http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... j-and.html
Monday, September 28, 2009
So how did yelping cowards "Drew J" and Greg Gerdes react ...
to the challenges in my article The Old Chimp and his Apprentics ?
Please keep in mind Roberto, that any lengthy response to me undercuts your insults in calling me pathetic and undercuts your attempts to smear me as a coward and evasive man simply because I won't show up on vnn or rodoh. Any lengthy response to me proves my point that I don't have to register at those places to banter back and forth with you. Therefore a few of your comments I will get to later are obsolete at best and self refuting at worst. Let's get going though.
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].
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.
Oh eyewitness evidence. You mean like to the Belzec diesel engine that your very own Sergy said was not a reliable source about the diesel engine. Because in your own view, the diesel issue is dead. Since you missed it, let me show you where I summarized Sergy's list of witnesses and then further showed how full of shit and problematic they were. With the help of Mr. Burg of course.viewtopic.php?p=38258#p38258
As I said earlier, I don't deny you the possiblity about correcting Mattogno on some minor math equations. I won't deny that you may be worthy of some more red text. But as I said, that is about relations of ideas, and not physical, empirical matters of fact. You have to show instead of tell. Naturally, that pisses you off.
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.
Again, show. Don't tell. Come from the relations of ideas and connect them with the physical realm of matters of fact please.
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):
So what are you guys waiting for then? Why hold out and give revisionists fuel for the fire?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.
Sounds good. So let's see it. This 'detailed documentation' you bolded better not refer to his mere artistic depictions for that simply will not cut it. You know it and the fact that you admit to it is shown by the other fact that you have tried to offer better by the second set of bolded letters. But again, where is the published chemical analysis to prove those are human remains as was depicted in those drawings by Kola? Don't tell. Show.
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.
Since I don't have the money to travel, it would nice if they could get off their asses like Hilberg and actually publish something to prove it instead of hoarding it for themselves and demanding that we believe in spite of not seeing the evidence ourselves. If it exists, publish it in Skeptic or some sort of Archaeology Today magazine or whatever. As I said, there is no excuse for hanging on to evidence if you have it.
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.
It does beg the question as to why the evidence is being locked up and withheld from the rest of the world if it will put revisionists out of business once and for all? You can ramble on all you want Muehlenkamp about supposed eyewitness testimony (which include diesel engines from Gurstein that not even your buddy Sergy will say isn't questionable), and talk about "detailed archaeological documentation" and "chemical analysis" all you want. The point is, if they even exist, you better show us. Somebody better show us. You better quit complaining about us needing evidence.
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.
You must mean the evidence that's being apparently locked up and sat on in Poland that no one is allowed to see.
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.
Nice try Roberto, but I never denied that me being on vnn or rodoh would mean you could reply to me directly. So quit making strawmen. My point was that you were making a non issue of my being at rodoh or vnn since whether I'm there or here at codoh, you still take the time to quote and respond to me. Since that's what ultimately matters, the venue DOES NOT matter. But you are pretending it does so you can score points since all you have is a lousy eyewitness for Belzec that even Sergy disassociated from, and a claim about massive documenation and chemical analysis regarding Belzec that apparently is stuck in Poland and isn't being released. You don't sit on something you can release to prove your point to the world. Occam's Razor buddy.
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.
Kind of like your attempting to do now for your audience. In other words, what I said earlier was true. So I will repeat: My point was that you were making a non issue of my being at rodoh or vnn since whether I'm there or here at codoh, you still take the time to quote and respond to me. Since that's what ultimately matters, the venue DOES NOT matter. But you are pretending it does so you can score points since all you have is a lousy eyewitness for Belzec that even Sergy disassociated from, and a claim about massive documenation and chemical analysis regarding Belzec that apparently is stuck in Poland and isn't being released.
So how about it, Drew J? Will you grow some balls or not?
Nice try. Read the blue text. Your continued response to me on your blog proves my point and undercuts your feeble attempts at insulting me and making mountains out of mole hills.
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.
So now I'm trying to reverse the burden of proof? Funny how me simply demanding that you show what you are talking about when it comes to "detailed archaeological documentation" and "chemical analysis" about Kola's work is reversing the burden of proof. In reality, I'm just asking you to show your work and show what you're talking about. Telling me exists is one thing. Showing and proving me is a whole other thing.
