Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:11 pm)

He accues me and others of having Muehlenkamp mania. In other words, we are insane for talking a lot about him. Yet when he replies in the same vein, it's completely different. Whatever. He has a post entry at rodoh here.
This little Drew J freak seems to be really pissed about me
http://r odohforum.yuku.com/topic/7958


Drew JPlease 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.[/b]


I don't see why. I can comment at length on Drew J's nonsense and call him a yelping coward at the same time, without one affecting the other.

Just because you say so, it doesn't make it so. This is not a sound argument. You just proved my point by making not one, but also a second long responses to me. What you are either failing to grasp or just outright pretending doesn't exist, is that by responding to me, you are ackonwleding that I have countered points of yours. I have bothered to respond to you and am thus not a coward. Roberto of course ignores this fact.

"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. "

But wait Drew. Didn't Roberto respond to this? Why yes he did, so why not give him credit by quoting his response? Well that's fair enough.

" don't see how. Discussing directly in the same place beats bantering back and forth in different venues any day."

It doesn't matter what you view as personally convenient Roberto. What matters is whether or not I have the courage to continue to engage you. Those are two different things. The fact that you continue to respond to me shows that I continue to engage you and am thus not a coward. Whether I'm on this board or on the same board as you, you would still have to do a lot of copying and pasting NO MATTER WHAT. You know this fact, therefore you know the implication. That your bitching about me not being on the same board is just a rhetorical battle you are trying to win to make yourself look better. The fact that you still copy and paste to me proves that you know how little it matters where I am since you take 'getting the facts out' about the holocaust to be more important. Otherwise, you would have called me a coward and demanded that I respond to you on your terms on a certain board. Well you did, but I didn't budge. You budged and decided to respond to me anyway. You decided to relpy to me anyway no matter where I am. Hence, your attempted small rhetorical victory collapses to the ground. Hence, it would be better if you didn't waste to much time on petty issues THAT YOU'RE WRONG ON ANYWAY, and get to the real important shit right away.

Drew JBecause 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


I've looked at this junk

Keep in mind I have only summarized Sergy's blog and they are still Sergy's words and claims. So it's ironic Muehlenkamp would call them junk. A little too quick with the keyboard perhaps, Roberto?

and didn't see anything resembling a demonstration that knowledgeable eyewitnesses who mentioned gassing with gasoline engines were in any way unreliable

As I have said, thanks to Sergy's blog and your work you have shown that the diesel issue is dead because anyone who claimed a diesel engine didn't actually see it whereas the ones who are actually in a poistion to see it never mentioned a diesel engine but rather petrol engines. Now if you take these claims in isolation, they seem okay. But check them against available evidence (you keep saying I don't know to Treblinka questions) and they turn problematic.

or that witnesses who mentioned diesel engines were necessarily wrong about everything they described or even about anything other than the type of engine.

Here's the trick Roberto does. Admit that Sergy is right that the diesel engine is dead and then say, "They were wrong about the engine but maybe they were right about dimensions or sizes or something else about the engine." Sorry but that contradicts the spirit of Sergy's blog entry when he AND YOU have also claimed to me that anyone who claimed a diesel engine never actually saw it. Well if they saw it, then there is no reason to suspect they could have possibly been correct about anything else about it. How could they be if they never saw it? Sorry Roberto, we're not falling for your holocaustianity tricks there.

What I did see was a hysterical little whiner so pathetically obsessed with me that he sees me as the author of every blog written on HC (even blogs written by my fellow contributor Jonathan Harrison) and so gullible as to applaud his buddy Greg "Pepper" Gerdes' lies about my answers in past discussions to Gerdes' imbecilic and irrelevant questions. Nothing I would brag about in Drew J's place.

If we don't respond to Muehlenkamp, we are cowards. If we do, we have a psychological disorder. Damned if we do. Damned if we don't. Someone who is trying to rig the game like that is obviously afraid of something. Probably the things that Gerdes pointed out such as his continuous I DON'T KNOW answers and his inability to get Skeptic or Archaeology magazines to take his evidence seriously.

Apparently Drew J thinks that he is the one who gets to set standards of evidence, or then he doesn't have the foggiest how "physical, empirical matters of fact" are shown in real life and namely in historiography and criminal justice.

Big words. Care to define them a little more precisely?

What does he want me to "show"? The evidence I am referring to? That I have done many times by quoting eyewitness depositions,

Such as the ones who claimed a diesel engine was used but that they never saw it as Sergy had to admit? Or how about those two Ukranian guards Leleko and Malakon who were obviously fed the line about diesel engines since as Sergy's blog entry admits, diesel engines wouldn't have been practical for murder. This is logically consistent with the extermination theorists' own view that those who were in a position to see the engines actually mentioned petrol and not diesel in their depositions. Naturally, Muehlenkamp didn't want to deal with these two guards who were fed the lie so he skipped it and ignored it when I brought it up.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
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.

Drew J
Sounds good. So let's see it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
I sure would like to see it if I had access to it, but there's not logical reason to doubt the archaeologist's conclusions or the matching documentary, eyewitness and demographic evidence with or without seeing the archaeologist's backup documentation.

In other words, he hasn't seen it either but he still takes it on faith. And then he turns around and accuses revisionists of being unscientific. :roll:


Drew J
This 'detailed documentation' you bolded better not refer to his mere artistic depictions for that simply will not cut it.

Not cut it for whom? For Drew J? And Drew J is the measure of exactly what?

Someone who knows that artistic depictions don't cut it. If you weren't going to admit that I was right that mere artistic depictions aren't proof alone, then you wouldn't have tried to tell me about actual scientific evidence in archives that actually back it up. But you did take this route because you knew I was right on that one point.

See Roberto, that is called a sound deductive argument.

An illogical imbecile who, in flagrant violation of the principle of Occam's Razor, rejects logical conclusions borne out by a convergence of all known evidence (mass murder at Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka)

Already stating as fact what he has yet to prove.

and postulates baseless assumptions backed by no evidence whatsoever (deportation to who-knows-where via Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka)

Reminds me of you demanding that we all have faith like you do in some magical evidence in a polish archive that bears out Kola's artistic depictions. When we demand to actually see them, you complain they aren't or can't be released for some reason. Occam's Razor would dictate that people who have evidence that would prove their case wouldn't lock it up and hide it from revisionists or even the mainstream media. Now who's violating the razor? Hint: Intials are R. M.

As soon as Drew J has explained by what rules or standards of evidence or what logic I would have to "show" chemical analysis backing up Kola's conclusions to prove that these conclusions are accurate, I might try to get access to the archives in question.

Here again we see Roberto pulling the same trick that most believers of the holocaustianity religion do. Demand that we clarify what evidence we would need, and then he would decide if it's worth getting. Funny how he says earlier that I ignore evidence. Therefore if that's the case, then he shouldn't want to listen to my idiot demands since they would by implication of his earlier words be necessarily idiotic. He should get the evidence himself and then shove it in my face, Gerdes, Bradley Smith's and the face of the rest of the world. Since he can't or won't be able to support his case, he pulls a trick and tries to make it all hang on me. Whatever it is, he should get it regardless of what an apparent moron like me would think. If I'm a moron, my opinion shouldn't matter or affect the evidence that's just waiting on a man like Roberto to be released to the world.

See how I just exopsed that little bullshit tactic of his? Again, Occam's Razor dictates that anyone who has evidence of a crime and that this person wants to prove their crime...they wouldn't hide it or make excuses for its absence and demand that we believe in this unclarified, undefined evidence despite its lack thereof.

Drew J
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.

Why, is every little detail of every analysis pertaining to an archaeological investigation usually published, whatever the subject of that investigation may be?

It's called being a scientist and backing up your tentative claims with evidence. That's the inductive process. That's what scientists do.

Is this standard operating procedure in archaeology, to which Prof. Kola's report is supposed to be an exception?

No, documenting every little thing you can in everyway is important in archaeology because when you excavate a site and do some digging say for old buildings, breakables, old burial pits, etc, you in effect destroy large parts of it and you can never get it back. This procedure is what YOU are attempting to exclude Kola from when you demand that we simply take his artistic depictions at word and also believe in some sort of undefined unshown evidence in a polish archive that backs up his artistic depictions.

If Drew J can demonstrate that Prof. Kola's report goes against standard operating procedure in public reporting of archaeological finds, he may have a reason for yelling "show me". His own baseless "skepticism" is no such reason, however.

The fact that you had to introduce some sort of unseen evidence in a polish archive proves that you know deep down I'm right when I say mere artistic depictions aren't good enough since anyone can draw a picture the way they want. This is not my own baseless skepticism, this is proper skepticism. Demanding people provide more than just pictures that they can draw however they want. This kind of skepticism is part of science. But since you called skepticism in Kola's Belzec depictions, baseless and unreasonable, it seems you are the one turning science on its head Roberto.

So all eyewitness evidence is questionable because one or the other eyewitnesses gave some highly inaccurate information among other very accurate information, like Gerstein did?

You can't prove that in a deductively sound argument, but it's a prima face reason to challenge other witness statements and continue in your own inductive investigations. Pointing to absurdities like lamp shades, human soap bars, shrunken heads, the kabbalistic six million number, and what Joseph Burg revealed about Ehrenburg being a liar who secretly admitted to Burg that no evidence for Auschwitz gas chambers existed, these don't all deductively prove that any other piece of evidence is automatically wrong. It's just further justifications for revisionists to continue their inductive investigations into further matters. I'm sure even you Roberto would agree on this principle.

Here we see what a bunch of illogical fools "Revisionist" howlers like Drew J are.

Read my response just then and see if I'm really illogical.

They might be forgiven for not knowing that the eyewitness who is right about everything is as rare in forensic practice as the eyewitness who got it all wrong, but arguing that eyewitnesses in general must be dismissed as evidence because one or the other of them was somewhat off the mark about this and that is so imbecilic that it would deprive "Revisionists" of any chance to be taken seriously even if it were their only fallacy.

Sorry but inductive reasoning tells the scientist who is gatering evidence that the more liars we uncover, the more we have to have skepticism about eyewitness testimony. We have just earlier on this board illustrated problems with the so called authentic Goebbels diaries. So therefore we are NOT justified in saying other diary entires like that one of the Wermacht man Wilhelm Cornides is automatically false. What we ARE justified in regarding the matter is agnosticism rather than the blind faith that you Roberto and your ilk engage in.

Any particular reason why anyone should have to show "Revisionist" howlers what they yell for?

I am so outraged that you demand evidence that I am going to make long posts on VNN like 777 where I at least attempt to gather evidence. Cognitive dissonance much?

Have they shown the existing body of evidence to be fraught with manipulation? No, they haven't.

Right. Lamp shades. Soap bars. Shrunken heads. Joseph Burg's revelations. The torture of Hoess, Streicher and others. Those two Ukranian guards who were fed the line about diesel lines. They are all correct. No one has ever manipulated evidence at anytime regarding the second world war. Jews and the Allied Powers were totally honest. Jews can never tell lies.

Actually folks like Drew J would long have reached the conclusions that logic and the principle of Occam's Razor demand if they actually needed and cared about evidence. But evidence is the last thing they are interested in, which is why they idiotically pooh-pooh what evidence is available and then yell for what evidence they know not to be available.

How dare I demand that you clarify to the world what this evidence is on the polish archives that bears out Kola's artistic depictions of Belzec. How dare I not simply have blind faith in something I can't see. If certain evidence that you think is real, isn't available to the public, then you better get off your ass and change it. At the very least, demand to know why such hardcore irrefutable evidence is being hoarded. The fact that you can't prove your case is not our problem so quit bitching at us about demanding evidence 'we know not to be available.' Punkass.

No, that evidence doesn't have to be made public to reach the reasonable conclusions that historians and criminal courts have reached.

Including Nazis who had a reason to lie and go along with the already entrenced allied propaganda in order to save whatever of their skin they could. Including lies now accepted as lies about things like soap, shades and heads. Including testimony tortured out of people like Hoess and fed to people like those two Ukranian guards. Like scientifically impossible testimony about pulling gassed bodies out of shoddily constructed gas chambers in Auschwitz without any protective wear on - which is absurd since the gas in those bodies would absord into your own body were you a body hauler.
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html

As to the "locked up and sat on" - baloney, I'm looking forward to Drew J's demonstration that it's standard operating procedure in archaeology not to lock up and sit on such evidence in academic or other archives but to parade it in publications available to the public.

I'm not saying archaeolgoists don't have archives that the common public may not have access to. So quit the strawman. What I am saying is that anytime someone wants to challenge them, they have to open their archives of evidence and show it to the world if they want to be taken seriously. You and your ilk have to do that with regards to these polish archives you keep prattling on about.

Drew JMy 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.

It does in that the people who see Drew J's crap don't necessarily see my reply and vice-versa, actually.

He has subtly accused me of mis-representing his posts. But that doesn't matter because ultimately it poses problems for his claim that I and others have had Muehlenkamp on the brain. In fact, when I have responded to rodoh people, I have always provided links to rodoh. In fact, I circumvented what codoh does with rodoh links and spread the link apart for others to put back together so that you could get a proper url instead of the aliceinwonderland thing that happens. Muehlenkamp knows I do this but he covers it up and refuses to give me credit for linking back to the original source.
Now who's really interested in the truth about things? Is it really Roberto? How can we be expected to believe it when he engages in deception like this?

As Sergey didn't "disassociate" from any eyewitness (stating that an eyewitness is likely to have go the diesel detail wrong doesn't mean dismissing such eyewitness altogether, except perhaps in the illogical world of "Revisionist" idiocy), and as the evidence I have shown by no means consists of eyewitness evidence let alone "lousy" eyewitness evidence alone, I'd say that Drew J either forgot himself in his fish-wife hysteria or is lying through his teeth.

There you go again changing yours and Sergy's theory as represented in the DIESEL ISSUE IS IRRELEVANT blog entry when it's convenient for your holocaustianity religion. If you check Sergy's entry, or my summary of it here on codoh,
viewtopic.php?p=38258#p38258
you see that Sergy himself implies that anyone who talked about the diesel engine never actually saw an engine of any sort. The only ones who were in a real position to see engines, said petrol according to your own words Muehlenkamp. Therefore since you guys saw that those who claimed diesel engines never actually saw an engine, then you can't contradict yourself and say, "well maybe they saw other parts of the engine that they got more or less correct." They weren't supposed to have seen any engine. That's why they are disregarded and that is why you yourself say the diesel issue is irrelevant. If you didn't always flip flop like that Roberto, on top of making straw men, violating Occam's Razor and ignore daming evidence like the Joseph Burg testimony about Eherenburg, you may seem more honest.

That's not a claim but a logical conclusion, and whether or not the backup of Prof. Kola's report is "released" is immaterial to that report being part of the conclusive evidence to mass murder at Belzec.

