Sobibor / Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity exposed

[SSeth]

Blogbuster

The topic is Muehlenkamps duplicty in the Sobibor discussion, at least some part of your post should be either about the stated duplicity, or how it impacts the Sobibor discussion.


It looks like Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity is being demonstrated again.

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=16114

My Sobibor Grave # 8 / 46 Proofs

by Pat Swanson

Opening statement:

The following information is being presented as proof that alleged - Sobibor grave # 8 / 46 - contains the remains of at least 19 bodies, in accordance with - The National Association of Forensic Historians TM grave numbering system, which can be seen in this webpage here: http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p= ... count=2629


Roberto Muehlenkamp, VNN post #777:
“…would you please provide the proof of: …Just one ounce of human ash at Sobibor…”

“No problem… IV.2.3 Physical evidence documented in photographs…

A mound of the ashes… at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp…

A mound of the remains… at the remembrance site on the grounds of the camp…”


Roberto Muehlenkamp, VNN post #902:
…"proving" that the mound of ash at the Sobibor memorial is actually comprised of human ash… will be answered in an article that I shall try to get published in SKEPTIC magazine…”


Roberto Muehlenkamp, VNN post #916:
“…The conclusion that the mound in question is comprised of human ash is thus the conclusion that is borne out by all known evidence and belied by none. It is also the conclusion towards which various sources of evidence independent of each other converge. This convergence of various sources of evidence… is proof that the mound in question is comprised of human ash…”


See the proof that Sobibor’s grave # 8 / 46 contains the remains of at least 19 bodies with your own eyes. (Just as Mr. Shermer did personally when he went to Sobibor to conduct research and to see for himself what evidence there was at the camp.) The following photo “shows a huge mound of ashes and bone fragments surrounded by a stone wall:” http://www.scrapbookpages.com/poland/So ... our01.html

As Roberto Muehlenkamp’s posts point out and the convergence of evidence theory proves, (a theory that Mr. Shermer espouses) Sobibor’s memorial / grave #8 / 46 is comprised of human remains / ash, and it simply defies simple logic, common sense and the convergence of evidence theory that a mound comprised of human remains / ashes as large as the one at Sobibor (see the above photo), does NOT contain the remains of at least 19 bodies.


Closing statement:

The preceding information was presented as proof that alleged - Sobibor grave # 8 / 46 - contains the remains of at least 19 bodies in my attempt to lay claim to - The National Association of Forensic Historians TM N.A.F.H. - Crime Scene Investigation Challenge TM - $1,000.00 reward for said grave.

Michael Shermer now has 60 days from today - 6 - 10 -11 - to explicitly and legally certify that he endorses said posted proof. Michael Shermer can explicitly and legally endorse said posted proof by contacting, via email, Greg Gerdes, President of - The National Association of Forensic Historians TM (Contact information can be found at the bottom of their website: http://www.nafcash.com) and making the following statement to Greg Gerdes:

I, Michael Shermer, acting as sole appointed arbiter of - The National Association of Forensic Historians TM - N.A.F.H. - Crime Scene Investigation Challenge TM, do hereby explicitly and legally certify that I categorically endorse the information in - Pat Swanson’s - My Sobibor Grave # 8 / 46 Proofs - thread, as meeting my own, Skeptic Magazine’s and the Skeptics Society’s standards of proof, and that - Sobibor grave # 8 / 46 - does in fact contain the remains of at least 19 bodies. Furthermore, I will publish this certification / endorsement in the next issue of Skeptic Magazine.

(Note: What is to be judged and certified / endorsed by Michael Shermer is all the information that is sandwiched between my opening and closing statements.)

Does anyone know if Roberto Muehlenkamp ever got his Sobibor article published in Skeptic Magazine?

[Blogbuster]

Cloud,

In my humble opinion I believe the reason the HBW references are relevant because the duplicity of Roberto Muehlenkamp and those that support his arguments are at the core of the debate. Be it regarding specific facts about Sobibor, or any other Holocaust/Revisionist/Extermination discussion.

