

The next step would be NAFH placing the reward money (in the improbable case that Gerdes & friends can collect such amount) on an Escrow account, but let’s do one thing at a time. As soon as Gerdes has placed the required statement in the required form on the NAFH site, I shall contact SKEPTIC magazine and start preparing my submission of evidence regarding Treblinka and/or Sobibor for publication in that magazine.

Will Greg Gerdes be able to muster the minimum amount of courage and honesty required to put this statement on the NAFH site and keep it there, or will he again go into a hysterical "what part of the word 'proof' do you not understand" – act?

We shall see.

Meanwhile, I noted that the introduction of Gerdes' website has changed. It used to read as follows, according to a screenshot I took on 24.09.2008 at 15:48 hours GMT:

Ground Penetrating Radar Examination Exposes "Extermination Center" Fraud

NO TRACE OF MASS GRAVES FOUND AT TREBLINKA

A detailed forensic examination of the site of the wartime Treblinka camp, using sophisticated electronic ground radar, has found no evidence of mass graves there. For six days in October 1999, an Australian forensics team headed by Richard Krege, a qualified electronics engineer, carried out an examination of the soil at the site of the former Treblinka II camp in Poland where, holocaust historians claim, 870,000 jews were put to death in gas chambers and then buried in huge mass graves. Krege said: "From these scans we could clearly identify the largely undisturbed horizontal stratigraphic layering, better known as horizons, of the soil under the camp site. We know from scans of gravesites and other sites with known soil disturbances, such as quarries, when this natural layering is massively disrupted or missing altogether. Because normal geological processes are very slow acting, disruption of the soil structure would have been detectable even after 60 years. Historians say that the bodies were exhumed and cremated toward the end of the Treblinka camp’s use in 1943, but we found no indication that any mass graves ever existed."
According to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1997), a total of 870,000 people were allegedly killed with diesel exhaust and buried at Treblinka between July 1942 and April 1943. Then, between April and July 1943, the hundreds of thousands of corpses were allegedly dug up and burned on large grids made of railroad rails. Krege’s team used an $80,000.00 GROUND PENETRATION RADAR (GPR) device, which sends out vertical radar signals that are visible on a computer monitor. GPR detects any large-scale disturbances in the soil structure to a normal effective depth of four or five meters. (GPR is routinely used around the world by geologists, archeologists and police.) In its Treblinka investigation, the team carefully examined the entire Treblinka II site, especially the alleged "mass graves" portion,
but found no evidence of individual graves, bone remains, human ashes or wood ashes. (SOURCE)
View the video documentation of Krege’s forensic investigation HERE.

Now it reads as follows (screenshot has been taken to record future changes):

Forensic Experts Prove Holocaust Gas Chamber Myth a “Sheer Impossibility”

NO DIESEL GASSINGS AT TREBLINKA

“Most Nazi gassings were supposedly committed with diesel exhaust rather than Zyklon B… a working draft paper authored by Walter Lüftl, President of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Engineers, described mass murder with diesel exhaust as a “sheer impossibility.” He substantiated his view as to the relative harmlessness of diesel exhaust… there are no known deaths in cars or trucks with diesel engines. Every night across the world, tens of thousands of truck drivers sleep in their truck cabs with the diesel engines running throughout the night – there is no evidence of even one trucker dying. It never happens. There are no known diesel suicides either… The new 'revised' version of the Holocaust story is even more absurd than the old version. The diesel gas chamber claim is rubbish… Although it would have been theoretically possible to commit the deeds alleged for Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor and Treblinka with diesel engines… It would be hard to imagine a mass murder method more awkward and inefficient. Even if some deranged minds had tried for a time to commit murder with diesel exhaust, after a few tries it would have become apparent to even the most demented fiend that something far better was needed. The idea that the National Socialists actually used such a method is preposterous. It never happened!” (SOURCE)

NOTE: The alleged Treblinka diesel gas chamber lie is only the latest on a long list of ever changing, ludicrous killing methods claimed by the “eyewitnesses” that have been totally debunked by forensic experts. The following is a list of the absurd, physically impossible murder weapons / techniques claimed to have been employed at Treblinka: *Exhaust fumes from an unspecified engine, with poison added to the fuel. *A mobile gas chamber that traveled along the edge of the “huge mass graves” and unloaded the corpses into them. *Gas chambers with delayed action gas - which enabled the victims to walk to the mass graves, where they lost consciousness at precisely the right moment - then conveniently fell into them! *Quicklime in trains. *Thrown alive into boiling water. *Steam. (Steam chambers were also “proven” at the Nuremberg show trial and were previously a very commonly claimed method until finally being officially replaced with the equally absurd diesel exhaust method.) *Suffocation. (Sucking the air out of the chambers with a vacuum pump was another commonly claimed method before it too was put down the memory hole.) *Electric current. *Chlorine gas. *And last, but certainly not least - by tearing the children in half - WITH BARE HANDS!

I ran a search for "Krege" on the NAFH site, which turned up no results.

Why the change, I wonder.

Why did Gerdes drop the eulogy of Krege's supposed achievements like a hot potato (for that's what it looks like) and put the irrelevant "diesel" nonsense and other beaten straw-men in its place?

Could it be he realized that Krege found exactly what he had hoped not to find - soil disturbances compatible with the presence of mass graves - in his bumbling GPR exercise??

I'm curious how Gerdes will explain the removal of Krege from the NAFH website - if he doesn't again take the coward's way out and ignore this question like so many before.

Gerdes Returns To CODOH As A Sockpuppet

In January 2009, Greg Gerdes was banned from CODOH for plagiarism. He has now returned in this thread, as a sockpuppet called 'Pepper', to cajole the novice Drew J, who is either extremely gullible or pretending to be so in order to win points for his continual back-flips (pretending to doubt the revisionist case then being miraculously reconverted to it by the flimsiest of 'show me a tooth' arguments). Will Hargis grow some cojones and ban this sockpuppet? Will Drew J develop greater critical reasoning when he realizes that he has been talking to a sockpuppet all week?

UPDATE: It now appears that Gerdes wasn't banned in January but was severely reprimanded for plagiarism (see link above) then skulked off. However, this means the raving lunatic is now posting on that Cesspit thread as two different people. When will Hargis have the balls to ban his outrageous trolling?

Denierbud Implodes

Question: When is 5% "very close" to 0%

Answer: When you are as deluded and dishonest as Denierbud.



Denierbud turned up on this JREF thread on the same day that the Negationist Team formally withdrew its acceptance of our challenge to debate the Aktion Reinhardt camps. The dishonesty of his opening post was immediately apparent to that forum's readers. Denierbud wrote:

I am a holocaust denier, but open to your view.

There are numerous holocaust denial videos found at:
holocaustdenialvideos.com

I'm most interested in what people think about the video "One Third Of The Holocaust" found there but feel free to discuss the other holocaust denial videos also.

I am asking if anyone here can watch some episodes of one of the videos and state specifically that they don't agree with in a specific episode. I request the following guidelines:

1) Discuss a specific episode of a specific video. The videos are all broken up into episodes. Don't change subject to another holocaust topic, which the videos don't cover. For instance the comment "what about the millions who saw it happen?" would be breaking this guideline, since the videos don't cover that and it thus changes the topic.

2) Don't focus on how it is or hateful to be a denier. Rather, state specifically what you don't agree with (or agree with) in a specific episode of a specific video at holocaust denial videos dot com.

Sorry to put "specific" in bold but you wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to do this. We'll see if anyone can do it here.

The dishonesty here is clear: someone who is genuinely "open to your view" does not formulate rules that close off any questions that force him to explain his position and place his claims in context.

It also became apparent that JREF posters were familiar with our past rebuttals of Denierbud's videos and were able to link to our rebuttals without any prompting from ourselves. When a succession of JREF posters insisted that he respond to those rebuttals, Denierbud fell back on the bizarre claim that Pressac's estimate of Zyklon-B usage at Auschwitz was 'very close' to his own:

The point in the video is that even an acknowledged holocaust scholar says that 95 percent of the cans of Zyklon B were used for delousing. It's possible to use that and not agree with it. To paraphrase: "Even so and so says something that is very close to my view."--it's like that.

This last sentence is simply untrue. Whilst Pressac's claim has been disputed by other authorities (most notably Van Pelt), Pressac's position is diametrically opposed to Denierbud's, for the obvious reason that Pressac goes on to argue that the remaining 5% was still used to gas hundreds of thousands of Jews. Denierbud's entire dogma requires zero Jewish deaths by this method.

The difference between 5% and 0% is therefore huge in this context, just as it would be if I owned 5% of the USA's national wealth and my neighbour owned 0%.

Does Denierbud not grasp basic mathematics, and indeed basic logic, or is he simply a liar? Either way, his shambolic performance at JREF is further proof that denial, having failed in all other public fora, is now a laughing stock in the Internet community.

EDIT 1: Denierbud now admits:

I was never here to debate. Why did so many assume that?

Well nobody did assume it, they knew all along that he was just trying to sell his wares.

