My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Discussions
Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:25 am

Opening statement:

The following information is being presented as proof that alleged - Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 - 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=1278488&postcount=2629

Table

The above table shows an estimative calculation of the minimum amounts of human cremation remains (ashes, bone fragments, teeth or tooth meal) that can be reasonably expected to be currently buried in the mass graves at the former Nazi extermination camp of Chełmno, as well as a calculation, based on a reasonably estimated average weight of the deportees, of the number of corpses corresponding to these cremation remains. It is based on archaeological data and other evidence mentioned below, and on realistic, conservative assumptions complementing such data and other evidence where necessary. It can therefore, in my opinion, be considered proof of the numbers of human cremation remains and corresponding numbers of whole corpses stated therein, according to the standards of proof that would be applied by a German court of law, whereby a reasonable estimated minimum quantity is considered the (maximum) quantity that can be proven, even if there are good reasons to assume that the actual quantity is higher.

The table consists of the following columns:

Grave #: the number of the grave according to the report about Archaeological Research in the area of Chełmno extermination camp by Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak, which is transcribed in Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak (editor), Chelmno Witnesses Speak and on the website of the Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner (hereinafter called the "Chełmno Report").

(a) Volume m3: Volume in cubic meters of each grave, according to the Chełmno Report and my blog articles Mattogno on Chełmno Mass Graves and Mattogno on Chełmno Cremation (Part 3).

(b) Thereof occupied by corpses (m3): Part of each grave’s volume that is occupied by whole corpses. In the Chełmno Report there is no indication of whole corpses inside the graves, so this column is blank.

(c) = (a) - (b) = Thereof occupied by soil and cremation remains (m3): The part of each grave’s volume occupied by soil and cremation remains is the difference between each grave’s total volume and the part of that volume occupied by whole corpses. As no whole corpses were reported to exist in the Chełmno graves, this volume is equal to the each grave’s total volume.

(d) % of human cremation remains in soil: The concentration/density of human cremation remains contained in the soil of each grave is an essential parameter for establishing the amount of human cremation remains in each grave. The term "human cremation remains" is understood as meaning burned or unburned parts of human bodies left over from a not necessarily complete cremation process, crushed or uncrushed and including ashes, bone fragments, teeth (scorched or not) and tooth meal.

The Chełmno Report provides the following descriptions of human cremation remains contained in the graves:

Grave # 1 ("The first grave")
Under the humus, on the top of the ash layer, we found several unburned objects belonging to the victims.


Grave # 2 ("The second grave")
While the new layout was being uncovered, the existence of burned-out objects and ashes as well as crushed human bones both burned and unburned was stated.[…] Further part of the grave contains burned-out objects mixed with inclusions of ash and bonemeal as well as lumps of burn waste and coke.[…] The northern segment of the grave may probably be linked to different attempts to remove the corpses, burn them inside the graves or in primitive furnaces-hearths as well as to the process of crushing bones. In the other segment, bones ground into bonemeal can already be found.[…]


Grave # 3 ("The third grave")
The contents of the grave includes sandy soil with gravel, burn waste, ash, and crushed human bones.


Grave # 4 ("The fourth grave")
It is filled with gray sandy soil mixed with inclusions of burn waste, ash and crushed bones.


Grave # 5 ("The fifth grave")
The dimensions of the pits vary from 9x7.5 m to 15.50x8.50 m. They are filled with gray soil with a significant mixture of burn waste and crushed human bones.


One notes that the pits making up grave # 5 are described as containing a "significant" mixture of burn waste and crushed human bones in their soil, whereas no such precision is made as concerns the other four graves. This suggests that the concentration of human cremation remains in the first four graves is rather lower than in grave # 5 – high enough to be detected, but not so high as to be considered "significant".

As the report does not express in percentage terms what is meant by significant and not-so-significant admixtures of human remains in the soil, another archaeological source must be used to obtain some precision. In his Chełmno book (see my blog Mattogno on Chełmno Cremation (Part 3)), Revisionist writer Carlo Mattogno informs his readers that at the end of 1988 the Koniń District Museum sent to the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the Poznań Medical Academy a package containing four sacks of soil mixed with ashes and bone fragments collected in the area of the Chełmno camp, requesting an expert opinion about whether these ashes and bone fragments were of human origin and what their concentration in the soil was. The Institute of Forensic Medicine confirmed on 5 December 1988 that these remains were of human origin and that the concentration of human remains in all the material sent could be estimated at "some percent". Also not a precise quantification, but at least it allows for making some reasonable assumptions. "Some" is certainly more than one or two percent and certainly less than ten percent. It would not be far-fetched to assume that "some percent" could mean 5 % or more. However, in order to be on the safe side I’ll consider that it’s no more than 2.5 %. As the samples were examined in 1988, they must have been collected before, and as only the first grave and what was considered one of the camp’s crematoria had been investigated before 1988, the samples examined must have been from either of the two. The relatively low concentration of human remains in these samples is likely to be equal to the concentration found in the other three graves proper (i.e. the ones that, unlike the ash disposal pits that make up grave # 5, had originally been used to bury whole human corpses), regarding which the concentration of human remains in the soil is not pointed out as being "significant". Therefore, this was the concentration of human cremation remains that I considered to be present in Chełmno graves nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.

In the pits that make up grave # 5, on the other hand, the concentration of burn waste and crushed human bones was found to be "significant". These pits, as mentioned in the blog Mattogno on Chełmno Mass Graves, had already been described in the report of the site investigation made in 1945 by Judge Włodzimierz Bednarz, where it is pointed out that "because of the soil’s fertilization by human ashes the vegetation in this area is much richer and its color is much greener". Even today, according to the Chełmno Report, "the flora on the pits is more luxuriant, making this stretch more visible on the surface". All this shows that the concentration of human cremation remains in grave # 5 is much higher than in graves nos. 1 to 4. How much higher cannot be determined on hand of the available data, so caution calls for assuming the lowest threshold of what can be considered a "significant" concentration, which I conservatively put at 10 %. The actual concentration of human remains in this grave is probably higher, but according to the rationale that a reasonably estimated minimum is a proven maximum, I considered this percentage as being the minimum density of human cremation remains in Chełmno grave # 5.

(e) = (c) * (d) = Volume of human cremation remains (m3): The volume in cubic meters of human cremation remains in each grave, calculated by multiplying the part of each grave’s volume containing soil and human cremation remains instead of whole corpses (which in the case of the Chełmno graves is the whole volume of each grave) with the (minimum) percentage thereof that can be considered to consist of human cremation remains, i.e. 2.5 % for graves nos. 1 to 4 and 10 % for grave # 5.

(f) = ( e) * 0.5 t/m3 (metric tons): The volume in cubic meters of human cremation remains, calculated in column (e), is converted into the weight of these cremation remains in metric tons considering the specific weight of human cremation remains, which according to Mattogno, Graf and Kues (MGK) is 0.5 g/cm3 (see, among others, my blog Mattogno, Graf & Kues on Aktion Reinhard(t) Cremation (4)).

The weight of human cremation remains in the Chełmno mass graves, calculated in the above table, is the following:

Grave #_Weight of human cremation remains in metric tons
1_15.11
2_66.68
3_52.20
4_68.25
5_204.80
Total_407.04

Readers who want the above weights in pounds need only introduce them into the online weight converter. 1 metric ton equals 2,204.6226218 pounds.

(g) Corpse residue factor: This factor represents the part of a corpse’s original volume and weight that is left over after cremation. Dividing the cremation residue weight in column (f) by this factor, one thus obtains the corpse’s original weight prior to cremation. According to MGK (see again the above-mentioned blog) the remains left behind by cremation would correspond to about 5 % of the corpses’ non-decomposed weight. This percentage, however, is too low for open-air cremation, in which corpses are not reduced as thoroughly as in a crematorium and the percentage of cremation residue is thus higher. According to a document from the British Environment Agency referred to by MGK (Environment Agency North West Region Area. Extracts from Submission to Cumbria County Council’s Inquiry into the Foot and Mouth Crisis), section 5.2.4 on page 13), a typical pyre for 300 cows at the time of the British Foot & Mouth Disease Crisis in 2001 could leave 15 tons of carcass ash and 45 tons of other ash to be disposed of. Assuming that each cow weighed 500 kg (as is done in the article CBA of Foot and Mouth Disease Control Strategies: Environmental Impacts by Paul Watkiss and Alison Smith, footnote 7 on page 4), the original weight of carcasses burned on such a pyre was 150 tons, i.e. the carcass ash amounted to 10 % of the original carcass weight. I therefore considered a corpse residue factor of 10 % instead of MGK’s 5 %. Note that this assumption, besides being based on empirical data from cremation under comparable circumstances, leads to a much lower life or pre-cremation weight corresponding to a given weight of cremation remains than the residue percentage considered by MGK, and therefore to a lower number of corpses whose cremation is considered to have produced these cremation remains.

(h) = (f)÷(g) * 1,000 = Pre-cremation weight of cremated corpses (kg): Dividing the cremation residue weight in columns (f) by the corpse residue factor in column (g), one obtains the pre-cremation weight of fresh corpses in metric tons. Multiplying the result of this division by 1,000 yields the same corpses’ weight in kg.

(i) = Average weight of corpse (kg):

The average life weight of a deportee murdered at Chełmno extermination camp was calculated as being 34 kg, see the blogs Mattogno on Chełmno Cremation (Part 2) and Belzec Mass Graves and Archaeology: My Response to Carlo Mattogno (4,1). In these blogs I also explain why the average weight considered by Mattogno in his Chełmno book (45 kg) is too high.

(j) = (h)÷(i) = Number of corpses reduced to cremation remains: The number that results from dividing the total pre-cremation weight of the corpses in column (h) by the average weight of corpses in column (i). As no whole corpses in the Chełmno mass graves have been reported, this is also the total number of victims whose remains can be proven to currently lie in the mass graves at Chełmno.

The numbers are the following:

Grave #_Number of victims whose remains currently lie in grave
1_4,445
2_19,610
3_15,353
4_20,074
5_60,235
Total_119,717

Grave # 1 is the grave referred to as Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 on the webpage under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p= ... count=2629.

This grave has been proven to contain the remains of at least 4,445 human bodies. It has thus been proven to contain the remains of at least 19 bodies.

Closing statement:
The preceding information was presented as proof that alleged - Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 - 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 2 months from today – 15 February 2012 – 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 – Roberto Muehlenkamp’s - My Chelmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs - thread on the Skeptics Society’s forum, as meeting my own, Skeptic Magazine’s and the Skeptics Society’s expressed and implied standards of proof, and that - Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 - 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.)

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:30 pm

Good luck :D
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9823
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Pyrrho » Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Have you sent this to Mr. Shermer? I doubt he reads this forum.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:58 am

Pyrrho wrote:Have you sent this to Mr. Shermer? I doubt he reads this forum.


Thanks for the reminder. Mr. Shermer has been sent an e-mail informing him about this thread.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:28 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The following information is being presented as proof that alleged - Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 - contains the remains of at least 19 bodies,



19 bodies? That is your big evidence of that 340,000 people
were killed at Chelmno.

"The final total therefore is 340,000 men, women and children, from infants to old folk, killed at the extermination camp at Chelmno.
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~lzamosc/gchelmno.html


So in all the 34 graves it looks as if there
were the remains of a few thousand people, at most.

In fact, the pattern of several small graves with 19 - 25 bodies in them
appears common. It was found at Majdanek and Treblinka I.
Probably bodies were buried in the winter while remains were
partially cremated in warmer months.

It is a dishonest Believer gambit to distort and exaggerate "normal"
levels of deaths.



User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:27 am

David, I ams sure the 19 comes from the conditions for the reward and is a minimum. The actual figures for number of bodies is much higher.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:00 am

David wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The following information is being presented as proof that alleged - Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 - contains the remains of at least 19 bodies,



19 bodies? That is your big evidence of that 340,000 people
were killed at Chelmno.

"The final total therefore is 340,000 men, women and children, from infants to old folk, killed at the extermination camp at Chelmno.
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~lzamosc/gchelmno.html


So in all the 34 graves it looks as if there
were the remains of a few thousand people, at most.

In fact, the pattern of several small graves with 19 - 25 bodies in them
appears common. It was found at Majdanek and Treblinka I.
Probably bodies were buried in the winter while remains were
partially cremated in warmer months.

It is a dishonest Believer gambit to distort and exaggerate "normal"
levels of deaths.




David hasn't been paying attention.

The numbers are the following:

Grave #_Number of victims whose remains currently lie in grave
1_4,445
2_19,610
3_15,353
4_20,074
5_60,235
Total_119,717

Grave # 1 is the grave referred to as Chelmno grave # 1 / 34 on the webpage under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p= ... count=2629.

This grave has been proven to contain the remains of at least 4,445 human bodies. It has thus been proven to contain the remains of at least 19 bodies.


119,717 is pretty close to the total number of people killed at Chelmno, which is not 340,000 but about 157,000 (the Polish postwar investigators overestimated the death toll). The graves do not contain the remains of all bodies because some of the cremation remains were scattered in woodland, dumped into lakes or ponds or shipped elsewhere.

Needless to say, at least 4,445 bodies in the first of Chelmno's five graves identified by archaeologists (graves nos. "1/34" to "5/38" according to Greg Gerdes' numbering system) means at least 19 bodies in that grave.

And the 19 bodies thing is just because Greg Gerdes (the "president" of the "National Association of Forensic Historians") offers $1,000 for each grave that is proven to contain the remains of at least 19 bodies, provided only that the proof is endorsed by Michael Shermer according to the posted form.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:35 am

Pardon, I am only curious, where I can see that proof of what contain mass grave number 1/34 in your long opening post? I don´t see any photos of drillings, no core samples or excavation, no video, no direct photographed and measured location of grave to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain, so where exactly is your proof?

I guess you traveled to this area to provide your challenger with proof and you investigated this grave, so where are your materials about your investigation? ...only to be sure, did you actually investigated this alleged mass grave personally, right?

Thanks in advance.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Feb 17, 2012 12:16 pm

Bob wrote:Pardon, I am only curious, where I can see that proof of what contain mass grave number 1/34 in your long opening post? I don´t see any photos of drillings, no core samples or excavation, no video, no direct photographed and measured location of grave to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain, so where exactly is your proof?


My proof is in an archaeological report, which is obviously based on detailed archaeological documentation available at the Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner.

If that's not sufficient proof to meet your requirements, please quote the accepted rules and standards of evidence that such requirements are based on.

After that, please make a list of the mass crimes you accept as factual that have proven by archaeological investigations of which the proof elements you mention are available to the public.

As you will hopefully understand, it's not you who gets to define what is proof and what is not.

Bob wrote:I guess you traveled to this area to provide your challenger with proof and you investigated this grave, so where are your materials about your investigation? ...only to be sure, did you actually investigated this alleged mass grave personally, right?


No, such investigation was conducted by a team of archaeologist led by Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak, as you might have realized if you had read the OP.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 1:50 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:My proof is in an archaeological report, which is obviously based on detailed archaeological documentation available at the Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner.


1)If I am correct, you only repeated summary report of other reports to provide proof for challenge which obviously didnt accepted this summary report of other reports since in the case of accepting of these all reports, the challenge would have never been made or it would be answered and closed, correct?

2)Ok, So can you provide me with mentioned materials from repeated reports? Photos of actual position and measurements of grave to know exactly where is it to be able to verify findings, photos of core samples, excavations, remains, videos, whatever?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If that's not sufficient proof to meet your requirements, please quote the accepted rules and standards of evidence that such requirements are based on.


I already said what I expect, see my previous comment and above.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:After that, please make a list of the mass crimes you accept as factual that have proven by archaeological investigations of which the proof elements you mention are available to the public.


3)I don´t need other mass crimes to accept your proof about your grave 1/34, or your proof/challenge somehow depend on other mass crimes?

4)Can you tell me source where these materials mentioned above are stored if they are hidden from public?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:As you will hopefully understand, it's not you who gets to define what is proof and what is not.


Did I said that I am the one who define it? No, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, such investigation was conducted by a team of archaeologist led by Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak, as you might have realized if you had read the OP.


5)But I asked if you personally conducted some investigation in this area of mass grave 1/34 to provide proof for nafcash challenge, did you?

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:16 pm

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:My proof is in an archaeological report, which is obviously based on detailed archaeological documentation available at the Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner.

1)If I am correct, you only repeated summary report of other reports to provide proof for challenge which obviously didnt accepted this summary report of other reports since in the case of accepting of these all reports, the challenge would have never been made or it would be answered and closed, correct?


Correct except that the “only” is nonsense and I’m not sure if the report is a summary of more extensive reports further detailing the finds on site, though it probably is.

As to the challenger, you haven’t been paying attention. The challenger is a "Revisionist" like yourself whose mind won't be changed by any proof that goes against his articles of faith. His denial, like yours, is not based on a lack of what a reasonable person would accept and is usually accepted as evidence, but on the incompatibility of certain events (proven beyond a reasonable doubt by converging eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence) with his ideological beliefs. The challenger, whose challenge is an obvious publicity act, has stated that he will accept as proof anything that Michael Shermer accepts as proof. Let’s see what happens if and when Michael Shermer should state that he is convinced by the proof I have submitted.

Bob wrote:2)Ok, So can you provide me with mentioned materials from repeated reports? Photos of actual position and measurements of grave to know exactly where is it to be able to verify findings, photos of core samples, excavations, remains, videos, whatever?


Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided, I don’t see why I should do it just in order to provide you with what you demand, moreover as you haven’t even answered my questions, as we shall see below.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If that's not sufficient proof to meet your requirements, please quote the accepted rules and standards of evidence that such requirements are based on.

I already said what I expect, see my previous comment and above.


The question is not about what you expect (or profess to expect), but about what you can reasonably expect and what a reasonable person would accept as proof. So don’t dodge the question, will you? Answer it.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:After that, please make a list of the mass crimes you accept as factual that have proven by archaeological investigations of which the proof elements you mention are available to the public.

3)I don´t need other mass crimes to accept your proof about your grave 1/34, or your proof/challenge somehow depend on other mass crimes?


You need to demonstrate that your demands are not based on double-standards of evidence. You know, the "if the event fits my bubble I’ll accept anything, if it doesn’t there’s nothing that will satisfy me" – approach that characterizes "Revisionists". Show me that this is not your approach.

As you seem to have the characteristic predilection of "Revisionists" for asking but never answering questions, here goes another:

Is there any reason why one should doubt the accuracy of the archeological report in question?

By reason I mean something that a reasonable person, a historian or court of law, would accept as evidence against the accuracy of this report. No "how do we know they didn’t lie" crap.

Bob wrote:4)Can you tell me source where these materials mentioned above are stored if they are hidden from public?


The Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, in all probability. And your "hidden from public" remark calls for some more questions:

Why "hidden from public"?

Is the documentation of an archaeological investigation usually made available to the public in all its details?

Or is the documentation of an archaeological investigation usually kept in an archive, museum or university, and what the public gets to see is a report summarizing the contents of this documentation?

Unless you can demonstrate that the public has no access in this case to what it usually has access to as concerns the results of archeological investigations, your "hidden from public" claim is further evidence that you are somewhat divorced from reality.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:As you will hopefully understand, it's not you who gets to define what is proof and what is not.

Did I said that I am the one who define it? No, correct?


No, but your demands suggest that this is your approach, as does your dodging of my questions.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, such investigation was conducted by a team of archaeologist led by Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak, as you might have realized if you had read the OP.

5)But I asked if you personally conducted some investigation in this area of mass grave 1/34 to provide proof for nafcash challenge, did you?


That question was very clearly answered in the first period of the above-quoted statement. The answer is "no". Can’t you read?

Ah, and here are some more questions for you to dodge:

Why on earth would I have to personally conduct an archaeological investigation to present proof of the results of such investigation to anyone?

What should keep me from referring to the results of an archaeological investigation done by someone else?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:03 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Correct except that the “only” is nonsense and I’m not sure if the report is a summary of more extensive reports further detailing the finds on site, though it probably is.