Every post this man has made, or at least those I've come across, has been very aggressive and condescending in its tone and composition. This aggressive stance is a clear overcompensation for an unsure belief that he wants to push off on the public as fact.

Take for example his response on RODOH to Werds post above, you will note a mendacious and silly reversal attempt by Muehlenkamp to turn the tables and do or say anything that allows him to skirt the truth.

The response to him on HBW (seen here) http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/310 ... nal-attack - is pretty straight forward and direct to the point.

Both Werd and the HBW crew while clearly on opposite ends of the belief spectrum, can easily take a direct stand, make clear honest statements that aren't composed of nonsensical ranting, hearsay, or pointing to the absurd claims of their associates as if they were factual or proved something.

Roberto Muehlenkamp and his compatriots at HC are attacking Revisionist believers, attacking Extermination believers without any real debate or discussion.

I for one don't call answering a legitimate with some fake diversionary challenge anything but duplicity.

Just my humble two cents.

BB

[SSeth]

Here's some more information about Roberto Muehlenkamp's duplicity concerning Sobibor that I have found out:

The article that he submitted for publication to Skeptic Magazine in which he tried to "prove" that "the mound of ash at the Sobibor memorial is actually comprised of human ash" was rejected.

His "proof" that he submitted on the Skeptics Societies forum that four of the ten alleged Sobibor graves contained the remains of at least 19 bodies was rejected.

He admitted that he couldn't prove that the other 6 alleged graves contained the remains of at least 19 bodies.

He admits that he cannot provide the name of one Jew who died by means of poison gas in a so-called “homicidal gas chamber” operated by the Germans during WW II.

His duplicity is also really being exposed here:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p= ... count=2679


A question:

Is Muehlenkamp a closet revisionist?

He seems to have un-(dim?)-wittingly done more to help expose the lies of the Holocaust than any revisionist I’ve read to date.

Can anyone really be that stupid? (No wonder the exterminationists hate him so much.)

[Blogbuster]

On duplicity, we find Roberto Muehlenkamp writes the following:

On the "CODOH Revisionist Forum", another "Revisionist" paladin of good manners feels compelled to further explain why he doesn't show up here.

I may be rude and insulting at times (it comes with the contempt I feel for "Revisionist" filth merchants), but the fellow is obviously looking in the mirror when he calls me a charlatan. I submit that he knows this very well and that the reason why he doesn't come over here but throws manure from the Cesspit is not his being a well-educated sensitive soul (that's just a cowardly pretext) but his awareness that his feeble charlatanry will easily be exposed as such when argued in open debate.

As much as he openly admits that he's rude, insulting, and holds Revisionists in contempt, he appears to want them to come to RODOH. I'm not sure if this is actually duplicity or bi-Polar.

I believe the HBW crew determined that several HC blogers suffer from bi-polar disorder.

Regarding Sobibor, there appear to be hundreds of posts where Muehlenkamp flip-flops, changes, edit his story, and revises his stance.

He also loves to issue challenges but never accept any. If you read the description of the HBW "ARC Challenge" it seems to be pretty straight forwards, and simple. All they have to do is dial a toll free number.

BB

[Balsamo]

Regarding Sobibor, there appear to be hundreds of posts where Muehlenkamp flip-flops, changes, edit his story, and revises his stance.

Isn't that what historical research is all about ? revising stances when new things come along ? Wouldn't be that a good definition for "revisionism" ?

So, Blogbuster, what is your stance on Sobibor, if you have one ?
Transit camp ? Labour camp ? Extermination camp ?

[Blogbuster]

Mr. Balsamo,

I don't believe revisionism requires the likes of me to defend or define it. However to your point about Muehlenkamps flip-flops, reversals and stance changes, if he did these things in an honest, and respectful way, people might be willing to accept his back-peddling. However most of what I see of him in my research on Sobibor (which is inconclusive at this time), are demeaning posts, where he's chest beating the moment he feels he has a victory in some debate, then a better researcher comes along (in these cases usually a revisionist), and blows his theory out of the water.

Muehlenkamp responds with the typical derogatory comments, and smears, then returns with some flip-flop or new bad research, and begins chest beating all over again.