EDIT 2: A superb riposte from ElMondoHummus. This should be posted on denial's gravestone as its most succinct and accurate epitaph:

It's not about any one witness being right or wrong, or the subject of a given episode of a video peddling fraudulent alt-history. The whole point is that you can't overturn history by merely picking apart isolated elements. Not when you don't consider the context that has been built over the years from the massive accumulation of evidence. That context provides shape and boundaries to the narrative, and those boundaries cannot be exceeded simply because an isolated issue is in dispute. That's the point Nick Terry was making: You separate out whole reams of accumulated knowledge in your minute focus on individual points. And without allowing those reams of accumulated knowledge to shape your understanding, conclusions drawn from that minute focus fade into irrelevancy. Yes, it's legitimate to begin criticism by discussing isolated issues, but that goes nowhere fast when they stay isolated.

That's the central failure you and other holocaust deniers make. It's the same failure 9/11 truthers and other conspiracy peddlers for other myths make: You all hone in on isolated points as if they overturn the entire narrative, yet you all to a man (or woman) fail to demonstrate how even a legitimate and accurate refutation of any given isolated point shapes context. You all merely state that an isolated refutation equals an overall refutation, and willingly leap to the conclusion that the entire narrative must be junked. That's sloppy reasoning.

Everyone here can see the emphasis on isolated points. But we see absolutely no explanation relating how those points impact the overall narrative, not anything built on more than mere "See, this is wrong, that means it's all wrong" implication.

Even what little you provide goes nowhere and does nothing. Given that, why are we supposed to watch those videos? If all they are are yet continued retailing of isolated facts and contextless points, then there's zero reason to view them. And if you cannot even establish in posts here that there is some legitimate analysis of the impact your claims have on the established narrative, then you fail to sell any of us on the notion that the video is worth watching.

Sell better. You're doing badly.

Reponse to Moranen the Moron

Last week a "Revisionist" from Finland, who calls himself Moranen and is apparently also a white supremacist or "white nationalist" with an aversion to "non-White immigrants", posted some moronic nonsense on the blogs Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (4,3) and Why the "diesel issue" is irrelevant, which was duly slapped around his ears.



Moranen thereupon retreated to his own blog, where on 01.08.2009 he posted produced a lengthy article with instructively idiotic title "Mr. Moranen vs. Mr. Muehlenkamp, the Mule (from Holocaust controversies blog) – On the Diesel issue and Belzec archeology, and the Holocaust in general (methods, evidence, etc.)". He did so without informing me, and I only learned of this article yesterday because a fellow poster on the RODOH forum called my attention to it.

About half an hour ago I finished posting my comments to Moronen's article on the blog on which it was written. However, that blog is set up in such a way that comments must be accepted by the owner before they appear, and I'm told that Mr. Moranen usually takes weeks to do that (he has to think of his reply) or sometimes just ignores the replies and never publishes them.

For this reason my comments to Moranen’s article are transcribed below, as they were posted on his blog.

Let’s see what happens.

***

Response to Moranen (1)

And as anyone can see, I beat the living hell out of believers, and caused them to lose their faith, even though they never admit this.

So, Mr. Moranen, what have we got here?

You continue our discussion on your own blog without letting me know (I just found out because someone told me) and then claim you won?

What a lying asshole you are, Mr. Moranen.

And what a whimpering coward.

So let’s what we got here, shall we? Italics for what you wrote, plain text for my comments.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:17 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (2)

“Mr. Moranen vs. Mr. Muehlenkamp, the Mule (from Holocaust controversies blog) – On the Diesel issue and Belzec archeology, and the Holocaust in general (methods, evidence, etc.)

1.8.2009

Recently I provoked some ‘conversation’ at Holocaust-controversies-blog (http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2009/07/belzec-mass-graves-and-archaeology-my_23.html; http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-diesel-issue-is-irrelevant.html). I started deceptively spewing out comments and arguments (with humor) that are easily debunked, in order to lure some of the believers into more ‘serious conversation’.”

Translation: Moranen ran away from the HC blog with his tail between his legs and now tries to cover up his blunder by claiming that he tried to lure his opponent into “more ‘serious conversation’”. Who does he think he is fooling?

Footnotes and source material is not included, because we both know and understand it to some degree.Here are the initial believer responses from Mr. Mule and me:

Moranen’s first attacks

Does the creep speak of himself in the third person?

Mr. Moranen:

So it seems.

Belzec archeology

[…]

Your audience is Jews, Kikes, other believers and others ideological allies who benefit from propaganda lies of WW2. But dont you worry, we real Europeans will make sure that Jews are punished as a whole for this hoax (even the unborn babies) and for their destructive control of the mass media of the West (which they use to destroy Europeans and European Civilization through multiculturalism). Yes indeed "this stranglehold has got be broken or" our civilization is going down the drain. And we will succeed when some of the 'survivor-liars' are still alive so we can really twist the knife in their wound. Our audience is White Europeans and especially Germans, yes those people whom are being manipulated into their demise partly by these propaganda lies of WW2.
Thank God for Germany at least trying to get rid off the Jewish influence and Jews during WW2. Thank God Germans at least prevented Stalins invasion of Europe 1941 just in time. Thank the Jews for helping to bring USA to WW2 to destroy Europeans and insure that the anti-European ideologies won the war, so that we are now being destroyed through multiculturalism.

The last two paragraphs were not included in Moranen’s first message on the thread in question, but even without them the fellow managed to show that he’s got manure where other people have brains.

Diesel issue

[…]

By the way, concerning the producer gas generators, I thought that Zyklon B could be used to kill people even though it was explosive, but the producer gas generators cant because it doesnt fit the "eyewitnesses"?

The last paragraph was not included in Moranen’s first message on the thread in question, which shows that the fellow is a liar.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:20 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (3)


RESPONSES

Diesel:

“Gassing with diesel engines, although claimed by some witnesses who must have mixed up the gassing engine with some other engine used for power generation or so, must be ruled out not because it would have been impossible to gas people with engine exhaust, but because those witnesses who either operated the gassing engines or were otherwise familiar with them, i.e. the ones one would expect to know what they were talking about, mentioned not diesel but gasoline engines as having been used for gassing. That's the point.”

Mr. Mule: The point was that the “eyewitness evidence” is very contradictory again.

No, it’s not. All eyewitnesses in the know said the same thing – gasoline.

Some claim diesel, others gasoline, no matter who should have known what or not.

Sorry, my dear moron, but outside your manure-filled brain it matters a lot whether of not a witness should have known what he was talking about. If someone who took a brief at the engine room when walking by thought that the gassing engine was a diesel engine, that’s one thing. If the guy who operated the type of engine didn’t get the type of engine right, that’s a wholly different situation. But wherever there are testimonies from gassing engine operators, they speak of gasoline and not of diesel engines.

And this diesel evidence was obviously convincing enough for the real “Holocaust scholars” who wrote it as “history”, so obviously the diesel witnesses had to enough in the know in order for the real “Holocaust scholars” to accept them.

Faulty reasoning, as was to be expected. Holocaust scholars simply didn’t care about this detail and thus took witnesses who spoke of diesel at face value. Why should they have cared? As all known evidence clearly points to mass murder and there’s not a shred of evidence pointing to any alternative scenario (although there should be plenty if such alternative scenario had occurred), a mistaken description of the type of engine exhaust used would be just that and in no way affect the reasonable conclusion that roughly 1.5 million people were murdered at the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps.

More importantly, based on these diesel witnesses whom the “Holocaust scholars” accepted, many people have been accused and sentenced in courts of “killing people”, especially Demjanjuk. “It’s irrelevant!”?

The most you can claim is that an eyewitness who got the type of engine wrong may also have got other details wrong and therefore can be relied upon only to the extent that his testimony is independently corroborated. But in what concerns the facts of massive deportation and mass murder as well as the killing and body disposal process, any eyewitness who made an understandable mistake as concerns the type of gassing engine is abundantly corroborated by other eyewitnesses including former SS-man standing trial, by documents, by demographic data and by physical evidence.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:23 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (4)

You have to know how idiotic and hypocritical mules you sound when you try to desperately evade the issue and lie more by claiming: “It’s all irrelevant that many people were convicted of diesel lies, because the 1-2 million Jews were killed somehow, based on non-existent proof.

No, we know they were killed based on documentation showing that they were taken to certain places, the absence of any evidence whatsoever that they left these places alive, numerous testimonies with essentially coincident descriptions of the killing and body disposal process and the presence of huge mass graves or mass grave areas and large amounts of human remains, as described by criminal investigators or archaeologists, on the site of the former extermination camps.

If it wasn’t diesel, then it was gasoline!

Not only that, we positively know that it was gasoline because all eyewitnesses who knew what they were talking about – as opposed to non-technical casual observers, who may have been mistaken – spoke of a gasoline engine.

Gasoline witnesses must be right because diesel witnesses lied [“were mistaken”],

Exactly, they were mistaken. Why should they have lied? What difference would it make to an eyewitness whether the gassing engine was a diesel or a gasoline engine.

because we have no proof nor better evidence for gasoline [just the same ‘witness evidence’].

No, not the same witness evidence, but evidence from gassing engine operators, from mechanics and from other people who for some reason – e.g. because they brought up the fuel, like Reder at Belzec – had to know what they were talking about.

They have to have been killed because we assume it without proof, so nothing else matters.”

No, they have been killed because all known documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence points to their having been killed an no evidence whatsoever points to another scenario (the latter being especially telling insofar as another scenario should have left behind plenty of evidence – a huge paper trail and thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses).

And let me guess, if the gasoline lie would be proven to be lie, you would just go back to steamings and electrocutions, “because obviously they were killed somehow!”?