See what I mean when I asked earlier who is really disregarding razors, rules of evidence, warranted skepticism which all form the basis of science? We don't know what this evidence is but it doesn't matter because without seeing it we can still claim it backs up what Kola says. When pressed for details of this evidence by me Roberto, you yourself admitted that it was stuck in Polish archives and that you couldn't specify what was in them. All you could do was quote from some url which CLAIMED this evidence backed up Kola. That it was "rigid" and "thoroughly documented." Too bad we can't check that for ourselves. You even implied earlier that this stuff was locked up and held from the general public and even people like you who could apparently do the world a favour with it, when you retored...

As to the "locked up and sat on" - baloney, I'm looking forward to Drew J's demonstration that it's standard operating procedure in archaeology not to lock up and sit on such evidence in academic or other archives but to parade it in publications available to the public.

Again, to which I said:

"I'm not saying archaeolgoists don't have archives that the common public may not have access to. So quit the strawman. What I am saying is that anytime someone wants to challenge them, they have to open their archives of evidence and show it to the world if they want to be taken seriously. You and your ilk have to do that with regards to these polish archives you keep prattling on about."


No, you sit on something that is usually sat on in archaeological and other academic practice and not required to prove anyone's point to the world

Special pleading again. And all I can say is refer to my italics. The point my italics underly is that scientists have archives and libraries that only other scientists can acceess or even care to access because they are the only ones who give a damn about that stuff. Well Roberto, since you give a damn about evidence as you say, then you have to petition to get this evidence released and let us see it. Don't expect us to take it on faith. That's naive and unscientific.

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.

No it doesn't. Blog responses to Cesspit posts are well and fine but no substitute for a face-to-face discussion on the same forum

In other words, if I was on rodoh, you would be responding to me or saying things to me in a completely different way. Yeah right. I find that hard to believe. :lol: Especially since I would have still said the same things I have said on codoh now and previous. Making a moutain out of a molehill to make up for your unscientific ways of thinking including straw men, disregarding the razor and ignoring Burg's untortured testimony that exposed Ehrenburg. In fact, let's skip to where you talk about Burg now. But not before we view this nugget of wisdom from you about me not being at the same board you are on. As if that made any difference since it doesn't since you continue to respond to me. As I say, your actions disprove your words that it matters where I am.

Roberto
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 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.

Roberto
Definitely, as it is up to who challenges a professional archaeologist's report matched by all other known evidence to prove that the contents of such report are inaccurate or at least submit evidence calling the report's accuracy in question, and Drew J has done neither.

In other words, I have to prove a negative and Kola doesn't have to prove a positive assertion because you engage in special pleading when you say, "This stuff is locked up. Give us a break. Just take us on our word that it's "detailed" and has superb "chemical analysis." "
Oh I get what you're saying. You're saying this evidence isn't lacking. It exists. It has been proven dear Drew J. Okay fine. Then prove it has been proven. Oh wait. You haven't because you haven't accessed the archives yet. Okay fine. But don't expect us to take the alleged contents of that archive on faith anytime soon...er rather...at all, ever. Last time I checked, the one who made a positive assertion (Kola and Muehlenkamp, and the url Muehlenkamp quoted that claimed "detailed archaeological documentation" and "chemical analysis") was under a burden to back up what they say. Not make excuses about alleged evidence not being available since such fallacious arguing is a waste of energy that would be better spent on working to get a hold of that evidence that supposedly proves your case. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

Now the jump ahead to Burg as promised. Oh wait. Nevermind. A talk on Muehlenkamp's reply to me on Nuremburg, then to the other burg. Joseph Burg. :lol: I really promise this time.

RobertoNow 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?


Drew JKind 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.

Now for Roberto's take.
Drew J is running away from my question, which obviously referred to criminal trials under the defendant-friendly procedural rules of the present-day USA or the German Federal Republic. But as he lamely invoked the "Nuremburg trials", let's see if the creep can explain what the hell he means by "unscientific affidavits" (I didn't know affidavits had to be "scientific" under any legal system I'm familiar with), and show what evidence there is that Hoess was tortured at Nuremberg (as opposed to his mishandling shortly after capture, which had nothing to do with his later deposition for the defense at Nuremberg and wasn't even meant to extract information)? Hoess himself described his stay at Nuremberg as a "rest cure" compared to what he had been through before.

I gave an example of an unscientific affidavit. Since Roberto is having trouble comprehending what I am getting at given what I have laid out in the past, I guess I will have to take it slowly.

As for unscientific affidavits, I am talking of course about those two Ukranina guards who were obviously fed the line about the diesel engines.
viewtopic.php?p=38258#p38258
As I have already annihilated you on the diesel issue Roberto and exposed how you tried to flip flop in order to save whatever pathetic testimony about a diesel issue that you admitted was already dead (a sign of cognitive dissonance on your part Roberto) that you could, I'm not going to go over it again. Since you don't even buy the science behind the diesel engine (you and Sergy love to harp on guys who talk about Petrol engines that you yourself state were in a better position to see an engine than any of these so called diesel engine eyewitnesses), and since these guys talked about them in an affidavit, I'd say that their lies make their affidavit very unscientific since it's very unscientific to claim to be able to kill many people with deisel exhaust.

Was your brain able to integrate this simple explanation?

Please readers, take note of the euphemism that Roberto used for the torture of Hoess. "Mishandling." Apparently, torture is a joke to Roberto. Since Roberto is eager to ignore evidence that Jews and Allies manipulated things and created propaganda, I guess I will have to shove more resources in his face.

MARK TURLEY ON THE HOESS CONFESSION.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4860

THE TORTURE OF RUDOLF HOESS
http://christianparty.net/hoess.htm

AN AUSCHWITZ REVALUATION
http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/200 ... 8b6d6ec615

THE SIX MILLION SWINDLE
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=311959

The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfmomi/2.html#anchor525130

Hoess confessed to numbers of dead that were impossible, he named a camp that didn't exist, and he was tortured into saying that certain camps (treblinka, one of them) were opened at a time different than they actually were.

Now to Muehlenkamp's laughable response to Joseph Burg's testimony that was uncoerced, made without him having anything to gain all under oath in a Canadian court of law.

Gwynn's article didn't say anything about Jews being murdered, actually. It was about Jews living in precarious economic conditions which Gwynn claimed would lead to starvation unless something was done.

Notice how he doesn't deny the strange six million figure that just by conicidence happened to appear more than once from the mouths of Jews. Yeah, it's all a coincidence that this number popped up so many times. :lol:
Let's check that Gwynn article and see what it says.

""From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help ... six million human beings ... Six million men and women are dying ... in the threatened holocaust of human life ... six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying" "

Clearly, they are saying six million are dying. Nice try Roberto. Oh and you'll love this. A collection of OTHER sources outside Gwynn that were also claiming the kabbalistic six million number.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=267553
As the Jewish prophecy goes, "you shall return minus six million."

And yes it is kabbalistic. You are just an ignoramus or a gatekeeping cover artist.

No, I just don't see crooked-nosed kikes under my bed, like Drew J and other loonies obsessed with "kabbalistic" crap obviously do

Make a straw man about me and then insult me. On top of that expose your ignorance about the Jewish kaballah. Three strikes, you're out.

Drew J
THE FIRST SIX MILLION. WHY THEY CHOSE THE NUMBER SIX.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5642

Roberto
Looks like we have some serious cases of psychiatric paranoia here, trying to trace back the "six million" to the Talmud

Kabbalah you dumbass. The body of literature of the Kabbalah and the books of the Talmud are not the same. Guess you're repeating another one of the three strikes you just made above.

instead of wondering why all demographic studies worth the name since 1945 by both Jews and none-Jews show that a) between 5 and 6 million Jews vanished from the European continent during World War II and b) there's no evidence whatsoever that they showed up anywhere else.

Probably because they were all pumping out the same Jewish and Allied propaganda. Does anyone else notice Roberto's trick here? Look carefully. He says SINCE 1945. Naturally, he doesn't want to talk about all those other sources in that stormfront link which show how so many Jews were trying to justify/fulfill their stupid kabbalistic prophecy.

Roberto
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.

Drew J
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.

Roberto
Cute how he dodges my argument and goes on bitching about Ehrenburg, isn't it?

So when I show that Joseph Burg, a man who had no reason to lie and nothing to gain from his testimony outed Ehrenburg as a man who knew there were no Auschwitz gas chambers (and thus no six million by logical implication), Muehlenkamp doesn't explain why Burg's testimony should be disregarded. He simply calls the facts that I unearth bitching.

Drew J
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.html
Edited 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.


Roberto
I'll go for the "lied under oath". It's nothing I would put beyond a piece of garbage like J. Burg. Of course he may also have believed in his own BS.

Here we see Roberto hopelessly caught in a mesh of question begging, circular logic. Why was he a piece of garbage? He lied under oath. Okay well then what was his motive to lie? He's a piece of garbage. Even if he wants to deny the charge of circular logic, he still has to explain on what grounds Burg lied under oath. Oh right. He had to have beacause of all that so called evidence in post 777 of his on VNN which include laughable things like questionable diary entries attributed to Goebbles, photographs and polish articles about gold theft that don't prove a damn thing, artistic depiction of Belzec core samples by Kola that revisionists are just supposed to take on faith even though we haven't seen the stuff in the polish archives backing up Kola that is supposedly "detailed" and has superb "chemical analysis." But wait folks, it gets better with Roberto here. :lol:

Drew J
Clearly, you are grasping at straws because you can't handle what Burg stated under oath on the public record. Punkass. :lol:

Roberto
So who stated something under oath on the public record cannot have lied or been hallucinating (Burg was crazy enough for that too),

Doesn't prove it. This is funny coming from Muehlankamp since Burg was actually a prisoner in these camps. He was a holocaust survivor. Funny how Nazis who had reason to lie and fall in line with the allied propaganda (save their lives by going alone with the lie since denying it would get them nowhere...or being tortured), are more reliable than Jews like Burg who were actually in the fucking camps.

even if his statement stands alone and is not corroborated by statements or other evidence independent of it?

Germar Rudolf went to prison for proving there were no gas chambers for humans at Auschwitz in the places people said there were. It doesn't matter how many people you can get to testfiy about Auschwitz gas chambers being real. If you take their claims, challenge them, and find them to be unscientific, then it didn't happen the way they said they did.

The Chemical & Toxicological Impossibility
Of The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Legend
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html

It's good to know that this is Drew J's opinion. Funny that he only has that opinion when it suits his articles of faith …

Speaking of articles of faith, you never really explained why it is that we should take the claims of Kola supporting evidence on Belzec that is "detailed" and has superb "chemical analysis" just because you quoted a url in one of your blog entries. We'll believe it when we see it. Sorry Roberto. That's just science.

And and I feel some quotations from Austin App's THE SIX MILLION SWINDLE IS IN ORDER.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/po ... html#10616

Page 22
A Priori Case Against Six Million Figure

After I had several times begged Time not to keep repeating the fraudulent six million figure, it answered evasively:

The six million figure which we quoted, as I mentioned in a previous letter, is one that is usually accepted by all government sources, on the basis of a number of affidavits similar to that of Dr. Wilhelm Hoettle (sic) which I quoted to you in my earlier letter.
(July 27, 1949)

The fact that the only evidence Time and Jewish sources can present for the six million figure is an affidavit by Hoettl and some even less authentic ones should alone suffice to discredit the figure...If pressed for evidence, they base themselves on what noe Hoettl said from hearsay about Eichmann, and what similarly one Rudolf Hess thought he remembered Eichmann as saying.


Page 23-24
What About The Hoettl, Hoess, and Eichmann Testimony?

The only evidence that Talmudists and their stooges ever pretend to offer for the six million figure is what Hoettl and Hoess, under threat of their lives, claimed to have heard Eichmann one time say. Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl was a colonel in the security services, not a very high rank, a subordinate of Eichmann's, who himself said, "I was merely a cog in the machinery." Hoettel himself claims to have been a British agent sometime during the war. The London paper Weekend (January 25, 1963) confirms this. It also reveals that when Hoettl gave his affidavit he had been threatened with delivery to the Hungarian Communists. This must be interpreted as a promise of immunity if he gave sufficient damning testimony against his superior, Eichmann, but hanging if he didn't.

According to the British at Flensburg, he declared he had one time heard Eichmann say that four million Jews died in concentration camps and another two million elsewhere as reprisals and so on. He was then rushed to the Nuremburg Trials, where he dutifully repeated his hearsay. But oddly enough, theough the German attorney for the Defense, one Dr. Kaufmann, repeatedly requested that he be called for cross-examination, the Nuremburg lynchers did not dare expose this key evidence to cross-examination. Again, at the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem the legal lynchers were afraid to expose him to cross-examination. And during the same trial Eichmann insisted that Hoettl had twised his casual remark and that he had in fact never named figures to Hoettel because he could not know such figures. (See: Heinrich Haertl, Freispruch fuer Deutschland, Goettingen, 1965, p. 190-01).

Here in lies the truth of the matter. Neither Eichmann nor Hoettl could know the figures. And Hoettl got immunity for what was almost certainly a perjured affidavit. Yet on it rests almost the whole myth of the six million. The only other testimony advanced is that of Rudolf Hess. He was for awhile commander at Auschwitz. Again, threatened with the noose of he did not incriminate his superiors, he testified at Nuremburg that two and a half million Jews died there. Even Gerald Reitlinger accuses Hoess of "perverse magalomania" for this figure. To show how unreliable poor freightened Hoess had been, when he later was delivered to the Poles he reduced the two and one half million to only 1.13 million. The Poles thereupon irately hanged him! Eichmann himself declared:

Since the war I read that 2,500,000 Jews were physically liquidated under Hoess' command. I find this figure incredible. The capacity of the camp argues against it. Many of the Jews confied there were put to work details and survived. After the war the Auschwitzers sprouted like mushrooms out of the forest floor after a rain. Hundreds of thousands of them are today in the best of health."
(See:Life Magazine, November 28, 1960)
...
To show the guess work and the shameful unreliability involved, Time Magazine (June 6 1960) reported Eichmann said, "Five Million Jews"; the Jewish Newsweek, however (June 6 1960), hiked the figure to "six million Jews." That is how Jewish throw a million Jews around - when it serves their blackmail!


Page 25
Not Hoettl, Not Hoess, Not Eichmann Could or Did Attest the 6 Million Figure

Essentially, on this off-the-cuff remark of Eichmann's, never properly probed, the whole swindle of the six million rests. Be it noted first that Eichmann said five million, not six; secondly, he referred to "Enemies of the Reich"; not Jews; thirdly, he was at the time talking casually, not professionally, and authoritatively. Furthermore, he said far more officially, "I would like to stress again, however, that my department never gave a single annihilation order. We were responsible only for deportation..." Eichmann ordered no Jews killed, nor anyone else...In short, Eichmann could not in any way know the number of Jewish casualties, and Hoettl and Hoess did not pretend to know but, under extoration to incrinimate Eichmann, attributed conflicting words to him!


Page 25-26
How Affidavits were Extorted and Perjury Encouraged

Affidavits, like those to which Time refers, are unreliable, often outright frauds, like the figure of six million itself. With a few heroic exceptions, all affidavits by Jews are in part or whole perjured, often well rewarded, and altogether unreliable. Affidavits from Germans, including from former Nazis, were rather customarily obtained by threatening the witness with hanging if he did not incriminate his superior sufficiently for hanging.