1)Ok, so I was correct. Additionaly you are "not sure", and you "though propably is", in the other words, you don´t know this about "your" quoted report, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided,


2)Why you didnt this before you started this thread as response to challenge?

Pardon, but If I am correct, there is Jewish law which prevent excavating or exhumation of the Jewish graves, correct? So what materials could be actually obtained from these archeologists?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I don’t see why I should do it just in order to provide you with what you demand, moreover as you haven’t even answered my questions, as we shall see below.


Provide me? Pardon Mr. Muehlenkamp, but you are trying to answer challenge of someone else, and for him you need to present this evidence if you want to adress his challenge, correct?

Propably you also want to present to public that you have proof, did you expected silence from users on the forum?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question is not about what you expect (or profess to expect), but about what you can reasonably expect and what a reasonable person would accept as proof. So don’t dodge the question, will you? Answer it.


I already answered your question Mr. Muehlenkamp, at least twice, here you can see again what I reasonably expect as reasonable person, here again I repeat myself:

"I don´t see any photos of drillings, no core samples or excavation, no video, no direct photographed and measured location of grave to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain, so where exactly is your proof? "

And again:

"Photos of actual position and measurements of grave to know exactly where is it to be able to verify findings, photos of core samples, excavations, remains, videos, whatever?"

I would like to add that I expected this investigation conducted by different teams to verify findings and also accompanied by independent observers or media to document it by third party. I am used to see this in crime scenes (edit - I actually see this even during usual ordinary excavations of ancient things and sites), so no extra demands.

If I am correct, you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:You need to demonstrate that your demands are not based on double-standards of evidence. You know, the "if the event fits my bubble I’ll accept anything, if it doesn’t there’s nothing that will satisfy me" – approach that characterizes "Revisionists". Show me that this is not your approach.


3)Mr. Muehlenkamp, I suggest to you for example Katyn massacre investigation. I am ok with this almost 70 years old investigation procedure and I can accept the same procedure from you or your source without obstructions in 2012, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Is there any reason why one should doubt the accuracy of the archeological report in question?


Written text has not much value if there is no evidence to back up such a written text and what is written on the paper, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, in all probability.


4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And your "hidden from public" remark calls for some more questions:
Why "hidden from public"?


4)Pardon, but these materials weren´t published since even you don´t know anything about them, correct? I do not know why evidence of Nazi crime is not published especially with all of these evil deniers around, so I assume that is hidden for some reason. If I am wrong, because I could be wrong in my assumption of course, please, tell why these allegedly existing materials about biggest crime in history of which the Chelmno camp is inseparable part, were not published?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Is the documentation of an archaeological investigation usually made available to the public in all its details?

Or is the documentation of an archaeological investigation usually kept in an archive, museum or university, and what the public gets to see is a report summarizing the contents of this documentation?


Don´t know if every archeological investigation of all kinds, but investigation of crime scene (especially mass graves) and especially of one of the biggest crime in the history, yes, or is at least made "public" for authorities and scholars, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, but your demands suggest that this is your approach, as does your dodging of my questions.


Please, no suggesting, take into consideration what I actually write and not what i don´t write, correct? Thanks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:That question was very clearly answered in the first period of the above-quoted statement. The answer is "no". Can’t you read?


5)In the other words, you conducted your investigation or answer on this challenge of what is allegedly in area named "grave 1/34" from your computer, and you didn´t bother to visist this grave, correct? Why?

6)Is hard for you to provide me with at least with some pieces of materials mentioned above, nevermind, are you able to at least draw the actual position of this grave? That google map is really of great resolution, switch on satelitte map, use print screen and mark position of this grave, thank you so much in advance for your time and effort, I appreciate it.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.11361 ... ,18.748611

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Why on earth would I have to personally conduct an archaeological investigation to present proof of the results of such investigation to anyone?


Because you want to present proof as a response to nafcash challenge, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What should keep me from referring to the results of an archaeological investigation done by someone else?


Nothing, you can quote anybody you want, I don´t care.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Feb 17, 2012 8:55 pm

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Correct except that the “only” is nonsense and I’m not sure if the report is a summary of more extensive reports further detailing the finds on site, though it probably is.

Ok, so I was correct. Additionaly you are "not sure", and you "though propably is", in the other words, you don´t know this about "your" quoted report, correct?


Correct. And so?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided,

2)Why you didnt this before you started this thread as response to challenge?


Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person.

Bob wrote:Pardon, but If I am correct, there is Jewish law which prevent excavating or exhumation of the Jewish graves, correct? So what materials could be actually obtained from these archeologists?


Materials like those that Prof. Andrzej Kola obtained at Bełżec by core drilling, or like those that Father Patrick Desbois obtained at Busk by uncovering the first layers of corpses in the mass graves. It seems that probing excavations are permitted, at least according to most Jewish scholars, provided that human remains are not moved or the human contents of core samples are returned to the graves immediately after they have been examined. Why don’t you read the description of the Chełmno archaeologists' method, by the way? If you want further details, I suggest you contact the Chełmno museum.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I don’t see why I should do it just in order to provide you with what you demand, moreover as you haven’t even answered my questions, as we shall see below.

Provide me? Pardon Mr. Muehlenkamp, but you are trying to answer challenge of someone else, and for him you need to present this evidence if you want to adress his challenge, correct?


For "him" I need to present something that Michael Shermer will accept as proof, and this I think I have done.

Bob wrote:Propably you also want to present to public that you have proof, did you expected silence from users on the forum?


Actually I posted my OP only for the sake of the "challenge", but I’m not surprised that "users" like you should come up with the nonsense that such "users" usually come up with. What makes you think you’re representative of the public, by the way?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question is not about what you expect (or profess to expect), but about what you can reasonably expect and what a reasonable person would accept as proof. So don’t dodge the question, will you? Answer it.

I already answered your question Mr. Muehlenkamp, at least twice, here you can see again what I reasonably expect as reasonable person, here again I repeat myself:

"I don´t see any photos of drillings, no core samples or excavation, no video, no direct photographed and measured location of grave to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain, so where exactly is your proof? "

And again:

"Photos of actual position and measurements of grave to know exactly where is it to be able to verify findings, photos of core samples, excavations, remains, videos, whatever?"


Sorry, my dear friend, but you are obviously not a reasonable person. For by demanding such elements of proof you are baselessly questioning the accuracy of an archaeological report and insinuating that the archaeologist made things up. And what I asked you to do was to quote rules and standards of evidence known to you whereby an archaeological report cannot be considered proof of what if describes if it doesn’t contain what you demand "to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain". This means that no, you haven’t answered my question. All I know so far is that you demand (or claim to demand) being shown what you demand to be shown. And please don’t take it personally, but unless backed up by accepted rules and standards of evidence your demands are irrelevant.

Bob wrote:I would like to add that I expected this investigation conducted by different teams to verify findings and also accompanied by independent observers or media to document it by third party.


I see you have high demands on evidence when it comes to facts that don’t fit your ideological bubble, but is there any particular reason why anyone should care for your demands?

Bob wrote:I am used to see this in crime scenes, so no extra demands.


What crimes scenes exactly are you talking about?

Who told you that such crime scene investigations are necessarily conducted "by different teams to verify findings"? Can you show me any rules or standards of evidence that require this to be done?

Who told you that crime scene investigations are necessarily "accompanied by independent observers or media to document it by third party"? I dare say that most are not. Can you show me any rules or standards of evidence that would be violated by the absence of such third party?

And last but not least, who told you that an archaeological investigation on the site of a proven crime, for which no one is meant to be prosecuted anymore, is a crime scene investigation?

Bob wrote:If I am correct, you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?


Yes, I guess I can’t meet the excessive demands behind which you seek to shelter your articles of faith.

Any particular reason why I should have to?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:You need to demonstrate that your demands are not based on double-standards of evidence. You know, the "if the event fits my bubble I’ll accept anything, if it doesn’t there’s nothing that will satisfy me" – approach that characterizes "Revisionists". Show me that this is not your approach.

3)Mr. Muehlenkamp, I suggest to you for example Katyn massacre investigation. I am ok with this almost 70 years old investigation procedure and I can accept the same procedure from you or your source without obstructions in 2012, correct?


Of course you can say that you will consider a mass crime proven only on hand of a crime site investigation like the one that was conducted by the Germans at Katyn. But you should consider where that leaves the overwhelming majority of Stalin’s crimes, which were never subjected to a similar investigation or to any crime site investigation at all. Are you trying to tell me that only the proven mass murders for which Stalin is responsible are those of the 4,000 or so Polish officers unearthed by the Germans at Katyn? Are you also a Stalin apologist?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Is there any reason why one should doubt the accuracy of the archeological report in question?

Written text has not much value if there is no evidence to back up such a written text and what is written on the paper, correct?


Why should that be correct? Because Bob says so?

The written text is an archaeological report. Are you trying to tell me that a court of law would not accept as evidence this report and/or the archaeologist’s testimony as an expert witness if the archaeologist doesn’t bring all his archaeological documentation (photos, drawings and such) into the courtroom? If so, what rules or standards of evidence gave you that idea?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, in all probability.

4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?


Correct. And so? Am I supposed to assume that the Chełmno archaeologists didn’t do a proper job and duly document their finds just because I haven’t seen their documentation? If so, on what basis am I supposed to assume that?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And your "hidden from public" remark calls for some more questions:
Why "hidden from public"?

4)Pardon, but these materials weren´t published since even you don´t know anything about them, correct?


Don’t obfuscate. Not published doesn’t mean hidden, unless you can show that such materials are usually published after archaeological investigations.

Bob wrote:I do not know why evidence of Nazi crime is not published especially with all of these evil deniers around, so I assume that is hidden for some reason.


That’s not exactly a logical argument.

First of all, publishing voluminous archaeological documentation is not standard procedure in archaeology, for all I know. That must be so because archaeological documentation tends to be too voluminous to catch the public’s interest if published, so the public usually gets to see only what little it can be expected to show some interest in – anything more would be wasted effort and money.

Second, few people besides me even care about what "these evil deniers" do or not.

And third, the arguments that "these evil deniers" produce are so feeble that the few who bother with them don’t need to show complete sets of archaeological documentation to refute such arguments.

Bob wrote:If I am wrong, because I could be wrong in my assumption of course, please, tell why these allegedly existing materials about biggest crime in history of which the Chelmno camp is inseparable part, were not published?


For the reasons explained above. Archaeology related to the "biggest crime in history" is not treated differently from other archaeology. And there’s no reason why it should be. Or are you trying to tell me that bunch of fringe lunatics are a reason?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: Is the documentation of an archaeological investigation usually made available to the public in all its details?

Or is the documentation of an archaeological investigation usually kept in an archive, museum or university, and what the public gets to see is a report summarizing the contents of this documentation?

Don´t know if every archeological investigation of all kinds, but investigation of crime scene (especially mass graves) and especially of one of the biggest crime in the history, yes, or is at least made "public" for authorities and scholars, correct?


Only if you can show me precedents of archaeological documentation pertaining to mass crimes (not just the reports but the whole documentation supporting those reports) being made available to the public as opposed to being kept in archives, museums or universities.

And if you can explain why "the biggest crime in the history" should be treated differently in this respect than other crimes that were also quite big (some of them committed by your Nazi heroes, who besides more than five million Jews murdered more than seven million non-Jews during World War II).

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: No, but your demands suggest that this is your approach, as does your dodging of my questions.

Please, no suggesting, take into consideration what I actually write and not what i don´t write, correct? Thanks.


So you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, instead of making excessive demands when it comes to events that don’t fit your ideological bubble? Please confirm.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:That question was very clearly answered in the first period of the above-quoted statement. The answer is "no". Can’t you read?

5)In the other words, you conducted your investigation or answer on this challenge of what is allegedly in area named "grave 1/34" from your computer, and you didn´t bother to visist this grave, correct?


Correct. And so?

Bob wrote:Why?


Why not? Lack of time and means aside, the grave has been investigated by professional archaeologists. I’m not an archaeologist. Care to tell me what additional knowledge about the grave’s contents I could have derived from visiting the grave? Am I supposed to have gone digging without permission at a memorial site to check whether the contents of an archaeological report are accurate?

Bob wrote:6)Is hard for you to provide me with at least with some pieces of materials mentioned above, nevermind, are you able to at least draw the actual position of this grave? That google map is really of great resolution, switch on satelitte map, use print screen and mark position of this grave, thank you so much in advance for your time and effort, I appreciate it.
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.11361 ... ,18.748611


I don’t care what you appreciate and neither see why I should spend time and effort on fulfilling your wishes.

Besides, I can show you something better than my sketches on a google map. On this archaeological map you see the outlines of the three graves in the Chełmno "forest camp". This map shows the results of all probing excavations in the area of Chełmno extermination camp. I have bigger versions of these maps (they are included in this book, which also has an air photo of the "forest camp" mass graves), but they are in A3 format and thus difficult to scan. However, if you can come up with better arguments than those of "Revisionist" guru Carlo Mattogno, I may consider you worth the effort.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Why on earth would I have to personally conduct an archaeological investigation to present proof of the results of such investigation to anyone?

Because you want to present proof as a response to nafcash challenge, correct?


No, not correct. Not even the "National Association of Forensic Historians" demands that proof be based on an on-site investigation carried out by the claimant in person.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What should keep me from referring to the results of an archaeological investigation done by someone else?

Nothing, you can quote anybody you want, I don´t care.


A fairly reasonable statement, for a change. Try to keep it that way.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:56 pm

Nessie wrote:David, I ams sure the 19 comes from the conditions for the reward and is a minimum. The actual figures for number of bodies is much higher.



Ok. Thank you.

The issue is, of course, how much higher. 2,000 or 200,000?

The original investigation (like all Believer studies) is very unclear on
any quantification.
On grave #3 we are told...
includes sandy soil with gravel, burn waste, ash, and crushed human bones.
The report even admits this obvious and strange omission.
The Institute of Forensic Medicine confirmed on 5 December 1988 that these remains were of human origin and that the concentration of human remains in all the material sent could be estimated at "some percent".

Great....somewhere between Zero percent and 100% :roll: :roll:

I am not particularly faulting Roberto for his convoluted calculations . He
was most enthusiastic and inventive in his interpretations of human remains
at Treblinka. Why not at Chelmno too? But what happens to Roberto's calculations
if the real percentage is .5% or 1%?

Roberto includes "teeth or tooth meal" in his analysis. Oddly, I did not see
any recovery of teeth at any of the graves.

The report conflates "They are filled with gray soil with a significant mixture of burn waste and crushed human bones."
Gray soil? what does a "significant mixture" mean in real quanitative terms?

Why in grave #1 are
"Under the humus, on the top of the ash layer, we found several unburned objects belonging to the victims."

That is strange....why would there be "unburned objects?' why not burn them too?
why would then be on the top layer of ash?
How can the "investigators" know they belonged to the victims?

Why not be a little more F*ck'n clear?


The keep bitching...The Chełmno Report is like every other Believer report
full of sound and fury but signifying nada.
An example is Majdanek. When the Soviets got to the Camp they told everyone
that there were 400,000 bodies buried in the woods.
It turned out that is was closer to 1,400. Since then, Believer investigators
have a hard time counting.




David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:06 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided,

2)Why you didnt this before you started this thread as response to challenge?


Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person. ?


That is a bogus reply, Roberto. Most archaelogical reports are only concerned
with the presence of some amount of human remains.

In the case of Chelmno is the AMOUNT of remains that is relevant.
Revisionists would expect that somewhere around 2,000 bodies would
be found.

To give you a specific and obvious example of what was "forgotten"
in the Report...how many human teeth were recovered?

Teeth are durable. They would give us a very good idea of the age and
economic status of the bodies. With your precise guesstament of 119,717
you would expect there to be somewhere north of 3,000,000 teeth at the
site.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:32 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Correct. And so?


Thanks for answer.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person.


2)Why? I already said why, here again "Because you want to present proof as a response to nafcash challenge" That is purpose of your effort and your thread here.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Materials like those that Prof. Andrzej Kola obtained at Bełżec by core drilling, or like those that Father Patrick Desbois obtained at Busk by uncovering the first layers of corpses in the mass graves. It seems that probing excavations are permitted, at least according to most Jewish scholars, provided that human remains are not moved or the human contents of core samples are returned to the graves immediately after they have been examined. Why don’t you read the description of the Chełmno archaeologists' method, by the way? If you want further details, I suggest you contact the Chełmno museum.


I already said that I have read it, but thanks. So this Jewish law really exist, correct?

This Mr. Desbois claims that these uncovered peoples are murdered Jews, correct? So he violated Jewsish law or this Jewish law is somewhat false since he could do this, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:For "him" I need to present something that Michael Shermer will accept as proof, and this I think I have done.


If you think this, no problem.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Actually I posted my OP only for the sake of the "challenge", but I’m not surprised that "users" like you should come up with the nonsense that such "users" usually come up with. What makes you think you’re representative of the public, by the way?


I claimed that I am representative public? No, correct? But i am part of the public, correct? I am only trying to understand to value of your proof.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Sorry, my dear friend, but you are obviously not a reasonable person. For by demanding such elements of proof you are baselessly questioning the accuracy of an archaeological report and insinuating that the archaeologist made things up. And what I asked you to do was to quote rules and standards of evidence known to you whereby an archaeological report cannot be considered proof of what if describes if it doesn’t contain what you demand "to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain". This means that no, you haven’t answered my question. All I know so far is that you demand (or claim to demand) being shown what you demand to be shown. And please don’t take it personally, but unless backed up by accepted rules and standards of evidence your demands are irrelevant.


I only asked for evidence to back up text which is written on the paper (i.e. website) because everybody can write anything, correct? Please, respect that I do not accept every written text easily without backing it up, you can disagree, but please, respect my approach and don´t say about me that i am not reasonable, because my approach to not accept everything without evidence which is mentioned in text is clearly reasonable, or you don´t agree?

Hypotetically - I discovered archeological report which containt this information "mass grave of Jewish crime which contain remains of hundreds or thousands of murdered Palestinians has been discovered by our team (names) in some location (name of location) and they found this and this and etc." , no documentation included, only few photos of personal things of these victims exactly like in your report. So Mr. Muehlenkamp, can you demonstrate your approach to this written report so I can see your approach to back up your claim that I am not reasonable?

I assume that your approach is to accept it in the same way as "your" report, correct?

Authority Raul Hilberg spoke too about two Hitler´s orders without evidence in his opus DoEJ, without source and then he later removed these alleged orders from his next edition, so do you understand what I mean with my approach? You would propably say "these orders are propably stored there or there and no reason to doubt what is written in his book" as you did in this case of this report, correct?

I am speaking for myself, so i don´t need to quote some general rules for archealogical reports, I showed you clearly what i would like to see, just ordinary material which I saw in other cases, if you disagree, no problem.

Only to be sure, you already admited that you don´t have anything and you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I see you have high demands on evidence when it comes to facts that don’t fit your ideological bubble, but is there any particular reason why anyone should care for your demands?


You think these (photo, video, remains, etc. or at least photo or video of location of grave) are high demands? Interesting.

Why anyone should care about my demands? Nobody should have to care, I am only curious if you can present your proof to ordinary dude as me, because sholars are higher in their demands than ordinary public dudes as me, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What crimes scenes exactly are you talking about?


For example old investigation of Katyn, correct? Please, let me know if I am correct.

There were third party observers of non-German origin, correct?
There were third party observers from international organisation/s, correct?
There were exhumations and excavations of mass graves, correct?
There were physicians which performed investigation, correct?
There were media which documented it, correct?
There were photos and videos of investigation, correct?
There were documented and investigated human remains, correct?
Findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials, correct?

If i am correct, you want to tell me that evil Nazis performed their job of investigation of crimes better than good guys/girls tens years later in your report and you still want to tell me that I have excessive demands?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Who told you that such crime scene investigations are necessarily conducted "by different teams to verify findings"? Can you show me any rules or standards of evidence that require this to be done?


Nobody told me this, I consider as normal to have at least more than one team in investigation to achieve proper investigation since I don´t see any reason why the investigation couldn´t be performed by team from your sources together with team of revisionists, is there any problem why this did not happen?

