Does anyone remember Roberto Muehlenkamp's other username?

[offlineBankdraft]

Quick question? Does anyone remember Roberto Muehlenkamp's username(s) at Codoh? Before he got booted?

[offline Hannover]

It was 'Cortavagatas'.

He posted at this forum and got demolished. It's embarrasing really. He booted himself by engaging in spamming and namecalling. He had his chance to debate, floundered, and in utter frustration went berserk.

A few examples of him being shredded at this forum:

R. Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3706

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4600

'Roberto Muehlenkamp: no fuel required for Auschwitz ovens'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3703

'Roberto Muehlenkamp shredded on 'gassings' & cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=224

'Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=420

'Cremation patent & 3.5 kg of coke per corpse debunked'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=88

- Hannover

[offlineBankdraft]

It was 'Cortavagatas'.

Thanks Hannover, Cortavagatas was what I was trying to think of. Name calling does seem to be part and parcel of his argument style.

I'll check out his defeats as well... thanks.

He posted at this forum and got demolished. It's embarrasing really. He booted himself by engaging in spamming and namecalling. He had his chance to debate, floundered, and in utter frustration went berserk.

A few examples of him being shredded at this forum:

R. Muehlenkamp: 'gas chambers' were hosed down, so no cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3706

'Those Prussian Blues Just Won't Wash'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4600

'Roberto Muehlenkamp: no fuel required for Auschwitz ovens'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=3703

'Roberto Muehlenkamp shredded on 'gassings' & cyanide'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=224

'Roberto Muehlenkamp debunked on 3.5kg of coke cremations'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=420

'Cremation patent & 3.5 kg of coke per corpse debunked'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=88

[offlinegbrecht]

Wow some of those arguments are utterly ridiculous.

[offlineBankdraft]

Wait... there's more!

This is basically a non-issue but there has been another chapter (which I just found out about) and I thought you might be interested in what an insecure she-man is Roberto Muehlenkamp.

I asked what his CODOH posting name was and Hannover gave me a quick and accurate reply. End of story... right? Wrong! Roberto sees the post -- which wasn't hidden and used his name in the topic line -- and has a school-girl melt-down which you may read at RODOH (Memory Hole/Hey Bankdraft, what kind of a slimy @sshole are you … ).

[Note to Roberto: You don't have to alter @sshole... asshole.]

But what should I expect from someone whose logic runs like this:

Hannover,

I hear you have again been mouthing off about me, calling me "a pathetic and desparate liar".

To be sure, I have also called you and will keep on calling you a liar and a coward. But there’s a difference between my applying these designations to you and you calling me names. The difference is that my statements are accurate and appropriate.

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/10/message-to-jonnie-hannover-hargis.html

Unbelievable... except I think he believes it.

It appears that Hannover's appraisal is pretty close to the mark:

He booted himself by engaging in spamming and namecalling. He had his chance to debate, floundered, and in utter frustration went berserk.

Cheers.

[offline PotPie]

I quit looking at the Holocaust-Controversies Blog long ago. Its basically where a small group of men go to bitch-fight like stereotypical females and call names like children on a junior high playground if they aren't phishing for personal info so they can "out" people. Beyond their small group of lemming followers, they're totally ignored.

[offline Hektor]

It was 'Cortavagatas'.

Thanks Hannover, Cortavagatas was what I was trying to think of. Name calling does seem to be part and parcel of his argument style.....

Well, if you have experience with debating Holocaustians, then we you will know that namecalling and polemical games is part of culture amongst those Holocaustians debating those doubting the Holocaust.

[offlineIlluSionS667]

Well, if you have experience with debating Holocaustians, then we you will know that namecalling and polemical games is part of culture amongst those Holocaustians debating those doubting the Holocaust.

As well as coming up with the most ridiculous speculative claims, while at the same time constantly denying proven facts. People like Muehlenkamp, Terry or Mathis are either useful idiots for the zionist elite or active collaborators. There is no other way to explain their bizarre and sometimes almost scizophrenic behavior.

[offline Hektor]

Examples for those speculative claims? Well I would know some, like the one with the "vanished" corpse slide.

[offlineIlluSionS667]

Examples for those speculative claims? Well I would know some, like the one with the "vanished" corpse slide.

I remember Terry in one of my discussions with him desperately translating anything starting with "Sonder-" as having something to do with murder, translating "digging holes" as "digging graves", etc. to make the number of documents referring to extermination seem far greater than it actually is. Besides his defamatory language, it was this ridulous behavior that made me lose the last bit of respect I still had for him.

[offlineBankdraft]

Yeah, they may well have gone over the deep end. The last few believers had nothing at all to add except, "You fucking NAZI! Everyone knows the holocaust happened!" As a matter of fact, it has gotten so ridiculous posting over there that I'm probably going to retire... thought there are a lot of very fine folk posting there.

Here's my response to a RODOH poll that asked what is the best name for "Believers":

I've always referred to them as "believers" or "traditionalist" but lately I am tempted to say "obfuscaters". These people are not stupid yet they defend even the most ludicrous positions, positions they should simply acquiesce... but they won't. They are constitutionally incapable of allowing even the most minor point.

To me, it's actually elucidating because if they won't allow the most obvious points -- points that will in no way cut into their precious six-million -- I know that they have lost all objectivity (or are just lying) and are only here to obfuscate. There are probably some that are just naive but many who have the capacity to be objective, won't.

[offlineMrNobody]

I've always referred to them as "believers" or "traditionalist" but lately I am tempted to say "obfuscaters". These people are not stupid yet they defend even the most ludicrous positions, positions they should simply acquiesce... but they won't. They are constitutionally incapable of allowing even the most minor point.

To me, it's actually elucidating because if they won't allow the most obvious points -- points that will in no way cut into their precious six-million -- I know that they have lost all objectivity (or are just lying) and are only here to obfuscate. There are probably some that are just naive but many who have the capacity to be objective, won't.

I've read the book The Psychopath: The Mask of Sanity & this passage pretty well sums up the mindset of those victims of the Psychopath, Con Men & Holocaust Believers & why they continue to defend the indefensible.

WHAT KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL WEAKNESSES DRIVE PEOPLE TO PREFER LIES OVER TRUTH?


This may have something to do with what is called Cognitive Dissonance. Leon Festinger developed the theory of Cognitive Dissonance in the 50's when he apparently stumbled onto a UFO cult in the Midwest. They were prophesying a coming world cataclysm and "alien rapture." When no one was raptured and no cataclysm took place he studied the believers response, and detailed it in his book "When Prophecy Fails." Festinger observed:

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.

It seems that part of the problem has to do with ego and the need to be "right." People with a high "need to be right" or "perfect" seem to be unable to acknowledge that they have been conned. "There is no crime in the cynical American calendar more humiliating than to be a sucker." People will go along with and support a psychopath, in the face of evidence that they have and ARE being conned, because their own ego structure depends on being right, and to admit an error of judgment would destroy their carefully constructed image of themselves.

*** I half expect to see this text taken, twisted & used by the Believers as an example of the "Revisionist" mindset, it's what they do, it's how their brains work. ***