After Simon Wiesenthal, one of the best known prosecutors and persecutors of Germans is Dr. Robert Kempner, who seems to exploit dual American and German citizenship...After the war, he turned up as a prosecutor of Germans at Nuremburg, a particularly unscrupulous one, who is still at it. His nasty method of extorting incriminating affidavits against the more important Nazi leaders is illustrated in the case of Dr. Friedrich Gaus, many years a minor official in the German foreign office. Dr. Kempner wanted him to testify falsely in order to get his superior Ribbentrop hanged. When Gaus complained that he could not honestly to testify, Kempner replied:

The Russians are very interested in you, Mr. Gaus! For your violation of International Agreements! The only way for you to save your head, is that you tell the truth. Or do you wish as the right hand of Ribbentrop to go to the gallows? You know the old German saying, 'Captured with him, hanged with him!' Who were after Ribbentrop, the most guilty in the Foreign Office. Just say it; it serves no purpose, to spare these people.

Whereupon the terrified Gaus incriminated Ribbentrop as Kempner wished; - and thereby secured immunity! He was immediatly released from solitary arrest and moved to the witness portion of the Nuremburg court. (See: "U.S. Anklaeger Kempner schwer belasted." Deutsche Wochenzeitung Fed. 23, 1973).


Page 30
Conclusions of a Jewish Scholar Who Was Persecuted Therefore

In Josef G. Burg's book, Suendenboecke - Scapegoats, he insists that "Endloesung - Final Solution" envisaged the emigration of Jews, not the "total liquidation of all Jews." (p. 74). More impotantly, he investigated the six million statistic thoroughly and honestly. He found it "a legend poisoning peaceful relations." (p. 238). He comes to the conclusion that, even giving atrocity-mongers maximum rather than minimum figures, the highest "number of Jews that died in the control of Hitler were killed, lost their lives, or died could be no more than 3,323,000." (p.237).

Here, an honest Jewish researcher slices almost three million from the six million swindle. And the three million lost include those who died naturally, were killed by Allied air raids, were executed as subversives and partisans, of whom one and a half million were fighting illegally against the Germans (p.238).



Quickly back to Nuremburg.

The Myth of the Justice of Nuremberg
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfmomi/2.html#anchor525130
a chapter from THE FOUNDING MYTHS OF MODERN ISRAEL
The methods of the procedure were based on the same principles (or rather absence of principles) as the choice of the accused among the vanquished only.

The status of the tribunal was defined as follows :

* Article 19 : The Court will not be bound by technical rules relating to the administration of proofs. It will adopt and apply as far as possible an expeditive and not a formalist procedure, will admit any means it considers to have conclusive value.

* Article 21 : The Court will not require proof of facts that are of public notoriety, but will take them as established. It also regards as authentic proofs the official documents and reports of the Allied governments.

This was the juridical monstrosity whose decisions were to be canonized and regarded as criteria of an untouchable historical truth, according to the Gayssot-Fabius law of May 2nd 1990.

This text inserts an article 24b in the 1981 law concerning the freedom of the press which says:
"Article 24b - whosoever contests the existence of crimes against humanity sanctioned by French or international jurisdiction will be punished by imprisonment of from one month to a year and of a fine of between 2,000 and 300,000 francs, or to one of these penalties only."


* * *


Such a procedure by the Nuremberg Court raised objections even amongst the top-level American jurists: those of the Supreme Court.

One of these was Judge Jackson. The English historian, David Irving, who admitted he had misjudged him earlier, was to say the following :
"Renowned jurists throughout the world were ashamed of the Nuremberg proceedings. Certainly, Judge Robert H. Jackson, the American president of the accusers, was ashamed of these proceedings ; this was obvious from his "personal diary", which I have read."

"I have had the privilege of having access to the "Memoirs" (of Judge Jackson) at the Library of Congress...Shortly after Robert H. Jackson was entrusted by President Truman with the task of leading the American judges at the Nuremberg Trial, he found out about American plans to use atomic bombs; he was uneasy about the task entrusted to him : to pursue in the name of a nation, acts which it had itself committed, for he was aware that the United States was going to commit an even greater crime." (33.9392 and 9394)

Referring to the book by Alpheus Thomas Mason on Harlan Fiske Stone: "Pillar of the Law" (Harlan Fiske Stone was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States) the lawyer Christie quoted page 715 of this book, in which Stone wrote to the editor of "Fortune" magazine that not only did he disown such a procedure, but that he regarded the whole thing as "a high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg." (5.995-996) p.716.

Judge Wennerstrum, of the Supreme Court of the United States, President of one of the courts (23.5915-5916) was so disgusted by the procedure that he refused his nomination and went back to the United States, where he voiced his objections in the "Chicago Tribune" : 60% of the members of the board of the trial were Jewish ; so were the interpreters.
"As for the principal accused : Hoess, Streicher, Pohl, they have been tortured." (23.5919).

By virtue of the Nuremberg statutes accepting as proofs all declarations by the Allies, the Soviet report on Katyn accusing the Germans of the massacre of 11,000 Polish officers was accepted as an "authentic proof", irrefutable, on August 8th 1945 by the victors.

Source : USSR Document 54, in vol. 39 of the TMI(p.290.32.)

The Soviet Prosecuting Attorney, General Rudenko, could have said according to article 21 of the Nuremberg Trial Statute, "...there could be no object of contestation." (XV,p.300)

On April 13 th 1990, the international press announced that the massacre had been ordered by Beria and the Soviet authorities. When Professor Naville, of Geneva University, had examined the bodies, he found 1940 documents in their pockets which proved that the executions had taken place at that date. In 1940, the Smolensk district was occupied by the Soviets.

* * *


The following is a clip from David Duke's book JEWISH SUPREMACISM.
Our western concept of law rests on the idea of impartial justice. Is that possible when the judges are the political enemies of the accused? Is it possible when men face prosecution for acts of war that the Allies themselves had committed? Are the trials credible when they allow massive amounts of testimony without cross-examination of witnesses...when so called evidence consists of confessions exacted through torture...when witnesses for the defense could face arrest for showing up at court...when men are tried for violations of laws that did not even exist at the time of their alleged commission?

Judge Edward Van Roden was amember of the Simpson Army Commission that investigated the methods used at the Dachau Concentration Camp. In the Jaunary 9, 1949 Washington Daily News, and in the January 23, 1949 Sunday Pictorial he told of some examples of the use of torture:

The investigators," he said, "would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses...All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. 550 551.

Much of the "holocaust proof" offerted today by historians is the 'confessions' extracted at the war crimes trials. I thought can we trust the confessions of those whose testicles were damaged during interrogation? I was also shocked when I learned that Russian KGB officials, who themselves had committed extenseive crimes against humanity, sat as judges.

One of my friends at the Citizens Council told me that an American judge was was president of one of the tribunals exposed the injustices of the Nuremburg Trials. I found out that Ioawa Supreme Cort justice Charles F. Wenersturm had resigned his appointment in disgust at the proceedings. He charged that the proesctution prevented the defense from obtaining evidence and preparing their cases, that the trials were not trying to create a new legal principle but were motivated solely by hatred of Germans. Additionally, he said that 90 percent of the Nuremburg Court consisted of persons who, on political and racial grounds, were biased against the defense. He contended that Jews, many of whom were refugees from Germany and newly made "naturalized" American citizens, dominated the stuff of the Nuremburg Courts and were more interested in revenge than justice.

The entire atmosphere is unwholesome...Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices. 552.

I also found out that my military idol, General George S. Patton, had opposed the war crimes trials. For example, in a letter to his wife he wrote

I am frankly opposed to this war criminal stuff. It is not cricket and is Semitic. I am opposed to sending POW's to work as slaves in forgien lands, where many will be starved to death. 553.


550. Washington Daily News. (1949). January 9

551. Sunday Pictorial (1949). January 23, London.

552. Chicago Daily Tribune (1948). February 23

553. Blumenson, M. (1972). The Patton Papers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Of course all these things that were exposed about Nuremburg, I'm sure Muehlenkamp will simply right off as mishandling.



since I can only take so much nonsense in one sitting, that's enough for now.[/list][/list]
Last edited by Drew J on Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:30 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:14 pm)

P.S.
That was Roberto's first post by the way that I responded to.

I should mention that in his second post, we can see him claiming that at Wannsee they were in fact talking about extermination. :lol: He also says Irving confirmed the authenticity of the Goebbels diaries. Excuse me but we have been showing how he never in fact did that on this board. In fact recently, I brought back a bunch of old stuff on this post and posted some new stuff to show that Irving didn't do what Muehlenkamp say he did.

So you can get an idea of the lunacy that are in his further responses. Since I have already addressed Wansee (to which Muehlenkamp replied "Of course they were talking extermination at Wannsee, as becomes clear from the text of the protocol already and was also confirmed by the man who made the protocol himself. ") and Irving's problematic claims about the Goebbels diaries, I'm wondering if I should even bother with him.

Pepper
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Pepper » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Oct 09, 2009 8:40 am)

Much of the "holocaust proof" offered today by historians is the "confessions" extracted at the war crimes trials.

Judge Edward Van Roden was a member of the Simpson Army Commission that investigated the methods used at the Dachau Concentration Camp. In the January 9, 1949 Washington Daily News, and in the January 23, 1949 Sunday Pictorial he told of some examples of the use of torture:

The investigators," he said, "would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses...All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair.



Our "history" books are filled with an absurd version of victors "history" written via testicle torture.

Nice.

I've heard that their favorite tactic with their favorite torture wasn't kicking, but was to tie a victim spread eagle, naked of course, and then step on their nuts, putting more weight on the jewels as was needed to "guide" the victim toward the "confession" that the jews wanted the victim to say and / or sign.

What wouldn't a man "confess" to when someone was standing on his nuts?

Who wouldn't "confess" to gassing jews after a few sessions of such torture?

And remember, the 137 men whose testicles were damaged "beyond repair," were from the Dachau trials ONLY.

This happened at prior to EVERY trial.

And those trials are the basis for the "history" that was written about those camps / the holocaust.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:25 pm)

Roberto also continues to claim that Gerdes never specifies what he would accept as proof yet he has stated numerous times numerical equations such as the one tenth of one percent claim and also he would accept anything published in Skeptic or some sort of Archaeology magazine. In other words, he continues to lie.

I suppose I should ask him a question that is in the same vein as the subtitle of his blog.

WHAT PART OF TORTURE DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

You saw how he completely ignored Burg's testimony from the Zundel trial without any scientific or rational basis. You also saw how he lied when he said Gwynn, author of that 1919 American Hebrew article never claimed six million died. Well as we saw, he did in fact claim six million men women and children were dying. Once again the kabbalistic six. But of course he will not bother with these facts either as it undermines his own nonsense.

KostasL
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 320
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:27 am

Re: Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby KostasL » 1 decade 1 month ago (Sat Oct 10, 2009 10:06 am)

Pepper wrote:Drew

I'm wondering if I should even bother with this fruitcake.



Is rob M a mentally ill, emotionally disturbed pathological liar?


If we judge by his writings absolutely yes !
When you realize that the Holocaust is a LIE, then all of a sudden, ALL your questions, ALL bizarre and strange things, disappear, and ALL things make sense, at last.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Oct 13, 2009 1:04 am)

I know I said I wouldn't bother with Muehlenkamp but he responded to what I have in the OP. I scrolled to a random place and saw him say in response to my sarcastic comment how dare I demand proof of what is in those polish archives that supposedly back up kola's 1999 Belzec artistic depictions, "You're damn right. You have no business demanding to see that stuff." Actually, his words were, "Exactly, pal. You're in no position to demand anything. You have a lot to show before you can make any demands, and you haven't yet shown anything that would substantiate the irrational suspicions underlying your demands." He justifed the mysterious UNDEFINED, UNSHOWN contents of the archives that are supposedly documented on the following argumentative grounds.

I take it on logic because it

a) was collected and evaluated by an archaeologist of note who can be reasonably assumed to have done his job right and

b) is matched by all known documentary, eyewitness and demographic evidence as well as the physical evidence found decades before by forensic investigators.

In other words, though we haven't seen it, it's all based on the assumption that eyewitnesses were telling the truth. Number one, we know the holocaust industry from day one has been frought with liars. As for demographic evidence, nice try. Joseph Burg himself said no more than three million died. He continues.

In other words, I'm applying the Occam's Razor principle. The notion that Prof. Kola duly deducted his conclusions from his finds explains all known evidence and requires no unsubstantiated assumptions. The imbecilic notion that Prof. Kola sucked his conclusions out of his fingers, on the other hand, has no basis whatsoever.

Kola has no reason to lie. You can't justify that unless you do so a priori and leave it at that and get lazy and don't check things and cross check. Well you think you have and you have compiled a lot of resources Roberto. Unfortunately, they rely on bogus science and tortured testimonies. Your assumption that he is telling the truth needs justification. You can't take things for granted just because you feel like it. You may think it's wrong to say Kola made all that shit up, but agnosticism is better since we don't have access to real science to back it up. You know that deep down but won't admit it.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:05 am)

Eyewitness testimonies are essential to establishing facts in either discipline, and there are no rules or standards of evidence, as far as I know, whereby a conviction cannot be based on eyewitness evidence alone if other evidence is for some reason not available. Of course this doesn't mean we're only talking eyewitness evidence as concerns the crimes of Drew J's Nazi heroes. It just means that Drew J is, as usual, talking shit.

Eyewitness testimonies can never contradict science or be unsupported by scientific evidence. An example of the former is here.
The Chemical & Toxicological Impossibility Of The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Legend
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html
Here is one small clip whereby the extermination theorists shot themselves in the foot because their witness was an obvious liar.
The sketches, Robert Jan [van Pelt] noted, were fully corroborated by the architectural plans in the Auschwitz Central Construction Office and the aerial photos."9

Thus, Lipstadt, Pressac and van Pelt claim that Olere is perhaps the most important eyewitness to the alleged mass gassings, and his sketches, paintings and drawings provide the world with an accurate description of the technique and operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But is this so? Professor van Pelt's omission and inclusion suggest otherwise.

Let us begin with van Pelt's omission. In his book van Pelt published some of Olere's more important sketches regarding the structure and operation of the alleged gas chambers, but failed to include one of his most important drawings. It is the painting showing the Sonderkommmandos opening the gas chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas masks, rubber gloves or protective suits. Before proceeding, the reader is strongly urged to view and study the sketch in question. It is online at the address in this footnote. Scroll down to "Document 30."10

Pressac includes this painting in his book because it allegedly is an important visual record of the operation of the gas chambers. In regard to this matter, he wrote: "The fragment of furnace shown on the left, beyond the two arrows, is purely symbolic (there was no furnace in the basement) and spoils a scene which would have been irreproachable without this addition 'to make it better.'" Pressac is clearly saying that this sketch is an accurate picture of what happened, even though it does contain one purely symbolic item.11

This is a strange omission on the part of van Pelt. That is to say, he writes a book about the operation of the gas chambers, yet omits to include a sketch of "how-it-really-happened." For here we have an alleged sketch of "how-it-really-was" after a mass gassing, when the Sonderkommandos-under the watch and supervision of Nazi guards--opened the door of the gas chamber to remove the victims

Perhaps one reason that van Pelt failed to include this most important sketch is because he may have realized it could not have happened the way Olere claimed it did.