Do you know at least one single investigation conducted by teams from both sides of the "barricade"?

Again, as I said above, I am speaking for myself, I am not depended on rules of someone else.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Who told you that crime scene investigations are necessarily "accompanied by independent observers or media to document it by third party"? I dare say that most are not. Can you show me any rules or standards of evidence that would be violated by the absence of such third party?


Nobody told me this, I consider as normal to document investigation by observers which have nothing to do with investigations, if you don´t agree, no problem, but where are these observers, for example media nobody bothered?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And last but not least, who told you that an archaeological investigation on the site of a proven crime, for which no one is meant to be prosecuted anymore, is a crime scene investigation?


Crime scene is always crime scene and crime scene don´t stop being crime scene, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:If I am correct, you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?


Yes, I guess I can’t meet the excessive demands behind which you seek to shelter your articles of faith.


So answer is Yes, you can´t provide demands like - photos, video, photos of drilling, samples, exacavation, some remains, you even cant provide photo of this alleged grave without excavation, I mean only photo location and its measurements. You call it excessive. Very strange to me, but thanks for answer.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Any particular reason why I should have to?


To adress challenge?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Of course you can say that you will consider a mass crime proven only on hand of a crime site investigation like the one that was conducted by the Germans at Katyn. But you should consider where that leaves the overwhelming majority of Stalin’s crimes, which were never subjected to a similar investigation or to any crime site investigation at all. Are you trying to tell me that only the proven mass murders for which Stalin is responsible are those of the 4,000 or so Polish officers unearthed by the Germans at Katyn? Are you also a Stalin apologist?


-Don´t understand your comment, you wanted example of what I consider as acceptable as investigation of mass grave to avoid double standard approach, correct?
-You got it, correct?
-So you don´t need to be afraid of double standard, I will not demand more that what was done during mentioned Katyn investigation, fair enough to you?

Are you able to present at least similar investigation as Katyn almost 70 years ago?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Why should that be correct? Because Bob says so?


Answer me please. Has written text value if the text is not backed by evidence which is mentioned in text?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The written text is an archaeological report. Are you trying to tell me that a court of law would not accept as evidence this report and/or the archaeologist’s testimony as an expert witness if the archaeologist doesn’t bring all his archaeological documentation (photos, drawings and such) into the courtroom? If so, what rules or standards of evidence gave you that idea?


Proper court would not accept this report if the answers of author of such a report during cross examination would be the same or similar to yours presented here Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, in all probability.

4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?


Correct. And so? Am I supposed to assume that the Chełmno archaeologists didn’t do a proper job and duly document their finds just because I haven’t seen their documentation? If so, on what basis am I supposed to assume that?


Thanks for answer, that is all what I wanted to know.

Little deatil, are you at least able to name just one single human being which wasn´t part of team/s which allegedly conducted investigation of this grave and who actually saw alleged "volumnious materials" stored in Chelmno which is consisted of photos/video/etc. of human remains, core drillings, excavation and etc., do you know at least one human who wasnt member of team and who saw these crucial findings?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:4)Pardon, but these materials weren´t published since even you don´t know anything about them, correct?


Don’t obfuscate. Not published doesn’t mean hidden, unless you can show that such materials are usually published after archaeological investigations.


The answer on this quote should be only "Correct", no more, because they were not published as you admited, that Is all I wanted to know in this quote.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:That’s not exactly a logical argument.

First of all, publishing voluminous archaeological documentation is not standard procedure in archaeology, for all I know. That must be so because archaeological documentation tends to be too voluminous to catch the public’s interest if published, so the public usually gets to see only what little it can be expected to show some interest in – anything more would be wasted effort and money.


You speak about logic, you admited that you don´t know if this alleged "voluminous documentation" even exist, do you remember it here:?

Bob - 4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?

Roberto - Correct. And so?


So where is your logic Mr. Muehlenkamp? You speak about non-publishing of something which you even don´t know if exist, correct?

I would be content with just a few fragments published to public, I never claimed that i wanted to see whole materials, so what are the problem with publishng at least small fragment of this alleged stored volumnious material? I see lot of photos of "boring" things in "your" report here http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm# So where is problem to publish stuff which is the most important instead of these?

They filled report with all these pictures and no space remained?

Nobody bothered to show crucial evidence of human remains, drillings, samples, excavation, grave, location and etc. and instead of this they decided to fill report with useless photos of things which could be found propably even in ordinary yards?

Be honest, this really make sense to you?

Would you be content with saying that I have volumnious undoubtful material which prove that holocaust did not happen, but I didn´t publish it for some reason? Would you accept it?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And third, the arguments that "these evil deniers" produce are so feeble that the few who bother with them don’t need to show complete sets of archaeological documentation to refute such arguments.

(...)Or are you trying to tell me that bunch of fringe lunatics are a reason?


Sorry, I will not discuss this general issue with you here, since I am interested only in subject of this thread. Feel free to join other relevant threads and we can discuss it there. You can for exmaple join simple thread here viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17691 to back your claims.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:For the reasons explained above. Archaeology related to the "biggest crime in history" is not treated differently from other archaeology. And there’s no reason why it should be.


Archeology investigation of crime scene related to Nazi holocaust is not treated differently from investigation of other crime scenes and you see no difference, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Only if you can show me precedents of archaeological documentation pertaining to mass crimes (not just the reports but the whole documentation supporting those reports) being made available to the public as opposed to being kept in archives, museums or universities.


Since i never claimed that whole documentation/backing-up evidence used for these reports must be published, is irrelevant to adress your demand, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And if you can explain why "the biggest crime in the history" should be treated differently in this respect than other crimes that were also quite big (some of them committed by your Nazi heroes, who besides more than five million Jews murdered more than seven million non-Jews during World War II).


I never claimed to be treated differently, in fact I demanded to be treated in the same way as other similar crimes as Katyn, correct? Or you don´t agree?

I also see you jumped to another subject, nevermind, I will question only one of your interesting claims.

Pardon Mr. Muehelenkamp, but they allegedly murdered six millions Jews, why you used only "more than five", you deny six million figure?

How did you arrive to five millions? Documents from IMT Nuremberg Trial USSR-08 and USSR-29 allegedly proved that at least 5,5 (4+1,5) milions of Jews were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and Majdanek, you want to tell me that no significant number of Jews were murdered by Nazis in other places since you speak "only" about more than five and not six millions, or you doubt Nuremberg Trial findings? Take your pick and explain it to me please, I see confusion.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, instead of making excessive demands when it comes to events that don’t fit your ideological bubble? Please confirm.


By which historians and courts, you mean court which would need to decide if is correct to accept your proof here? I already adressed it above.

Demand to see at least photo of undisturbed grave without any excavation to at least see where exactly this grave 1/34 is located and what are his measurements, is excessive demand? Really?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:5)In the other words, you conducted your investigation or answer on this challenge of what is allegedly in area named "grave 1/34" from your computer, and you didn´t bother to visist this grave, correct?


Correct. And so?


Thanks for answer.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Why?


Why not? Lack of time and means aside, the grave has been investigated by professional archaeologists. I’m not an archaeologist. Care to tell me what additional knowledge about the grave’s contents I could have derived from visiting the grave? Am I supposed to have gone digging without permission at a memorial site to check whether the contents of an archaeological report are accurate?


I wanted to at least know if you bothered to visit memorial to see the alleged "volumniously documentation" allegedly stored there, and to at least bother to verify alleged findings in report.

I wanted to at least know if you bothered to speak with local memorial autorities about your proof to support your evidence.

I wanted to at least know if you at least saw with your own eyes this proof/grave which you presented here.

Your answer is NO to all of this and in fact you only assume that this grave as allegedly described in "your" report/s exist, but you never saw it to tell me if really exist and you have only second-hand piece of written text without allegedly existing materials to back it up, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I don’t care what you appreciate and neither see why I should spend time and effort on fulfilling your wishes.


Pardon my ignorance Mr. Muehlenkamp, but are you at least able to locate where is your alleged proof/grave in this area? You really can´t spend few seconds to show me where is located in this great google map?

You spent time with providing me with material below which is irrelevant to what i am asking you, but you can´t spent fragment of this time to draw the location and shape of "your" grave 1/34? Please.?

No offense, really, but I suspect you that you actually even don´t know where is your alleged proof located, and again no offense, but i find it very ridiculous, just imagine - "Hello, My name is Roberto, I would like to present proof here, but I don´t even know where is my proof, ups."

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Besides, I can show you something better than my sketches on a google map. On this archaeological map you see the outlines of the three graves in the Chełmno "forest camp". This map shows the results of all probing excavations in the area of Chełmno extermination camp. I have bigger versions of these maps (they are included in this book, which also has an air photo of the "forest camp" mass graves), but they are in A3 format and thus difficult to scan. However, if you can come up with better arguments than those of "Revisionist" guru Carlo Mattogno, I may consider you worth the effort.


I would be content with just only location of your proof no. 1/34 Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, not correct. Not even the "National Association of Forensic Historians" demands that proof be based on an on-site investigation carried out by the claimant in person.


Your challenger rely on third party orthodox side (Shermer) which will or not will decide if this meet some standards or not, no problem for me, this is needed to avoid being accused of being biased. This challenger has actually better sense for how to behave in these cases than your sources, correct?

This is even enhanced by fact that M. Shermer is strongly anti-revisionists/deniers, correct? What a interesting behavior and decision from this "evil" denier challenger to rely on Shermer, isn´t it?

I am curious how Shermer decide or not decide, and what would be his standards for this proof which you ?presented? here. I hope that Mr. Shermer, if he bother with this challenge, actually read this thread and your responses.

You are here to answer challenge, correct? So I assumed that you will make effort to answer challenge, but if I am correct, you actually only repeated report of someone else and that´s all, without this report you wouldn´t have anything because you didn´t have time and etc. as you told me, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:A fairly reasonable statement, for a change. Try to keep it that way.


In fact, I never claimed that I care about what you used for your quotes, I have no problem to examine everything what you decide to present.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:34 pm

David wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided,

2)Why you didnt this before you started this thread as response to challenge?

Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person. ?

That is a bogus reply, Roberto.


Try doing without the repetitive catchphrases, it may make you look less silly.

David wrote: Most archaelogical reports are only concerned
with the presence of some amount of human remains.


Let’s say that archaeological reports don’t usually quantify human remains found. But that’s no reason for me to refrain from estimating the amount of human remains based on information about their concentration in the soil and the size of the mass grave.

David wrote: In the case of Chelmno is the AMOUNT of remains that is relevant.
Revisionists would expect that somewhere around 2,000 bodies would
be found.


What would that expectation be based on, and why should anyone give a damn about what "Revisionist" loonies would expect?

David wrote: To give you a specific and obvious example of what was "forgotten" in the Report...how many human teeth were recovered?


Are archaeological reports supposed to quantify human remains found, all of a sudden?

David wrote:Teeth are durable.


Not when exposed to high temperatures. Enamel breaks up easily under heat.

David wrote:They would give us a very good idea of the age and
economic status of the bodies.


Great, then I suggest you contact the Chełmno museum and ask them what conclusions they derived from the teeth they found. For they seem to have found quite a few, if you look at their report (emphases added):

Inside a significant amount of the victims' personal belongings was found, such as: clasps of different kind, e.g. of handbags, suitcases; strap buckles, keys, fragments of artificial teeth, rifle and pistol shells, and, what is very important, a button of a Russian uniform.


Among other things we found there 2 stone figures of "silent" monkeys, a bronze Star of David, a quadrilateral lead toy top for playing drejdl (with Hebrew letters: nun, gimel, he, szin), as well as human teeth with traces of removed gold caps.


Its total depth can be about 1.30 m at the top. It was filled with dark brown humus. We found there significant quantities of the victims' belongings and human teeth with traces of removed tooth caps.


From the pit we obtained a significant number of objects, as well as human teeth with traces of removed caps.


Among others, human teeth and gold and metal tooth caps were found.


Not in the graves or by the fireplaces, you see. These were teeth that had been extracted because they contained gold fillings. Your heroes obviously broke out the fillings and threw the rest away.

David wrote: With your precise guesstament of 119,717
you would expect there to be somewhere north of 3,000,000 teeth at the
site.


Only if you assume that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption.

By the way, what argument exactly are your trying to make? I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t know yourself.

I’ll get to your previous junk later, and also to the garbage produced by your equally persistent coreligionist. Right now the sun is shining, and I have better things to do on a Sunday afternoon than thrash true believers.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:02 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Only if you assume that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption.


Mr. Muehlenkamp, after your return from beautiful Sunday shinning afternoon, don´t forget to include your answer what happened to the teeth during the cremations in Chelmno (or other camps if you want) when you claim that they didn´t remain intact. Don´t forget to source it.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:13 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
David wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided,

2)Why you didnt this before you started this thread as response to challenge?

Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person. ?

That is a bogus reply, Roberto.


Try doing without the repetitive catchphrases, it may make you look less silly.


David wrote: Most archaelogical reports are only concerned
with the presence of some amount of human remains.


Let’s say that archaeological reports don’t usually quantify human remains found. But that’s no reason for me to refrain from estimating the amount of human remains based on information about their concentration in the soil and the size of the mass grave.

You know what the term "garbage in garbage out" means,
Roberto? That's what you are doing.






David wrote: In the case of Chelmno is the AMOUNT of remains that is relevant.
Revisionists would expect that somewhere around 2,000 bodies would
be found.


What would that expectation be based on, and why should anyone give a damn about what "Revisionist" loonies would expect?

People died during the 4 years Chelmno was occupied.
Finding a "small" number of human remains is to be expected. That is why your flimflam is silly.


David wrote: To give you a specific and obvious example of what was "forgotten" in the Report...how many human teeth were recovered?


Are archaeological reports supposed to quantify human remains found, all of a sudden?

When that is the issue, of course. Quantification and
accurate descriptions are important in scientific studies.
A comparison that springs to mind are the occasional "Reports" from
groups climbing Mount Ararat which breathlessly announce the finding
of a board or plank.
To continue the analogy, the Poles found a board, You designed an Ark.



David wrote:Teeth are durable.


Not when exposed to high temperatures. Enamel breaks up easily under heat.

Oh...now the teeth are disappearing? As we say,
Any excuse is good enough for a Believer."


David wrote:They would give us a very good idea of the age and
economic status of the bodies.


Great, then I suggest you contact the Chełmno museum and ask them what conclusions they derived from the teeth they found. For they seem to have found quite a few, if you look at their report (emphases added):
You missed the point of accurate quantification.
For example how many children's teeth were found? What was the
ratio to adult teeth?


So, Roberto, how many children's teeth were found? Not one is mentioned
What does that mean to your convoluted theories?






David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Sun Feb 19, 2012 4:54 am

Roberto has based his claims and calculations based
on the reports of the Museum at Chelmno because
"the grave has been investigated by professional archaeologists."

It is interesting that the "Museum" was founded in 1956
"under the auspices of PTTK (Polskie Towarzystwo Turystyczno Krajoznawcze - Polish Tourist and Sightseeing Society)."
http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/historia.htm

Highly qualified in Roberto's eyes no doubt.


The Museum also has its own ghost!
To quote the Museum,
"The castle in Gosławice, just as every old seat, has its own ghost and legend. Between 1757-1764 the ghost of the Gosławice owner, Konstanty Lubrański, who had died a few decades earlier, was seen by a few guests to the castle and the local pastor, Andrzej Liszkowski. The pastor saw the ghost of Lubrański for the first time on the way to Licheń, and later a few times at his home.

http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/duch.htm

Funny how the Tourist and Sightseeing Society conflates reality with legend.
Just like they confuse the amount of human remains they actually found at
their other tourist attractions.

Roberto, since you are so enthusiastic about the Museum's reports do you
believe that there really is a ghost at the Museum? After all they have
lots of "eye witnesses!"
Last edited by David on Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:20 am

Hello Roberto-
I had asked about the number of teeth found in your grave 1/34.
Seems that none of the graves you mentioned in your first post
ie. Archeological work carried out in 2003-2004 found any teeth.
http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm

The vague references to teeth being found related to Pits 1 -4
In pits 5-9 no teeth were found
Just as in the 5 graves not one tooth was mentioned.

Is this the Mystery of Muehlenkamp's Missing Molars?


So we can understand your claim...were teeth found in the grave 1/34?
If so, how many?
Please try not to conflate with other graves. Thank you

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:36 am

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Correct. And so?

Thanks for answer.


You’re welcome. Now answer my question.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person.

2)Why? I already said why, here again "Because you want to present proof as a response to nafcash challenge" That is purpose of your effort and your thread here.


Unless the "challenge" requires an on-site investigation by the applicant himself, you are increasingly coming across as rather obtuse.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Materials like those that Prof. Andrzej Kola obtained at Bełżec by core drilling, or like those that Father Patrick Desbois obtained at Busk by uncovering the first layers of corpses in the mass graves. It seems that probing excavations are permitted, at least according to most Jewish scholars, provided that human remains are not moved or the human contents of core samples are returned to the graves immediately after they have been examined. Why don’t you read the description of the Chełmno archaeologists' method, by the way? If you want further details, I suggest you contact the Chełmno museum.

I already said that I have read it, but thanks. So this Jewish law really exist, correct?


Yes, Mr. correct, that’s correct.

Bob wrote: This Mr. Desbois claims that these uncovered peoples are murdered Jews, correct? So he violated Jewsish law or this Jewish law is somewhat false since he could do this, correct?


No, it’s just that these laws allow for exceptions and/or have different interpretations. Father Desbois’ work was authorized by the Orthodox rabbis he contacted for this purpose, IIRC. Their condition was that the skeletons not be moved from the place where they lay, which means that digging had to be done with great care and only the first layer of skeletons could be uncovered.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:For "him" I need to present something that Michael Shermer will accept as proof, and this I think I have done.

If you think this, no problem.


If you find any indication to the contrary in the "rules" of the "challenge", please let me know.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Actually I posted my OP only for the sake of the "challenge", but I’m not surprised that "users" like you should come up with the nonsense that such "users" usually come up with. What makes you think you’re representative of the public, by the way?

I claimed that I am representative public? No, correct?


Sorry if I misunderstood you.

Bob wrote:But i am part of the public, correct?


Sure. The unreasonable part.

Bob wrote: I am only trying to understand to value of your proof.


You’re not trying to understand anything. You are just making a fuss in support of your quasi-religious beliefs.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Sorry, my dear friend, but you are obviously not a reasonable person. For by demanding such elements of proof you are baselessly questioning the accuracy of an archaeological report and insinuating that the archaeologist made things up. And what I asked you to do was to quote rules and standards of evidence known to you whereby an archaeological report cannot be considered proof of what if describes if it doesn’t contain what you demand "to allow other peoples/investigators verify what this alleged area/grave contain". This means that no, you haven’t answered my question. All I know so far is that you demand (or claim to demand) being shown what you demand to be shown. And please don’t take it personally, but unless backed up by accepted rules and standards of evidence your demands are irrelevant.

I only asked for evidence to back up text which is written on the paper (i.e. website) because everybody can write anything, correct?


If you’re interested in what evidence the report is based on (which I doubt you are), I suggest you contact the people who keep that evidence. I’m not one of those people.

Bob wrote: Please, respect that I do not accept every written text easily without backing it up, you can disagree, but please, respect my approach and don´t say about me that i am not reasonable, because my approach to not accept everything without evidence which is mentioned in text is clearly reasonable, or you don´t agree?


No, I don’t respect your approach, because it is everything other than reasonable. If you don’t accept as accurate the contents of an archaeological report without looking behind it, you are making unsubstantiated accusations of manipulation, and that is hardly reasonable. Unless, of course, you can provide any reasons why the archaeological report in question should not be taken at face value. Which of course you cannot do, as the only reason why you don’t accept the contents of the report is that they are at odd with your articles of faith.

Bob wrote: Hypotetically - I discovered archeological report which containt this information "mass grave of Jewish crime which contain remains of hundreds or thousands of murdered Palestinians has been discovered by our team (names) in some location (name of location) and they found this and this and etc." , no documentation included, only few photos of personal things of these victims exactly like in your report. So Mr. Muehlenkamp, can you demonstrate your approach to this written report so I can see your approach to back up your claim that I am not reasonable?


