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