An example of the latter is the continued lack of actual scientific reports, videos, photos, lab analysis, etc to back up Kola's 1999 Belzec claims.


Sergey "had to admit" nothing, as Drew J well knows. As to what eyewitnesses I was referring to, I had the knowledgeable eyewitnesses who spoke of gasoline engines in mind in this particular context, which doesn't mean, however, that I dismiss everything that was said about issues other than the fucking engines by eyewitnesses who happened to mention diesel engines. And I was also referring to eyewitnesses who described aspects of the killing and body disposal procedure other than the engines in interrogations by or before criminal justice authorities of the German Federal Republic. Drew J knows very well what eyewitnesses in particular I was referring to, as he read my VNN posts quoting these eyewitness's testimonies. And he seems to be too dumb to understand that his "all eyewitnesses are unreliable as concerns their entire accounts because so-and-so said something about diesel engines" - babbling is among the silliest and most illogical arguments in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.

There you have it. The people who claim diesel engines were never in a position to see actual engines, yet they were in a position to somehow still know what engines were being used since they allegedly also saw all these mass killings with a weapon they somehow never saw. Whatever.

If Leleko and Malago spoke of diesel engines, the reasonable thing to assume is that they never saw the engines but heard about them from someone who was also not well informed, or that they incurred in the same mistake as some other eyewitness who must have confounded the gasoline gassing engine with a nearby diesel engines used for purposes other than gassing. Why should the Soviets have "fed" anyone a "line about diesel engines", outside Drew J's illogical fantasies? What the hell would it have mattered to the Soviets if the engines had been gasoline or diesel engines?

Why would the Soviets do anything? Apparently, Roberto loves to ignore evidence when it doesn't suit his bullshit holocaustianity religion. Remember that clip from Austin App's SIX MILLION SWINDLE when he told that one witness THE SOVIETS ARE VERY INTERESTED IN YOU and proceeded to tell this man how it would be in his best interest to simply go along with the allied propaganda? I'm glad you do because it seems like Roberto 'short term memory' Muehlenkamp doesn't remember. Thus, their testimonies, containing an absurdity (murder by diesel), renders them null and void and thus not real evidence.

Actually these two guards are rather useful witnesses except in what concerns their description of the gassing engine, and I just happened to forget commenting Drew J's irrelevant nonsense about them when I responded to this "argument":

They were wrong about the engine because maybe they were fed it from someone else. But the theory about mass killings. Oh god, they could have never been fed that line either. Perish the thougth. :lol: Amazing. Roberto's source gets annihilated and he's still trying to salvage it.

Drew J wrote:
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.

as follows:
Drew J is running away from my question, which obviously referred to criminal trials under the defendant-friendly procedural rules of the present-day USA or the German Federal Republic. But as he lamely invoked the "Nuremburg trials", let's see if the creep can explain what the hell he means by "unscientific affidavits" (I didn't know affidavits had to be "scientific" under any legal system I'm familiar with), and show what evidence there is that Hoess was tortured at Nuremberg (as opposed to his mishandling shortly after capture, which had nothing to do with his later deposition for the defense at Nuremberg and wasn't even meant to extract information)? Hoess himself described his stay at Nuremberg as a "rest cure" compared to what he had been through before.


See that? Invoking Nuremburg trials where regular rules of justice, evidence, ability to defend one's self were circumvented, and which contained testimonies of nazis suffering from testicle torture...IS LAME! Once again, Roberto confirms his dis-respect for evidence.

And let's go a little bit further and assume that Leleko and Malagon had been "fed" a "line" about diesel engines. What would this mean, considering among other things that a number of knowledgeable eyewitnesses mentioned gasoline engines used for gassing and did so before West German and not Soviet criminal justice authorities? Absolutely nothing

You already admitted they were wrong about the diesel engine so how the hell else do you explain them coming up with the line since they didn't just conjur it up in their imaginations? If they just said it without evidence, that would be lying on their part wouldn't it? Anyone who claimed a diesel engine never saw it according to you and Sergy since you love to pimp out witnesses who claim petrol instead. If these two guards said diesel, they clearly never saw an engine for if they did see one, then you yourself would say they surely would have said petrol like others. So you have basically admitted those two Ukraninan guards didn't see shit and thus their testimonies are worth shit. But you didn't explicitly say it for that would be admitting defeat.

In regards to the polish archives that supposedly prove what Kola says about Belzec being locked up, he replies to a comment of mine where I demanded to see the contents and not take it on someone's words that it's well documented.

Postulating manipulation without the slightest indication in this direction is unscientific indeed. What is more, it is libelous.

Once again, a straw man. I have said we are justified in agnosticism, not outright atheism regarding these archives. Show me. Just prove it says what that url you hyperlinked to one time in your blog says it is.

Drew J
This 'detailed documentation' you bolded better not refer to his mere artistic depictions for that simply will not cut it.

Roberto
Not cut it for whom? For Drew J? And Drew J is the measure of exactly what?

Drew J
Someone who knows that artistic depictions don't cut it.

Roberto
And whence did that someone derive such knowledge? Little birdie must have told him.

There we have it folks. Anyone can draw a picture of something they say happened, and that's good enough hard evidence. No double checking or photos or videos necessary. Artistic depictions IN AND OF THEMSELF IN ISOLATION FROM ALL ELSE is good enough. :lol:

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?

World renowned guy says it, has to be true. I take authority for truth. Sorry but that's appeal to authority. "Well maybe in and of itself Drew J, but Kola's claims of a holocaust correspond well with other evidence." Well even if this other evidence would be correct, that may prove Kola's artistic depictions, if you have corroborating evidence. You deny it's lacking while I say it is. So let's solve this by looking at Kola's Belzec work IN AND OF ITSELF AND IN RELATION TO WHAT'S SUPPOSEDLY IN THOSE POLISH ARCHIVES. If you can't back up Kola, which you can't, then you have to drop him from your arsenal and stick to other pieces of evidence you try to use. Kola's work has to stand on his own. That is true since it is logically possible for all other pieces of evidence on Belzec that you claim prove a holocaust to be right, while Kola still could have made up those artistic depictions, by shortchanging or adding things. It has to stand alone in and of itself before it can be put into the same category as supposed other hard pieces of evidence of a holocaust. That's the issue that you're not acknowledging. If photos of skeletal remains can stand alone in and of itself, that means Kola's work has to since it's claiming human remains in the artistic depictions. Roberto wants evidences A and B, but B hasn't been proven to stand alone yet so he shouldn't be using it.

What I'm saying here is that Prof. Kola's descriptions and drawings carry the presumption of accuracy and are thus sufficient evidence bar a demonstration that Prof. Kola sucked them out of his fingers, in case the above should be too complicated for Drew J.

Wrong again for reasons already explained.

My argument is that the detail of archaeological finds is not usually revealed to the public but kept in the archives of academic institutions, already because it is too voluminous for the public to understand or be interested in it, and that the detailed documentation of Prof. Kola's finds at Belzec is no exception to this rule.

Funny, that's kind of what I said in my OP above. So since it's in a library, go get it. You people have had tens years to do this and you refuse?

Occam's Razor actually says that one can only speak of "hiding" where making detailed documentation and not just a summary report thereof available to the public is standard operating procedure, which is what I asked you to demonstrate. Until you demonstrate that it is customary to release every last boring detail of an archaeological investigation into the "mainstream media", you have no basis for claiming that anyone is hiding anything.

Strawman against my OP. Let's review what I said.

"I'm not saying archaeolgoists don't have archives that the common public may not have access to. So quit the strawman. What I am saying is that anytime someone wants to challenge them, they have to open their archives of evidence and show it to the world if they want to be taken seriously. You and your ilk have to do that with regards to these polish archives you keep prattling on about. "

And

"The point my italics underly is that scientists have archives and libraries that only other scientists can acceess or even care to access because they are the only ones who give a damn about that stuff. Well Roberto, since you give a damn about evidence as you say, then you have to petition to get this evidence released and let us see it. Don't expect us to take it on faith. "

Drew J
Here again we see Roberto pulling the same trick that most believers of the holocaustianity religion do. Demand that we clarify what evidence we would need, and then he would decide if it's worth getting.

Roberto
This is not about what evidence "we" profess to need, because "we" are a bunch of loonies who don't get to set the standards of evidence. It is about what evidence is reasonably necessary to logically reach the conclusion whether or not Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were extermination camps.

If I'm a stupid, illogical, naive loony, then you shouldn't be listening to me. You should be listenging to your brain that is supposed to be smarter and superior and IT will TELL YOU what is "reasonably necessary to logically reach the conclusion whether or not Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were extermination camps." See how easy that was folks? This is the exact point I made earlier about Roberto's cognitive dissonance. Call us morons who are too stupid to regard proper evidence, and then demand that we have the capacity for determining reasonable standards to logically reach a conclusion. Contradicting yourself doesn't make you look good Roberto.

And however insistently Drew J tries to make believe the contrary, that necessary evidence does not include the detailed backup of an archaeologist's report.

Again, he is bitching about the bulletproof point I have just illustrated with those above italics which date from my OP.

Drew J
Therefore if that's the case, then he shouldn't want to listen to my idiot demands since they would by implication of his earlier words be necessarily idiotic.

Roberto
What makes Drew J think I'm listening to his idiotic demands?

Probably the fact that you used language that you would listen to my demands before bothering to go and get what you needed out of those Polish archives. Shall I quote your own words to you again?

"This is not about what evidence "we" profess to need, because "we" are a bunch of loonies who don't get to set the standards of evidence. It is about what evidence is reasonably necessary to logically reach the conclusion whether or not Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were extermination camps."

There you go again contradicting yourself Roberto. You keep flip flopping like a dying fish out of water.

Drew J
He should get the evidence himself and then shove it in my face, Gerdes, Bradley Smith's and the face of the rest of the world.

Roberto
If I could I would, without that changing my position that the conclusions of historiography are solid enough without that evidence being shoved in anybody's face.

So now he has deemed it unnecessary on his own. But wait a minute. That would seem to fall in line with him doing what I had a musing on earlier. Flashback:

If I'm a stupid, illogical, naive loony, then you shouldn't be listening to me. You should be listenging to your brain that is supposed to be smarter and superior and IT will TELL YOU what is "reasonably necessary to logically reach the conclusion whether or not Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka were extermination camps."

Sounds like Roberto made his decision not to listen to me and what I or Gerdes or Pepper would consider proper evidence. But this particular mindest of shutting us out again, is part of the flip flop problem I stated earlier where he demanded to know our thoughts on the issue.

Drew J
Whatever it is, he should get it regardless of what an apparent moron like me would think. If I'm a moron, my opinion shouldn't matter or affect the evidence that's just waiting on a man like Roberto to be released to the world.

Roberto
Actually the only reason for "getting it" is to make wholly unreasonable "doubt" look even sillier than it does already, as I said.

Committing the same problem as I just said before. Flashback:

Even if this other evidence would be correct, that may prove Kola's artistic depictions, if you have corroborating evidence. You deny it's lacking while I say it is. So let's solve this by looking at Kola's Belzec work IN AND OF ITSELF AND IN RELATION TO WHAT'S SUPPOSEDLY IN THOSE POLISH ARCHIVES. If you can't back up Kola, which you can't, then you have to drop him from your arsenal and stick to other pieces of evidence you try to use. Kola's work has to stand on his own. That is true since it is logically possible for all other pieces of evidence on Belzec that you claim prove a holocaust to be right, while Kola still could have made up those artistic depictions, by shortchanging or adding things. It has to stand alone in and of itself before it can be put into the same category as supposed other hard pieces of evidence of a holocaust. That's the issue that you're not acknowledging. If photos of skeletal remains can stand alone in and of itself, that means Kola's work has to since it's claiming human remains in the artistic depictions. Roberto wants evidences A and B, but B hasn't been proven to stand alone yet so he shouldn't be using it.


Roberto
Why, is every little detail of every analysis pertaining to an archaeological investigation usually published, whatever the subject of that investigation may be?

Drew J
It's called being a scientist and backing up your tentative claims with evidence. That's the inductive process. That's what scientists do.

Roberto
This is not about what scientists do

Oh really? Let's continue

but about how much of what they do scientists tend to make public, wise guy.

So in other words, what they do matters and underlies everything since making things public implies that things got done only when they got to "doing" and did something.

The contents of Prof. Kola's report are not "tentative claims" but a scientist's description of his empirical observations and the conclusions he derived from such observations.

That's what it looks like on paper. But is it really? Why can't these claims be backed up? Why have people refused for ten years to back this guy up with what is in those archives?

I didn't know a scientist was supposed to publish detailed backup of each and every one of his empirical observations in a report about his findings and conclusions. What scientists usually do is to mention in footnotes where that detailed backup can be consulted, and this Prof. Kola has done.

So a detailed backup exists, it's just one step removed from Kola. Well fine. Take that last step the the real shit in the archives. Oh wait. No one has yet. Sorry. Game over.

Drew J
documenting every little thing you can in everyway is important in archaeology because when you excavate a site and do some digging say for old buildings, breakables, old burial pits, etc, you in effect destroy large parts of it and you can never get it back. This procedure is what YOU are attempting to exclude Kola from when you demand that we simply take his artistic depictions at word and also believe in some sort of undefined unshown evidence in a polish archive that backs up his artistic depictions.

Roberto
Utter nonsense. Documenting every little detail is one thing and what Prof. Kola can be reasonably expected to have done because he is a professional archaeologist and that is his job and because he mentioned in his book that there is such detailed documentation and where it is kept.

Yet no one has gone to grab it and shove it in our face to prove it. Why is it that people whose religion his holocaustianity love to shove in our face secondary sources. They say look what Kola did? Well where's the absolute proof of it? Is it in his book? No, it's in the archives. Well show it to me. Why should I? Because it makes no sense to shove something in my face as hardcore evidence that just gives a footnote to the hardcore evidence. Granted it may not be a lying footnote, but if you can't just take it on faith.

Another thing is what of all that detailed documentation is made available to the public. You are idiotically postulating that detailed documentation doesn't exist because it was not made available to the public, or that the non-publication of such detailed archaeological documentation is a reason to suspect its nonexistence.

Strawman again. I said lack of evidence justifies agnosticism. Not atheism. How many times to you have to beat this dead horse?

Idiotically because you haven't demonstrated that it's standard procedure in archaeology to include photos and test reports and other details about each and every find in an archaeological report for public consumption.

Archaeologists don't take lots of photos and videos and say do lab analysis to prove that the ash from an ash pile is in fact human ash? I'll let codoh decide if that's true that archaeologists never use photos or videos to document a site they in effect destroy as they exhume/dissect.