I would very logically and reasonably conclude that they were killed by a method the details of which are not known. But don’t worry, that’s not going to happen. Gasoline engines was what the eyewitnesses in the know said it was, so it can have been nothing else.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:24 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (5)

And of course nobody claimed the effective producer gas generators.

No, the effective producer gas generators carried the risk of the executioners gassing themselves or blowing themselves up, and it was also not economically sound to detach producer gas vehicles to extermination camps from the Eastern Front and replace them with gasoline vehicles there. Those gasoline vehicles would have spend a lot more fuel running on those lousy Russian roads than the gassing engines did at Belzec or Treblinka.

And of course no documentary evidence for the alleged ‘engine gas chambers’ as there definitely should be in this case in order to take these claims seriously.

Why, because Moranen so yells, or for any reason worth considering? There is no documentary evidence about the gassing engines and other camp infrastructure because all such documentary evidence was destroyed, as we know from Globocnik’s letter to Himmler of 5 January 1944. Care to explain why Globocnik thought it necessary to destroy all that documentation, Mr. Moranen? What was he trying to hide?

And no murder weapons nor bodies (at least some of them would have to have been autopsied), and no documentary evidence; no crime.

Again by Mr. Moranen’s irrelevant standards, I suppose. Criminal courts dealing with these matters, especially those of the German Federal Republic, obviously applied different standards. They considered it possible and legally sound to reconstruct the killing process on the basis of documentary evidence showing the deportation of hundreds of thousands to each of these camp and that they were final destinations and places were people were sent to be killed, and of depositions by eyewitnesses and accused perpetrators describing the killing and body disposal process. Physical traces of or documentation about the murder weapons were not considered necessary. And I don’t think Mr. Moranen can demonstrate that any of these courts violated the applicable rules of criminal procedure by basing its findings of fact on the evidence they were based on.

I might add that the exposed and sinking Auschwitz lie also automatically drags down all the rest gassing propaganda lies with it.

What “sinking Auschwitz lie”, Mr. Moranen? Are you hallucinating? Or are you trying to convince yourself of something you don’t really believe in?

Are you next going to demand that historians should be allowed to act in courts as judges and prosecutors to judge the guilty based on contradictory “eyewitness evidence”, without bodies, murder weapons and documents?

No, I’m waiting for the bigmouth to show me what’s supposed to be wrong with judges and prosecutors basing their findings of fact about the killing and body disposal process at the Nazi extermination camps on eyewitness testimonies alone. Any rules or standards of evidence of any country you can show us that would be violated thereby? I don’t think so, but please give it a try.

Ah, and I understand the “without documents” thing as referring to documentation about the gassing devices alone. As concerns deportations to the extermination camps and the nature of the same, documentation exists and is quite telling.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:26 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (6)

“Well obviously this person is guilty because some people were indeed deported during war, and some people claimed they were gassed.”

No, mass murder happened because lots of people were deported to places they are not known to have ever left alive, and because all eyewitnesses – including the defendants on trial before West German and other courts – described mass killing and body disposal, not a single one of them – including the defendants on trial before West German and other courts – claimed anything else. And the fact that mass murder happened only means that “this person is guilty” to the extent that specific individual actions committed by this person can be proven through eyewitness and/or other evidence.

Don’t you think you might ensure countless miscarriages of justice by this irresponsible nonsense?

I don’t think the bigmouth can demonstrate a single miscarriage of justice by a court of the German Federal Republic at an NS-crimes trial. If anything, these courts can be accused of having been excessively careful in their assessment of evidence, too quick to apply the in dubio pro reo principle and often too lenient in establishing sentences (though there were also a number of well-deserved lifetime sentences in Germany, in case the big-mouth would like to claim that defendants cut a deal).

If I remember correctly you claimed they would not have used producers because of the explosive danger. OK, then they should not have used Zyklon B either because it is in 6-41% vol explosive!

You don’t need a 6-41 % to kill people, do you? On the other hand, producer gas vehicle drivers were warned about leaks because the gas was so toxic and explosive that even a small quantity leaking out of the generator could already be dangerous, IIRC. Nice try, but no banana.

Next you object, “no it’s not as explosive!” => it IS explosive nonetheless, so the explosive danger exists!

The issue here would be the chance of the users being exposed to concentrations carrying the danger of intoxication or explosion, which was considerable with producer gas but not with Zyklon B. And even if that were not so, what would it matter? It would only mean that using gasoline instead of producer gas was not the best decision, a mistake. So what? People make mistakes all the time and have done so throughout history. Even your SS heroes were only error-prone human beings, my friend.

And if we now move to the area of what should or shouldn’t have been used, then they definitely SHOULD have used cremation ovens to incinerate the bodies in Aktion Reinhard camps!

I don’t think that would have been a practical solution, actually. The 46 ovens of Birkenau could only burn about 3,000 bodies a day, and at Treblinka they had up to 15,000 bodies per day at peak times, according to Suchomel. Half a dozen huge grids made of railway rails over pits containing wood drenched with gasoline were a much better solution under such conditions. But let’s assume that the moron’s heroes actually did not apply what would have been the best solution under the circumstances: what would this mean? That people make mistakes. That people fuck up sometimes, as they have done throughout human history. Nothing more, and nothing less.

But no no... because these are all just propaganda lies.

That would be a non-sequitur argument even if your heroes should have done what you think they should have, as explained above.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:27 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (7)

And what’s the point in gassing people, when you could have simply deported them into big hidden fields with electrified barbed wire fences and put few companies to guard them and let them starve there days or few weeks, and then burn them in big industrial cremation ovens built nearby..

Well, it’s faster, requires less personnel and is more “humane”. Three factors in favor of gassing. And have you already thought how big an enclosure to be surrounded by electrified wire would have to be to kill hundreds of thousands of people therein over a period of just a few months, and how much electricity would be required, etc.?

Ah, and why didn’t them “Jewish Bolsheviks” apply your method instead of bumping off hundreds of thousands of people at places like Kuropaty and Bykivnia? Must be propaganda too, in your sparrow brain …

Belzec archeology:

I)

“You're obviously projecting your own fallacies, my friend. As to my motivation, it's a deep aversion to the offensive lies and nonsense disseminated by trash like you.”

Well well, we actually have sparked some ‘conversation’ here, thanks to my provocations.

Mr. Mule, the “lies and nonsense” ARE the WW2 gassing propaganda lies! My motivation too is to expose the propaganda lies of WW2 = The Jewish “Gas Chamber Genocide” lies. I too have a deep aversion to those offensive WW2 lies and nonsense disseminated by the Jewish-controlled mass media of the West (e.g. MacDonald 1998/2002, http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/books-Preface.html#Media), which are used to brainwash and manipulate Europeans to “less anti-Semitic and less xenophobic” = to allow non-White mass immigration into European countries to destroy them by making poor Europeans minorities everywhere (in USA 2042, in Europe ~2100). And yes, it is the Jews / the organized Jewry and their influence as a whole, who are responsible for this propaganda campaign.

Blah, blah, blah. So the moron has a problem with “non-Whites” and therefore feels in need to ramble against «Jewish “Gas Chamber Genocide” lies». I could have guessed.

So should we forgive and forget them, and allow them to do this over and over again, just like they treat us, right? Or was it “never forget, never forgive, never again”, hmm...

So the moron lives in a paranoid cloud-cuckoo-land where Jews do him wrong. I had figured that out already

Oh, another moron pathetically obsessed with Jews. The handle suggests li'l Tommy Moran, arguably one of the dumbest creatures on the planet. :-)

No. I’m actually Hitler. I am living still. I’ll be back again, and again and again... Well obviously there is some emotional connection to you for these propaganda lies. Jew-connection seemed plausible. Whatever. If the Jews own the mass media of the West, and use it to destroy the Western Civilization and Europeans with multiculturalism and guilt mongering (including the Holocaust lies), then yes I think a little obsession is good. Like this: http://reasonradionetwork.com/?cat=8

So the moron has lots of loose screws among the manure inside his skull. That’s no surprise.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:28 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (8)

“By the moron's standards of what is "convincing"? I can live with that.”

Proper evidence is convincing.

Yep, like the evidence that convinced historians and courts of a constitutional state like the German Federal Republic.

You should already know what is convincing anyway. Murder weapons and some bodies:

Any rules or standards of evidence you can show us (other than your irrelevant own) whereby “murder weapons and some bodies” are a must to sustain a conviction for mass murder, whereby such conviction cannot be based on documentary and eyewitness evidence alone? I’m waiting.

Auschwitz “homicidal gas chambers” have to have as much ferrocyanide residues as the disinfestation gas chambers,

I don’t see why, but actually they do if have more or less the same concentration if you consider samples without Prussian Blue alone (which is the correct comparison).

clear 4 square holes in the roof of Krema 2 (Keren et al proved nothing and could have named 8 ‘holes’ just like Provan 1996),

No, the holes they identified can only have been the Zyklon B introduction holes, however much you holler. But why the heck (according to what rules or standards other than your irrelevant own) would those holes have to be physically identified at all? Documentary and eyewitness evidence left no room for reasonable doubt about their existence even before Keren et al published the results of their investigation.

few autopsies concluding a gassing death with Zyklon B or carbon monoxide;

I didn’t know there were any such autopsies actually. Well, maybe some by Soviet investigating commissions related to killings in gas vans. But again, why are any needed to sustain a reasonable conclusion about mass murder by gassing?

and thoroughly excavated mass graves at Aktion Reinhard camps.