Remember my blue text? That point illustrates how there is nothing stopping you from answering those thirty treblinka questions. You don't need us to be on the same board you are on since you don't need me to be on vnn or rodoh to respond to me the way you are now. As I said, any lengthy response to me undercuts what you're trying to do - ala, what I showed in my blue text. So you can brag all you want about being able to answer Treblinka questions, but bragging is just bragging. As for that TOPIX link, we on codoh right now are trying to verify that one particular photo you mentioned in your second last blog entry actually came from Kola. Maybe you could help us out and prove it. Or are you going to balk on that like you do with regards to merely reciting things about Kola's "detailed archaeological documentation" and "chemical analysis" that we still haven't been shown.
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?
Kind of like the western Nuremburg trials which accepted unscientific affidavits from people like Hoess who was tortured or from those two Ukranian guards who were obviously fed that line about diesel engines. Leleko and Malakon
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.
I already have in a little scenario I wrote that was basically a reducition ad absurdum to be used against the Polish article about the great gold robbery.
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.
It irritates you so much, the logical point I successfully illustrated that I have now bolded in blue this second time around with you on this issue, that you can only just call me names.
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.
Oh yeah, the holocaust cretins like Michael Shermer. Yeah, that counts. All talk and no evidence is what he's about.
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.
The blog is not about responding to me, yet you use it to respond to me.
Though it allows for comments, the blog is not meant to be or replace a discussion forum. For that there are places like RODOH.
I can answer those thirty treblinka questions but I will only do so under my conditions rather than do it simply because I have this revisionist cloud hanging over my head. Now who's being childish?
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)
In other words, just witness testimony. Keep going...
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.
So because these people believed the hype, it was therefore true. What pathetic illogic.
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.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. Sorry but no excuses are acceptable. As I said, if people can document something, then they will. Occam's Razor. Period.
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.
In other words, Drew J is wrong in assuming that no other photographs exist. Others might which would prove my point but I don't have them and don't know where they are or even if they exist. I'm just making shit up on the fly. I'm just making an argument from ignorance.
But then, who would expect "Revisionist" knuckleheads to apply anything resembling logic?
I don't know. Much more bigger, illogical, knuckleheads like you?
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
No because common sense says so as my scneario about photos and lack thereof explained. I recommend you stop right there in your tracks Roberto before you attempt to rehash your argument from ignorance that I just had to shoot down.
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.
Notice what he does. He quotes me as talking about that six million claim from 1919. He then calls it rubbish. Then he proceeds to say that something is in the article. The very thing THAT I AND OTHERS HAVE SAID IS IN THERE. Notice that tactic? Write something off as stupid, then go into a spiel about what the article REALLY SAYS, and then have it say what I said it said, except then you can take credit for getting the article correct since you made a pre-emptive measure of calling what I said about the article rubbish. Here's a hint for you Roberto. Don't contradict yourself by calling something rubbish and then saying the article says exactly what revisionists have said that it said. And yes it is kabbalistic. You are just an ignoramus or a gatekeeping cover artist.
THE FIRST SIX MILLION. WHY THEY CHOSE THE NUMBER SIX.viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5642
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.
Straman. I never said it "came from him." Others have. However he did promote it. Split hairs all you want, he's still got blood on his hands for lying about the six million.
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.
So let me get this straight. You want to abide by the rules that the west has set down regarding evidence and the standards that are in courts and trials for example. Yet when I use that evidence in the case of Burg, you disregard it. You are cherry picking because you can't handle how Burg exposed to the world what a fraud Ehrenburg was who knowingly lied about the six million and about gas chambers. Consult the book on the Zundel trial. http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/falsenews.toc.htmlEdited by Barbara Kulaszka
There were tens of thousands of pages of transcripts from that trial and Barbara condensed a lot of it. So what you are saying is that Burg either lied under oath when he exposed Ehrenburg as a liar or that the transcripts are faked/don't exist or that Babs made it up. Clearly, you are grasping at straws because you can't handle what Burg stated under oath on the public record. Punkass.
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.
So now that you have dumped the western trial court rules of evidence given under oath standard for Burg (just because you didn't like what he exposed), you can pick it back up again. Double standards abound with holocaust monger Roberto Muehlenkamp....more to come.