Can you show me an archaeological report regarding any subject whatsoever that includes all chemical analyses and other details you claim should have been included in Prof. Kola's report? No you can't, and the reason why you can't is that the public doesn't usually get to see all of an archaeological investigation's finds and assessments thereof

Right because we agreed earlier the real hard evidence that guys like Kola make footnotes to as you say ("What scientists usually do is to mention in footnotes where that detailed backup can be consulted, and this Prof. Kola has done. "). If it exists, give us directions and then demonstrate what is supposed to be in those directions? Since it's logically possible for scientists to lie and fudge footnotes or alter contexts from other authors when they write, it's a sad comment on us when we read Kola type summaries and don't double check things for ourselves. It's a decline in rigid science, but it's a reality. But it's also no excuse for expecting us to take Kola's claims about archive material on faith when agnosticism in the absense of seeing such alleged stuff is the most proper thing to do.

whether the subject of investigation is Belzec extermination camp or the ruins of some ancient civilization. I submit that you can raise the suspicions you are raising against Prof. Kola's report against any archaeological report about any archaeological site whatsoever,

Not really because other archaeologists take photos, videos, do lab analysis on ash, etc. Kola didn't seem to do any of that, unless they are stuck in the archives - but we don't know what's in there because we haven't seen it. Since you know so much Roberto, what's in those archives specifically that back up Kola's artistic core sample depictions of Belzec? Video? Photo? Lab analysis of any kind? Failure to answer means you don't know and are just blowing smoke.

Drew J
The fact that you had to introduce some sort of unseen evidence in a polish archive proves that you know deep down I'm right when I say mere artistic depictions aren't good enough since anyone can draw a picture the way they want.

Roberto
No, it just means that Prof. Kola has done his academic and scientific duty by revealing where the detailed documentation underlying his conclusions is kept and can be examined by any peer who might want to examine it.

Okay no more comments on this Kola Belzec business. Show is what's in there. Put up or shut up. That simple. Show us Kola's work can stand alone in and of itself in isolation from the rest of the other pieces of evidence. When it can do that, then it can be submitted as exhibit J or whatever letter.

Roberto
So all eyewitness evidence is questionable because one or the other eyewitnesses gave some highly inaccurate information among other very accurate information, like Gerstein did?

Drew J
You can't prove that in a deductively sound argument, but it's a prima face reason to challenge other witness statements and continue in your own inductive investigations.

Roberto
No, it's not. Inaccurate information provided by an eyewitness is a prima facie reason to challenge that eyewitness's other statements and not to accept them as accurate except insofar as they are backed up by evidence independent of that eyewitness.

So IN PRINCIPLE, a person is caught lying about diesel engines or about being able to pull bodies out of a poorly constructed gas chamber in Auschwitz without dying from the gas which would have killed him after being absorbed into his skin, they are still a credible witness as long as other so called eye witness repeat a scientific absurdity. Got it.

Drew J wrote:
Pointing to absurdities like lamp shades, human soap bars, shrunken heads, the kabbalistic six million number, and what Joseph Burg revealed about Ehrenburg being a liar who secretly admitted to Burg that no evidence for Auschwitz gas chambers existed, these don't all deductively prove that any other piece of evidence is automatically wrong.

Roberto
No, the only thing that pointing to these "absurdities" proves is that the pointer is an illogical moron who should have his head examined.

Absurdities in quotation marks. In other words shrunken heads, lamp shades and soap bars are real. I thought Michael Shermer himself on Doanhue said these were incorrect. He called them, "mistakes." I guess Roberto would call him a Jew hater? And what about the Jews who admitted the soap story was a myth? Are they self hating Jews?

Acknowledging the Truth
In spite of all the apparently impressive evidence, the charge that the Germans manufactured soap from human beings is a falsehood, as Holocaust historians are now belatedly acknowledging. The "RIF" soap bar initials that supposedly stood for "Pure Jewish Fat" actually indicated nothing more sinister than "Reich Center for Industrial Fat Provisioning" ("Reichsstelle fur Industrielle Fettversorgung"), a German agency responsible for wartime production and distribution of soap and washing products. RIF soap was a poor quality substitute that contained no fat at all, human or otherwise.

Shortly after the war the public prosecutor's office of Flensburg, Germany, began legal proceedings against Dr. Rudolf Spanner for his alleged role in producing human soap at the Danzig Institute. But after an investigation the charge was quietly dropped. In a January 1968 letter, the office stated that its inquiry had determined that no soap from human corpses was made at the Danzig Institute during the war.

Revising the Record
More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur "denied established history" by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality. Gitta Sereny, another Jewish historian, noted in her book Into That Darkness: "The universally accepted story that the corpses were used to make soap and fertilizer is finally refuted by the generally very reliable Ludwigsburg Central Authority for Investigation into Nazi Crimes." Deborah Lipstadt, a professor of modern Jewish history, similarly "rewrote history" when she confirmed in 1981: "The fact is that the Nazis never used the bodies of Jews, or for that matter anyone else, for the production of soap."

In April 1990, professor Yehuda Bauer of Israel's Hebrew University, regarded as a leading Holocaust historian, as well as Shmuel Krakowski, archives director of Israel's Yad Veshem Holocaust center, confirmed that the human soap story is not true. Camp inmates "were prepared to believe any horror stories about their persecutors," Bauer said. At the same time, though, he blamed the legend on "the Nazis."

In fact, blame for the soap story lies rather with individuals such as Simon Wiesenthal and Stephen Wise, organizations like the World Jewish Congress, and the victorious Allied powers, none of whom has ever apologized for promoting THIS vile falsehood.

Why did Bauer and Krakowski decide that this was the appropriate time to officially abandon the soap story? Krakowski himself hinted that a large part of the motivation for this "tactical retreat" was to save what's left of the sinking Holocaust ship by throwing overboard the most obvious falsehoods. In the face of the growing Revisionist challenge, more easily demonstrable falsehoods like the soap story have become dangerous embarrassments because they raise doubts about the entire Holocaust story. As Krakowski put it: "Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?"

The bad faith of those making this calculated and belated concession to truth is shown by their failure to note that the soap myth was authoritatively "confirmed" at Nuremberg, and by their unwillingness to deal with the implications of that confirmation for the credibility of the Tribunal and other supposedly trustworthy authorities in establishing other, more fundamental aspects of the Holocaust story.

http://www.codoh.com/ads/adssoap.html

Oops. I guess that shows another problem with Nuremburg. Guess Roberto's going to have to put that in his pipe and smoke it.

Drew J
Sorry but inductive reasoning tells the scientist who is gatering evidence that the more liars we uncover, the more we have to have skepticism about eyewitness testimony.

Roberto
Apart from the fact that you haven't uncovered many if any liars,

Says the man who ignores testicular torture and calls what Hoess went thorough a 'mishandling.' Says the man who ignores what Jews now admit about the soap hoax. Says the man who continues to ignore the revelations of Joseph Burg.

what inductive reasoning should tell you is that every eyewitness is a separate individual and that however many liars you find does not justify being "skeptical" about the category as a whole.

Funny how he says every eyewitness is a seperate individual, but then he turns around and suspends that logic and tries to justify Kola not on its own standards but on supposedly how other pieces of evidence back it up. However, as I said, he had to capitulate instead of trying to maintain a contradiction and try to tell me about how good Kola's work is based on some further evidence in archives and libraries in Poland. But you already know what I have said on this issue.

Drew J
We have just earlier on this board illustrated problems with the so called authentic Goebbels diaries.

Roberto
The authentic Goebbels diaries have been pronounced authentic by erstwhile "Revisionist" galleon figure David Irving, so I wouldn't go there if I were you.

For someone who is able to gather a lot of hyperlinks to codoh topics to put in his blog entry about Muehlenkamp mania, he apparently doesn't seem to read them much. If he did, he would have found these.
viewtopic.php?p=38553#p38553
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5697&p=38555#p38555
They're only the last posts in THINGS HAVE CHANGED FOR ME (MAYBE NOT) which you just know Muehlenkamp has read.

Drew J
So therefore we are NOT justified in saying other diary entires like that one of the Wermacht man Wilhelm Cornides is automatically false. What we ARE justified in regarding the matter is agnosticism rather than the blind faith that you Roberto and your ilk engage in.

Roberto
Blind faith I leave to you and your ilk, my friend.

Let's just see about that.

What I do is to logically assume

An a priori assumption that will filter out evidence you don't like such as those two individual posts of mine from THINGS HAVE CHANGED FOR ME showing the problems of the Goebbels diaries. Sounds like blind faith to me.

that a professional institution like the West German Institut für Zeitgeschichte

Ernst Zundel and Mike James have written about the illegitimacy of the West German government and how fraudluant and under the boot of the Allies it was. Germany was saddled with Allied propagand that men were tortured and threatened into going along with at Nuremburg which somehow got the jewish human soap thing wrong. :D

checked the provenance of a document like the diary of Wilhelm Cornides before publishing it, and that there is thus no reason a priori to call into question this document's authenticity.

You don't check it yourself or take Weckart's questions or points into consideration. Just blind faith that someone got it right without checking yourself. Blind faith, yet not blind faith according to you. Good job.

What true believers like you do is to hysterically yell that every element of evidence not fitting your articles of faith is a forgery or at least suspect of being a forgery. That, my dear self-projecting true believer, is what can be called an attitude of blind faith.

When you have the fraud of Nuremburg, the kabbalistic six million, bullshit diesel engine claims, Burg's revelations about Ehrenburg knowingly lying to the world, crappy gas chamber stories and faked German documents such as this (Scroll down to 9.8.2. "10 Gas Detectors" to see what I am talking about when it comes to forgeries that help boost the extermination theorist's side.), and how Jews have been caught trying to read things into German documents that simply aren't there (thank you shyster of rodoh), our skepticism and agnosticism about every other piece of evidence that comes our way from now on certainly is justified. You won't admit this. Not that I'm surprised.

One or the other inaccurate or dubious exhibit, report or notion among thousands of eyewitness testimonies, documents and other evidence - what historical event or series of events does not have that? What historical event or series of events does not have its myths and rumors and incorrect popular beliefs? World War II and the US war in Vietnam are full of both, to give just two examples. Does this mean that the existing body of evidence regarding these events is fraught with manipulation? Certainly not.

Once again, intial agnosticism is justified. Persistent agnosticism is justified if evidence remains lacking.

Shrunken heads? A somewhat peculiar practice at a single concentration camp, interdicted by superior orders at an early stage.

Sorry, but it's garbage.
http://www.whale.to/b/skin_lamp_q.html

Joseph Burg's "revelations"? The ramblings of a moron, nothing more.

See what I mean? No real reason to disregard the testimony of a man who claims that Ehrenburg confided in him that he knew there were no Auschwitz gas chambers and thus no six million. Just because he wants to.

torture of Hoess? He was considerably roughed up by the Brits upon capture but that had no influence whatsoever on his later depositions for the defense at Nuremberg let alone what he told his Polish interrogator and wrote in his diary,

Such as confessing to a camp that didn't exist named Welzeck and getting the dates wrong about when the Treblinka camp was opened. Never let facts get in the way of a good holocaust myth when it comes to Roberto Muehlenkamp.

Leleko and Malagon? No evidence that they were "fed" any "line",

Didn't you say earlier they could have in fact been fed the line about diesel engines that you and Sergy admit were absurd for murder? Why yes you did. I quoted you near the top of my post.

If Leleko and Malago spoke of diesel engines, the reasonable thing to assume is that they never saw the engines but heard about them from someone who was also not well informed

I'll simply let the codoh readers mull on this.

and even if there were such evidence this might justify skepticism as concerns Soviet interrogations

Ignoring testicle torture, and what App revealed when he said THE SOVIETS ARE VERY INTERESTED IN YOU gets you nowhere.

but not as concerns interrogations under the suspect-friendly rules of the German Federal Republic, whose investigators were the ones who collected the overwhelming majority of eyewitness evidence to Nazi crimes.

Germany was saddled with the allied propaganda and contesting it would result in prison. Funny how you want to talk about German Federal Republic investigations which come I assume, decades after the forties, where the torture and lies began (such as soap). No surprise you want to inject red herrings into the debate when these Nuremburg frauds come up.

Drew J
No one has ever manipulated evidence at anytime regarding the second world war. Jews and the Allied Powers were totally honest. Jews can never tell lies.

Roberto
Switching off your brain again, Drew J?

Says the man who flip flops and ignores Joseph Burg's revelations about Ehrenburg's private admissions (and their implications) without any rational, scientific basis. Says the man who ignores testicular torture. Says the man who ignores what Austin App revealed.

Drew J
If certain evidence that you think is real, isn't available to the public, then you better get off your ass and change it.

Roberto
Why, is all "real" evidence necessarily available to the public?

Nice attempt at shifting the goalposts, but this isn't about any random evidence on any scientific/archaeological endeavour. This is about what exists in archives and libraries to back up Kola.

I don't think it's being "hoarded" any more than any other detailed archaeological documentation kept in academic archives is being "hoarded", but I'm open to being convinced to the contrary if you can show me that it's standard procedure to make all details of archaeological documentation available to the public and that Prof. Kola's Belzec investigation is an exception to the rule.

Same old trick again. It exists. I can get it if I try. But I won't until you fulfill some stupid demand. I am putting this roadblock in front of myself to cover up for the fact that I have nothing. He's rehashing an argument that I already responded to with italics.

"I'm not saying archaeolgoists don't have archives that the common public may not have access to. So quit the strawman. What I am saying is that anytime someone wants to challenge them, they have to open their archives of evidence and show it to the world if they want to be taken seriously. You and your ilk have to do that with regards to these polish archives you keep prattling on about. "

And

"The point my italics underly is that scientists have archives and libraries that only other scientists can acceess or even care to access because they are the only ones who give a damn about that stuff. Well Roberto, since you give a damn about evidence as you say, then you have to petition to get this evidence released and let us see it. Don't expect us to take it on faith. "

I think I know why Roberto's posts are so long. He likes to repeat himself a few times. But he hopes that people won't notice.

The fact is that I can prove my case with what evidence is available

This isn't about corroboration of Kola. This is about Kola's work being able to stand on its own. You claim it can. So prove it. Quit shifting the goalposts.

and you only professes interest in what evidence is not available as a means of sheltering your articles of faith.

If you put up I will shut up. If it's there, it should be easy to get and shove in my face and prove me wrong. Oh right you don't want to. You want to make it all hinge on me by demanding that I either tell you something which I already explained in italics, or you want me to tell you my opinions on proper evidence and logical conclusions to be gleaned from such evidences, even though you already state I'm an illogical moron - which would mean you shouldn't want to wait to listen to me. Roberto "cognitive dissonance" Muehlenkamp rides again.

If the whole of Prof. Kola's archaeological documentation were available on the internet, you would either ignore it or go out of your way trying to discredit it

Now he's impying he may not do it because he has already decided what the future will necessarily be. Sidestepping again.