Those graves excavated or investigated by core drilling, thoroughly enough to establish the size of the mass graves or the mass graves area and that the mass graves contained large amounts of cremation remains and some even a considerable number of whole bodies. The size of the mass graves thus established is compatible with the scale of mass murder that can be estimated on the basis of documentary evidence. So what more is needed? What would be a thorough excavation for you? And why are you asking for one, except because you know or think that it hasn’t yet been done?

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:30 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (9)

Documentary evidence: Documents about Execution Gas Chambers (with Zyklon or Carbon monoxide)

Like these?

"Vergasungsapparate" - "Gassing Devices"

"...special vans...or other remedies..."

"...a 'Delousing Van'...": Euphemism for Murder

"...ninety-seven thousand have been processed..."

"Bathing Installations for Special Action"

"Material for Special Treatment"

Diary of Johann Paul Kremer

80,000 Cremation Capacity Per Month Not Sufficient for Auschwitz - New Document

"Cremation with simultaneous Special Treatment"

"Vergasungskeller"

"Four wire-mesh introduction devices,
four wooden covers"

"14 Showerheads, 1 gas-tight door".

and documents about gassed victims;

You mean documents about people dispatched to final destinations where – as sometimes becomes apparent from the documents themselves – they were supposed to die and where – as we know from other evidence – death was brought about by gassing?

If so, I suggest Höfle’s report to Heim of 11 January 1943, the Korherr Report and documents mentioned in Prof. Browning’s expert report for the Irving-Lipstadt trial and/or in section 5 (continuation) of my Mattogno riposte, among others.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:33 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (10)

Clear plans about executing Jews with gas with figures (e.g. “we have now gassed 1,000,000 here in Auschwitz”, or “today we gassed 2,666 Jews”, etc.).

Documents mentioning that so-and-so many Jews were killed or subject to “special treatment” I can show you plenty of, but they don’t necessarily mention the killing method. Why do you want to see documents expressly mention the killing method? I mean, other than because you expect them not to exist.

And if there would have to have been trials to prosecute the losers of WW2, then they would have to have been honest trials, in which the alleged crimes had to be proven with normal procedures (murder weapons and bodies), not the arbitrary post-war show trials (based on indisputable “self-evident facts”, hearsay and propaganda).

I’m looking forward to your demonstration that a) proof of murder requires “murder weapons and bodies” under any procedural rules or rules of evidence you know of and b) the Nuremberg trials and the many NS murder trials before West German courts were what you call them. Here are two articles showing that you don’t know what you’re talking about:

Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials …

Jürgen Graf on Criminal Justice and Nazi Crimes

More Fun With Ugly Voice Productions (Part 1)

If you haven’t proven the “gassing crimes” with some of the dead bodies (autopsies) and some of the murder weapons (e.g. expert reports proving as much ferrocyanide residues in Auschwitz ‘homicidal gas chambers’ [blue or colorless] as in the disinfestation gas chambers and documents about execution gas chambers would be further proof too); then there is no proven crime.

Reports like A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content In The Walls Of The Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps, by Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz Institute of Forensic Research, Cracow? Not that I think they are necessary, you see. Neither are your “autopsies”. Historians and the criminal justice authorities of a constitutional state agree with me, and there’s nothing you can show to be unreasonable about their position.

Therefore you have no basis to discriminate between the various contradictory eyewitnesses.

What “various contradictory witnesses” exactly and in what exactly do they “contradict” each other, first of all?

Second, what makes you think that prosecutors or judges need your autopsies and reports to establish an eyewitness’s credibility?

If you prefer the gasoline method – without proving the “gassing crime” with aforementioned evidence – then we real people can as well prefer the diesel method, and again refer to the real “holocaust scholars” who support this and wrote it as “history”.

No, the converging independent testimonies of knowledgeable eyewitnesses are sufficient evidence to homicidal gassing with gasoline exhaust by reasonable standards of evidence (as opposed to the standards of illogical blabbermouths who idiotically claim to be the only “real people” around, as becomes hopeless lunatics).

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:35 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (11)

Or we might even prefer the steamings and other nonsense, which real “holocaust scholars” do not support, because those too are based on the same “eyewitness evidence” (plus the convergence of saunas) => this varying unproven foundation allows multiple interpretations.

Dead wrong, bigmouth. “Steamings and other nonsense” are based on the mistaken observations of outsiders or simply on rumors, not on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who can be expected to have known what they were talking about.

This strict evidence and the courts’ hierarchy of evidence has to be applied only to Jews’ alleged Holocaust genocide (not to others), because:

What “courts’ hierarchy of evidence”, bigmouth?

Quote procedural rules that establish such “hierarchy”, please. Or cut the crap.

1) we are dealing with an alleged precise murder in the scale of people

What that supposed to mean?

(therefore courts’ murder investigation method applies);

They have been applied at (among others) hundreds of NS-crimes trials before Federal German courts, wise guy. Time for you to wake up.

2) Holocaust claims are full of lies, contradictions, exaggerations, rumors and nonsense;

No more and no less so than claims about other mass crimes or catastrophic events, and the wheat has been sifted from the chaff in the meantime.

3) because eyewitness evidence is very unreliable;

It must be used with caution but is still a mainstay of criminal investigation and historical research, be it in regard to the Nazi genocide of the Jews or in regard to any other event or phenomenon.

4) the Holocaust story got started from unreliable propaganda sources;

Such as? Actually the “Holocaust story” got started from underground reports, eyewitness testimonies, interrogations of perpetrators, documents made by the perpetrators themselves and demographic data.

5) the figure of 6 million, and 5-6 million, was already claimed many times during and right after WW1, which implies the mythical nonsense nature of the 6 figure (seriously casting doubt on the 5-6 million WW2 Holocaust);

Horseshit. Some Jewish papers wrote something about 6 million Jews threatened by starvation in Europe after World War I, that’s all. If the order of magnitude then claimed happens to more or less coincide with the sum of demographic losses established country-by-country after the Second World War, that’s a mere and irrelevant coincidence.

6) many of the Holocaust claims are admittedly false by Holocaust experts admissions (gassings in Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the “wrong” murder methods, etc.);

Sifting the wheat from the chaff is part of historical research in what concerns the Holocaust as it is regarding any other event or set of events. Ever heard about all those Dresden myths mentioned in section 5.2 of my Mattogno riposte, or about the thousands of phony American Vietnam veterans telling Rambo tales in bars on a Saturday night? Are either a reason to doubt the historical record of the Dresden bombing or the American war in Vietnam?

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:38 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (12)

7) and because of the propagandistic nature of the whole Holocaust subject, because it is being used as an ideological weapon for the benefit of the Jews, very much in the Jewish-controlled mass media, and because very little critical research is allowed (“denial”) with the threat of imprisonment in many European countries which implies already that the whole story is rotten.

Whatever political or economic benefit some organizations may derive from the Holocaust doesn’t change the fact that it has been investigated more thoroughly, by both criminal investigators and historians, than any other case of large-scale mass murder in history (if you disagree, feel free to go fishing for examples of mass murders that have been historically reconstructed on the basis of more and/or “better” evidence). Critical research is what historians do, and nobody has anything against it. What creeps like you do, on the other hand, is not critical research. It is the highly uncritical attempt of ideologically motivated fanatics to vindicate their articles of faith. Not that I think you people should be imprisoned for that, but calling your mendacious imbecility “critical research” is just laughable. And no, prohibition of “Revisionism” in some countries doesn’t imply what you would like to believe it implies. It only means that some states are concerned with disturbances of the public order that may result from or be incremented by the effect of “Revisionist” propaganda on frustrated losers like yourself, or see “Revisionism” as the binding kit between otherwise disparaged right-wing extremist groups and fight it for this reason – with what I consider to be the wrong means.

And yes, only the alleged Jewish “Gas Chamber Genocide” has to be proven this strictly, because it is claimed to be so unique and precise mass murder;

And why would standards of evidence for proving an event depend on what significance whosoever is supposed to attach to that event rather than on what is logically required to prove that event beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr. Moron?

Holocaust is claimed to be a specific mass murder which definitely should left behind the proper evidence required evidence, had it happened as claimed (murder weapons and some of the bodies plus the known locations of the huge mass graves).

The locations of the mass graves are mostly known, and there’s no reason why the killers should have left the murder weapons behind where they had all the time in the world to destroy or dismantle them and remove them from the site, as in the case of the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps. You’re making no sense, boy.

Other genocides were not attempts to kill ALL of certain peoples with specific weapons of mass destruction of which many are still known to be intact today to be found and analyzed.

What makes genocide is an attempt to wholly or partially destroy a certain ethnic or religious group, the particular methods applied being a secondary issue. And where are we supposed to find intact gas chambers, gas vans or gassing engines these days? These were by no means the only killing methods, by the way; 2.4 out of 5.1 million Jews killed by the Nazis, according to Hilberg, succumbed to privation in ghettos and camps or to mass shooting rather than to dedicated extermination installations. I’d say the Rwanda genocide of 1994, which was almost wholly carried out with machetes, matches your requirements a lot better. And I’m sure that Rwanda is still full of machetes “intact today to be found and analyzed”. So what?

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:39 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (13)

So this unique case definitely has to be proven strictly with murder weapons and some of the bodies, and the hierarchy of evidence applies.

A non sequitur argument, and there’s no such thing as your “hierarchy of evidence” outside your imagination, my friend.