My approach is that there’s no reason to assume that what the archaeologist wrote is not backed up by copious documentation, because a) archaeological reports are usually backed up by copious documentation, whether that is published or not, b) archaeologists don’t usually make things up (contrary to your insinuations) and c) the reported finds are in no way at odds with what is known about events at Chełmno from sources independent of archaeological research.

Your approach, on the other hand, consists in baselessly insinuating that archaeologists lied, for no other reason than their reports’ incompatibility with your beliefs, and accordingly postulating that you don’t believe their report unless you have seen all the documentation that it is based on. That’s not only an unreasonable approach but also a double-standard approach. Unless, of course, you want to tell me that you mistrust every archaeological report unless you have seen the documentation for yourself (which is a lot of work, as I know how voluminous such documentation tends to be even in minor archaeological projects). Then your approach would merely be unreasonable.

Bob wrote: I assume that your approach is to accept it in the same way as "your" report, correct?


My approach is to accept a professional archaeologist’s report about a professional archaeological investigation as correct except insofar as there are indications to the contrary. If you think you can provide such indications, fire away.

Bob wrote:Authority Raul Hilberg spoke too about two Hitler´s orders without evidence in his opus DoEJ, without source and then he later removed these alleged orders from his next edition, so do you understand what I mean with my approach?


No I don’t. Which orders, by the way, and where in Hilberg’s work are they mentioned?

Bob wrote:You would propably say "these orders are propably stored there or there and no reason to doubt what is written in his book" as you did in this case of this report, correct?


No, that’s a lousy analogy. If a historian doesn’t provide sources for important claims, one might suspect that these sources do not exist as it is standard procedure for historians to source their claims. But when an archaeologist describes the results of his or her own research on site, it is obvious (whether this is expressly mentioned or not) that they are based on finds made and recorded and categorized according to the profession’s standard procedures, and that the records are kept where archaeologists usually keep the records of their work. Unless, of course, you can show me that archaeologists usually fill their reports with footnotes pointing to the precise part of the place where they store their documentation where they keep every object they found and every drawing they made and every photograph they took. If you think you can show me an archaeological report that meets these requirements, fire away.

Bob wrote:I am speaking for myself, so i don´t need to quote some general rules for archealogical reports, I showed you clearly what i would like to see, just ordinary material which I saw in other cases, if you disagree, no problem.


What I asked you to do is to give me a reason why anyone should care about what you claim you would like to see. You haven’t provided such reason, so your private wishes are irrelevant.

Bob wrote:Only to be sure, you already admited that you don´t have anything and you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?


I haven’t admitted anything, I have just stated that I have not yet been to the Chełmno museum to look up the presumably vast archaeological documentation on which the report is based. Unless you can demonstrate that this was any default on my part, that’s no concession of anything. It’s a plain statement of fact.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I see you have high demands on evidence when it comes to facts that don’t fit your ideological bubble, but is there any particular reason why anyone should care for your demands?

You think these (photo, video, remains, etc. or at least photo or video of location of grave) are high demands? Interesting.


Yes, the way they are put forward they are high demands. It is one thing to say that you would like to see such elements in order to know more about the archaeological investigation in question. So would I. It’s another to state or to insinuate that unless shown such elements you’ll assume by default that the report is inaccurate. That is an excessive demand based on a mistrust that is unreasonable in that it is obviously based only on the incompatibility of the report’s results with your ideologically motivated beliefs.

Bob wrote:Why anyone should care about my demands? Nobody should have to care, I am only curious if you can present your proof to ordinary dude as me, because sholars are higher in their demands than ordinary public dudes as me, correct?


Ordinary dude me only can at this moment only show you what is available in public sources, sorry. And that doesn’t include detailed archaeological documentation kept in the archives of a museum. What scholars would not accept the accuracy of an archaeological report without checking the documentation kept in a museum’s archives, by the way? Show me a few.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What crimes scenes exactly are you talking about?

For example old investigation of Katyn, correct? Please, let me know if I am correct.

There were third party observers of non-German origin, correct?
There were third party observers from international organisation/s, correct?
There were exhumations and excavations of mass graves, correct?
There were physicians which performed investigation, correct?
There were media which documented it, correct?
There were photos and videos of investigation, correct?
There were documented and investigated human remains, correct?
Findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials, correct?

If i am correct, you want to tell me that evil Nazis performed their job of investigation of crimes better than good guys/girls tens years later in your report and you still want to tell me that I have excessive demands?


Of course you have excessive demands. Unless you can demonstrate that the wonderful job your Nazi heroes did at Katyn is what is required according to reasonable rules and standards to prove the occurrence and the authors of mass murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that according to such reasonable rules and standards mass murder cannot be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt unless it has been investigated and documented as thoroughly as the Germans documented their Katyn investigation (though I don’t think they had videos back in 1943).

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Who told you that such crime scene investigations are necessarily conducted "by different teams to verify findings"? Can you show me any rules or standards of evidence that require this to be done?

Nobody told me this, I consider as normal to have at least more than one team in investigation to achieve proper investigation since I don´t see any reason why the investigation couldn´t be performed by team from your sources together with team of revisionists, is there any problem why this did not happen?


The reason is that a) crime site investigations are not usually done by "more than one team" let alone by two teams of which one works for the crime suspect’s defense attorneys. Where do you see that happen? Crime site investigations are usually done by the locally competent criminal investigation authority with the means and the people they consider necessary to establish the particulars of the crime and find and secure traces that might lead to the criminal. What kind of world do you live in?

Bob wrote:Do you know at least one single investigation conducted by teams from both sides of the "barricade"?


No, I don’t, but you still have to show me where in the world crime site investigations are conducted in that manner (with a team from the prosecution and one from the defense examining the crime site at the same time), and explain why on earth only investigations conducted in that manner should be considered suitable to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bob wrote:Again, as I said above, I am speaking for myself, I am not depended on rules of someone else.


As long as you’re only speaking for yourself and cannot demonstrate that your demands are based on accepted rules and standards of evidence, don’t expect anyone to give flying {!#%@} about your demands.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Who told you that crime scene investigations are necessarily "accompanied by independent observers or media to document it by third party"? I dare say that most are not. Can you show me any rules or standards of evidence that would be violated by the absence of such third party?

Nobody told me this, I consider as normal to document investigation by observers which have nothing to do with investigations, if you don´t agree, no problem, but where are these observers, for example media nobody bothered?


When you have demonstrated that your idea of what is normal is based on anything other than your preconceived notions, you may wonder about the presence or absence of observers independent of the investigations. Until then, nobody has to care about your questions any more than about what you consider normal.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And last but not least, who told you that an archaeological investigation on the site of a proven crime, for which no one is meant to be prosecuted anymore, is a crime scene investigation?

Crime scene is always crime scene and crime scene don´t stop being crime scene, correct?


Correct, but the purpose of a crime scene investigation is a) to establish that a crime has been committed and b) find traces that allow for identifying the criminal. The crime at Chełmno had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, on hand of eyewitness and documentary evidence and crime site investigations conducted or assessed by Polish and German crime investigation and judicial authorities, before the first archaeologist even set foot on the site. And as you may understand, archaeologists do not work to establish traces of a crime in order to find and prosecute a participant in that crime. They work to gather knowledge about a site of historical events, whether it’s Roman Pompeji or Chełmno extermination camp.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:If I am correct, you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?

Yes, I guess I can’t meet the excessive demands behind which you seek to shelter your articles of faith.

So answer is Yes, you can´t provide demands like - photos, video, photos of drilling, samples, exacavation, some remains, you even cant provide photo of this alleged grave without excavation, I mean only photo location and its measurements. You call it excessive. Very strange to me, but thanks for answer.


It’s certainly excessive to demand such elements from a private citizen who only has access to public sources just like you have unless he can find the time, means and contacts required to take a closer look at the contents of the Chełmno museum archives. If you were talking to Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak or another representative of the Chełmno museum, your demand might not be considered excessive. But you are not.

Didn’t your question refer to an investigation by two teams pursuing different interests and attended by independent observers, by the way?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Any particular reason why I should have to?

To adress challenge?


No, the challenger didn’t specify that he demands photos and such or the results of an investigation fulfilling your requirements. He required proof conclusive enough to convince Michael Shermer, whose proof requirements I expect to be reasonable and not excessive.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Of course you can say that you will consider a mass crime proven only on hand of a crime site investigation like the one that was conducted by the Germans at Katyn. But you should consider where that leaves the overwhelming majority of Stalin’s crimes, which were never subjected to a similar investigation or to any crime site investigation at all. Are you trying to tell me that only the proven mass murders for which Stalin is responsible are those of the 4,000 or so Polish officers unearthed by the Germans at Katyn? Are you also a Stalin apologist?

-Don´t understand your comment, you wanted example of what I consider as acceptable as investigation of mass grave to avoid double standard approach, correct?
-You got it, correct?
-So you don´t need to be afraid of double standard, I will not demand more that what was done during mentioned Katyn investigation, fair enough to you?


Yep, it’s fair enough if you tell me that the only crime of Stalin’s you consider proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the killing of 4,000 or so Polish officers at Katyn whereas all other crimes attributed to Stalin (Kuropaty, Bykivnia, the Gulag camps, etc.) may just be baseless accusations because they haven’t been investigated the way the Germans investigated the Katyn killing. In that case you approach will still be wholly unreasonable, but at least it will not be a double standard approach.

Bob wrote:Are you able to present at least similar investigation as Katyn almost 70 years ago?


I don’t think so. But neither do I consider it necessary, because I can demonstrate that evidence from crime site investigations less wonderful than the German Katyn investigation converges with evidence on which those who conducted such less than wonderful investigations could have had no influence (like documents found or assessed by western researchers or criminal investigators, eyewitness testimonies before West German criminal investigators or courts of law). Where sources independent of each other converge towards the conclusion of large-scale mass murder by the Nazis, moreover with no evidence whatsoever pointing to an alternative scenario, large-scale mass murder by the Nazis can be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if there was no crime site investigation as good as the German Katyn investigation.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Why should that be correct? Because Bob says so?

Answer me please. Has written text value if the text is not backed by evidence which is mentioned in text?


No, if there’s no evidence supporting what is written, than what is written has no value. But there’s no reason to assume that what is written in the archaeological report in question is not backed up by archaeological evidence. Just because the text is not copiously illustrated with photographs and what have you, this doesn’t mean that such backup documentation does not exist. On the contrary, it would be contrary to archaeological procedures, rules and standards if such backup documentation would not exist. And as the rule in the real world is that professional archaeologists do things according to the procedures, rules and standards of their profession and don’t just make up things, there’s no reason to assume that there’s a lack of evidence backing up the report in question, regardless of whether or not that evidence or any part thereof (including all of it would make the report far too voluminous to be read by anyone) is included in the report or anywhere else.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The written text is an archaeological report. Are you trying to tell me that a court of law would not accept as evidence this report and/or the archaeologist’s testimony as an expert witness if the archaeologist doesn’t bring all his archaeological documentation (photos, drawings and such) into the courtroom? If so, what rules or standards of evidence gave you that idea?

Proper court would not accept this report if the answers of author of such a report during cross examination would be the same or similar to yours presented here Mr. Muehlenkamp.


The answers to cross examination questions wouldn’t be the same as mine because the person cross-examined would be the archaeologist who conducted the investigation and not just little me who read the archaeological report. And how does Bob know what "proper court" would or not accept as evidence? From any procedural rules or rules of evidence he read and can quote, or just from what little birdie told him?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, in all probability.

4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct

Correct. And so? Am I supposed to assume that the Chełmno archaeologists didn’t do a proper job and duly document their finds just because I haven’t seen their documentation? If so, on what basis am I supposed to assume that?

Thanks for answer, that is all what I wanted to know.


You’re welcome. Now answer my questions, will you?

Bob wrote:Little deatil, are you at least able to name just one single human being which wasn´t part of team/s which allegedly conducted investigation of this grave and who actually saw alleged "volumnious materials" stored in Chelmno which is consisted of photos/video/etc. of human remains, core drillings, excavation and etc., do you know at least one human who wasnt member of team and who saw these crucial findings?


No, and so what? In case you haven’t understood, it’s not for me to prove that the archaeologists did a proper job and duly documented their finds, because that’s what normally happens and what archaeologists usually do. It is for you to prove that in this case archaeologists exceptionally {!#%@} up, failed to properly document their finds or even manipulated their report.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:4)Pardon, but these materials weren´t published since even you don´t know anything about them, correct?

Don’t obfuscate. Not published doesn’t mean hidden, unless you can show that such materials are usually published after archaeological investigations.

The answer on this quote should be only "Correct", no more, because they were not published as you admited, that Is all I wanted to know in this quote.


First of all, Mr. "correct", I provide what answer I feel like providing, and not what answer you think I should provide.

Second, while I see you have this "Revisionist" mania with your opponents "admitting" things, I’m not admitting anything by stating that archaeological documentation supporting the report has not been published. I would be admitting something only if the non-publishing of such documentation were against usual procedures and could therefore be considered something suspicious. But that is not the case.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:That’s not exactly a logical argument.

First of all, publishing voluminous archaeological documentation is not standard procedure in archaeology, for all I know. That must be so because archaeological documentation tends to be too voluminous to catch the public’s interest if published, so the public usually gets to see only what little it can be expected to show some interest in – anything more would be wasted effort and money.

You speak about logic, you admited that you don´t know if this alleged "voluminous documentation" even exist, do you remember it here:?

Bob - 4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?

Roberto - Correct. And so?

So where is your logic Mr. Muehlenkamp? You speak about non-publishing of something which you even don´t know if exist, correct?


Exactly, I don’t know if it exists insofar as I haven’t yet seen it. But I very reasonably assume that it does. Your smart-ass argumentation is completely idiotic unless you can give me a good reason to suspect that in this case there is no voluminous archaeological documentation like there usually is voluminous archaeological documentation supporting an archaeological report. You see, it doesn’t usually happen in the real world that archaeologists suck their reports out of their fingers. What usually happens in the real world is that archaeological reports are renderings or summaries or conclusions derived from lots of duly documented archaeological finds and investigations. It is completely reasonable to assume that what is usually done in archaeological investigation was also done in this case, regardless of whether or not I have seen the documentation or know for sure where it is kept.

Bob wrote:I would be content with just a few fragments published to public, I never claimed that i wanted to see whole materials, so what are the problem with publishng at least small fragment of this alleged stored volumnious material?


Wrong question. The right questions are:

1. Why the "alleged" crap? Is there any reason to assume that the archaeologists didn’t properly record and document their finds?

2. Why should anyone bother to publish what little Bob wants to see?

3. If little Bob really wants to see some of the archeological documentation, what is he waiting for to either visit the Chełmno museum or contact them and ask them to send him some photos and such?

Bob wrote:I see lot of photos of "boring" things in "your" report here http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm#


Actually those photos of things that belonged to the people murdered at Chełmno are quite interesting to me, as they are to others readers interested in archeology and the history of the camp. If Bob finds them "boring", that tells us something about the contents of Bob’s mind but little else.

Bob wrote:So where is problem to publish stuff which is the most important instead of these?


What is most important for Bob is not necessarily what’s most important to archeologists or the average reader for whom the report is meant. The average reader may be more interested in photos of objects belonging to the victims than in photos of mass graves or human remains. And it stands to reason that the people who presumably urged the archaeologists to apply "methods which did not disturb the layers and places where human remains were expected to be found" wouldn’t have liked to see the report illustrated with photos of human bone fragments and such.

Bob wrote:They filled report with all these pictures and no space remained?


Another silly remark that says much about the mind of its author.

Bob wrote:Nobody bothered to show crucial evidence of human remains, drillings, samples, excavation, grave, location and etc. and instead of this they decided to fill report with useless photos of things which could be found propably even in ordinary yards?


The location of the graves is clearly shown on maps I pointed, and also marked on the ground, as you can see in the films made by Alan Heath (this one, for instance). Photos of human remains are hardly crucial evidence of an amply documented mass crime, moreover as they can show only an infinitesimal part of the remains that saturate the soil in the mass graves (and also elsewhere, as one can see in this video by Alan Heath). Including them in the report would be bad form for the reasons explained. Photos of the victims’ belongings, on the other hand, are not only respectful mementos but also impressive for who pauses to think about the fact that ordinary people with ordinary lives were brought to this place to be murdered. It is for such people, and not for brainless denier scum, that the archaeological report is made.

Bob wrote:Be honest, this really make sense to you?


As I live in the real world and not in denier loony cloud cuckoo land, the honest answer is yes.

Bob wrote:Would you be content with saying that I have volumnious undoubtful material which prove that holocaust did not happen, but I didn´t publish it for some reason? Would you accept it?


No, but that’s because you are a lunatic piece of denier scum and what you claim to have is completely at odds with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years, which would strongly indicate that you have nothing to show for your claims. On the other hand, I have no problem with accepting the contents of a report prepared by professional archaeologists whose reported finds are perfectly compatible with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years about what happened at Chełmno. That was another of your lousy attempts at analogy, my friend.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And third, the arguments that "these evil deniers" produce are so feeble that the few who bother with them don’t need to show complete sets of archaeological documentation to refute such arguments.

(...)Or are you trying to tell me that bunch of fringe lunatics are a reason?

Sorry, I will not discuss this general issue with you here, since I am interested only in subject of this thread. Feel free to join other relevant threads and we can discuss it there. You can for exmaple join simple thread here viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17691 to back your claims.


I doubt you are interested in anything other than making a fuss in support of your articles of faith, but what "general issue" are you talking about? Just curious …

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:For the reasons explained above. Archaeology related to the "biggest crime in history" is not treated differently from other archaeology. And there’s no reason why it should be.

Archeology investigation of crime scene related to Nazi holocaust is not treated differently from investigation of other crime scenes and you see no difference, correct?


Exactly. What is required to prove a Holocaust mass killing beyond a reasonable doubt is what is required to prove any other mass killing beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more and nothing less.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Only if you can show me precedents of archaeological documentation pertaining to mass crimes (not just the reports but the whole documentation supporting those reports) being made available to the public as opposed to being kept in archives, museums or universities.

Since i never claimed that whole documentation/backing-up evidence used for these reports must be published, is irrelevant to adress your demand, correct?


If you don’t want the whole documentation, then show me precedents of archaeological reports pertaining to mass crimes that are published with samples of documentation that satisfy you as to the accuracy of these reports. Come on, give us an example of a mass crime archeological report that you consider to be comme il faut.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And if you can explain why "the biggest crime in the history" should be treated differently in this respect than other crimes that were also quite big (some of them committed by your Nazi heroes, who besides more than five million Jews murdered more than seven million non-Jews during World War II).

I never claimed to be treated differently, in fact I demanded to be treated in the same way as other similar crimes as Katyn, correct? Or you don´t agree?


That demand would be reasonable if the German Katyn investigation were a standard usually applied in the investigation of mass crimes. Actually, however, this exemplarily thorough investigation was not only more than is required to prove mass murder beyond a reasonable doubt, but also a very rare if not unique case among mass crime investigations. No other mass crimes committed by the Soviet Union was subjected to so thorough a crime site investigation, and the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes was never the subject of a crime site investigation or any other criminal investigation. This means that your demand is not reasonable. And if you postulate that only an crime site investigation as thorough as the German Katyn investigation can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mass murder occurred and who committed it, the logical consequence would be that you consider no crime of Stalin’s except for the Katyn crime to have been proven. Forget about Kuropaty, and Bykivnia. Forget about Kolyma, Vorkuta and all the other Gulag camps. It has not been proven that they ever existed because they were never investigated the way the Germans investigated the Katyn killings. Is that what you are trying to tell us, my friend? Yes or No?

Bob wrote:I also see you jumped to another subject, nevermind, I will question only one of your interesting claims.

Pardon Mr. Muehelenkamp, but they allegedly murdered six millions Jews, why you used only "more than five", you deny six million figure?