Such as? Actually there wasn't that much "entrenced allied propaganda" before folks like Höss and Ohlendorf volunteered a lot of interesting and hitherto unknown information before the IMT.

Hoess was tortured and threatened before IMT. Which means Nuremburg. Again, you ignore this and what Austin App revealed.

At worst inaccuracies and myths such as accompany any historical record, big deal.

Earlier you used quotation marks above to imly the soap bar thing and the shrunken heads wasn't a myth. Yet Jews admitted the soap thing was a myth and that whale.to site disproved the shrunken heads propaganda. Now you admit they are probably inaccuracies. Then you say it's no big deal. But it is, because it disproves your implication earlier that the soap and heads thing were real. Again, you flip flop.

No one ever tortured testimony out of Hoess at Nuremberg or later in Poland.

Right. They did it before hand.

And there is no evidence that anyone "fed" anyone to your Ukrainian guards, apart from no one having had any interest in "feeding" them as unimportant a detail as the gassing engines being diesel engines. You're full of shit, brother.

You admit that the diesel issue is dead and Sergy's blog basically implied that anyone who claimed diesel never saw an engine since you say that people who were actually in a position to see the engines said petrol. So hence, the wrong, incorrect, diesel issue had to come from somewhere in order to get into those Ukranian guards affidavits. They didn't think of it themselves. Therefore since it came from somewhere that wasn't them, it was fed to them. You're the one who is full of shit. You couldn't be more full of shit if you were a port-a-potty outside a rock concert.

Drew J
Like scientifically impossible testimony about pulling gassed bodies out of shoddily constructed gas chambers in Auschwitz without any protective wear on - which is absurd since the gas in those bodies would absord into your own body were you a body hauler.

Roberto
Oh would it? If so, big deal, as the worst thing that would happen to the haulers would be slight poisoning through the skin, according to a contemporary manual about the fumigation with Zyklon B that I have seen.

So he could survive? Not so. Read again.
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html
In fact as shown earlier, this report exposes a very curious omission by Van Pelt that wouldn't have been unless it was in fact bullshit which he knew but couldn't admit. I'll quote again.
The sketches, Robert Jan [van Pelt] noted, were fully corroborated by the architectural plans in the Auschwitz Central Construction Office and the aerial photos."9

Thus, Lipstadt, Pressac and van Pelt claim that Olere is perhaps the most important eyewitness to the alleged mass gassings, and his sketches, paintings and drawings provide the world with an accurate description of the technique and operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But is this so? Professor van Pelt's omission and inclusion suggest otherwise.

Let us begin with van Pelt's omission. In his book van Pelt published some of Olere's more important sketches regarding the structure and operation of the alleged gas chambers, but failed to include one of his most important drawings. It is the painting showing the Sonderkommmandos opening the gas chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas masks, rubber gloves or protective suits. Before proceeding, the reader is strongly urged to view and study the sketch in question. It is online at the address in this footnote. Scroll down to "Document 30."10

Pressac includes this painting in his book because it allegedly is an important visual record of the operation of the gas chambers. In regard to this matter, he wrote: "The fragment of furnace shown on the left, beyond the two arrows, is purely symbolic (there was no furnace in the basement) and spoils a scene which would have been irreproachable without this addition 'to make it better.'" Pressac is clearly saying that this sketch is an accurate picture of what happened, even though it does contain one purely symbolic item.11

This is a strange omission on the part of van Pelt. That is to say, he writes a book about the operation of the gas chambers, yet omits to include a sketch of "how-it-really-happened." For here we have an alleged sketch of "how-it-really-was" after a mass gassing, when the Sonderkommandos-under the watch and supervision of Nazi guards--opened the door of the gas chamber to remove the victims

Perhaps one reason that van Pelt failed to include this most important sketch is because he may have realized it could not have happened the way Olere claimed it did.


Drew J
What I am saying is that anytime someone wants to challenge them, they have to open their archives of evidence and show it to the world if they want to be taken seriously.

Roberto
Sure, that's why Prof. Kola tells his peers and whoever else might want to check his finds where the detailed documentation is kept. But does it mean he should put it all on the internet just because some demented fanatics voice baseless doubts as to whether such documentation supports the reported finds and conclusions? I don't think so.

Then how the hell else am I supposed to see it and know if it's true and can stand alone as a solid piece of evidence?

as long as your argument consists of "I don't believe in what the descriptions and drawings tell me because it doesn't fit my ideological bubble", which is all that your argument amounts to, I don't have to move a finger.

If you put up, then I will shut up. Get moving.

Drew J
In fact, when I have responded to rodoh people, I have always provided links to rodoh.

Roberto
Something your friend Gerdes never does, but still no substitute for discussing on the same board.

Straw man. I never connected these two. And bitching again about not being on the same board gets you nowhere because it doesn't matter because even if I was there, you'd still have to copy and paste and I'd still be saying the same things. You're still making a mountain out of a molehill even though I exposed this tactics of yours. pathetic.

Sergy
It is not even clear if Gerstein ever saw the engine himself. So Gerstein's testimony alone cannot be used to establish the type of the engine.
[…]
But, considering that Pfannenstiel was an outsider, and a hygienist, not a technician, one may suppose that he could have gotten the type of the engine wrong.
[…]
Yet another witness who testified about the diesel engine in Belzec was Karl Alfred Schluch. Carlo Mattogno quotes him in his Belzec book as follows (p. 68):
For the gassings an engine was started up. I cannot give a more detailed description of the engine, because I never saw it. I am not a specialist, but I would say that, judging from the sound, it was a medium-size diesel engine.
This description speaks for itself.



Roberto
Schluch not, Pfannenstiel maybe, maybe not, Gerstein maybe, maybe not. The latter two had a casual look at the engine at most and are therefore likely to have gotten it wrong. But my point, expressed clearly enough, is that Gerstein, Pfannenstiel and Schluch need not be dismissed altogether as eyewitnesses just because they got the type of engine wrong, independently of whether they saw it or not. On the contrary, what Schluch and Pfannenstiel described of the killing and body disposal procedure can be considered accurate except for the diesel detail.


Many aspects of Gerstein's testimony are unquestionably problematic. Several statements he attributes to Globocnik are clearly exagerrated or false, and it is not clear whether Gerstein or Globocnik was the faulty source. In other statements, such as the height of the piles of shoes and clothing at Belzec and Treblinka, Gerstein himself is clearly the source of exaggeration. Gerstein also added grossly exaggerated claims about matters to which he was not an eyewitness, such as that a total of 25 million Jews and others were gassed. But in the essential issue, namely that he was in Belzec and witnessed the gassing of a transport of Jews from Lwow, his testimony is fully corroborated by Pfannenstiel. It is also corroborated by other categories of witnesses from Belzec.

Okay, but what science backs it up? The archived stuff? Let's see it. I need evidence to bear out an alleged eyewitness statement. Fair?

when I maintain that having got the type of engine wrong doesn't completely disqualify any of the three as a witness I'm not referring to whether the witness may have got something else about the engine right or not, of course. I'm referring to what else these people described of the procedure of herding the victims into the gas chambers, removing the bodies and dragging them to the burial pits, etc. Neither of the three witnesses was only talking about the fucking engine, in fact that was the least prominent detail in their testimonies. Here's Schluch as quoted by Prof Browning, for instance:

After unloading, the ambulant Jews proceeded to the assembly place. At the unloading the Jews were told that they were going to be resettled and before that had to be bathed and disinfected. The speech was given by Wirth and also by his translator, a Jewish capo. Next the Jews were then led to the undressing barracks. In one of the barracks the men and in the other the Jewish women and children had to undress. After undressing the male Jews and the women with children were led separately through the tube. ...My position in the tube was quite near the undressing barracks. Wirth had installed me there, because in his opinion I could have a pacifying effect on the Jews. I had to direct the Jews along the path to the gas chamber after they left the undressing barracks. I believe that I made the way to the gas chambers easier for the Jews, because they must have been convinced from my words or gestures that they were actually to be bathed. After the Jews had entered the gas chambers, the doors were tightly closed by Hackenholt himself or by the Ukrainians assigned to him. Then Hackenholt started the motor that was used for the gassing. After about 5 to 7 minutes--and I only estimate the length of time--the peephole into the gas chamber was looked through to establish whether everyone was dead. Only then were the outer doors opened and the gas chambers aired out. ...After the gas chambers were aired out, a Jewish work commando under the direction of a capo arrived and took the corpses out of the chambers. I was also occasionally assigned to supervise at this place. Thus I can exactly describe the procedures, because I saw and experienced everything myself.
The Jews had been very tightly packed into the gas chambers. For this reason the corpses did not lie on the ground, but all leaned in a jumble this way and that, the one backwards, the other forwards, one prone to the side, the other kneeling, each according to the space around. The corpses were at least partially besmirched with excrement and urine, others in part with saliva. The lips and nose tips of some of the corpses had turned blue. With some the eyes were closed, with others the eyes had rolled.
The corpses were pulled out of the chambers and immediately examined by one of the dentists. The dentist removed rings from the fingers and pulled out gold teeth. The valuables recovered in this way were tossed into a box that had been provided. After this procedure the corpses were thrown into the large graves nearby.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:08 am)

Where does it come from? This link.
http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/browning/542.0
The prefacing remarks?

"Alfred Schluch had worked at the euthanasia institutes of Grafeneck and Hadamar prior to his assignment to Belzec in February or March 1942. He described the routine killing procedure of the Belzec camp as follows: "

Footnote?
ZStL, 208 AR-Z 252/59, vol. 8, pp. 1512-13 (testimony of Alfred Schluch).

His testimony. What date was it given? What were the conditions he was under? Anything like Hoess and Hottl or Streicher?

Roberto

So now one's dishonest for not taking the testimony of a moron like Burg at face value? What a joke. I'll tell you what's dishonest. From my post # 11484:

Actually, my dear friend is rather incompetently accusing me of his own fallacies. After high-handedly pooh-poohing all eyewitness testimonies that contradict his articles of faith, including such from former SS-men and such that were subject to cross-examination before West German courts, notwithstanding the fact that all eyewitnesses provided essentially equal accounts despite testifying independently of each other, Drew J flagrantly violates his own imbecilic standards of evidence by basing a statement of fact on the account of one single witness, moreover one whose claims were never checked against other evidence and who was one of the most demented lying loonies in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land. Now that's what I call a dumb asshole stumbling over his own double standards. Bravo, Drew J!

One truthteller against tens upon tens of liars who succumbed to torture and threats. Deal with it.

Muehlenkamp comments on my sarcastic comment which he quotes first.
We don't know what this evidence is but it doesn't matter because without seeing it we can still claim it backs up what Kola says.

Then he goes,
Sure, because that's what archaeological documentation usually does in regard to an archaeologist's report in the real world of archaeology.

But you don't know for sure that what's in those archives is true WITHOUT ANY DOUBT unless you check it yourself. It's always LOGICALLY possible they may lie even if it doesn't seem probable. What's wrong Roberto? Comfortable with low standards, much? Must be why you disregard what Burg revealed about Ehrenburg's private admissions to him (he said he never saw gas chambers), or how Hoess and others were tortured and/or threatened and how Nuremburg even got the soap thing wrong.

Drew J
When pressed for details of this evidence by me Roberto, you yourself admitted that it was stuck in Polish archives and that you couldn't specify what was in them.

Roberto
I didn't "admit" anything, and hens will have teeth before I feel "pressed" by a moron like you, my friend. I called your attention to the elementary fact that just because these details have not been included in the report this doesn't mean they don't exist.

Roberto loves to go in circles so I guess I will have to as well since he is such a moron. Look at what I said earlier in my first post in this topic please.

"I get what you're saying. You're saying this evidence isn't lacking. It exists. It has been proven dear Drew J. Okay fine. Then prove it has been proven. Oh wait. You haven't because you haven't accessed the archives yet. Okay fine. But don't expect us to take the alleged contents of that archive on faith anytime soon...er rather...at all, ever."

To which he says,

It does not if the archaeologist made up things or otherwise manipulated his report, thereby violating the rules and principles of his profession and possibly even committing a criminal act. But that's the big exception to the rule, which must be proven by who claims it.

I have to prove he lied? More like you have to prove he told the truth so that you can assuage me of my agnosticism, which is fence sitting; which differs from the atheist type outright denial. It could be that most archaeologists are honest and that most scientists are. But most isn't good enough. The mere fact that anyone could lie at anytime means to REMOVE ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT, YOU GOTTA CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. Even if university professors accept secondary references to other things in libraries that you haven't yourself checked, or even the author you cite in a footnote doesn't produce the stuff himself in his report and merely cites a footnote, it's still a comment on how someone knows what MIGHT be in an archive or is LIKELY in an archive, but they still haven't checked it themselves to make sure there is no fudging of facts, or context shifting of other authors in the report, etc. It's still a comment on how people can connect dots, but NOT actually prove something themselves. University papers show you can do research and know where things are located NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY IN THEM. Difference, man.

Drew J wrote:
That it was "rigid" and "thoroughly documented."

Roberto:
That's how things usually are in the real world.

Once again, Jews and allies never lie. Well not according to the Jews who blew the soap myth wide open for example.

Drew J
Too bad we can't check that for ourselves.

Roberto:
Who said you can't?

Roberto:
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.

You can speak more than one language. I do not. You implied earlier you could get this stuff in the Polish archives that supposedly backs up Kola's Belzec work. So do it. You're the better man for the job. Oh, and the tactic of trying to make your work all hinge on me won't fly for reasons already exposed above. You're also German. So are you not in Germany? Are you not closer? I think you are. I think you know that you are closer and also would have more clout and be able to get access given what you bebelieve. You are just puffing more hot air.

Drew J wrote:
And all I can say is refer to my italics. The point my italics underly is that scientists have archives and libraries that only other scientists can acceess or even care to access because they are the only ones who give a damn about that stuff.

Roberto:
Then why all this imbecilic whining about "that stuff" not having been released to the public as concerns Prof. Kola's report?

You just admitted yourself it was locked up. You even suggested I go and get it. Cognitive dissonance is what you are suffering from, man.

Drew J wrote:
Well Roberto, since you give a damn about evidence as you say, then you have to petition to get this evidence released and let us see it.

Roberto:
Sorry, asshole, but I only take orders from my wife.

Chickenshit with an excuse.

Drew J wrote:
Don't expect us to take it on faith.

Roberto
Why shouldn't I, considering how you take your "Revisonist" humbug on faith?

That's right. No one was tortured. The American and British sources I quoted earlier talking about the perversion of due process and justice and proper treatment of defendants at Nuremburg are all crypto Nazi tricks. Just like the Jews who admitted to the soap lie. Whatever.

Drew J wrote: -
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.

Roberto:
No it doesn't. Blog responses to Cesspit posts are well and fine but no substitute for a face-to-face discussion on the same forum

Drew J
In other words, if I was on rodoh, you would be responding to me or saying things to me in completely different way.

Roberto:
No, that's not what I'm saying. The point is that more people would be likely to read both your crap and my dissection thereof and less would be left with the undue impression that any of us is quitting the field.