Otherwise there is no “gassing crime” and anyone can believe or theorize or disbelieve whatever they want.

You don’t get to make the rules of evidence here, bigmouth. You have to apply those that are applied by the pertinent disciplines (criminal investigation and historical research), which don’t provide for the “hierarchy” you are babbling about.

(And no, we righteous revisionist darlings don’t have to prove anything this carefully, since we are not accusing anyone of murder; we can just prove our case with normal historian’s methods.)

No, you’re just claiming the most improbable and gigantic hoax in history by the most gigantic and improbable conspiracy of all times, and you haven’t provide a shred of evidence that would even hint to the existence of either. And there are no different standards of proof for this and that in historiography. The same standards of evidence apply to all historical events and to all theses regarding such events. The thesis of “Revisionist” loonies being that, among other things, the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps were transit camps en route to the “Russian East”, these buggers should be able to show at least some of the abundant documentary and eyewitness evidence that would exist if such “transit” had taken place. But they haven’t yet shown anything, the poor jerks. And as they are true believers irrationally clinging to a quasi-religious faith, that doesn’t even make them consider the possibility that their theses are a sack full of cattle manure.

This would be convincing.

To you perhaps, and that only until the day the kind of evidence you baselessly proclaim to be necessary is rubbed under your nose. As soon as that happens, you will shift the goalposts and proclaim even higher standards. Who do you think you’re fooling?

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:40 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (14)

“No they don't. No insider witnesses familiar with the killing process and related devices mentioned anything other than gassing with engine exhaust. And witnesses in the know are the ones that count for this purpose. The others may be further evidence to the fact of mass murder, but were obviously mistaken as concerns the methodology.”

No no. All witnesses are equal, at least all of the prisoners in the camps.

Nonsense. There are witnesses who are better observers than others, and there are witnesses closer to and with better opportunities to observe the events or circumstances in question.

Of course they would have known what the murder methods were in so small camps, so they all were in the know, and therefore the real official “holocaust scholars” accepted the diesel method.

More nonsense. All or most witnesses may have known that the killing was done with engine exhaust or at least that it involved the use of an engine, but only very few witnesses could get close enough to the engine room and the gassing engine to establish what type of engine was being used and how the exhaust gas was led into the chambers. Most inmates in other parts of each camp were never allowed access to the killing sector and thus depended for their knowledge on what they were told by the Ukrainian guards, who were also not necessarily familiar with all details of the gassing process.

Witnesses could not have be mistaken about the murder methods, had there been gassings.

That applies only to those witnesses who either operated the murder methods or otherwise had first-hand knowledge of them, because they had helped to install the engines or maintained them or brought up the gasoline for them. Those witnesses were a minority in each camp, and all of these insider witnesses mentioned a gasoline engine.

I might add that the earlier reports and descriptions might be even more equal than the later ones, especially the steamings are more equal (more correct), due to the unreliability of human memories.

No, the steaming account obviously came from a far-away observer who must have mistaken for steam the exhaust coming out of the opened gas chambers on a cold day, or steam brought about by the difference between the bodies’ temperature and a cold outside temperature. And it bore no resemblance to the actual killing method, whereas the witnesses who mentioned gassing with engine exhaust were at least correct in that exhaust from an engine was the killing agent.

And we have a real juicy convergence of evidence for steamings, because Germans had many Saunas in their camps (which probably got the whole steam myth started as the disinfestation gas chambers started the myth/lie about the ‘homicidal gas chambers’).

There were no saunas at the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps, bigmouth. Do something about your ignorance. And I strongly doubt that you can demonstrate a connection between the disinfestations gas chamber at Birkenau and the homicidal gas chambers, which were located in different buildings at different places of the camp.

And steam chamber story was even supported at the Nuremberg trial! Case closed. They were steamed..

Just because an exhibit mention steaming was introduced at the trial, this doesn’t mean that the tribunal concluded on steaming. And actually there’s nothing about steaming at Treblinka in the IMT’s judgment. They mention gassing there. See my article Some misconceptions related to the Nuremberg trials …

(Oh my God, I have a Sauna in my home, in the next room! I confess, it was really me all along who steamed those millions of poor Jews to death, I even use it nowdays to steam Jews regularly; damn, it’s very ineffective.)

Don’t try to be funny, moron. You have no sense of humor and only succeed in further exposing your imbecility.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:44 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (15)

The point: The camps were so small that all the “witnesses” were in the know so they could not have be mistaken about the murder methods.

No, most witnesses never had a chance to take a closer look at the gas chambers and gassing engines, which were located in segregated parts of each camp. Do something about.

They would not have to have been using some engines to know that they were murder weapons, because they would have

What’s that supposed to mean?

Therefore, in Reinhard camps the Jews were steamed, electrocuted, ‘vacuumed’, shot and gassed.

No, they were either shot or gassed with gasoline exhaust. Some far-away observers mistakenly assumed that the gassing victims were “steamed”. Others, who only saw people walking into a building and being removed as corpses, wrongly speculated that the people were being “electrocuted” therein. One witness who realized that an engine was involved in the process nevertheless misunderstood the mechanism and assumed that the engine was being used to drag air out of the chamber instead of leading exhaust inside. Still others correctly observed that exhaust was being led into the chambers, but wrongly assumed that it was from a diesel engine actually used for other, non-homicidal purpose. And then there were the operators and those who serviced the gassing engine, who knew not only that the killing agent was exhaust, but also that the exhaust came from a gasoline engine.

Denying any of these truths is denial claiming to be “revisionism”.

No, concluding that gassing with gasoline exhaust was the method and descriptions of electrocution, steaming or diesel gassing are mistaken is revisionism in the proper sense of the term.

Witnesses cannot be wrong in some of their claims (about steamings, electrocutions, vacuumings), because therefore they could also be wrong about gasoline engines (and everything else too).

First of all, the witnesses who spoke about “steamings, electrocutions, vacuumings” were not the witnesses who spoke about gasoline engines, of course. Any witnesses for steaming and electrocutions you can name, by the way?

Second, witnesses who made mistakes in their descriptions of the gassing process were not necessarily mistaken about everything else they described, and insofar as their descriptions are born out by those of other witnesses independent of them including SS defendants, it is actually rather unlikely that they were mistaken. The technical specifics of the gassing process were something that witnesses without a close connection to the process could easily be mistaken about, especially if they were non-technical people, without that meaning that these witnesses were necessarily unreliable.

You have to believe it ALL, or else it falls apart (just like religion).

No, you can sift the wheat from the chaff, which is what historians and criminal investigators do in regard to these events as in regard to any other crimes or other historical events. The religion here is “Revisionist” BS. “Revisionist” true believers have to postulate that all witnesses lied from A to Z or were out of their minds, and that all other incriminating evidence is inconclusive or fake. If they were to admit that one witness provided a truthful account of homicidal gassing, their whole cloud-cuckoo-land of propagandistic manure would come tumbling down.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:47 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (16)

And again the “gassing crimes” haven’t been proven so there is no basis to discriminate between them.

You’re desperately trying to convince yourself of something you badly want to believe but don’t really believe, aren’t you? At least that’s what you sound like.

To the unbelievers (evil deniers / “revisionists”) this clinging on to gasoline engine method is like trying to fish good fish from a polluted pond (= they are all the same propaganda lies).

To reasonable people, on the other hand, it is revisionism in the proper sense of the term. And I’m always amused when fanatical true believers like yourself call themselves “unbelievers”. But then you loonies got it all upside down, right?

“I don't know what "etc." you are talking about, but "geysirs of blood" have also been observed at burial places of diseased slaughtered carcasses, IIRC. And the phenomenon of something looking like blood being projected to the surface by gasses forming inside the body during decomposition is a physically realistic possibility.”

“mass graves expelling geysers of blood;[359] […]
[359] A. Rückerl, op. cit. (note 144), p. 273f.; E. Wiesel, Paroles d’Etranger, Edition du Seuil, Paris 1982, p. 86; Wiesel, The Jews of Silence, New American Library, New York 1972, p. 48; A. Eichmann, in H. Arendt, op. cit. (note 182), p. 184; B. Naumann, op. cit. (note 145), p. 214.”

Yes, everyone can believe what they want.

Yeah, you’re sure to believe all the bullshit you have been producing. Just don’t expect any reasonable person to look on you as anything other than a hopeless moron. As to the “geysers of blood”, read Sergey Romanov’s article That's why it is denial, not revisionism. Part IV: Deniers and Babiy Yar massacre (2), from which I quote:

«Given that the ravine cut through aquifers, presumably it wouldn't be surprising that liquids from the corpses would appear elsewhere.

But would they spurt like geysers above the graves? Well, "geyser" is probably a wrong word to use here. But consider this report, "1,500 sheep to be dug up as body fluid leaks" (emphasis mine):

THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.

[...]

It follows the discovery a week ago that 15,000 sheep buried on the Army firing ranges at Epynt, mid-Wales, were leaking body fluids into the water table and would have to be dug up and burned. Richard Tutton, who farms at Buttington Hall, said: "They were buried five weeks ago. The pit was very tidy, efficient and deep.

"We have had horrendous rain since then. Water has got in beneath and it was sort of bubbling up. It has not reached the river or anything. They are catching it before anything happens."

That's 1500 sheep. Now imagine what would happen with 34,000 corpses in the Indian summer of 1941.»