There is no "six million figure" where I come from. There are estimates by historians ranging between about five and about six million. The higher range of estimates is usually referred to in the media and in political discourse because it's more impressive, but that doesn't mean it's correct. My take is that the number of Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide is somewhere between 5 and 6 million, possibly closer to the former than to the latter.

Bob wrote:How did you arrive to five millions? Documents from IMT Nuremberg Trial USSR-08 and USSR-29 allegedly proved that at least 5,5 (4+1,5) milions of Jews were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and Majdanek, you want to tell me that no significant number of Jews were murdered by Nazis in other places since you speak "only" about more than five and not six millions, or you doubt Nuremberg Trial findings? Take your pick and explain it to me please, I see confusion.


I see you know as much about the Nuremberg Trial findings as a pig does about Sunday. If you had ever read the IMT’s judgment, you might have realized that the Soviet prosecution’s claims of 4 million dead at AB and 1.5 million dead at Majdanek didn’t become the tribunal’s findings of fact. And even if they had become the tribunal's findings of fact, this would only mean that the IMT’s findings have since been overruled by more precise historical research. As it is, the total that the IMT accepted (4 million dead in all concentration and extermination camps, including but not limited to AB and Treblinka) is not so far away from what historical research has established since.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, instead of making excessive demands when it comes to events that don’t fit your ideological bubble? Please confirm.

By which historians and courts, you mean court which would need to decide if is correct to accept your proof here? I already adressed it above.


Are you too dumb to understand my question, or are you just playing dumb? Answer the question. Do you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, yes or no?

Bob wrote:Demand to see at least photo of undisturbed grave without any excavation to at least see where exactly this grave 1/34 is located and what are his measurements, is excessive demand? Really?


If you’re trying to tell me that you don’t consider the grave to exist unless you see a photo showing its measurements, your demand is not so much excessive as stupid and illogical. For there’s no reason why my being unable to show you a photo of this specific grave should be considered an argument against its existence. If you to want to know what this grave looks like today, see if it is shown in one of Alan Heath’s above-mentioned clips. Or even better, move your ass to Chełmno nad Ner and visit the grave. What are you waiting for?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:5)In the other words, you conducted your investigation or answer on this challenge of what is allegedly in area named "grave 1/34" from your computer, and you didn´t bother to visist this grave, correct?

Correct. And so?

Thanks for answer.


You’re welcome. Now answer my question.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Why?

Why not? Lack of time and means aside, the grave has been investigated by professional archaeologists. I’m not an archaeologist. Care to tell me what additional knowledge about the grave’s contents I could have derived from visiting the grave? Am I supposed to have gone digging without permission at a memorial site to check whether the contents of an archaeological report are accurate?

I wanted to at least know if you bothered to visit memorial to see the alleged "volumniously documentation" allegedly stored there, and to at least bother to verify alleged findings in report.

I wanted to at least know if you bothered to speak with local memorial autorities about your proof to support your evidence.

I wanted to at least know if you at least saw with your own eyes this proof/grave which you presented here.

Your answer is NO to all of this and in fact you only assume that this grave as allegedly described in "your" report/s exist, but you never saw it to tell me if really exist and you have only second-hand piece of written text without allegedly existing materials to back it up, correct?


No, not correct. I have an archaeological report, which is first hand evidence by an expert witness, and which I have every reason to assume is backed up by the kind of documentation that usually backs up an archaeological report, even if I haven’t yet had the opportunity to look up that documentation. No, I didn’t bother to look up that documentation in order to check if the report is accurate. Not being an imbecilic conspiracy theorist but a reasonable person who lives in the real world, I see no reason to doubt that the investigation was conducted and the finds were documented in a due professional manner and that the report is a true and fair rendering of the results of this archaeological work.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I don’t care what you appreciate and neither see why I should spend time and effort on fulfilling your wishes.

Pardon my ignorance Mr. Muehlenkamp, but are you at least able to locate where is your alleged proof/grave in this area? You really can´t spend few seconds to show me where is located in this great google map?


No, I don’t see a reason why I should spend even a single second trying to show you on a Google map what you can see on two archaeological maps I have pointed out for you. Your demand is way too irrelevant and imbecilic to waste any time on.

Bob wrote:You spent time with providing me with material below which is irrelevant to what i am asking you, but you can´t spent fragment of this time to draw the location and shape of "your" grave 1/34? Please.?


I’ll give you a hint, my friend. You can see the grave on this map. It’s the smallest of all graves at Chełmno. If you’re too dumb too spot it on the map, just let me know and I’ll make a circle around it for you.

Bob wrote:No offense, really, but I suspect you that you actually even don´t know where is your alleged proof located, and again no offense, but i find it very ridiculous, just imagine - "Hello, My name is Roberto, I would like to present proof here, but I don´t even know where is my proof, ups."


Actually I know exactly where the grave is, clown. Rzuchów Forest, Plot II. If you can’t find that on the above-mentioned map, I’ll be glad to help you.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Besides, I can show you something better than my sketches on a google map. On this archaeological map you see the outlines of the three graves in the Chełmno "forest camp". This map shows the results of all probing excavations in the area of Chełmno extermination camp. I have bigger versions of these maps (they are included in this book, which also has an air photo of the "forest camp" mass graves), but they are in A3 format and thus difficult to scan. However, if you can come up with better arguments than those of "Revisionist" guru Carlo Mattogno, I may consider you worth the effort.

I would be content with just only location of your proof no. 1/34 Mr. Muehlenkamp.


Then write the following request:

"Please point out on this map the Chełmno grave in the Rzuchów Forest, Plot II. I’m too stupid to find it on my own. "


Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, not correct. Not even the "National Association of Forensic Historians" demands that proof be based on an on-site investigation carried out by the claimant in person.

Your challenger rely on third party orthodox side (Shermer) which will or not will decide if this meet some standards or not, no problem for me, this is needed to avoid being accused of being biased. This challenger has actually better sense for how to behave in these cases than your sources, correct?


Actually the challenger (I have good reasons to believe that it's this gentleman, by the way) has no sense at all. He’s counting on Michael Shermer considering it below his standing and dignity to address human garbage like the challenger in any way. If Michael Shermer should not ignore him as expected, the likely outcome is that the challenger will close down his website and run away.

Bob wrote:This is even enhanced by fact that M. Shermer is strongly anti-revisionists/deniers, correct? What a interesting behavior and decision from this "evil" denier challenger to rely on Shermer, isn´t it?


Yep, about as interesting as those Creatonist "challenges" or any other charlatan’s publicity act.

Bob wrote:I am curious how Shermer decide or not decide, and what would be his standards for this proof which you ?presented? here. I hope that Mr. Shermer, if he bother with this challenge, actually read this thread and your responses.


So do I.

Bob wrote:You are here to answer challenge, correct? So I assumed that you will make effort to answer challenge, but if I am correct, you actually only repeated report of someone else and that´s all, without this report you wouldn´t have anything because you didn´t have time and etc. as you told me, correct?


What’s the "only" supposed to mean? Unless you can show me that and explain why I would need anything other than a report about an investigation by professional archaeologists to reasonably respond to the challenge, do yourself a favor and cut out the crap.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:A fairly reasonable statement, for a change. Try to keep it that way.

In fact, I never claimed that I care about what you used for your quotes, I have no problem to examine everything what you decide to present.


Great, then move your ass to the Chełmno museumk and "examine" whether the documentation they have there supports their report. What are you waiting for?

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:43 am

David wrote: Nessie wrote:David, I ams sure the 19 comes from the conditions for the reward and is a minimum. The actual figures for number of bodies is much higher.

Ok. Thank you.

The issue is, of course, how much higher. 2,000 or 200,000?


At least 4,445, according to my calculations. This is the smallest of the five graves.

David wrote:The original investigation (like all Believer studies) is very unclear on
any quantification.
On grave #3 we are told...
includes sandy soil with gravel, burn waste, ash, and crushed human bones.


Yeah, the archaeologists didn’t try to quantify the crushed human bones. How frightfully shocking!

David wrote: The report even admits this obvious and strange omission.


What’s this genius talking about?

David wrote:The Institute of Forensic Medicine confirmed on 5 December 1988 that these remains were of human origin and that the concentration of human remains in all the material sent could be estimated at "some percent".

Great....somewhere between Zero percent and 100% :roll: :roll:


Outside David’s sparrow brain, "some percent" is not somewhere between zero and 100 %. It’s more like this:

"Some" is certainly more than one or two percent and certainly less than ten percent. It would not be far-fetched to assume that "some percent" could mean 5 % or more. However, in order to be on the safe side I’ll consider that it’s no more than 2.5 %. As the samples were examined in 1988, they must have been collected before, and as only the first grave and what was considered one of the camp’s crematoria had been investigated before 1988, the samples examined must have been from either of the two. The relatively low concentration of human remains in these samples is likely to be equal to the concentration found in the other three graves proper (i.e. the ones that, unlike the ash disposal pits that make up grave # 5, had originally been used to bury whole human corpses), regarding which the concentration of human remains in the soil is not pointed out as being "significant". Therefore, this was the concentration of human cremation remains that I considered to be present in Chełmno graves nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.


---

David wrote:I am not particularly faulting Roberto for his convoluted calculations .


Why "convoluted", except because they obviously rattled poor David’s cage?

David wrote:He was most enthusiastic and inventive in his interpretations of human remains
at Treblinka.


What’s are you talking about?

David wrote:Why not at Chelmno too? But what happens to Roberto's calculations
if the real percentage is .5% or 1%?


In that case, my dear David, the amount of remains in Chełmno graves numbers 1 to 4 would be lower than what I calculated assuming 2.5 %, meaning that a higher part of the cremation remains was not returned to the graves but disposed of elsewhere. But the amount would still be quite high and way above what corresponds to the 19 corpses demanded by your fellow chimpanzee. Anyway, nobody would call .5% or 1% "some percent". David again forgot to think before hitting the keyboard.

David wrote:Roberto includes "teeth or tooth meal" in his analysis. Oddly, I did not see
any recovery of teeth at any of the graves.


Don’t you just love it when David thinks he’s being smart? I know I do.

No, the archaeological report doesn’t mention teeth in the graves. But considering what happens to teeth when a corpse is burned and what survives burning is crushed (most but not all are reduced to ashes or tooth meal), that the expression "ash" does not exclude ashed teeth or tooth meal, and that the archaeologists didn’t exactly dig up each grave to the bottom, its entirely reasonable to assume that the human remains in each grave also include teeth or tooth meal. Anyway, it’s completely immaterial to my calculations what parts of the human body exactly the human remains found in the graves belong to, as David might have noticed if he had read my OP with more attention.

Here are some sources about what happens to teeth in cremation:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... ns%22+fuel

"Teeth were only rarely helpful. Very few survived. The erupted adult Tooth was aImost invariably absent. Occasionally crowns of unerupted third molars are found. Apart from these and a few distorted roots nearly all the surviving tooth fragments were deciduous and appeared to be the crowns of unerupted molars which had been protected from firing by their positionin the jaw."


http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590 ... gy.txt.htm

"In a cremation, the enamel of erupted teeth rapidly flakes away from the dentin, but the unerupted teeth receive a measure of protection from their bony crypts and their enamel may be retained."


http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hu ... atanci.pdf

"Tooth enamel is the hardest and most durable tissue in the body and therefore teeth can survive adverse conditions of preservation for longer than other parts of the skeleton. During cremation, however, enamel breaks easily."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

J Forensic Sci. 1986 Jan;31(1):307-11. Related Articles, Links

Postmortem examination of incinerated teeth with the scanning electron
microscope.

Carr RF, Barsley RE, Davenport WD Jr.

Fragments recovered from the burned wreckage of a gasoline truck and thought to be parts of teeth were confirmed as such after they were examined with a scanning electron microscope. The appearance of the fragments was compared with previously published descriptions of teeth which had been incinerated under laboratory conditions and also examined by scanning electron microscopy.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

J Forensic Sci. 1990 Jul;35(4):971-4. Related Articles, Links
Methods for physical stabilization of ashed teeth in incinerated
remains.
Mincer HH, Berryman HE, Murray GA, Dickens RL.
Department of Biologic and Diagnostic Sciences, University of
Tennessee,
Memphis.

Methods for physically stabilizing the extremely fragile ashed teeth that are often encountered in incinerated human remains were investigated.
Results of a questionnaire sent to forensic anthropologists and forensic odontologists disclosed that, for these two groups, the most popular methods currently used are impregnation with a solution of polyvinyl acetate or application of cyanoacrylate cement, respectively. In addition,extracted human teeth were incinerated in the laboratory and impregnated with commercially available preparations of either cyanoacrylate cement, clear acrylic spray paint, hair spray, spray furniture varnish, clearfingernail polish, quick-setting epoxy cement, Duco household cement, polyvinyl acetate polymer in acetone, or self-curing clear dental acrylic resin. Every substance tested successfully stabilized the incinerated teeth. Clear acrylic spray paint was judged the most efficacious overall because of its ease of application, availability, inexpensiveness, and rapidity of setting.


---

David wrote:The report conflates "They are filled with gray soil with a significant mixture of burn waste and crushed human bones."


Why "conflates"?

David wrote:Gray soil? what does a "significant mixture" mean in real quanitative terms?


It means a lot more than just "some percent", as I wrote (David again didn’t pay attention):

In the pits that make up grave # 5, on the other hand, the concentration of burn waste and crushed human bones was found to be "significant". These pits, as mentioned in the blog Mattogno on Chełmno Mass Graves, had already been described in the report of the site investigation made in 1945 by Judge Włodzimierz Bednarz, where it is pointed out that "because of the soil’s fertilization by human ashes the vegetation in this area is much richer and its color is much greener". Even today, according to the Chełmno Report, "the flora on the pits is more luxuriant, making this stretch more visible on the surface". All this shows that the concentration of human cremation remains in grave # 5 is much higher than in graves nos. 1 to 4. How much higher cannot be determined on hand of the available data, so caution calls for assuming the lowest threshold of what can be considered a "significant" concentration, which I conservatively put at 10 %. The actual concentration of human remains in this grave is probably higher, but according to the rationale that a reasonably estimated minimum is a proven maximum, I considered this percentage as being the minimum density of human cremation remains in Chełmno grave # 5.


---

David wrote:Why in grave #1 are
"Under the humus, on the top of the ash layer, we found several unburned objects belonging to the victims."

That is strange....why would there be "unburned objects?' why not burn them too?


Because someone forgot to do so.

David wrote:why would then be on the top layer of ash?


Because they were dumped on top of the layer of ash, or because posterior soil changes due to robbery digging or construction works changed the position of objects in the grave. Thinking a bit saves a lot of silly questions.

David wrote:How can the "investigators" know they belonged to the victims?


What reason would they have to assume anything else?

David wrote:Why not be a little more F*ck'n clear?


Because the report is made for archaeologists and other interested readers, not for nitpicking Nazi scum like David. And that’s good insofar as David never misses a chance to make a fool of himself with his puerile comments.

David wrote:The keep bitching...The Chełmno Report is like every other Believer report
full of sound and fury but signifying nada.


Actually MacBeth’s famous words fit David’s puerile antics like a glove.

David wrote:An example is Majdanek. When the Soviets got to the Camp they told everyone
that there were 400,000 bodies buried in the woods.
It turned out that is was closer to 1,400. Since then, Believer investigators
have a hard time counting.


Apart from the fact that a comparison between a present-day archaeological investigation and a Soviet CSI is hardly appropriate and that the archaeologists didn’t quantify the remains but established other data that David cannot explain away (or maybe he wants to try explaining what on earth, other then burying large numbers of human beings, graves with lengths of 62, 254, 174 and 182 meters are supposed to have been made for), I’d like to know something more about David’s Majdanek blather, even though it’s an obvious attempt to change the subject. While the Soviets obviously exaggerated their Majdanek claims a lot, I’d like to know who established that the woods near Majdanek hold the bodies of only about 1,400 people and no more than that. Care to show your sources, David?

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sun Feb 19, 2012 9:45 am

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Only if you assume that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption.


Mr. Muehlenkamp, after your return from beautiful Sunday shinning afternoon, don´t forget to include your answer what happened to the teeth during the cremations in Chelmno (or other camps if you want) when you claim that they didn´t remain intact. Don´t forget to source it.


Sunday comes earlier in loonieland than in the real world, it seems.

As to teeth, see the quotes and sources in my previous post.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:49 am

Now we have three posts in a row by Dodging David. He must be getting nervous.

David wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:

David wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Not at this moment, for in order to do that I would have to obtain such materials from the archeologists who investigated the Chełmno mass graves. While I’m certainly interested in doing that one of these days, time and means provided,

2)Why you didnt this before you started this thread as response to challenge?

Lack of time and means, and then, why on earth should I have? An archaeological report is proof enough outside "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, and the person requested to endorse my proof is a reasonable person. ?

That is a bogus reply, Roberto.

Try doing without the repetitive catchphrases, it may make you look less silly.

David wrote: Most archaelogical reports are only concerned
with the presence of some amount of human remains.

Let’s say that archaeological reports don’t usually quantify human remains found. But that’s no reason for me to refrain from estimating the amount of human remains based on information about their concentration in the soil and the size of the mass grave.

You know what the term "garbage in garbage out" means,
Roberto? That's what you are doing.


Nervous is perhaps not the adequate term. Hysterical seems more like it.

David wrote:David wrote: In the case of Chelmno is the AMOUNT of remains that is relevant.
Revisionists would expect that somewhere around 2,000 bodies would
be found.

What would that expectation be based on, and why should anyone give a damn about what "Revisionist" loonies would expect?

People died during the 4 years Chelmno was occupied.
Finding a "small" number of human remains is to be expected. That is why your flimflam is silly.


Perhaps my hysterical friend can explain why his heroes would have needed graves with lengths of 62, 254, 174 and 192 meters (not to mention the 11 ash disposal pits that make up grave # 5) to dispose of just a few thousand bodies.

And why they cremated the bodies, as becomes apparent from the presence of soil containing "some percent" of human cremation remains outside the pits that make up grave # 5 and "a significant mixture" of such remains in those pits.

David wrote: David wrote: To give you a specific and obvious example of what was "forgotten" in the Report...how many human teeth were recovered?

Are archaeological reports supposed to quantify human remains found, all of a sudden?

When that is the issue, of course. Quantification and
accurate descriptions are important in scientific studies.


Fortunately archaeologists and historians are smarter than try to establish the number of victims based on a quantification of human cremation remains that is as laborious as it is unreliable. The correct scientific approach in this case is to establish how many people were taken to Chełmno and how many left the place alive. Much if not most of the balance lies in and around the mass graves as ashes, bone fragments and other cremation remains.

David wrote: A comparison that springs to mind are the occasional "Reports" from
groups climbing Mount Ararat which breathlessly announce the finding
of a board or plank.
To continue the analogy, the Poles found a board, You designed an Ark.


A rather silly analogy, as there’s no reason to assume that the human remains found are only in some isolated spots of the mass graves. If that were so, finding them would have been like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, and archeologists would not have been able to establish the size of the graves. David’s analogy again tell us much about the poor contents of his brain but little else.

David wrote: David wrote:Teeth are durable.

Not when exposed to high temperatures. Enamel breaks up easily under heat.

Oh...now the teeth are disappearing? As we say,
Any excuse is good enough for a Believer."


Believing I leave to silly self-projecting producers of rhetorical BS like David. In my previous post addressed to the same, I have shown evidence that teeth don’t usually survive high temperatures.

David wrote: David wrote:They would give us a very good idea of the age and
economic status of the bodies.

Great, then I suggest you contact the Chełmno museum and ask them what conclusions they derived from the teeth they found. For they seem to have found quite a few, if you look at their report (emphases added):
You missed the point of accurate quantification.
For example how many children's teeth were found? What was the
ratio to adult teeth?


As children’s teeth are even less likely to survive fire and crushing than adult teeth, that ratio would be entirely meaningless for establishing the victims’ age composition. Better rely on ghetto population and deportation data, which sometimes contain that information and are certainly a more reliable source where they do.

David wrote: So, Roberto, how many children's teeth were found? Not one is mentioned
What does that mean to your convoluted theories?