So now it's not about you, it's about the people. Your argument is bullshit however since we keep linking back to each other's boards. Readers are not that stupid. They will get the point. They know how to check for more recent posts in any given topic with a title on any board since the newest always to go the top of the page. They also know how to use a mouse and aim the cursor and click to read. Your underestimation of the average reader's abilities and intelligence is another cover for your stupid argument.

Drew J wrote:
Yeah right. I find that hard to believe. Especially since I would have still said the same things I have said on codoh now and previous. Making a mountain out of a molehill to make up for your unscientific ways of thinking including straw men, disregarding the razor and ignoring Burg's untortured testimony that exposed Ehrenburg.

Roberto:
Actually Drew J seems to be dedicating a lot more text than me to this "molehill",

Only because you keep reciting the same stupid, already refuted argument that is matters where I post even though you and I both give links back to the place of the other thereby allowing readers to see whether or not either of us is qutting or not. Thereby making your last worry or rather, frivilous complaint hollow and void.

Drew J
In other words, I have to prove a negative and Kola doesn't have to prove a positive assertion because you engage in special pleading when you say, "This stuff is locked up. Give us a break. Just take us on our word that it's "detailed" and has superb "chemical analysis." "

Roberto:
No, you have to prove a positive, the positive being the exceptional situation of a professional archaeologist of note not having done his job correctly or even manipulated his results, and that despite there being no indication of either and all evidence independent of said archaeologist matching said archaeologist's finds.

Read carefully. Notice the bolded word above. NOT! In other words, yes, I do have to prove a negative. Phrase a negative as a positive all you want Roberto, it's still a negative.

Drew J wrote:
Oh I get what you're saying. You're saying this evidence isn't lacking. It exists. It has been proven dear Drew J. Okay fine. Then prove it has been proven. Oh wait. You haven't because you haven't accessed the archives yet.

Roberto:
Wrong. I have proven that the backup of Prof. Kola's documentation is in a certain archive by quoting an excerpt from Prof. Kola's book directing his readers to that archive for further details.

As I said earlier,

"we agreed earlier the real hard evidence that guys like Kola make footnotes to as you say ("What scientists usually do is to mention in footnotes where that detailed backup can be consulted, and this Prof. Kola has done. "). If it exists, give us directions and then demonstrate what is supposed to be in those directions? Since it's logically possible for scientists to lie and fudge footnotes or alter contexts from other authors when they write, it's a sad comment on us when we read Kola type summaries and don't double check things for ourselves. It's a decline in rigid science, but it's a reality. But it's also no excuse for expecting us to take Kola's claims about archive material on faith when agnosticism in the absense of seeing such alleged stuff is the most proper thing to do."

And

"It could be that most archaeologists are honest and that most scientists are. But most isn't good enough. The mere fact that anyone could lie at anytime means to REMOVE ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT, YOU GOTTA CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. Even if university professors accept secondary references to other things in libraries that you haven't yourself checked, or even the author you cite in a footnote doesn't produce the stuff himself in his report and merely cites a footnote, it's still a comment on how someone knows what MIGHT be in an archive or is LIKELY in an archive, but they still haven't checked it themselves to make sure there is no fudging of facts, or context shifting of other authors in the report, etc. It's still a comment on how people can connect dots, but NOT actually prove something themselves. University papers show you can do research and know where things are located NOT NECESSARILY WHAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY IN THEM. Difference, man."



Drew J wrote:
Please readers, take note of the euphemism that Roberto used for the torture of Hoess. "Mishandling." Apparently, torture is a joke to Roberto.

Roberto:
Here we have a hypocritical Hitler-kisser and Jew-hater whining about "torture" as he yelps for his fellow morons' attention. The term I used corresponds to Höss' own description of what was done to him after he was captured by the British in mid-March 1946, quoted below after Constantine Fitzgibbon's translation of Höss' memoirs:

"Rudolf Höss wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was arrested on 11 March, 1946. My phial of poison had been broken two days before.
When I was aroused from sleep, I thought at first I was being attacked by robbers, for many robberies were taking place at that time. That was how they managed to arrest me. I was maltreated by the Field Security Police.
I was taken to Heide where I was put in those very barracks from which I had been released by the British eight months earlier.
At my first interrogation, evidence was obtained by beating me. I do not know what is in the record, although I signed it. Alcohol and the whip were too much for me. The whip was my own, which by chance had got into my wife's luggage. It had hardly ever touched my horse, far less the prisoners. Nevertheless, one of my interrogators was convinced that I had perpetually used it for flogging the prisoners.
After some days I was taken to Minden-on-the-Weser, the main interrogation center in the British Zone. There I received further rough treatment at the hands of the English public prosecutor, a major."


This record mentioned above was not the one presented later at Nuremberg, however. And neither did the beating have anything to do with Höss' deposition for the defense of Kaltenbrunner before the IMT. Regarding his stay at the IMT Höss wrote the following:

Roberto flip flops and now says he was beaten.

Hoess:
After three weeks, to my surprise, I was shaved and had my hair cut and I was allowed to wash. My handcuffs had not been previously removed since my arrest. On the next day I was taken by lorry to Nuremberg, together with a prisoner of war who had been brought over from London as a witness in Fritsche's defence. My imprisonment by the International Military Tribunal was a rest-cure compared to what I had been through before. I was accommodated in the same building as the principal accused, and I was able to see them daily as they were taken to the court. Almost every day we were visited by representatives of all the Allied nations. I was always pointed out as an especially interesting animal.
I was in Nuremberg because Kaltenbrunner's counsel had demanded me as a witness for his defence. I have never been able to grasp, and it is still not clear to me, how I of all people could have helped to exonerate Kaltenbrunner. Although the conditions in prison were, in every respect, good - I read whenever I had the time, and there was a well-stocked library available - the interrogations were extremely unpleasant, not so much physically, but far more because of their strong psychological effect. I cannot really blame the interrogators - they were all Jews.
Psychologically I was almost cut to pieces. They wanted to know all about everything, and this was also done by Jews. They left me in no doubt whatever as to the fate that was in store for me.

Sorry Roberto, but ignoring links I already gave you won't help you. Here is one you ignored.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4860

Bernard Clarke, the Jewish interrogator who led the squad responsible for obtaining Hoess' confession, for example, admitted twenty years later in 'Legions of Death' (Hamlyn Paperbacks) a book by British historian Rupert Butler, that Hoess' testimony stating that 2.5 million Jews had been gassed at Auschwitz and a further 500,000 had died of natural causes while under his command had taken three days of torture and death threats made against his children to obtain. For years and years Hoess' declaration was the bedrock of the extermination claim, its descriptions of the gassing process repeated ad infinitum, including the famous line 'we knew when to open the doors because the screaming stopped'. To further discredit it, it has emerged that the original document was actually written in English, a language Hoess didn't read, speak or understand. Not only was he beaten senseless and fearful for the lives of his family, he didn't even know what he was signing. The mere fact that this was done should arouse suspicion in most critical thinkers. If you have to resort to coercion, torture and death threats to prove that something happened, it surely suggests that you don't have real proof.

What is more, due to the principal of legal precedent, once Hoess and other leading Nazis had been forced to confess, it established the gas chamber story as 'fact' in the eyes of the court, meaning that subsequent defendants at Nuremburg could not dispute it. The only option available to a Nazi on trial who had any interest in avoiding the death penalty was to admit that the gas chamber / genocide story was true, but that they, personally, had nothing to do with it. It is unsurprising that in such circumstances this is what virtually all of them said.

So I guess Roberto will then cover his ass by claiming something absurd like this guy is a self hating Jew just like the jews who blew the soap myth out of the water.

I don't feel like wading through all that manure and I don't think I have to either, because Drew J will be glad to point out the evidence that Höss was tortured during his stay at the IMT (as opposed to after his capture by the British a month before) and that such torture had any influence on the statements he made before the IMT. Right, Drew J?

Translation: I actually did read a little bit. I read the first link which had that Jewish admission you quoted, but I was hoping you wouldn't bust me on it.

Let's look at this shit item by item.

"Numbers of dead that were impossible": no indication of coercion

Ignoring Bernard Clarke's admission about what Hoess really went through. I guess know we know the 'psychological torture' that you made a quote of refers to the threats to his family and children that Clarke talked about. Hoess was tortured. You deny the facts. Game over.

Why, if "Revisionists" were to be believed, would they even have coerced him into producing these highly inconvenient, counterproductive statements?

Jewish Chutzpah and the fact that winners write history. It's easy when you can torture and threaten your captors into saying what they want you to say.

"He named a camp that didn't exist": he wrongly referred to the Sobibor extermination camp as "Wolzek", that was all. "
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... k-paradox/

Okay, let's say you win on this one. Wouldn't disprove how he exaggerated the numbers and WAS SUBJECT TO TORTURE AND THREATS as admitted by Clarke, the Jew.

Drew J wrote:
Let's check that Gwynn article and see what it says.

""From across the sea, six million men and women call to us for help ... six million human beings ... Six million men and women are dying ... in the threatened holocaust of human life ... six million famished men and women. Six million men and women are dying" "

Clearly, they are saying six million are dying. Nice try Roberto.

Roberto:
They are dying because they are impoverished to the point of having no means for subsistence, that's what Glynn was claiming. And that was not supposed to be anyone's fault in particular. No murder, no genocide, no one to blame for the Jews' poverty, which Gwynn dramatized to starvation level. What this situation is supposed to have in common with a state-organized murder program is beyond my understanding.

Roberto's tactic is to ignore the strangely reoccuring number 6 that kept popping up since at least 1919. Think I'm kidding, look at this fallacious ad hominem. It's so pathetic, but he has no choice but to resort to it, because deep down, even he knows it would be bullshit to say, "it's just a coincidence that Jews were always claiming this number."

Sorry pal, but your pathetic obsession with Jewish kaballah stuff strongly suggests that you have a problem with Jews and endorse all sorts of sinister beliefs about Jews, so what I'm making is not a straw-man but an image that illustrates your deplorable state of mind.

Cute.

Drew J
THE FIRST SIX MILLION. WHY THEY CHOSE THE NUMBER SIX.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5642

Roberto
Looks like we have some serious cases of psychiatric paranoia here, trying to trace back the "six million" to the Talmud

Drew J
Kabbalah you dumbass. The body of literature of the Kabbalah and the books of the Talmud are not the same.

Roberto
Talmud, Kabbalah, whatever. Unlike Jew-hating conspiracy theorists I don't give a fuck about is which is which and what is written there, and I don't expect anything worse than the mystic nonsense one finds in any religious liturgy.

See how ignorant he is and how he doesn't know the difference and knows very little about esoetic Jewish religious law? Guess he has no business speaking about it then.

Drew J wrote:
Does anyone else notice Roberto's trick here? Look carefully. He says SINCE 1945. Naturally, he doesn't want to talk about all those other sources in that stormfront link which show how so many Jews were trying to justify/fulfill their stupid kabbalistic prophecy.

Roberto:
What amuses me is to what lengths those sinister Jews of Drew J's kabbalistic fantasies

Not mine. The lying Jews who had a religious reason to say such a number. They knew the Zionists were working with Hitler to get Jews into the middle east. Read THE TRANSFER AGREEMENT and 51 DOCUMENTS: ZIONIST COLLABORATION WITH THE NAZIS

are supposed to have gone in "trying to justify/fulfill their stupid kabbalistic prophecy", and how kabbalistic clowns like Drew J piously and uncritically believe in the supernatural, demonic powers of a Jewish conspiracy

So now I go from a guy who hates Jews and the kabbalah, to being a kabbalist myself. Roberto is batshit insane.

that manipulated or suppressed thousands of documents,

You mean like this, which I brought attention to earlier?

"German documents such as this (Scroll down to 9.8.2. "10 Gas Detectors" to see what I am talking about when it comes to forgeries that help boost the extermination theorist's side.)"

trained thousands of false incriminating eyewitnesses (apparently chosen for the telepathic capabilities, which would keep them from straying too far from what their colleagues had said even if they had no way of hearing or reading it),

They weren't necessarily kabbalists. One of them was a Jew like Clarke who admitted what was really done to Hoess. No need for you to bring in the supernatural Roberto when I didn't. Oh that's right. You just gotta make a strawman against me don't you.

coerced or otherwise induced a couple of thousand indicted perpetrators, especially before West German courts, into falsely incriminating themselves,

I think you mean the laws which would threaten Germans who denied the blood libel against them with prison if they testified otherwise like Thies Christopherson did in Canada.

silenced all potential exonerating witnesses throughout Europe and the rest of the world,

It's called holocaust denial laws. The point is they exist. Freedom of speech is limited. I'm right on that. You can't deny it. Period.

do those kabbalistic clowns believe that flying saucers abducted several million deported Jews from the plains of the former USSR after destroying all related German documentation and blotting out the memories of all German, Polish, Ukrainian and other witnesses who had been in contact with the deportees?

Injecting the supernatural when you don't have to.

Drew J
Here we see Roberto hopelessly caught in a mesh of question begging, circular logic. Why was he a piece of garbage? He lied under oath.

Roberto:
No, he was a piece of garbage because he was a "Revisionist" moron. Lying under oath, unless he believed in his own BS, was just part of that.

Let's skip ahead to where he clarifies.

Drew J
he still has to explain on what grounds Burg lied under oath.

Roberto:
For the same reasons that any other "Revisionist" true believer would have: he so badly wanted to defend his faith that he was prepared to lie for it.

Okay, why would he want to defend his faith? Why did he want to have this faith? Why did he want to hate his own people? You uncover this can of worms, but then you want us to ignore it. Nice try.

No, but an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary of Burg's claims proves that at best he misunderstood Ehrenburg or unconsciously made Ehrenburg's statements into what he would like them to have been.

This article bears out Burg.
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html
We have already seen Jews admit things like torture and soap lies and guys talking about diesel engines who never saw them. And I had to shove in your face things about Goebbels diaries you tried to ignore. And that's just a few examples, man.

Roberto:
I don't think the poodle can show me a single defendant at any trial, especially not at trials before courts of the German Federal Republic, who described crimes he had participated in (always trying to downplay his participation, of course) because he "had reason to lie and fall in line with the allied propaganda". And I wonder how he will explain the relatively numerous defendants who, despite their supposedly having been cooperative with the "Allied propaganda", were sentenced to death like Rudolf Höss or to lifetime imprisonment (the highest penalty provided for by German law) like Josef Hirtreiter, Kurt Franz, Heinrich Matthes, Willi Mentz and August Wilhelm Miete of Treblinka , Karl Frenzel of Sobibor and Oswald Kaduk of Auschwitz. Kaduk was quite an outspoken fellow, by the way:

[Langbein:]Anger seizes Kaduk when one elegant gentleman after the other, former SS-Obergruppenführer who now can remember nothing anymore, is allowed to leave the witness stand unhindered:

Kaduk: When the ovens were burning there was a darting flame five meters high, which could be seen from the station. The whole station was full of civilians. Nobody said anything. Trains with soldiers on leave were also there. My wife arrived, and I pushed her away. I have no time for you, I told her. Often the trains with soldiers on leave had stopovers at Auschwitz, and the whole station was covered by a smoke screen. The Wehrmacht officers looked out of the window and asked why the smell, so sweet. But none of them had the courage to ask: What is going on here? This is no sugar factory, after all. Why the chimneys?
The Allies also knew. All they had to do was to demolish the railway connection. The thing with the Jews was the greatest of crimes. But unfortunately nobody knew anything. All the Gruppenführer and Obergruppenführer who testified here know nothing anymore. Well, then I say, then the Jews went to Auschwitz on their own free will.

it's called saying what they want to hear in the fifty fifty gamble you'll get life instead of death, moron.