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:51 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (17)

“And why dont you also believe in >the propaganda lies of WW1?”
→ “Because they were exposed as lies by subsequent research and the admissions of wartime propagandists, moron. Don't you ever think before writing?”

As if you didn’t get the point...

I still have to see you making a point, bigmouth.

Assuming WW1 propaganda lies would not be admittedly propaganda lies:

… there would still be historical research showing that they don’t fit into the overall historical context made up by lots of evidence contradicting them.

How well were WW1 propaganda lies proven to be propaganda lies? I’ve read Arthur Ponsonby’s book (1928). Ponsonby had no material nor physical evidence to prove his “revisionist bs”. Ponsonby did not prove nor even explain(!) what exactly happened to ALL of those Canadians, other soldiers, nurses and civilians, and to those 700,000 gassed and bayoneted civilians in 1916, (“poor, innocent, inoffensive, blameless, high-minded, talented, violin-playing civilians and soldiers... murdered by the wicked Germans”). Ponsonby did not even have any evidence to refute the awful corpse factories that manufactured soap and raw materials out of dead bodies. There would have been a good convergence of evidence for the corpse factories: There definitely were documents to prove the existence of factories, and because there is eyewitness evidence about some of the factories manufacturing war-time raw materials out of dead bodies, this of course means that the corpse factories were true. The eyewitnesses proved it so! The story about the gassing 700,000 also holds true: There was gas being used during WW1 and the eyewitnesses claimed that 700,000 were gassed, so of course they were!

I don’t think there were many direct (and for some reason mistaken) eyewitnesses rather than many who heard, believed and passed on stories that spread like rumor always does, growing as it goes along (the Germans did commit atrocities against Belgian civilians, but the order of magnitude was in the thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands – that was what started the rumors). If there’s documentary evidence, I’m sure it can be explained as pertaining to something innocuous that could be and was misinterpreted as something sinister. And I don’t think there is such a thing as documentation or demographic data pointing to hundreds of thousands of victims of German atrocities in World War I, or any corroborating physical evidence, or any depositions in court by people accused of having participated in mass killing, or any eyewitness testimonies that stood up to hostile cross-examination in the courtroom. Regarding the crimes of your Nazi heroes, there’s plenty of all that. So you’re comparing apples with oranges here, my fiend.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:54 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (18)

Surely the numerous witnesses about WW1 atrocities (propaganda lies) cannot all be wrong?

No, not all accounts of World War I atrocities are propaganda lies. The Germans shot or hanged thousands of civilians in Belgian and northern France, and on the Eastern Front the civilian population was also not treated with kid gloves. But there were no gassings or corpse factories, and the order of magnitude of the killing was thousands and not hundreds of thousands.

What are you suggesting, that they actually could have lied?

I’m suggesting that there were few if any direct witnesses to gassing or corpse factories, that those who claimed to have seen such things were understandably mistaken, that their accounts were blown up by the rumor mill and that propagandists took advantage of that rumor mill, where they are not known to have invented things right away.

I feel a deep aversion to the offensive lies and nonsense disseminated by trash like you, that WW1 atrocities would have been “lies”. Witnesses never lie.

They sometimes do, but lies usually don’t have a long life.

Obviously the propagandists lied, those who claimed they made up the “stories”, which obviously were true!

That’s not what is suggested by postwar admissions and historical research (as opposed to “Revisionist” propaganda), sorry.

On the other hand, we have plenty of material evidence and documentary evidence that contradicts the WW2 propaganda lies (many scientific forensic reports refuting the alleged murder weapons and plenty of scientific research about the capacity of ovens, and many documents about the real conditions of the camps),

No, we haven’t. What we have is lots of puny attempts by charlatans like yourself to sell ideologically motivated pseudo-scientific nonsense dressed up as “scientific forensic reports” or “scientific research”. All of that shit is exposed as what it is as soon as someone takes a closer look at it.

not to mention the tremendous lack of evidence (no documents about execution gas chambers or gassed victims) and the WW2 lies are simply nonsensical and unconvincing.

Your standards of what is “simply nonsensical and unconvincing” are as irrelevant as a pig’s fart, my friend.

As to documents about execution gas chambers or gassed victims, see what I wrote above.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:55 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (19)

And I’ll tell you where we have a tremendous lack of evidence even though evidence should be plentiful. This is from section 5.2 of my Mattogno riposte:

«Mattogno expressly mentions in his response:
If there were documents on "at least 434,000 Jews" being transported from Bełżec "to the east", the controversy which has caused me to write my study would not exist: Bełżec would unquestionably be considered nothing more than a transit camp. But since no such documents can be found, the six pages devoted to this issue are a lot already.

No such documents can be found. This is quite a significant statement. For there is no reason whatsoever why there should not be a lot of documentation about transportation from Belzec "transit camp" to the East if such transportation had taken place, both in related railway records and other documentation pertaining to the organization and execution of the transports but also in the largely recovered files of the civilian and military administrations of the occupied eastern territories, who would have had to deal with these hundreds of thousands of resettled Jews. While it is understandable that the Nazis would destroy incriminating documents related to a mass murder operation, there is no reason whatsoever why they should have destroyed documentation about resettlement via transit camps to the occupied Soviet territories. On the contrary: not only could such documentation have been paraded as a means to counter wartime reports that the Nazis were massacring the Jews ("hey look here, we're not killing them but just deporting them to the Russian East"), but every official big and small who was involved in Aktion Reinhard(t) would have had a vital interest in preserving these documents in order to invoke them in his defense in case of being accused of war crimes. After Stalingrad at the latest the hypothesis of Germany losing the war had to be taken into consideration, and as early as February 1943, following the Casablanca Conference announcement of "punishment and retribution in full" upon Nazi Germany's "guilty, barbaric leaders" [386], officials involved in measures against the Jews had to count on being held to account as war criminals. Later in the same year, the Moscow Conference's "Statement on Atrocities" made it clear beyond doubt what the Allies' policy regarding prosecution of and punishment for Nazi atrocities was, and that "all officers and men and members of the Nazi party" (not just the top leaders) would be held accountable for crimes they had been involved in[387]. Under these conditions, the organizers and executors of Aktion Reinhard(t), from Himmler, Globocnik and Höfle down to the staff manning the supposed "transit camps", would have been suicidal masochists if they had destroyed documentation proving that they had been involved in mass deportation but not mass murder, documentation that was their life insurance. Yet no such documentation exists, as big "Revisionist" guru Mattogno (who, I am sure, has spent more time and effort than anyone else trying to find such documentation) has just confirmed. That alone should be enough to make Mattogno realize and admit how worthless all his theories and hypotheses are, if he had the common sense and intellectual honesty that should be expected from who calls himself a historian. He obviously has not.»

There’s your tremendous lack of evidence, Mr. Moranen.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:57 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (20)

There is much much more evidence to disprove WW2 propaganda lies, than of WW1 lies..

No there isn’t, already because what you would like to be “propaganda lies” are indisputable facts proven by a wealth of eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence, assessed by historians and by criminal justice authorities over more than six decades.

“Whether or not people were ever actually packed into a gas chamber this tightly I don't know”

Ok.


II)


“If its mathematically possible, >then you must believe it, right?”
→ “No, because it is contradicted by a wealth of other evidence whereby the death toll of Nazi concentration and extermination camps was more like 3-4 million. You should really consider thinking a little before shooting the bull.”

And so are the 3-4 million figures contradicted by wealth of evidence and you still believe in them (not to mention the lack of evidence and the unreliable nature of the “eyewitness evidence”).

What, have you found evidence whereby the deported who disappeared at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek went on from there to final destinations in the “Russian East”? Let’s see that evidence then, bigmouth. Why have you held it back all this time? Put it on the table, it will make you a “Revisionist” hero.

As to the «lack of evidence and the unreliable nature of the “eyewitness evidence”» bullshit, here’s a challenge for you: list ten mass killing programs in history that you accept as having claimed hundreds of thousands of victims, and explain why the evidence to those mass killings convinces you whereas the eyewitness, documentary, physical and demographic evidence to your Nazi heroes’ mass killings does not. I’m waiting.

“I mean, denying this incredible >truth and claiming to be a >"revisionist" must be very stupid >and evil lying.”
→ “I don't know what you're talking about, but you come across as very stupid indeed.”

No, you just pretend you don’t. If we real people deny the “Gas Chamber Genocide” in Poland, ‘proven’ by “eyewitnesses” and nothing else, then we are deniers.

The “nothing else” thing is the first lie that shows you “real people” to be the lying loony trash you actually are. And as you have such an aversion to eyewitnesses, here are two questions I would like you to answer:

1. Do you accept it as a fact that Soviet troops killed tens of thousands of German civilians during the Red Army’s invasion of Germany in 1944/45?

2. If so, what evidence other than eyewitness accounts is your acceptance of this fact based on?

When you have answered these questions, we’ll move on to other examples.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 14:59 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (21)

So by the same logic, if you deny the other killing methods proven by eyewitnesses and if you deny the bigger death tolls (proven by “eyewitnesses” or propaganda) without proving exactly what happened to those 25 million people or to those steamed/electrocuted/vacuumed/gassed people. (If you just deny these truths, without proving and explaining everything precisely, then your other propaganda lies lose credibility.)