This is more of school yard bravado then serious debate. Besides, Muehlenkamps duplicity around Sobibor has lead him to openly attack Revisionists as well as those who believe in Nazi extermination. He's playing every angle just to win the argument.

The man has little if any credibility in my mind.

Oh, and when I've concluded my research on Sobibor, I’ll be happy to share it.

BB

[SSeth]

BB

In my humble opinion I believe the reason the HBW references are relevant because the duplicity of Roberto Muehlenkamp and those that support his arguments are at the core of the debate. Be it regarding specific facts about Sobibor, or any other Holocaust/Revisionist/Extermination discussion.

However most of what I see of him in my research on Sobibor... Oh, and when I've concluded my research on Sobibor, I’ll be happy to share it.

Definition of DUPLICITY

1: contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action.


BB, since you have done research on the subject, I would like to ask you a coulple of questions about Sobibor:

Question #1:

Take a look at the following webpage that contains a description of the 10 fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor:

http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p= ... count=2624

And then answer this simple question:

As of this moment, how many of the 10 fraudulently alleged “huge mass graves” of Sobibor can you prove contain the remains of at least 19 bodies?

Your answer can be only be one of the following:

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Any answer that contains anything other than a 0 -10 answer, or no answer at all, will be interpreted as a Muehlenkampish example of duplicity.


Question #2:

As of this moment, can you provide the name of just one Jew who died by means of poison gas in a so-called “homicidal gas chamber” at Sobibor?

Yes or No?

Understand BB, I'm not asking for a name, nor am I asking for proof. I'm only asking if you can or cannot do something.

It's very simple - either you can or you can't, so your answer will be yes or no.

Any answer that contains more than a yes or no answer, or no answer at all, will be interpreted as a Muehlenkampish example of duplicity.

Thank you in advance BB for answering the questions as asked in an un-duplicit manner.

[Blogbuster]

SSETH,

As I've stated my personal research is still inconclusive. As it develops further I will be happy to make my stance public. By the nature of your questions it would appear that you believe the Muehlenkamps erroneous assertion that I am Carmelo Lisciotto of the HEART crew, and I can assure you I am not he.

Were I Carmelo Lisciotto my stance would be known and documented as the man runs a large website on the topic. But alas, I am not he. I am simply an individual who believes strongly in free speech, decency, and honor, and is not a fan of the tactics and methods employed by the HC crew.

The fact is, I'm happy to see them being exposed for what they are.

Far too long they've painted Revisionists in a negative light, yet the HC people, Muehlenkamp in particular, behave far worse than any Nazi thug I've ever read about. Of course they do it from behind the safety of a computer. If Muehlenkamp wants to attack Lisciotto, Webb and HEART he can do so without involving me. Although I doubt he will.

It's abundantly clear that he wants to make some connection and even more so, make others believe there is such a connection. Sorry to disappoint.

Also, feel free to interpret my response according to any table you wish, as I have no qualms about what your views/opinions of me might be.

I raise points of Muehlenkamps duplicity based upon the evidence I see and read on line, that evidence is there for everyone to read on their own, most of my posts simply point them in the direction of that evidence, within the context of a given thread.

BB

[SSeth]

Understand BB, I'm not asking for a name, nor am I asking for proof. I'm only asking if you can or cannot do something.

It's very simple - either you can or you can't, so your answer will be yes or no.

Any answer that contains more than a yes or no answer, or no answer at all, will be interpreted as a Muehlenkampish example of duplicity.

BB:

As I've stated my personal research is still inconclusive... I raise points of Muehlenkamps duplicity based upon the evidence I see and read on line, that evidence is there for everyone to read...

I raise points about your opinions based upon the evidence that I see and read on-line, that evidence is there for everyone to read.

Let's show everyone another example of your thinking, shall we BB?

BB, based on your personal research and in your humble opinion, do you currently believe that the number of fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor that contain the remains of at least 19 bodies is:

A - More than 10.

B - Between 5 and 10.

C - Less than 5.