Actually no teeth at all were reported found inside the mass graves, which suggests that most teeth were destroyed by fire and crushing (probably not all, but then the archaeologists didn’t exactly dig up the graves to the bottom). If adult teeth from which gold caps had been removed but no children’s teeth were found in pits other than the graves, what this means is that, big surprise, children had no gold caps in their teeth and children’s teeth were therefore not worth extracting. Poor David’s convoluted reasoning again shows that he hasn’t been paying attention.

David wrote:Roberto has based his claims and calculations based
on the reports of the Museum at Chelmno because
"the grave has been investigated by professional archaeologists."

It is interesting that the "Museum" was founded in 1956
"under the auspices of PTTK (Polskie Towarzystwo Turystyczno Krajoznawcze - Polish Tourist and Sightseeing Society)."
http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/historia.htm

Highly qualified in Roberto's eyes no doubt.

The Museum also has its own ghost!
To quote the Museum,
"The castle in Gosławice, just as every old seat, has its own ghost and legend. Between 1757-1764 the ghost of the Gosławice owner, Konstanty Lubrański, who had died a few decades earlier, was seen by a few guests to the castle and the local pastor, Andrzej Liszkowski. The pastor saw the ghost of Lubrański for the first time on the way to Licheń, and later a few times at his home.

http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/duch.htm

Funny how the Tourist and Sightseeing Society conflates reality with legend.
Just like they confuse the amount of human remains they actually found at
their other tourist attractions.


So what’s clown trying to tell us here? That the report was not prepared by qualified archaeologists just because of the Konin Regional Museum’s tourist attraction background (which it presumably has in common with every regional museum) and because the Konin Regional Museum mentions popular lore about a ghost in Gosławice castle (none of which has anything to do with the background and purpose of the Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, of course)?

If so, poor David’s convoluted mind has again produced a pearl of imbecility.

David wrote:Roberto, since you are so enthusiastic about the Museum's reports do you
believe that there really is a ghost at the Museum? After all they have
lots of "eye witnesses!"


Unlike clowning David, who obviously believes in evidence-manipulation conspiracies with supernatural powers, I don’t believe in supernatural phenomena, though I’m aware that sometimes superstitious people think they perceived such phenomena. It’ not likely that the accounts of such people would be taken seriously by historians let alone stand up to judicial examination, of course. They are just part of the popular folklore that goes well with a museum of local habits and traditions.

David
Persistent Poster


I like that title, by the way. It suggests a silly pain-in-the-ass who has so little else to do with his time than persistently post puerile rubbish.

David wrote:Hello Roberto-
I had asked about the number of teeth found in your grave 1/34.
Seems that none of the graves you mentioned in your first post
ie. Archeological work carried out in 2003-2004 found any teeth.
http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm

The vague references to teeth being found related to Pits 1 -4
In pits 5-9 no teeth were found
Just as in the 5 graves not one tooth was mentioned.


Yeah, and that still doesn’t mean that the presence of teeth in any of the graves needs to be excluded, for the reasons previously explained:

No, the archaeological report doesn’t mention teeth in the graves. But considering what happens to teeth when a corpse is burned and what survives burning is crushed (most but not all are reduced to ashes or tooth meal), that the expression "ash" does not exclude ashed teeth or tooth meal, and that the archaeologists didn’t exactly dig up each grave to the bottom, its entirely reasonable to assume that the human remains in each grave also include teeth or tooth meal. Anyway, it’s completely immaterial to my calculations what parts of the human body exactly the human remains found in the graves belong to, as David might have noticed if he had read my OP with more attention.


---

David wrote:Is this the Mystery of Muehlenkamp's Missing Molars?


I’d call this remark the mystery of David’s missing neurons, if that were still a mystery.

David wrote:So we can understand your claim...were teeth found in the grave 1/34?
If so, how many?
Please try not to conflate with other graves. Thank you


No, no teeth were reported found in grave "1/34". But that doesn’t mean one should exclude the presence of teeth in that grave, for the reasons explained. And it doesn’t change the fact that it’s completely immaterial to my calculations what parts of the human body exactly the human remains found in the graves belong to, as David might have noticed if he had read my OP with more attention.

David might do his "Revisionist" religion a bigger favor if, instead of making a fuss about the absence of reported teeth finds in graves submitted to no more than probing excavations (which is irrelevant), he tried to provide a consistent explanation for the teeth that were found elsewhere in the camp:

Inside a significant amount of the victims' personal belongings was found, such as: clasps of different kind, e.g. of handbags, suitcases; strap buckles, keys, fragments of artificial teeth, rifle and pistol shells, and, what is very important, a button of a Russian uniform.


Among other things we found there 2 stone figures of "silent" monkeys, a bronze Star of David, a quadrilateral lead toy top for playing drejdl (with Hebrew letters: nun, gimel, he, szin), as well as human teeth with traces of removed gold caps.


Its total depth can be about 1.30 m at the top. It was filled with dark brown humus. We found there significant quantities of the victims' belongings and human teeth with traces of removed tooth caps.


From the pit we obtained a significant number of objects, as well as human teeth with traces of removed caps.


Among others, human teeth and gold and metal tooth caps were found.


Let’s see how teeth-obsessed David explains find of human teeth with traces of removed caps.

Or if he runs away from these questions, as corresponds to his behavior that got him the Dodging David epithet.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sun Feb 19, 2012 6:57 pm

Note - this is my last response containing questions since they are too long and all important information has been provided by Mr. Muehlenkamp. I will not make another questions unless Mr. Muehlnekamp will not present really extraordinary claim. Hope this encourage him to answer at least these points.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Correct. And so?

Thanks for answer.


You’re welcome. Now answer my question.


Pardon, what question? You mean "and so?" Answer is simple, I wanted to know what is your knowledge about "your" report, you don´t have knowledge as you admited.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: 2)Why? I already said why, here again "Because you want to present proof as a response to nafcash challenge" That is purpose of your effort and your thread here.


Unless the "challenge" requires an on-site investigation by the applicant himself, you are increasingly coming across as rather obtuse.


Ok, so you didn´t consider as important to visit site to see at least basic information, you just rely on second-hand written report and you already amited that you don´t know anything about evience used for report.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I already said that I have read it, but thanks. So this Jewish law really exist, correct?


Yes, Mr. correct, that’s correct.


Do you recognize this?:

"I consider it highly unfortunate that these laws exist and that religious fundamentalists can thus keep what I would like to see done (an excavation of the mass graves to the very bottom, which is probably full of corpses in wax fat transformation below the soil and cremation remains) from being done.[...]But I have no reason to assume that these religious objections are "hypocrisy". I'm convinced that these religious fundamentalists genuinely believe in their religious crap."[...]Presumably due to considerations of pudeur or in order to comply with those stupid religious laws[...]"

Only clarification, for you are these alleged laws stupid, correct?

Feel free to look at sources here, that exhuming of Jews is not forbidden.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 8a1d291ee1

So I would like to know, if you think that there is nothing strange with alleged law or if you think that law is only excuse not to dig in places where revisionists claim that there is not what exterminationists claim?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: This Mr. Desbois claims that these uncovered peoples are murdered Jews, correct? So he violated Jewsish law or this Jewish law is somewhat false since he could do this, correct?


No, it’s just that these laws allow for exceptions and/or have different interpretations. Father Desbois’ work was authorized by the Orthodox rabbis he contacted for this purpose, IIRC. Their condition was that the skeletons not be moved from the place where they lay, which means that digging had to be done with great care and only the first layer of skeletons could be uncovered.


In other words, when some murderer dig his Jewish victim, the police an authorities must contact rabbis which allow or not allow to exhume victim to investigate it, this is what are you telling me?

I also wonder how they know that undisturbed alleged grave contain victims and even victims of Jewish origin. Let me guess please, because of witnesses or "general knowledge", correct?

I also wonder, the victims in Katyn, some of the were Jewish, or not? If you agree, how is possible that Soviets had no problem with exhumations during their investigation when they accused Nazi from this crime, where was this alleged law?

So here we have exceptions which prove that alleged law is clear double standard, ok.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I only asked for evidence to back up text which is written on the paper (i.e. website) because everybody can write anything, correct?


If you’re interested in what evidence the report is based on (which I doubt you are), I suggest you contact the people who keep that evidence. I’m not one of those people.


I see, you already admitted that you don´t know anything about this evidence, you don´t know if exist, and you only quoted second-hand text without knowledge of evidence to back it up. Pardon, but you should be interested when you quote something or you often quote something when you don´t know if quoted text is true? I see you do.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, I don’t respect your approach, because it is everything other than reasonable. If you don’t accept as accurate the contents of an archaeological report without looking behind it, you are making unsubstantiated accusations of manipulation, and that is hardly reasonable. Unless, of course, you can provide any reasons why the archaeological report in question should not be taken at face value. Which of course you cannot do, as the only reason why you don’t accept the contents of the report is that they are at odd with your articles of faith.


Pardon, where I made accusation of manipulation? Quote this accusation please, thanks so much. You can also quote insultation, see your quote below, thanks.

Again pardon, but you should "look behind it" when you quote it, correct? You admited that you didn´t looked behind. I must repeat, I don´t accept every written text only because you say "this is archeological report you can accept it without single piece of evidence for backing up content of report" I am too reasonable to not adopt your approach M. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: Hypotetically - I discovered archeological report which containt this information "mass grave of Jewish crime which contain remains of hundreds or thousands of murdered Palestinians has been discovered by our team (names) in some location (name of location) and they found this and this and etc." , no documentation included, only few photos of personal things of these victims exactly like in your report. So Mr. Muehlenkamp, can you demonstrate your approach to this written report so I can see your approach to back up your claim that I am not reasonable?


My approach is that there’s no reason to assume that what the archaeologist wrote is not backed up by copious documentation, because a) archaeological reports are usually backed up by copious documentation, whether that is published or not, b) archaeologists don’t usually make things up (contrary to your insinuations) and c) the reported finds are in no way at odds with what is known about events at Chełmno from sources independent of archaeological research.


a)documentation which is totally unknown to you and you don´t know anything about it and you even don´t know one single human who saw this documentation and if exist, you admitted all of these.
b)aside the fact that you can´t back this claim so this is logical fallacy, your approach is "they usually don´t made things up so they can be all accepted without evidence", hm.
c)in other words, when there is a), this is not problem for you, you just assume that report is correct because of your belief in what allegedly happen, and you accept it without evidence only because it match your belief.

I expected this response since for you was not possible to admit that your approach is different to avoid using double standard and following problems. This means that every revisionist´s research conducted in this way is accepted by you in the same way and I thank you for this clarification, we can move forward.

Can you tell me if you have accepted Krege´s report? I guess you did since no double standard.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/19/3/Radar20.html
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Treblink ... 91000.html
http://www.vho.org/F/c/Krege.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJgheZEs ... re=related

I didn´t accepted this revisionist research and report because I lack everything what I lack about you or your sources, these reports are the same, no evidence to back up what is written. This revisionists research at least show some video. This is clearly proof that your accusation of me that i use "double standard" or that i am not reasonable is untrue.

Let me guess your response please, since for you is not possible to accept this research since this contradict your belief and claims, your response will be something like "my belief-friendly archeologists usually don´t make things up (but I can´t prove this statement) so I can trust them, but my belief-unfriendly archeologist engineers usually make things up (but I can´t prove this statement) so I cannot trust them". Correct Mr. Muehlenkamp?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Your approach, on the other hand, consists in baselessly insinuating that archaeologists lied, for no other reason than their reports’ incompatibility with your beliefs[...]unless you have seen the documentation for yourself (which is a lot of work, as I know how voluminous such documentation tends to be even in minor archaeological projects). Then your approach would merely be unreasonable.


Please, take into consideration what I directly write, no what I allegedly "insinuated", thanks. I have right to write that written text in "your" report is not backed by evidence since even you have admitted that you don´t know anything about it.

Second part is not true, I already said: "I would be content with just a few fragments published to public (Feb 18, 2012 1:32 am)" and no need to publish everything, for the rest of the materials, the link to source is enough. You admitted that you don´t know anything about it.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: I assume that your approach is to accept it in the same way as "your" report, correct?


My approach is to accept a professional archaeologist’s report about a professional archaeological investigation as correct except insofar as there are indications to the contrary. If you think you can provide such indications, fire away.


I only wonder about your "professional" claims since you already admited that you don´t know anything about it and you already admited that "your" quoted report never conducted any investigation, and your report only quote second-hand source/investigations as you did. So how did you arrive to your claims about professionality?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Authority Raul Hilberg spoke too about two Hitler´s orders without evidence in his opus DoEJ, without source and then he later removed these alleged orders from his next edition, so do you understand what I mean with my approach?


No I don’t. Which orders, by the way, and where in Hilberg’s work are they mentioned?


I really wonder how is possible that you don´t know this important fact. Raul Hilberg, in his work (The Destruction of the European Jews, Quadrangle Books, Chicago 1967, p. 177.) mentioned two alleged Hitler´s orders for extermination of the Jews without source/evidence to back it up. In his second edition of his opus from 1985, these mentions of Hitler´s orders just vanished in to the air. Christopher Browning in his article "In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the "Final Solution" have been systematically excised" (The Revised Hilberg, in: Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294.)
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp ... G&b=395051

You still do not understand to my approach to "your" report and why I don´t accept every written text no matter from whom without evidence to back it up?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:You would propably say "these orders are propably stored there or there and no reason to doubt what is written in his book" as you did in this case of this report, correct?


No, that’s a lousy analogy. If a historian doesn’t provide sources for important claims, one might suspect that these sources do not exist as it is standard procedure for historians to source their claims. But when an archaeologist describes the results of his or her own research on site, it is obvious (whether this is expressly mentioned or not) that they are based on finds made and recorded and categorized according to the profession’s standard procedures, and that the records are kept where archaeologists usually keep the records of their work.


In the other words Mr. Muhlenkamp, if historian doesn´t provide sources and evidence for his text, you can suspect him and don´t accept it. But if archeologist doesn´t provide sources and evidence for his text, you have no reason to suspect him and you can accept it, correct? Pardon Mr. Muhlenkamp, but this is clear double standard since these examples are completely the same, only the profession is different, and you just used this "double standard" since you propably know very well this issue about Hilberg and you must somehow defend "credibility" of "your" report. This prove what is written about your approach above.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What I asked you to do is to give me a reason why anyone should care about what you claim you would like to see. You haven’t provided such reason, so your private wishes are irrelevant.


But Mr. Muhlenkamp, i already answered you here - "Nobody should have to care. I am only curious if you can present your proof to ordinary dude as me, because sholars are higher in their demands than ordinary public dudes as me" (Feb 18, 2012 1:32 am)

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Only to be sure, you already admited that you don´t have anything and you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?


I haven’t admitted anything, I have just stated that I have not yet been to the Chełmno museum to look up the presumably vast archaeological documentation on which the report is based. Unless you can demonstrate that this was any default on my part, that’s no concession of anything. It’s a plain statement of fact.


Really? You forgot your answer on question 4), you admited it, see again "Correct." (Feb 17, 2012 9:55 pm) If you are going to visist Chelmno someday to verify your own claims is irrelevant, at this time, you have nothing.

"Presumably", in the other words, as you already admited, you don´t know.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:You think these (photo, video, remains, etc. or at least photo or video of location of grave) are high demands? Interesting.


Yes, the way they are put forward they are high demands.


I wanted sources and evidence from historian Hilberg to back up his text.

I want the same from your archeological report to back up your text since no double standard, you already admited you don´t have it and you don´t know if this material exist.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Ordinary dude me only can at this moment only show you what is available in public sources, sorry.


In the other words, only text without value since is not backed up and you allegedly didn´t have time to check if some evidence at least exist and where, you only assume it without evidence.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And that doesn’t include detailed archaeological documentation kept in the archives of a museum. What scholars would not accept the accuracy of an archaeological report without checking the documentation kept in a museum’s archives, by the way? Show me a few.


I already said that at least small fragment would be enough.

Your question is logical fallacy, you even don´t know if this documentation exist, so is logical fallacy to make such a question and want answer from me.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:For example old investigation of Katyn, correct? Please, let me know if I am correct.


Of course you have excessive demands. Unless you can demonstrate that the wonderful job your Nazi heroes did at Katyn is what is required according to reasonable rules and standards to prove the occurrence and the authors of mass murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that according to such reasonable rules and standards mass murder cannot be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt unless it has been investigated and documented as thoroughly as the Germans documented their Katyn investigation (though I don’t think they had videos back in 1943).


Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Again, as I said above, I am speaking for myself, I am not depended on rules of someone else.


As long as you’re only speaking for yourself and cannot demonstrate that your demands are based on accepted rules and standards of evidence, don’t expect anyone to give flying {!#%@} about your demands.


First, you are right, not videos in this case, but films, my fault, is that correct now and you agree that they made films and used cameras to document it?

Pardon, but even a one single grave is usually treated in the same way except international comissions/organisations, third party observers from different nations or media, or am I mistaken? Only to be sure, archeological investigation of crime scene is treated with using photo/films/video, physician examinations, documenting human remains, measuring of crime site, dimensions, location and then publish data to "public" which means that not only the ones who have conducted this investigation are able to see data, this is standard procedure for just one single grave containing humans on crime site, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The reason is that a) crime site investigations are not usually done by "more than one team" let alone by two teams of which one works for the crime suspect’s defense attorneys. Where do you see that happen?


Again pardon, but is standard to publish all materials at least to defense to let them conduct own investigation on the same place using own methods, team, tools and verify their findings, this is pure standard, correct?

So answer my question please, where is problem to allow revisionists to conduct their investigation or at least invite them to exterminationists´s investigation?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Do you know at least one single investigation conducted by teams from both sides of the "barricade"?


No, I don’t, but you still have to show me where in the world crime site investigations are conducted in that manner (with a team from the prosecution and one from the defense examining the crime site at the same time), and explain why on earth only investigations conducted in that manner should be considered suitable to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.


So not even single case, ok.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Crime scene is always crime scene and crime scene don´t stop being crime scene, correct?


Correct


I have cut the rest of you response, this is the only relevant part of your answer, thanks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If you were talking to Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak or another representative of the Chełmno museum, your demand might not be considered excessive. But you are not.


I don´t have to, I am not here to present proof, i expected from you that you did this, but you admited that you didn´t and you don´t have anything except for written text.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Didn’t your question refer to an investigation by two teams pursuing different interests and attended by independent observers, by the way?


Sorry, I don´t see any question in my quote here which you adress - "So answer is Yes, you can´t provide demands like - photos, video, photos of drilling, samples, exacavation, some remains, you even cant provide photo of this alleged grave without excavation, I mean only photo location and its measurements. You call it excessive. Very strange to me, but thanks for answer."

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, the challenger didn’t specify that he demands photos and such or the results of an investigation fulfilling your requirements. He required proof conclusive enough to convince Michael Shermer, whose proof requirements I expect to be reasonable and not excessive.


I see, but I assumed that you want to present the best possible proof from you to answer challenge, but you only repeated second-hand report without much effort from your side. When challenger does not specify what exactly he wants, this doesn´t mean that you can provide him with the most (no offense) ridiculous proof you have, you for sure are going to show smoking gun.

Your problem is that what I see is everything what you have, but everything what was needed to at least somehow support your proof was to contact source and request help or at least providing a source for materials or some basic information about materials, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:-Don´t understand your comment, you wanted example of what I consider as acceptable as investigation of mass grave to avoid double standard approach, correct?
-You got it, correct?
-So you don´t need to be afraid of double standard, I will not demand more that what was done during mentioned Katyn investigation, fair enough to you?


Yep, it’s fair enough if you tell me that the only crime of Stalin’s you consider proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the killing of 4,000 or so Polish officers at Katyn whereas all other crimes attributed to Stalin (Kuropaty, Bykivnia, the Gulag camps, etc.) may just be baseless accusations because they haven’t been investigated the way the Germans investigated the Katyn killing. In that case you approach will still be wholly unreasonable, but at least it will not be a double standard approach.


Fair enough If I tell you that this is not my only example of proved crime beyond reasonable doubt? Ok, no problem, what about Vinnitsa massacre again investigated by the Nazis? I accept it again and I will not demand nothing more than this.