Your logic sucks, my friend. The “other killing methods” and “bigger death tolls” are proven wrong by better evidence (even you should understand that insider witnesses are better evidence than casual observers, and that documents and demographic data are much better evidence than an eyewitness’s educated guess), so the plausible and evidence-backed alternative scenario that disproves them has been provided. On the other hand, the better evidence whereby the gassing at the AR camps was done with gasoline exhaust, the death toll of these camps was in the order of 1.5 million and the overall death toll of Europe’s Jewish population was in the order of 5.1 to 5.5 million, is not matched by any better evidence pointing to an alternative scenario. It is actually not matched by any such evidence at all.

My God, you ‘believers’ even deny the gassings in Dachau, Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen! Why not in Poland too?

Because all known evidence of various categories (eyewitnesses, documents, physical traces, demographic data) points to mass killing by gassing in extermination camps in Poland, whereas there is no evidence that Buchenwald and Belsen even had gassing installations and no conclusive evidence that the gas chamber at Dachau was ever used for homicidal gassing. And I continue amused by the self-projecting “believers” – BS.

Because there is no more evidence to them either?! Because they are so similar and as credible as the stories about Poland gassings?!

No, there is a big difference in both the quantity and the quality of evidence.

You are already ‘denying’ so many of the gassing propaganda lies, so you might as well ‘deny’ the rest!

We don’t deny, we follow the evidence where it leads.

But you don’t, which makes no sense at all. Your response: “There is more evidence!” => NO! “Buhuhuu! I want to believe!”

You don’t have to tell me that you badly want to believe there’s no more evidence for mass gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau Treblinka than for mass gassings at Dachau and therefore switch off your tiny brain and bury your head in the sand. But please keep on displaying your hysteria and silliness, it’s fun to watch.

Again the point is that the “gassing crimes” haven’t been proven anywhere.

Again repeating your main article of faith, moron? You seem to be having a hard time trying to convince yourself of it.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:00 hours GMT]


Response to Moranen (22)

Not even one body (autopsy).

Instead of repeating that shit, you should be explaining why, i.e. by what accepted rules or standards of evidence, even one autopsy would be required to reasonably conclude on mass murder by gassing at Nazi extermination camps.

So therefore you have no basis on which to discriminate between eyewitnesses, since they are the only “evidence”.

Instead of repeating that shit, you should be explaining why on earth prosecutors and trial judges should not be able to determine which eyewitness testimonies are credible and which are not even if eyewitness testimonies are the only evidence they have. There’s a good legal manual about how to assess eyewitness testimonies that I can recommend to you, if you are interested.

Again, imagine being in a court judging the accused based on tens of different contradictory eyewitnesses with no proof of the murder (and the witnesses would have alleged very contradictory nonsense, lies and unproven claims).

Before we “imagine” anything, how about showing us a court judgment where that is supposed to have been the case? Eyewitness testimonies may have differed in details, and some may have contained exaggerations or other nonsense – human observation and memory are fallible, after all. But all eyewitness testimonies provided at trials like the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial, by eyewitnesses who never knew what another eyewitness had said and including the accused defendants and other eyewitnesses from the ranks of the SS, coincided on the essential aspects of the selection, killing and body disposal process. There was no “very contradictory nonsense” anywhere outside your sick brain.

Oh by the way, the way I’m coming across is exactly the way you are coming across in your writings. Yes indeed, very very stupid.

Poor jerk, trying to get even for my having pointed out his stupidity. Grow up, man.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:02 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (23)

“I mean, if I gave you a real sexy >convergence of evidence, surely >you must believe me then? >(Documents written by me, >irrelevant and unrelated physical >evidence which proves nothing as >usual, and some old lunatics >testifying whom I bribed.)”
→ “No, because the falsity of such "evidence" would be easy to establish, whereas morons like you have never been able to demonstrate, however hard they have tried, that any document incriminating your nazi heroes was a forgery, that physical evidence of Nazi mass murder is "irrelevant or unrelated" or that any of the many eyewitnesses to Nazi mass murder was "bribed".”

Oh really?! Wow. But what if I bribed a 100-year old man to claim that he ordered, by the oral orders of Hitler, to kill all the Jews.

He would be wildly at odds with the historical context and a wealth of eyewitness and documentary evidence contradicting him.

In addition I would bribe tens of old Nazis, SS men or German army officers to prove he did. How about this: “I heard Hitler telling me to kill the Jews and he told me to write the order”, then I would bribe him to write “the order”. I would at least have many eyewitnesses, who suddenly “remembered” and even a convergence of the “replicated oral order”.

They would still be at odds with the historical context and a wealth of other evidence contradicting them, and these contradictions would become apparent upon closed examination. Are you trying to insinuate that thousands of eyewitnesses to Nazi mass murder including former SS-men on trial (some of them sentenced to lifetime imprisonment by West German courts) were “bribed” by someone, by the way? Or where is this infantile babbling supposed to get us?

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:04 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (24)

And if the Jewish eyewitnesses are always automatically believed, why not bribe them too... Oh wait, of course I should start bribing the Jew witnesses first! I have a feeling that some of them might suddenly ‘remember’ everything, as soon as they would see enough money. I might even encourage them to write their own ‘replications’ of the Hitler orders that they suddenly remembered seeing in the hands of the wicked Nazis. What else, oh I should also bribe Jew witnesses to ‘remember’ the diesel gassings, steamings, vacuum chambers, electrocutions and definitely the delayed action gas chambers. “I saw the huge mega-underground-vacuum-electric-steam-chamber, which dropped the bodies into electrocution conveyor belt which lead the bodies into the giant lava pit! I was there!” Money makes wonders.

Actually the Jewish eyewitnesses before West German courts were subject to hostile cross-examination like all others, and many of them were considered unreliable or not reliable enough to sustain the respective court’s findings of fact. Just one example, emphases added:

«I knew why I wanted to talk to him. As a man who has dedicated his life to the remembrance of Sobibor and as a serious researcher of Sobibor, I felt there were still some unanswered questions and gaps. As a former senior staff member of a death camp, one of the few still living, he could give me some technical and other important information and facts about the camp and the revolt known only by the SS. I could get the German view of events and solve some puzzling aspects of the camp. But why did he want to talk to me? I asked him outright why he agreed to speak to me. He said he wanted to apologize to me in person. He couldn't do it in the courtroom. "I don't blame you or other witnesses," he said. "And I must honestly say I was sorry for you and all those witnesses... After all those years to have to think back on all those memories and be pressured... they were pressuring and squeezing you in the court...".

This was putting it mildly. The method of the defense was primarily to discredit the testimony of the witnesses by asking them idiotic questions. In my case for example, "How tall was the tree near the barrack?" or " Was the club with which Frenzel beat your father round or not? How many centimeters?" A stranger in the courtroom would immediately have thought I was the defendant and not the victim.»

Jewish witnesses were automatically believed, yeah. You should work hard on your ignorance besides your imbecility if you ever want to be someone in this discussion.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:05 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (25)

I’m just wondering how unreliable and vague it is to you to ‘prove’ this “gassing crime”, since you don’t require the strict murder evidence for the crime
(even though it should be found, if events occurred as alleged).

You keep repeating yourself. What “strict murder evidence” are you talking about? I require the evidence that was required by Federal German courts at numerous trials over the last decades. If you think you can demonstrate that their requirements violated procedural rules and the rights of the defendants, fire away. Otherwise cut the crap.

I’m also wondering how easy it would be to cheat you, because your demand for evidence and your ‘evidence’ for the crime is so flimsy, that it certainly would be possible, unlike in murder trials.

In murder trials the evidence I consider sufficient has been subject to and stood up to careful examination including hostile cross examination, my friend. As I said before, your ignorance is your other big problem.

And obviously some of you Holocaust believers have already been cheated (or some of your ‘witnesses’ have cheated) and some of you have cheated, when the “obviously guilty Nazis” were convicted of admitted propaganda lies, in the post-war show trials.

I’m looking forward to you demonstrating that any of your Nazi heroes was convicted of “admitted propaganda lies”, bigmouth. Who is that supposed to have been?

Or is this so, because the Nazis are obviously guilty, so therefore there is no need to prove anything?

No, Nazis at the Nuremberg trials or at trials before West German courts were only convicted for such individual criminal actions of his that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And again when you reply for the 100th time, that you “have proven everything” (hoping that if you write enough many times the same lie, it would become ‘truth’), NO YOU HAVEN’T!

Are we into yelling mode, moron? You really seem to be having a hard time convincing yourself of your own articles of faith. Hence your screaming hysteria, I presume.

Or is the next response “no we don’t have to prove the murder this carefully, because other historical events don’t either... if we have to, you have to too!”? => To which I would reply: No. Again, because this is an alleged unique precise mass murder with specific murder weapons in known locations, with known [alleged] mass graves, then it has to be proved as a murder, because it is possible and definitely should leave the required proper evidence! In addition this is admittedly full of lies, inaccuracies, exaggerations, contradictions, myths, rumors and impossibilities and even admitted lies (the 7 points).

Haven’t we been through all this before, my friend? You should avoid repeating yourself too much, you know. It makes your insanity even more obvious than it is already.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:07 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (26)

Other historical events are not this controversial,

I didn’t know that standards of evidence are determined by how “controversial” an event is rather than by what is reasonably required to prove them, or that the events in question are “controversial” anywhere outside your moronic belief system.

and not alleged to be this precise.

What’s that supposed to mean? If you’re trying to tell me that other historical events have not been examined with the same thoroughness by historians and criminal investigators, I agree.

The revisionists are not accusing anyone of mass murder, so it is not required for them to prove anything this carefully.