So hundreds of Jewish witnesses who testified to mass extermination in camps and sometimes provided rather detailed descriptions of the process were all liars

When you tell whoppers like this,
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html
you have no right to be taken seriously.

Drew J wrote:
The Chemical & Toxicological Impossibility
Of The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Legend
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html

Roberto:
Amen. Any pseudo-scientific nonsense there that has not yet been shredded in these articles or in the 2004 "Scholars Debate" on RODOH? If you think so, please point it out and we'll have some fun with it.

Or you could just explain away to me the first block quotation from this article I made that appeared earlier.
The Chemical & Toxicological Impossibility Of The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Legend
http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... hwitz.html
Here is one small clip whereby the extermination theorists shot themselves in the foot because their witness was an obvious liar.
The sketches, Robert Jan [van Pelt] noted, were fully corroborated by the architectural plans in the Auschwitz Central Construction Office and the aerial photos."9

Thus, Lipstadt, Pressac and van Pelt claim that Olere is perhaps the most important eyewitness to the alleged mass gassings, and his sketches, paintings and drawings provide the world with an accurate description of the technique and operation of the Auschwitz gas chambers. But is this so? Professor van Pelt's omission and inclusion suggest otherwise.

Let us begin with van Pelt's omission. In his book van Pelt published some of Olere's more important sketches regarding the structure and operation of the alleged gas chambers, but failed to include one of his most important drawings. It is the painting showing the Sonderkommmandos opening the gas chamber door and pulling the bodies out after a mass gassing. In the painting, the inmates are shirtless, and they are not wearing any gas masks, rubber gloves or protective suits. Before proceeding, the reader is strongly urged to view and study the sketch in question. It is online at the address in this footnote. Scroll down to "Document 30."10

Pressac includes this painting in his book because it allegedly is an important visual record of the operation of the gas chambers. In regard to this matter, he wrote: "The fragment of furnace shown on the left, beyond the two arrows, is purely symbolic (there was no furnace in the basement) and spoils a scene which would have been irreproachable without this addition 'to make it better.'" Pressac is clearly saying that this sketch is an accurate picture of what happened, even though it does contain one purely symbolic item.11

This is a strange omission on the part of van Pelt. That is to say, he writes a book about the operation of the gas chambers, yet omits to include a sketch of "how-it-really-happened." For here we have an alleged sketch of "how-it-really-was" after a mass gassing, when the Sonderkommandos-under the watch and supervision of Nazi guards--opened the door of the gas chamber to remove the victims

Perhaps one reason that van Pelt failed to include this most important sketch is because he may have realized it could not have happened the way Olere claimed it did.


Then we have a "clip" from David Duke's book "Jewish Supremacism", which contains the usual mixture of statements by discontented jurists and reports about torture allegations in connection with the Dachau trials (what Duke doesn't tell his readers is that neither the Simpson Comission nor any of its successors considered it proven that defendants or suspects had been tortured).

I wonder when this Simpson Commission came out. Before or after what the Jew Clarke revealed about what Hoess really went through?

Why, Drew J, didn't David Irving write that he had been to Moscow and examined the originals of the Goebbels diary there?

Didn't he write that there were at least three separate indications that the entry in question was an authentic citation from an authentic Goebbels document?

Show me what Irving wrote to the contrary of that, poodle. And explain why one should assume that he had any doubts about the document's authenticity.


Already have. Just go back.

Why so, except because the contents of Goebbels' diary entry of 27 March 1942 give you sleepless nights?

What really keeps me up is wondering when the fuck you're going to go after those polish archives and put your money where your mouth is.

As to the Wannsee Conference protocol, I have two questions to the poodle and his friend regarding the following translated passage from the Wannsee Conference Protocol:

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as a the seed of a new Jewish revival(see the experience of history.)


Question # 21 to Drew J/Gerdes: What was to become of the working Jews according to this passage? I understand that they were going to be worked to death and the survivors of forced labor were to be killed lest they "act as the seed of a new Jewish revival". What is your understanding, and what (other than faith) is that understanding based on?

Question # 22 to Drew J/Gerdes: What was to become of the non-working (and therefore useless) Jews, if the working (and therefore useful) Jews were to be worked to death and the survivors to be killed lest they "act as the seed of a new Jewish revival"? I understand that they were meant to be killed right away. What is your understanding, and what (other than faith) is that understanding based on?

That said, I move on to Drew J's friend and mentor, the coward of cowards Greg Gerdes.

Arguments from ignorance, do I detect?

It's pretty vague. You see extermination because you are reading a 21st century view into that loosely worded document. Not like document manipulation is new to your kind.

"...faked German documents such as this (Scroll down to 9.8.2. "10 Gas Detectors" to see what I am talking about when it comes to forgeries that help boost the extermination theorist's side.), and how Jews have been caught trying to read things into German documents that simply aren't there (thank you shyster of rodoh)"

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=361251
W a n n s e e
THE BIG LIE
LAKE-SIDE PLANNING OF
MASS MURDER
OR LOCATION OF AN
ENORMOUS LIE

As part of all the intensive indoctrination sustained to render us docile and pliant subjects of the kosher New World Order in its terrorism of thought, each January now sees Holocaust Memorial Day, not to call to mind the greatest holocaust the world has ever seen, that of the red terrorists of communism, but instead and exclusively the alleged sufferings of the Jews at the hands of the freedom-fighters of the Third Reich.

In this depiction a prime point of reference is the word 'Wannsee', relating to a lake-side villa in a Berlin suburb where it is alleged by the directors of the public indoctrination that the deliberate extermination of Europe's Jews was officially deliberated and inaugurated. A number of high-ranking Nazi and Reich government officials - the number varies in different accounts: 13 or 14 or 15 - met there on 20 January, 1942, headed by Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Reich Security Head Office, to deal with Europe's Jewish problem.

That much does not appear to be in dispute. What is decidedly in dispute is what went on at Wannsee regarding that problem. According to those afoot to damn National-Socialism for all time as a homicidal conspiracy those present proceeded, without inhibition, to discuss and plan in at least general outline the removal of Jews in general to the territory acquired in the east, there to be disposed of permanently in one way or another.

Adolf Eichmann is supposed have drafted the official record of the proceedings; and he was subsequently and conveniently kidnapped from Argentina by agents of Mossad/ Israel's agency of state terrorism, and brought to trial in Israel. After receiving there whatever persuasion was necessary, Eichmann readily testified that the participants at the Wannsee conference discussed methods of mass murder including gassing.

No doubt you or I, after months in the custody of those practitioners of terror, would confess to virtually anything and everything required.
Contrary to this embrodiery, the facts are that Heydrich received a letter from Hermann Goring instructing him to bring about a 'final solution' to the Jewish question by means of 'emigration and evacuation'. It was dated 31 July, 1941, and is reproduced on Page 32 of Wilhelm Staglich's book 'Der Auschwitz Mythos'.

The minutes of the meeting state:- 'Meanwhile in view of the dangers of an emigration during the war and in view of the possibilities in the East, the Reichsfuehrer-SS and the Chief of the German Police has forbidden the emigration of Jews. The emigration programme has now been replaced by the evacuation of the Jews to the East as a further solution possibility, in accordance with previous authorization by the Fuehrer . '

The document contains nothing about extermination, while to the contrary Page 8 of it refers to the eventual release of the Jews. The statistics of Jewish population on Page 6 are questionable to the extent of suggesting possible fabrication, and reminding us that the last, still continuing, bombardment of World War II has been that of the vast amount of items, forged one day and 'found', the next. One account has it that only one copy of the minutes survived to be accidentally discovered in a German foreign office file in 1947. Another account, given on Page 210 of the book 'Racial Hygiene' by Robert N. Proctor citing the New York Times of 21 August, 1945, has it that a copy was discovered in the file of Philip Hoffman, head of the SS Race & Resettlement Office.

The Wannsee villa, as birthplace of a big lie vital to the 'Holocaust' legend, has also been made into something new: a 'Holocaust' memorial centre costing over £2 initially and £0.5 million yearly to instil guilt in Germans.

I found that here:
http://skrewdriver.net/gothic.html

It's towards the bottom of the page.
[/quote]

That and The Wannsee Conference Protocol:
Anatomy of a Fabrication
JOHANNES PETER NEY
http://www.codoh.com/found/fndwannsee.html

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:27 am)

Really, Drew J, you would do "Revisionism" a favor if you simply kept your fingers off your keyboard.
As to your "torture" crap, here's a challenge:

Since 1945, a total of 912 trials were held involving 1875 defendants accused of homicidal crimes committed during World War II in the service of National Socialism. These trials resulted in 14 death sentences, 150 life sentences and 842 timely sentences (1).

You shall provide evidence for every single death sentence, life sentence or timely sentence by West German courts, preferably related to mass killings in extermination camps, that you claim was wholly or partially based on testimonies or confessions extracted under torture.
Get cracking, bigmouth.

It's called being threatened with either life in prison or a sentence so long that you will die in jail or death and so you tell them what they want because they knew what happened to their German brethren at Nuremburg and how Nazis were tortured into saying what they wanted to hear.

As for the West German government, MIke James and Ernst Zundel has pretty much taught us how illegitimate it in fact is. Watch Zundel explain the facts on Crossfire.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... type=&aq=f
Nothing but a puppet of the allied powers is what west germany was in those days

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Tue Oct 13, 2009 4:46 am)

Did Gwynn say that 6 million had died? No, he said no such thing. He said that 6 million were living in dire conditions and would starve unless food supplies were made available to them. He was asking for $ 35,000,000 to send foodstuffs to Europe and keep 6 million people from starving. Bread for 6 million hungry Jews - that was his appeal.

It's funny to see a moron invoke the "kabbalistic six" and accuse his opponent of "nonsense" in the same paragraph, and that obviously without noticing the contradiction.

I'll let you in on a little secret, you pitiable little kabbalistic clown: Gwynn was not a Jew but an Irish American Roman Catholic. He probably knew as much about the Kabbalah as I do, that is nothing at all. If he spoke of 6 million Jews that was not because of some funny kabbalistic figure but because that happened to be the approximate number of Jews living in the parts of Eastern Europe where precarious economic conditions were affecting them most strongly.

That stat was made to go forward. Need I remind you of the magazine it was in? THE AMERICAN HEBREW

Thus for the territories to be taken into consideration here there results a total population of 51 million. The number of those to be in principle evacuated according to the plan should thus be a actually higher than foreseen in the plan. Only if one assumes that the about 5 to 6 million Jews who live in this area are already removed prior to the evacuation one reaches the number of 45 million alien peoples mentioned in the plan. The plan's considerations, however, show that the Jews are still included in the mentioned 45 million.

He says five like Hillberg does. It's not cabbalistic. So what? Need I remind you of other Jewish sources that continued to claim six million? I guess so because you apparently don't want to deal with those. Go back in this codoh thread in my first post and look over that Stormfront link I gave which talked about those other Jewish sources WHICH YOU CONVENITNELY IGNORED.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=267553

"....Heddesheimer and his book actually also proves that these claims of suffering are not true. With population statistics and other things he shows that during and after WWI basically all populations in middle and eastern Europe suffered tremendous loss of population because of war and disease. The only subsection of the societies that kept growing in wealth and multipling were the Jews. The money went actually that was raised with these fund raisers alot of it went to Soviet Russia and guess what they did there with it? It was basically a fund raising for the Jewish Revolution in Russia. That's how the Jews in New York perceived it initially and by 1927 - 1928 they figured out that this has got out of hand and that this was going to backfire on them and then they stopped it completely..." -- Germar Rudolf's 2004 New Orleans Speech

Greg Gerdes as "Pepper" on Fri Oct 09, 20098:40 am wrote:
And remember, the 137 men whose testicles were damaged "beyond repair," were from the Dachau trials ONLY.

Roberto:
So that's why Gerdes has no balls - someone damaged them "beyond repair". I see.

It can't have been related to the Dachau trials, however, already because various US government commissions found no conclusive evidence of such torture. It must have been Turleen the Trailer Tease when he tried to keep her from leaving him for a real hog.

Yeah, like they're going to impeach themselves. At least the Jew Clarke, had the guts to admit what really happened to Hoess. Something of course you ignored and I have to shove in your face.

User avatar
Moderator3
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 296
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 4:01 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Moderator3 » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:24 pm)

Drew:
This thread is all over the place. Please post to threads which are specific. A multi-topic thread on the discredited Muehlenkamp is confusing to those who want to know about specific points. And watch your language, as requested previously.
We are tiring of asking you to follow guidelines which you agreed to when registering.

Drew J
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:13 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Drew J » 1 decade 1 month ago (Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:57 pm)

Sorry about the namecalling. But I don't feel this is all over the place. This is in response to the same r o d o h forum link I gave out in the original post. I'm continuing on what Muehlenkamp is saying to me in the same r o d o h topic. If it will help, I won't respond anymore since Muehlenkamp obviously won't change his mind since he continues to ignore the strangely occuring six million number, his unreasonable dismissal of Burg's revelations about Ehrenburg and what he himself saw in the camps, and his absurd faith based defense of the Polish archives that supposedly bear out Kola's claims. That and his ignoring what Wannsee was really about and the problems of Irving's claim about Goebbels' diaries and what Clarke revealed about what Hoess really went through shows how continuing this on with Muehlenkamp is pointless. So I won't post anymore responses to Muehlenkamp in here. My posts speak for themselves and always will no matter how many times Muehlenkamp closes his eyes or engages in special pleading.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Believer tactics - Muehlenkamp: A pot calling a kettle black

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 1 month ago (Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:41 pm)

Drew,

We don't care what another site does in it's threads, here we have guidelines (which you agreed to when registering) to prevent confusing clutter. You can respond to anyone you like here as long as you keep those threads focused on one specific element of the holocaust story at a time. Don't be so difficult, this is the best 'holocaust' debunking forum in the world, where fair debate is permitted and distractions from the subject are not acceptable; nor is name calling & dodging; both sides get their chance to advance their views. This other site is a veritable garbage heap of the worst tendencies from those who want to shout down anyone who dares challenge the absurd holocaust 'facts'. They love it when guys like you clutter various threads, the readers become confused and Revisionist points are obscured. You are doing the Thought Police a favor.

Do what you wish, but our guidelines will be adhered to. Last notice. Thanks.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 1 guest