Here you can see lot of examples which signalize what is standard, please note, that these examples are even about just ordinary "boring" research and not about such an important investigations like crime sites.
http://research.history.org/Archaeological_Research.cfm I see really volumniously published material and I do not know how many examples you want, probaply no number is enough.

So again, fair enough and can you provide me with at least similar investigation and materials to prove me that some material exist and I have no reason to suspect content of this report?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Are you able to present at least similar investigation as Katyn almost 70 years ago?


I don’t think so.


This is the only relevant part of your answer, so you can´t, ok. So last try, are you able to at least show me just fragment of what did happen during Katyn investigation, I mean just photos, at least basic photos of findings and location with marked grave/proof? You already admited that you can´t, but I want to be sure, can you?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Why should that be correct? Because Bob says so?

Answer me please. Has written text value if the text is not backed by evidence which is mentioned in text?


No, if there’s no evidence supporting what is written, than what is written has no value.


Again, this is the only relevant part, thanks for answer. The rest of your quote is adressed above in previous parts.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Proper court would not accept this report if the answers of author of such a report during cross examination would be the same or similar to yours presented here Mr. Muehlenkamp.


The answers to cross examination questions wouldn’t be the same as mine because the person cross-examined would be the archaeologist who conducted the investigation and not just little me who read the archaeological report.


In the other words, you again only assume this without single piece of evidence.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And how does Bob know what "proper court" would or not accept as evidence? From any procedural rules or rules of evidence he read and can quote, or just from what little birdie told him?


Pardon Mr. Muhlenkamp, I wrote it directly about you and not about your imaginary assumed witness above, and if you are not able to at least locate your alleged proof or mark it on the photo, I am 100% sure that no proper court would accept such a ridiculous "expert-witness" together with his report who even don´t know where is his proof.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?


Correct. And so? Am I supposed to assume that the Chełmno archaeologists didn’t do a proper job and duly document their finds just because I haven’t seen their documentation? If so, on what basis am I supposed to assume that?


Thanks for answer, that is all what I wanted to know.


You’re welcome. Now answer my questions, will you?


I am afraid that I answered your points above, you know it now, see Hilberg part and Krege part.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Little deatil, are you at least able to name just one single human being which wasn´t part of team/s which allegedly conducted investigation of this grave and who actually saw alleged "volumnious materials" stored in Chelmno which is consisted of photos/video/etc. of human remains, core drillings, excavation and etc., do you know at least one human who wasnt member of team and who saw these crucial findings?


No, and so what? In case you haven’t understood, it’s not for me to prove that the archaeologists did a proper job and duly documented their finds, because that’s what normally happens and what archaeologists usually do. It is for you to prove that in this case archaeologists exceptionally {!#%@} up, failed to properly document their finds or even manipulated their report.


No, thanks for answer. My last try in this issue, do you know at least some human being who saw these materials, I mean, did at least your sources mentions such a material or source and that exists somewhere and they mention it?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:4)Pardon, but these materials weren´t published since even you don´t know anything about them, correct?


Don’t obfuscate. Not published doesn’t mean hidden, unless you can show that such materials are usually published after archaeological investigations.


The answer on this quote should be only "Correct", no more, because they were not published as you admited, that Is all I wanted to know in this quote.


First of all, Mr. "correct", I provide what answer I feel like providing, and not what answer you think I should provide.


I see, but this cannot change the fact that the only possible correct answer in this case is only "correct" since you already admitted that material is not published, so "not correct" choice is not possible from you. So Mr. Correct ask you - correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Bob - 4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?

Roberto - Correct. And so?

So where is your logic Mr. Muehlenkamp? You speak about non-publishing of something which you even don´t know if exist, correct?


Exactly, I don’t know if it exists insofar as I haven’t yet seen it. But I very reasonably assume that it does.


In the other words, you again acknowledge that in fact you don´t know, you only assume without evidence.

Rest of your quote is adressed in previous parts to see my reason why I don´t accept written text without evidence and I even provided nice examples including not-accepted revisionist´s report, which is according to your standard considered as accepted for you.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I would be content with just a few fragments published to public, I never claimed that i wanted to see whole materials, so what are the problem with publishng at least small fragment of this alleged stored volumnious material?


Wrong question. The right questions are:

1. Why the "alleged" crap? Is there any reason to assume that the archaeologists didn’t properly record and document their finds?

2. Why should anyone bother to publish what little Bob wants to see?

3. If little Bob really wants to see some of the archeological documentation, what is he waiting for to either visit the Chełmno museum or contact them and ask them to send him some photos and such?


First, adress my question and do not invent your own questions to say that your questions are better/right, so adress my quote again.

1. I already aressed it above, and also in following parts.

2. I already said, nobody, I don´t force anybody to bother.

3. Bob only wonder how is possible that this hadn´t been done by Mr. Muehlenkamp himself who came to this forum with his proof to answer challenge of his challenger.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I see lot of photos of "boring" things in "your" report here http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm#


Actually those photos of things that belonged to the people murdered at Chełmno are quite interesting to me, as they are to others readers interested in archeology and the history of the camp. If Bob finds them "boring", that tells us something about the contents of Bob’s mind but little else.


Pardon, but this is fallacy, you actually don´t know if these things belonged to some murdered victims, you only assume it without seeing even single piece of evidence in your report, you just read it in your report, correct?

These things are boring in comparison with materials which are missing in the report and are the most important, or Mr. Muhlenkamp don´t agree about importance?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:So where is problem to publish stuff which is the most important instead of these?


What is most important for Bob is not necessarily what’s most important to archeologists or the average reader for whom the report is meant. The average reader may be more interested in photos of objects belonging to the victims than in photos of mass graves or human remains.


In the other words, average reader of article about crime sites is more insterested in personal belonging of alleged victims than about the victims themselves which are invisible to him and don´t even know if actually exist since no evidence in the report is shown and backed. This is your answer to me, correct?

Yes, I am not average reader, when somebody point out some thing with saying "this is property of murdered victim" without single piece of evidence, doesn´t mean that I will believe it and i only wonder if some sane person could believe it, but "average" reader does as you claim.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And it stands to reason that the people who presumably urged the archaeologists to apply "methods which did not disturb the layers and places where human remains were expected to be found" wouldn’t have liked to see the report illustrated with photos of human bone fragments and such.


Ouch, Mr. Muehlenkamp, what a statement! In the other words you want to tell me that thanks to some "presumably existing "peoples who urged archeologist´s investigation" no materials could even exist since no actual excavation has been conducted and no remains could be documented because of reason to "not disturb human remains" so nobody can expect illustrations and photos of human remains, correct?

This means that mentions of found human remains, skeleton, and etc. "uncovered during excavations". mentioned in your report here http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm# are pure inventions, correct?

Explain to me these contradictions, both statements couldn´t be correct:

a)No disturbing, no excavations and etc., so logically no materials which documented it could exist and no wonder that are missing in report = Report´s findings are invented together with personal property which had been allegedly excavated too.

b)Human remains collected, excavated, bones found, sites exhumed, personal property of alleged victims found during excavations, but no documentation exist since nobody saw it and for some reason, the report is only full of photos of alleged personal property and unimportant things = Mr.Muehlenkamp´s claim about not disturbing is untrue and this material must exist but for some reason, cannot be seen in report and even Mr. Muehlenkamp don´t know where is, he only assume.

Solve this problem for me please.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Nobody bothered to show crucial evidence of human remains, drillings, samples, excavation, grave, location and etc. and instead of this they decided to fill report with useless photos of things which could be found propably even in ordinary yards?


The location of the graves is clearly shown on maps I pointed, and also marked on the ground, as you can see in the films made by Alan Heath [...] Including them in the report would be bad form for the reasons explained. Photos of the victims’ belongings, on the other hand, are not only respectful mementos but also impressive for who pauses to think about the fact that ordinary people with ordinary lives were brought to this place to be murdered. It is for such people, and not for brainless denier scum, that the archaeological report is made.


Mr. Muhlenkamp, you did not answer quote, answer my question about reason to not publish at least fragment of this material in "your" report again please. You did not explain the reason why not to publish them.

In the other words, this report is some kind of "emotional thinking text" about something what according to you "don´t know if exist" I find this really ridiculous and you have no problem to say about all of this, that this make sense, ok.

I also wasn´t interested in "graves of Alan Heath", I am interested in your grave 1/34 here in your 1/34 thread.

Why externinationist always speaks in plular and appel to some imaginary vast evidence instead of adressing simple point by direct answer? I recall experiences of Robert Faurisson when he asked for just one single photograph of Nazi gas chamber.

I now come to the “Holocaust.” How did I proceed? I had heard people say that there were gas chambers. Others said, even back then, that there had been no gas chambers. What method of revising history was in accord with my nature, myself? It was to say: “Very well, I see that people are arguing over whether the gas chambers existed, but, a simple question, please: ‘What is a Nazi gas chamber? I need to see one.’”

So I went to Paris, to the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine. I remember the archivist asking me what I wanted. I told him, “A photo of a Nazi gas chamber.” The man said “We have many books.” I said, “A photo.” He continued, “We have many testimonies.” I said, “A photo.” “We have many documents.” I said, “A photo.” Then he summoned Mrs. Imbert (I remember her name): “Come in. This gentleman wants a photo of a Nazi gas chamber.” I swear to you she said, “We have many testimonies.” The archivist, exasperated, told her, “But this gentleman wants a photo.” I was told to sit down. I sat there for sixty minutes. That poor woman rifled the shelves, opening book after book without success. At last she brought me a photo known to everybody, of the helmeted American soldier standing in front of the disinfestation gas chambers in Dachau, and similar pictures. I thought to myself, “There’s a problem here.”

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n2p-7_faurisson.html


So Mr. Muehlenkamp, "a grave/proof 1/34" would be enough, otherwise “There’s a problem here.”

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Would you be content with saying that I have volumnious undoubtful material which prove that holocaust did not happen, but I didn´t publish it for some reason? Would you accept it?


No, but that’s because you are a lunatic piece of denier scum and what you claim to have is completely at odds with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years, which would strongly indicate that you have nothing to show for your claims. On the other hand, I have no problem with accepting the contents of a report prepared by professional archaeologists whose reported finds are perfectly compatible with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years about what happened at Chełmno. That was another of your lousy attempts at analogy, my friend.


The only pupose of this question was to expose that you actually don´t care about evidence or message, you are able to dismiss my unpublished evidence for simple reason that according to you I am some "lunatic piece of denier scum" and that´s all, you don´t bother to at least ask "show me, tell me, I want to see it to verify your claims, prove what you claim", on the contrary, you have no problem to accept everything what match your unfounded assumptions and belief like this unfounded second-hand report without single piece of evidence in perfect accordance with your double standard.

Thanks for your honest response.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And third, the arguments that "these evil deniers" produce are so feeble that the few who bother with them don’t need to show complete sets of archaeological documentation to refute such arguments.

(...)Or are you trying to tell me that bunch of fringe lunatics are a reason?


Sorry, I will not discuss this general issue with you here, since I am interested only in subject of this thread. Feel free to join other relevant threads and we can discuss it there. You can for exmaple join simple thread here viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17691 to back your claims.


I doubt you are interested in anything other than making a fuss in support of your articles of faith, but what "general issue" are you talking about? Just curious …


Your qouote above speaks about some arguments of evil deniers and etc. This looks like some general theme, but in this thread we speak only about your alleged proof 1/34.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Archeology investigation of crime scene related to Nazi holocaust is not treated differently from investigation of other crime scenes and you see no difference, correct?


Exactly. What is required to prove a Holocaust mass killing beyond a reasonable doubt is what is required to prove any other mass killing beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more and nothing less.


Can you demonstrate that other mass killing sites are treated in the same way only in the form of written text without single piece of evidence, without mentions if the documented evidence has been taken and if exist and without at least source to where the evidence is stored? Because this is how "your" report actually looks like.

If you can´t, can you at least demonstrate that also ordinary archeological investigation are conducted in such a way?

I didn´t ask so far what is actually your standard in this case of mass graves crime sites and do you think that your standard would be enough to be accepted by courts, tell me your standard as I did for you, do you?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Since i never claimed that whole documentation/backing-up evidence used for these reports must be published, is irrelevant to adress your demand, correct?


If you don’t want the whole documentation, then show me precedents of archaeological reports pertaining to mass crimes that are published with samples of documentation that satisfy you as to the accuracy of these reports. Come on, give us an example of a mass crime archeological report that you consider to be comme il faut.


Mr. Muehlenkamp, did you forget Katyn? This link below is what I call big fragment of published pictoral report documentation which is really enough to me regarding the amount of photo published to public.
http://www.katyn.org.au/naziphotos.html

I counted 65 photos in this single link, and since I am no monster and don´t want to be cruel, in the case of pictoral evidence of"your" report I would be content, let say...with 3 basic photos of your proof/grave 1/34 - one photo of grave location with marked rough shape and dimensions, photo what is in the alleged grave and photo of one of the identified investigators in the location smiling at me, fair enough to you and are you able? .....Ok. ok. no need to have him/her smiling at me.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:It has not been proven that they ever existed because they were never investigated the way the Germans investigated the Katyn killings. Is that what you are trying to tell us, my friend? Yes or No?


Pardon, but we discuss your proof, I am not interested in "Gulag theme" which has nothing to do with your proof and with subject of this thread.

It looks like that you want to tell me that if some investigation was not conducted like the proper ones (according to your claims about gulags) this means that your ridiculous investigation is apologized and proper, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:There is no "six million figure" where I come from. There are estimates by historians ranging between about five and about six million. The higher range of estimates is usually referred to in the media and in political discourse because it's more impressive, but that doesn't mean it's correct. My take is that the number of Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide is somewhere between 5 and 6 million, possibly closer to the former than to the latter.


So you deny 6 million figure, what a statement again, ok.

You speak about estimates, in the other words, these estimates are not based on evidence since it wouldn´t needed to use word "estimate", ok.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:How did you arrive to five millions? Documents from IMT Nuremberg Trial USSR-08 and USSR-29 allegedly proved that at least 5,5 (4+1,5) milions of Jews were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and Majdanek, you want to tell me that no significant number of Jews were murdered by Nazis in other places since you speak "only" about more than five and not six millions, or you doubt Nuremberg Trial findings? Take your pick and explain it to me please, I see confusion.


I see you know as much about the Nuremberg Trial findings as a pig does about Sunday. If you had ever read the IMT’s judgment, you might have realized that the Soviet prosecution’s claims of 4 million dead at AB and 1.5 million dead at Majdanek didn’t become the tribunal’s findings of fact. And even if they had become the tribunal's findings of fact, this would only mean that the IMT’s findings have since been overruled by more precise historical research. As it is, the total that the IMT accepted (4 million dead in all concentration and extermination camps, including but not limited to AB and Treblinka) is not so far away from what historical research has established since.


In the other words, you are telling me that plaques in the Auschwitz site were telling false claim about 4 millions for more than 40 years until the day when they changed them, ok.

Mr. Muehlenkamp with his demonstrated knowledge about Nuremberg for sure know Article 19 and mainly Article 21 of consitution of the international military tribunal in Nuremberg.

"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. "

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp

Can Mr. Muehlenkamp tell me if these figures were common knowledge to prove that there was no need to extra mention these findings in his link since were accepted as common knowledge thanks to judical notice?

Mr. Muehlenkamp admited incorrect findings of IMT, ok.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, instead of making excessive demands when it comes to events that don’t fit your ideological bubble? Please confirm.


By which historians and courts, you mean court which would need to decide if is correct to accept your proof here? I already adressed it above.


Are you too dumb to understand my question, or are you just playing dumb? Answer the question. Do you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, yes or no?


I will answer for you when you have refused.

Accepted by historians? From example Hilberg? No, as proved above.

Accepted by courts? From well known IMT tribunal? No, as proved above.

If you need other example, don´t hesitate and give a whistle Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Demand to see at least photo of undisturbed grave without any excavation to at least see where exactly this grave 1/34 is located and what are his measurements, is excessive demand? Really?


If you’re trying to tell me that...


The only thing which I am trying to tell is that you are not able to provide even the basic piece of this allegedly existing material to show value of your alleged proof.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If you to want to know what this grave looks like today, see if it is shown in one of Alan Heath’s above-mentioned clips. Or even better, move your ass to Chełmno nad Ner and visit the grave. What are you waiting for?


In the other words, you have no clue if this grave is in these mentioned clips, otherwise you would no write "if it is" which without a doubt prove that you actually don´t know where this grave 1/34 is located otherwise you would clearly write that is or that isn´t in these clips , correct?

In fact, what are you waiting for You Mr. Muhlenkamp, you should at least start to bother where is your proof.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I wanted to at least know if you bothered to visit memorial to see the alleged "volumniously documentation" allegedly stored there, and to at least bother to verify alleged findings in report.

I wanted to at least know if you bothered to speak with local memorial autorities about your proof to support your evidence.

I wanted to at least know if you at least saw with your own eyes this proof/grave which you presented here.

Your answer is NO to all of this and in fact you only assume that this grave as allegedly described in "your" report/s exist, but you never saw it to tell me if really exist and you have only second-hand piece of written text without allegedly existing materials to back it up, correct?


No, not correct. I have an archaeological report, which is first hand evidence by an expert witness, and which I have every reason to assume is backed up by the kind of documentation that usually backs up an archaeological report, even if I haven’t yet had the opportunity to look up that documentation. No, I didn’t bother to look up that documentation in order to check if the report is accurate. Not being an imbecilic conspiracy theorist but a reasonable person who lives in the real world, I see no reason to doubt that the investigation was conducted and the finds were documented in a due professional manner and that the report is a true and fair rendering of the results of this archaeological work.


So your answer is No, you really didn´t do anything what I have listed above, ok.

You report is actually repetition of alleged findings of other teams since you admited that author of this report didn´t conducted any own investigation, so you are wrong, this is second hand evidence for you and even second-hand evidence for author of "your" report.

You have "reason" to "assume" in the other words your reason is "to support you belief" and alleged proof, word "assume" means that you really don´t know anything about this alleged documentation as you already admited.

My last try in this case, did you at least bother to contact your source to request materials, or to provide you with "adress" for source of materials, or some help in this case or at least to ask if documentation exist and what documentation had been made for this report and what is actually stored somewhere? From your responses so far, I assume, that answer is no, correct?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Pardon my ignorance Mr. Muehlenkamp, but are you at least able to locate where is your alleged proof/grave in this area? You really can´t spend few seconds to show me where is located in this great google map?


No, I don’t see a reason why I should spend even a single second trying to show you on a Google map what you can see on two archaeological maps I have pointed out for you. Your demand is way too irrelevant and imbecilic to waste any time on.

I’ll give you a hint, my friend. You can see the grave on this map. It’s the smallest of all graves at Chełmno. If you’re too dumb too spot it on the map, just let me know and I’ll make a circle around it for you.

Actually I know exactly where the grave is, clown. Rzuchów Forest, Plot II. If you can’t find that on the above-mentioned map, I’ll be glad to help you.

Then write the following request:


So you can´t, or allegedly "you don´t want".

Obviously, you can provide "hint" instead of marking this grave in present air photo which I have provided to you a two days ago, ok. For some reason you ignore that I requested it already in Feb 17, 2012 8:03 pm

Plainly speaking - you really don´t know where is your proof located as I began suspected you some time ago and as you proved with your quotes. This is more and more fascinating Mr. Muhlenkamp.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Actually the challenger (I have good reasons to believe that it's this gentleman, by the way) has no sense at all. He’s counting on Michael Shermer considering it below his standing and dignity to address human garbage like the challenger in any way. If Michael Shermer should not ignore him as expected, the likely outcome is that the challenger will close down his website and run away.


Despite your insults, fact is that he have better sense to how to behave in this case and he has no problem to rely on strongly anti-revisionists/denier man, Michael Shermer.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:You are here to answer challenge, correct? So I assumed that you will make effort to answer challenge, but if I am correct, you actually only repeated report of someone else and that´s all, without this report you wouldn´t have anything because you didn´t have time and etc. as you told me, correct?