I commented that nonsense above, IIRC. You shouldn’t repeat yourself so much. It suggests your own lack of conviction besides showing your insanity.

“And denying this incredible truth >and claiming to be a >"revisionist" must be very stupid >and evil lying.”
→ “Ah, now I get you. Claiming that thousands of eyewitnesses, a wealth of incriminating documents and physical evidence, and the disappearance of millions of people from the European continent who never showed up anywhere else can be explained as the manipulations of some all-powerful and invisible conspiracy, which is what "Revisionists" do, is more than just stupid. It's imbecilic to the point of insanity.”

“Disappearance of millions”. In Israel there is now about 6 million Jews, almost 6 million more than before WW2.

Most of them from the either born there and only 22.6 % of European or American origin, according to the CIA World Factbook:

«Jewish 76.4% (of which Israel-born 67.1%, Europe/America-born 22.6%, Africa-born 5.9%, Asia-born 4.2%), non-Jewish 23.6% (mostly Arab) (2004)»

And here you find information about when those who immigrated got there and where they came from. Not even a nice try, my friend.

In USA the same amount, 1 million more than before the war.

What, one million more than there were 70 years ago? I’m shocked. 

There are some millions in other countries and continents altogether. According to ALL estimations there were 12-18 million Jews before WW2 and 11-18 million after the war.

That’s horseshit, and you need to go no further than Wikipedia to find out:

Even if some millions of Jews are missing, it doesn’t prove they were killed (gassed).

No, it just proves that they died between 1941 and 1945. As to how they died there is other evidence.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:10 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (27)

Funny how nobody requires “Communist Holocaust Deniers” to explain what happened to 100 million victims of Communism? ‘Are they living in Siberia then if they didn’t all die?!

Thanks for that one, moron. Now we will enjoy your explanation that the “100 million victims of Communism” you obviously accept as factual are proven by better evidence than the 5.1 to 5.5 million victims of the Nazis genocide of the Jews, won’t you?

1-2 million Jews died during WW2, due to Hitler’s and Stalin’s policies,

No, Stalin is responsible for a few ten thousand Jewish Gulag victims at most. Your beloved Führer, on the other hand, bumped of at least 5 million Jews and many more non-Jews – probably including millions of Jew-haters like yourself in Poland and the Soviet Union.

tens of millions of Europeans died fighting the war.

Most of those Europeans were Soviet citizens (subhuman scum in your book, I presume), thereof ca. 2.6 million Jews and 5 – 5.5 million non-Jews murdered by the Nazis. See the following articles for details;

As if it is any wonder that Germans deported the Jews and let them loose somewhere all over the East. If I recall, this is what Stalin did numerous times, and so did other victors of WW2, to Germans too.

Which is why there’s plenty of evidence that they so did, whereas there’s not a shred of evidence that about 2.5 million Jews deported to Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Auschwitz-Birkenau went anywhere beyond these places.

If the Germans had won the war, and gained the destiny of Europeans and Western European Civilization, then I really don’t see how Jews as a whole and their influence in media and politics would be destroying Europeans and our Civilization with multiculturalism, slowly but surely. My God, that would be terrible...

Why do you have a problem with multiculturalism, moron? Look at the bright side of it – lots of pretty African, Indian, Arab or Asian women to look at, chat with, etc. Don’t you think the Finnish population could use some fresh blood and some color?

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:12 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (28)

A real big conspiracy:

One of almost supernatural proficiency and influence it would be. And completely invisible on top of that. Do you also believe in Santa Claus, moron?

In wars there is propaganda

What propaganda about the Nazi genocide of the Jews was there during World War II? Hardly any at all, I dare say.

and victors write history;

In what concerns the cause and background of events, that is true to a certain extent. But not in what concerns the events themselves.

Gassings have been proven as gassing lies with a wealth of evidence;

Still trying to convince yourself of your main article of faith? Your repetitions don’t make it any less hollow, trust me.

WW2 was the most destructive war in history in which the losers were punished very severely, because OBVIOUSLY they had to be guilty to everything (paranoid accuser and revenge mentality); victors in their accuser and revenge mentality believed in or lied about Gassings (because they couldn’t find any other “atrocious crimes” [crimen atrox] to the guilty parties, “once the guilty is known, then the crime can always be found later” [paraphrasing]); there were many communist propagandists in the camps spreading gassing lies and other mass murder lies (Bruno Baum and the likes); camp inmates heard rumors and started believing in them and repeating them => so therefore gassing lies started to become as ‘facts’ into many inmates’ minds; most of the post-war trials were show trials in nature in which you could not question/dispute/deny the “self-evident facts” about gassings which were never proven at all. Medieval witch crime trials. If there were some bribed cases (some bribed Jew witnesses for example who lied), then they lie to their grave or pretending to believe their propaganda bullshit and never confess.

I know that’s what you’d like to believe, so you don’t have to repeat it. The day you have anything to show for all these wild fantasies of yours, please let me know.

Did nobody ever tell you that homicidal gassing in extermination camps was a secondary issue at the Nuremberg Trial of the Major War Criminals, by the way? That trial was mostly about Nazi Germany having waged a war of aggression.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:14 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (29)

“Are you an evil denier-liar who >claims to be a believer, >"Roberto"?”
→ “Unlike you, my dear moron, I am no believer in anything, for I don't need faith. I have evidence and a capacity for logical thinking, both of which you are obviously lacking. And if you have any doubts about my identity, I can show you my German passport. After you have confirmed my assumption as to who you are, of course.”

Mr. Mule: You do BELIEVE in the Jewish Holocaust of 5-6 million, of which ~3 million were gassed? Yes of course.

No, I don’t believe anything. Only people who have no evidence need to believe. I reasonably conclude from a wealth of documentary, eyewitness, demographic and physical evidence that about 5.1 to 5.5 million Jews fell victim to Nazi persecution and extermination policies during World War II, including about 2.5 million who were killed in extermination camps.

You have no evidence with which you have proven the ~3 million “gassing crimes” nor even one “gassing crime”.

On the contrary, I have documentary evidence showing that and how many people were deported to certain camps, that these camps were final destinations for the deportees and not a stop-over on the way to somewhere else, that they were places where people were sent to be killed and that the stench of corpses emanating from them was noticed many miles away. I have documentary evidence showing that there were thing like a Vergasungskeller and “cremation with simultaneous special treatment” and other niceties in the crematoria of one of these camps. I have physical evidence corroborating what becomes apparent from the documentary evidence, e.g. huge mass graves or mass grave areas filled with or covered by human remains, as described by criminal investigators or archaeologists, at Chelmno and the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps. And I have lots of eyewitness accounts to flesh out and explain what becomes apparent from the documentary and eyewitness evidence. No, I’m in no need of believing anything. I only need to follow evidence and reason.

Therefore you have no basis to pick some “correct eyewitnesses” out of the many “false witnesses”, nor do you even have an obligation to assume that they were gassed.

However often you repeat that shit, West German criminal justice authorities have been able to sift the wheat from the chaff with less non-eyewitness evidence to support their conclusions than historians currently have at their disposal, and the conclusion that massive homicidal gassings at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka and the other extermination camps are a fact is the only one that is supported by and explains all known evidence and requires no or the fewest additional assumptions, therefore the one that is scientifically sound and dictated by logic and reason.

You just choose to discriminate between witnesses based on your fate on some of the witnesses. For example you seem to believe in witnesses from Poland camps but not from German Reich (1937) camps (Dachau, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen). Isn’t this discrimination (or even racism)?

I suggest you go see a shrink, moron. You seem to be badly in need of psychiatric assistance. And your ignorance cries to high heaven.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:15 hours GMT]

Response to Moranen (30)

What I’m lacking is faith in WW2 propaganda lies about gassings.

There is no such thing as “WW2 propaganda lies about gassings” outside your cloud-cuckoo-land, and if there’s anything you have in abundance (besides stupidity), it is blind, uncritical faith.

Mr. Mule is just fine by me. Anonymity is bliss.

I know you’re a coward, no need to reinforce the impression.

Well at least I’m not using it to blame an entire German people collectively of genocide without proof.

And who’s supposed to be doing that, moron? Please tell us another of your fairy tales, it could be fun.

Once confronted of this, you, just like all Jews, deny it and lie even more, “No no, I’m just accusing the German-speaking German Nazis whom all Germans obeyed, Germans just like me”. In reality this is exactly what is happening to German people as a whole. And of course other White European peoples, are as well being manipulated by the Jew-promoted lies to destroy Europeans and European Civilization. Thank God these are only lies that we can destroy with truth.

Go see that shrink, moron. I’m giving you a piece of well-meaning advice, believe me.

And as anyone can see, I beat the living hell out of believers, and caused them to lose their faith, even though they never admit this.

Serious delusions of adequacy are another reason why you should seek psychiatric assistance, my dear White European asshole.

Now, as you parade a picture of your hero Alexander the Faggot at the battle of Issos on your blog profile, I’d like to end our conversation (skipping your recently added “conclusion”, which is just another repetition of the nonsense I slapped around your ears in this commentary) by quoting what a German legal scholar wrote in 1994 regarding the introduction of an express legal provision against Holocaust denial in Germany (my translation):

«Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.»

This quote is included in my Petition to the German Legislator, which you are kindly invited to sign. If you have balls to reveal your identity, that is.

[Posted on 05.08.2009 at 15:17 hours GMT]