D - I refuse to give my opinion because I my tactics are similar to Roberto Muehlenkamp's

On a side note, Muehlenkamp claims that he can provide the name of a Jew who died by means of poison gas in a so-called “homicidal gas chamber” at Sobibor.
http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p= ... count=2684

Of course Muehlenkamp is afraid to post his "proof" here:
http://revisionistworkshop.com/forum/vi ... ?f=9&t=402

I have two more questions for BB:
1 - In your opinion, what are the most authoritative sources (web sites and people) that have been the most influential in molding your opinion as to what is true and what is not true about Sobibor.

2 - Was there a Sobibor holocaust?
Yes or No?
(Remember BB - I raise points about your views based on the evidence that I see and read on-line, that evidence is there for everyone to read.)

[Moderator3]

SSeth:
I slightly edited your last post because of the unacceptable language that was directed at an active participant of this forum. The post did raise some good points for readers to see, hence it was not deleted straight away. However, future posts containing such language directed at an active participant will be deleted without hesitation. If you then persist, we will remove you from our registrants list. Please read our guidelines. That's it.
Moderator3

[Blogbuster]

SSeth,
You wrote;

BB, based on your personal research and in your humble opinion, do you currently believe that the number of fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of Sobibor that contain the remains of at least 19 bodies is:

A - More than 10.

B - Between 5 and 10.

C - Less than 5.

D - I refuse to give my opinion because I my tactics are similar to Roberto Muehlenkamp's

I guess my answer would be [ E - I don't have a definitive answer for you because my research is incomplete and still ongoing ]

To be honest its not clear to me what part of my post you did not understand. I stated my research on Sobibor is inconclusive at this time. When I am at the point that I am confident that my research is fully developed, I will be happy to share my opinions publicly.

On the other hand, my beliefs around Roberto Muehlenkamps duplicity in his handling of the Sobibor question are in my opinion born out online by his many flip-flops, reversals, reliance on smear tactics, and lies. Among this evidence could very well be the links you have posted that show this duplicity.

The opinion I share willing and openly without any duplicity in my intent, is that I don't believe Muehlenkamp or any of the HC crew are credible to argue any issue on Sobibor, either for or against, with viable, or vetted research. The posts I've seen about them on HBW link back to actual events that can be proven.

Take for example the HBW posts about Nick Terry, Sergey Romanov, and Muehlenkamps attempted theft of the ARC website, and the subsequent counterfeit version they launched and promoted on their blog, just after ARC was vandalized.

Muehlenkamp says this is a lie but the historical record shows that ARC was vandalized and knocked offline, HC boasted a victory on their blog, a counterfeit version was launched and promoted, then the counterfeit version which Muehlenkamp claims was legitimate was banned by all the major search engines and inevitably driven off of the Internet.

These are facts, but Muehlenkamp denies them and won't explain how his so-called legitimate ARC with the hyphen, was removed from the Internet if it was so legitimate? HBW raises this same question and is ignored and dismissed.

You can quite easily find many similar examples of such duplicity in Muehlenkamps online arguments about Sobibor, and other topics, most of which are an endless stream of lies, and BS.

Again, no one need take my word for it, or even believe the HBW crew, but if you follow the trail of their links and sift through all the data, the facts are conclusive and damning.

Lest we all kid ourselves about just why Sergey Romanov and Nick Terry have both dropped off the face of the planet, preferring anonymity, to their former public stance.

Just some food for thought.

I do enjoy the dialogue, many thanks for your input.
BB

[Blogbuster]

All,

Not sure if this post is fully on topic, but the etermination site www.deathcamps.org Sobibor page, has an anti-Muehlenkamp disclaimer posted at the top. It appears that both exterminationists as well as revisionists are in agreement about Roberto Muehlenkamps duplicity regarding Sobibor



BB

[Blogbuster]

If the link on the ARC - Sobibor page with the disclaminer by the website owner (see image below) isn't relevant to how Muehlenkamp is viewed by an actual exterminationist site, then I don't know what is.



It shows exterminationists, not revisionists, publicly stating that Muehlenkamps posts are grossly inaccurate and geared towards useless controversy.

BB