What’s the "only" supposed to mean? Unless you can show me that and explain why I would need anything other than a report about an investigation by professional archaeologists to reasonably respond to the challenge, do yourself a favor and cut out the crap.


Only means, that you actually didn´t conducted anything what has been mentioned above and I only wait if you admit that you didn´t bothered with other activities mentioned above. You just adopted report of someone else and you even didn´t bother to verify information in this report and this is propably the biggest fault as even you should have to know that this is the basic approach. But all what you have are naive and unfounded "assumptions" and double standard.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Great, then move your ass to the Chełmno museumk and "examine" whether the documentation they have there supports their report. What are you waiting for?


In fact, What are you waiting for You, Mr. Muehlenkamp?

Hope this is my last question - Did you actually bother to do at least something about this proof except switching on your computer and quoting unfounded text of someone else when you even don´t know if the text is true and backed as you admited?

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Only if you assume that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption.


Mr. Muehlenkamp, after your return from beautiful Sunday shinning afternoon, don´t forget to include your answer what happened to the teeth during the cremations in Chelmno (or other camps if you want) when you claim that they didn´t remain intact. Don´t forget to source it.


Sunday comes earlier in loonieland than in the real world, it seems.

As to teeth, see the quotes and sources in my previous post.


I am sorry, but don´t see what happened to teeth during cremation in your quotes, I still wait for you to tell me if they melt, vaporized, exploded, vanished, whatever to support your claim "that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption."

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:20 pm

Wow, looks like boring Bob is freaking out. In other words, I got him where I want him.

Bob wrote:Note - this is my last response containing questions since they are too long and all important information has been provided by Mr. Muehlenkamp. I will not make another questions unless Mr. Muehlnekamp will not present really extraordinary claim. Hope this encourage him to answer at least these points.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Correct. And so?

Thanks for answer.

You’re welcome. Now answer my question.

Pardon, what question? You mean "and so?" Answer is simple, I wanted to know what is your knowledge about "your" report, you don´t have knowledge as you admited.


Bob always wants to believe that people are "admitting" things. Actually stating that I haven’t yet had the opportunity to look at the documentation underlying an archaeological report is no admission of anything. It’s a plain statement of fact.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: 2)Why? I already said why, here again "Because you want to present proof as a response to nafcash challenge" That is purpose of your effort and your thread here.

Unless the "challenge" requires an on-site investigation by the applicant himself, you are increasingly coming across as rather obtuse.

Ok, so you didn´t consider as important to visit site to see at least basic information, you just rely on second-hand written report and you already amited that you don´t know anything about evience used for report.


There goes Bob again with his "second hand written report" nonsense. Sorry my dear friend, but however often you repeat that crap, a report written by the archaeologist who led the archaeological investigation is no second-hand anything. It’s first hand information from a first hand expert witness.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I already said that I have read it, but thanks. So this Jewish law really exist, correct?

Yes, Mr. correct, that’s correct.

Do you recognize this?:

"I consider it highly unfortunate that these laws exist and that religious fundamentalists can thus keep what I would like to see done (an excavation of the mass graves to the very bottom, which is probably full of corpses in wax fat transformation below the soil and cremation remains) from being done.[...]But I have no reason to assume that these religious objections are "hypocrisy". I'm convinced that these religious fundamentalists genuinely believe in their religious crap."[...]Presumably due to considerations of pudeur or in order to comply with those stupid religious laws[...]"

Only clarification, for you are these alleged laws stupid, correct?

Feel free to look at sources here, that exhuming of Jews is not forbidden.
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 8a1d291ee1


Why is it not forbidden? Because it’s sometimes done? That only means either of two things:
a) There are exceptions to the rule prohibiting exhumation that apply in certain cases (the excavation that Father Desbois was allowed to do may have been covered by one such exception);
b) Some Orthodox Jews interpret Jewish burial laws more restrictively or more leniently than others. What one rabbi may consider forbidden, another may consider permissible. Religious laws, like all laws, are subject to interpretation.

Next time Bob wants to quote me, I suggest he provide a link to the post where he’s quoting from, so that readers can check the context of the quotes. In this case he is quoting from my RODOH post 13339, where I wrote the following:

"That" was not the point of Thomas Kues' article and thus not the subject of mine. If Werd wants a comment about these Jewish burial laws, here it is: I consider it highly unfortunate that these laws exist and that religious fundamentalists can thus keep what I would like to see done (an excavation of the mass graves to the very bottom, which is probably full of corpses in wax fat transformation below the soil and cremation remains) from being done. I consider it unfortunate that archaeologists are restricted by religion to non-invasive geophysical methods. But I have no reason to assume that these religious objections are "hypocrisy". I'm convinced that these religious fundamentalists genuinely believe in their religious crap.

Not that it matters, but how does Werd know that Kola didn't take pictures? He probably did take pictures, lots of them (like he did at Sobibór, as I know from someone who was shown these pictures). He just didn't publish them (the Sobibór pictures that used to be available on the web were not put there by Kola). Why? Presumably due to considerations of pudeur or in order to comply with those stupid religious laws and avoid getting into trouble with hysterical rabbis yelling "desecration", like Mr. Avi Weiss. Much as I (and probably also Kola and Caroline Sturdy Colls) wish that these bearded blackcoats would just shut up, {!#%@} off and let archaeologists excavate as they would like to, the blackcoats seem to be influential enough to restrict archaeologists not only in the methods they use but also in the finds they publish.


What Bob also should have quoted is the part of my post 13342 where I ask one of his coreligionists to give me arguments whereby I might convince Rabbi Schudrich that a certain halakhah exception might allow excavations in mass graves at Treblinka for archaeological purposes:

Or maybe Werd can explain under which halakhah exception it is supposed to be allowed to disturb the remains lying in the soil of Treblinka in the course of an archaeological investigation. If he can make a convincing case that Caroline Sturdy Colls' work at Treblinka falls under any of these exceptions, I'll contact rabbi Michael Schudrich and try to persuade him to let Caroline excavate, or at least drill into the ground the way Prof. Kola did. For either is something I would very much like to happen.


---

Bob wrote:So I would like to know, if you think that there is nothing strange with alleged law or if you think that law is only excuse not to dig in places where revisionists claim that there is not what exterminationists claim?


No, the law is not just an "alleged" law, and it’s also not some dishonest "excuse". What happens is that this law, like so many laws on this planet, is not so clear that it cannot be interpreted differently by different people. And what also happens is that there are exceptions to this law which in turn are interpreted differently by different people. That’s why Rabbi Schudrich allowed Prof. Kola to do core drilling at Bełżec and Sobibór whereas Rabbi Weiss jumped up and down yelling that this was an outrageous violation of Jewish burial laws.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: This Mr. Desbois claims that these uncovered peoples are murdered Jews, correct? So he violated Jewsish law or this Jewish law is somewhat false since he could do this, correct?

No, it’s just that these laws allow for exceptions and/or have different interpretations. Father Desbois’ work was authorized by the Orthodox rabbis he contacted for this purpose, IIRC. Their condition was that the skeletons not be moved from the place where they lay, which means that digging had to be done with great care and only the first layer of skeletons could be uncovered.

In other words, when some murderer dig his Jewish victim, the police an authorities must contact rabbis which allow or not allow to exhume victim to investigate it, this is what are you telling me?


No, what I’m saying is that Father Desbois’ may have benefited from a lenient interpretation of halakhah or from a halakhah exception. According to Rabbi Geller, there are the following exceptions:

From the perspective of halakhah, the removal of remains from a grave is generally barred because of concern for the dignity of the dead. Under certain circumstances, remains may be transferred
A. to move the remains to a family burial plot;
B. to move the remains to Eretz Yisrael;
C. for the security of the remains against vandalism or natural catastrophe;
D. for public need; or,
E. if the remains were buried in a plot belonging to someone else.


The exception might have been granted according to Option C., as the purpose of discovering the Busk graves was to enable their protection against vandalism by robbery diggers.

Bob wrote:I also wonder how they know that undisturbed alleged grave contain victims and even victims of Jewish origin. Let me guess please, because of witnesses or "general knowledge", correct?


Well, if bystander witnesses tell you that in a certain place there are graves where their Jewish neighbors were buried after being shot, and if you then open the graves and find skeletons of people who have been shot because their skulls have bullet marks, there’s no room for doubt that the people shot are these bystander witnesses’ former Jewish neighbors. Especially if the cartridges found on site are of German origin and if there’s German documentation about murder operations against Jews in the respective area. I understand that’s how Father Desbois’ investigations work, by a convergence of evidence from various sources independent of each other.

Bob wrote:I also wonder, the victims in Katyn, some of the were Jewish, or not? If you agree, how is possible that Soviets had no problem with exhumations during their investigation when they accused Nazi from this crime, where was this alleged law?


The Soviets also had no problem with exhumations of Jews murdered by your Nazi heroes at a great many sites in the Nazi-occupied territories (you can see pictures from such exhumations in the HC blogs collected under the label photographs), which suggests not that halakhah was not in place at the time but that Orthodox Jews weren’t influential enough at the time to keep Soviet investigators from violating Jewish burial laws, assuming there was no exception that would have allowed for conducting the excavations without violating Jewish burial laws. If, for instance, the Jewish corpses exhumed by the Soviets from the mass graves made by your Nazi heroes were then buried at a Jewish cemetery, we would have this exception:

A. to move the remains to a family burial plot


Or we might have the exception of "public need", as criminal investigation may be considered a "public need". An archaeological investigation, on the other hand, may not be considered to satisfy the requirements of "public need". Or it may be considered to satisfy these requirements by one rabbi whereas another considers that this is not the case.

Bob wrote:So here we have exceptions which prove that alleged law is clear double standard, ok.


No, we have exceptions which prove that the law allows for exceptions (like many laws do) and/or that the law is not so clear as to allow for only one interpretation (like many laws are). There’s a saying that three lawyers may have four interpretations of a law, you know.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I only asked for evidence to back up text which is written on the paper (i.e. website) because everybody can write anything, correct?

If you’re interested in what evidence the report is based on (which I doubt you are), I suggest you contact the people who keep that evidence. I’m not one of those people.

I see, you already admitted that you don´t know anything about this evidence, you don´t know if exist, and you only quoted second-hand text without knowledge of evidence to back it up.


There goes the bore again with his "admitted" and "second-hand text" baloney, commented above.

Bob wrote:Pardon, but you should be interested when you quote something or you often quote something when you don´t know if quoted text is true? I see you do.


Yeah, I have no problem with quoting from a source that I see not reason to mistrust because it is an acknowledged professional source and its contents are matched by evidence independent of that source. Why should I have? Because Boring Bob tries to tell me that I should check behind a source I quote, and that not because he can give me a good reason to mistrust this source but just because the information provided by the source doesn’t fit his ideological articles of faith? Give me a reason instead.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, I don’t respect your approach, because it is everything other than reasonable. If you don’t accept as accurate the contents of an archaeological report without looking behind it, you are making unsubstantiated accusations of manipulation, and that is hardly reasonable. Unless, of course, you can provide any reasons why the archaeological report in question should not be taken at face value. Which of course you cannot do, as the only reason why you don’t accept the contents of the report is that they are at odd with your articles of faith.

Pardon, where I made accusation of manipulation? Quote this accusation please, thanks so much. You can also quote insultation, see your quote below, thanks.


If Bob is not insinuating manipulation, then why does he postulate that the source should not be trusted and quoted before one has checked the evidence it is based on?

Bob wrote:Again pardon, but you should "look behind it" when you quote it, correct?


Why so?

Because there’s a reason to suspect manipulation?

Because there’s a reason to suspect that professional archaeologists didn’t do their job properly?

Or just because BB tells me so, which he of course does only because he doesn’t like the source’s contents?

Bob wrote:You admited that you didn´t looked behind.


That wasn’t an admission, but a plain statement of fact.

Bob wrote:I must repeat, I don´t accept every written text only because you say "this is archeological report you can accept it without single piece of evidence for backing up content of report"


I’m not saying that you can accept it without evidence backing it up, I’m saying that it is reasonable to assume (because that’s how things usually happen in the real world) that it is duly backed up by evidence.

Bob wrote:I am too reasonable to not adopt your approach M. Muehlenkamp.


No, my dear bore, you’re not.

You would be reasonable if you had a reason to suspect that the archaeologists {!#%@} up their job and didn’t document their finds as archaeologists are supposed to. But you have no such reason.

You would be reasonable if you had a reason to suspect that the archaeologists manipulated their report and claimed to have found things they actually didn’t find. But you have no such reason.

The only reason why you don’t accept the contents of this archaeological report, be honest, is that it goes against your ideological articles of faith.

And that, my dear bore, is everything other than reasonable.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: Hypotetically - I discovered archeological report which containt this information "mass grave of Jewish crime which contain remains of hundreds or thousands of murdered Palestinians has been discovered by our team (names) in some location (name of location) and they found this and this and etc." , no documentation included, only few photos of personal things of these victims exactly like in your report. So Mr. Muehlenkamp, can you demonstrate your approach to this written report so I can see your approach to back up your claim that I am not reasonable?

My approach is that there’s no reason to assume that what the archaeologist wrote is not backed up by copious documentation, because a) archaeological reports are usually backed up by copious documentation, whether that is published or not, b) archaeologists don’t usually make things up (contrary to your insinuations) and c) the reported finds are in no way at odds with what is known about events at Chełmno from sources independent of archaeological research.

a)documentation which is totally unknown to you and you don´t know anything about it and you even don´t know one single human who saw this documentation and if exist, you admitted all of these.

I admitted nothing, my dear boring friend. I plainly stated that I was not familiar with the documentation underlying the archaeological report. As I have no duty to check this documentation in the absence of any indication that it does not exist or is insufficient, that is not an admission but a plain statement of fact.
Bob wrote:b)aside the fact that you can´t back this claim so this is logical fallacy, your approach is "they usually don´t made things up so they can be all accepted without evidence", hm.


BS. There’s no logical fallacy in assuming that things have happened as they usually happen in the real world. What would be fallacious is to assume that they didn’t happen thusly without an indication in this direction.

Bob wrote:c)in other words, when there is a), this is not problem for you, you just assume that report is correct because of your belief in what allegedly happen, and you accept it without evidence only because it match your belief.


More BS. I accept the report as correct bar an indication to the contrary because it’s the rule in the real world that an archaeological report is duly backed up and accurate, and the exception that it is not duly backed up and inaccurate. If I had an indication suggesting the exception, I wouldn’t accept the report as correct without checking behind it. However, as even Bob may understand, Bob’s ideologically motivated discomfort with the report is no reason to assume that the exception and not the rule applies.

Bob wrote:I expected this response since for you was not possible to admit that your approach is different to avoid using double standard and following problems. This means that every revisionist´s research conducted in this way is accepted by you in the same way and I thank you for this clarification, we can move forward.


Wishful thinking obviously got the better of my boring friend. No, I don’t apply double standards. There’s a world of difference between, on the one hand, an archaeological report that a) has been prepared by acknowledged professional archaeologists with no apparent ideological axe to grind and b) is matched by all known evidence on which such archaeologists could have had no influence (check out the HC threads labeled Chełmno for some of that evidence), and, on the other hand, the claims of some "Revisionist" smart-ass with an obvious ideological motivation that are completely at odds with all known evidence about the subject matter of that smart-ass’s investigation (including but not limited to the evidence you can read about on the HC threads labeled Treblinka).

Bob wrote:Can you tell me if you have accepted Krege´s report? I guess you did since no double standard.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/19/3/Radar20.html
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Treblink ... 91000.html
http://www.vho.org/F/c/Krege.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJgheZEs ... re=related


No double standard indeed. The source was suspicious insofar as it was linked to the ideologically motivated filth merchants of the Adelaide Institute. And its conclusions were at odds with what becomes apparent from conclusive evidence independent of the source that I see no reason to call into question. So it didn’t take a double standard to assume that the source was full of {!#%@}.

Bob wrote:I didn´t accepted this revisionist research and report because I lack everything what I lack about you or your sources, these reports are the same, no evidence to back up what is written.


No, they are not the same. In a report prepared by acknowledged professional archaeologists with no apparent ideological motivation one can reasonably expect that it is duly backed up. In a report by the minion of an ideologically motivated propaganda institution that is not a reasonable expectation. In a report that matches what becomes apparent from evidence independent of the report’s authors it is reasonable to expect accuracy. In a report that is at odds with all known evidence and requires a scenario for which there is no evidence whatsoever even though such evidence should be all over the place (the "Revisionist" transit camp scenario), it is entirely reasonable to expect that there’s something fishy with the report.

Bob wrote:This revisionists research at least show some video. This is clearly proof that your accusation of me that i use "double standard" or that i am not reasonable is untrue.


Actually you’re comparing apples with oranges in comparing your approach to Krege’s crap with your approach to a report done by professional archaeologists that is in line with all other known evidence about Chełmno extermination camp. Rejecting Krege’s crap for lack of backup documentation (what backup documentation was shown was a royal shot in the "Revisionist" foot, by the way) was rejecting it for the wrong reason. Krege’s crap was so obviously a propaganda falsehood that it was reasonable to reject it without even asking for backup. If you had rejected Krege’s crap because it is linked to an outfit like the Adelaide Institute and because it belies conclusive evidence that there is no reason to call in question, that would have been a reasonable approach.

Bob wrote:Let me guess your response please, since for you is not possible to accept this research since this contradict your belief and claims, your response will be something like "my belief-friendly archeologists usually don´t make things up (but I can´t prove this statement) so I can trust them, but my belief-unfriendly archeologist engineers usually make things up (but I can´t prove this statement) so I cannot trust them". Correct Mr. Muehlenkamp?


No, the distinction is the following:

Pawlicka-Nowak’s Chełmno report: acknowledged professional archaeologist with no apparent ideological agenda, producing a report whose contents are in line with what becomes apparent from all other evidence about events at the site examined that has become known since these events, with no evidence that would suggest an alternative scenario at odds with this archaeological report (even though such alternative scenario would have left a large amount of evidence).

Krege’s Treblinka report: a nobody with an obvious ideological agenda producing a report whose contents are completely at odds with what becomes apparent from all other evidence about events at the site examined that has become known since these events, with no evidence that would suggest an alternative scenario compatible with this report (even though such alternative scenario would have left a large amount of evidence).

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Your approach, on the other hand, consists in baselessly insinuating that archaeologists lied, for no other reason than their reports’ incompatibility with your beliefs[...]unless you have seen the documentation for yourself (which is a lot of work, as I know how voluminous such documentation tends to be even in minor archaeological projects). Then your approach would merely be unreasonable.

Please, take into consideration what I directly write, no what I allegedly "insinuated", thanks.


Request rejected. Your insinuation is all too obvious.

Bob wrote: I have right to write that written text in "your" report is not backed by evidence since even you have admitted that you don´t know anything about it.


You have the right to write any {!#%@} that comes into your mind, but if what you write is as silly as claiming that an archaeological report isn’t duly backed up by archaeological evidence just because private citizen me hasn’t seen that evidence, don’t expect anybody in his right mind to consider what you write anything better than a load of BS.

Bob wrote:Second part is not true, I already said: "I would be content with just a few fragments published to public (Feb 18, 2012 1:32 am)" and no need to publish everything, for the rest of the materials, the link to source is enough. You admitted that you don´t know anything about it.


No, I just stated that I have not yet had the opportunity to see what I can reasonably assume to exist and would be very unreasonable to assume does not exist. That’s no admission of anything, however badly you would like me to "admit" anything. It’s a plain, value-neutral statement of fact.

As to what you claim you would be content with, that will lead us to a few interesting questions further down.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: I assume that your approach is to accept it in the same way as "your" report, correct?

My approach is to accept a professional archaeologist’s report about a professional archaeological investigation as correct except insofar as there are indications to the contrary. If you think you can provide such indications, fire away.

I only wonder about your "professional" claims since you already admited that you don´t know anything about it and you already admited that "your" quoted report never conducted any investigation, and your report only quote second-hand source/investigations as you did. So how did you arrive to your claims about professionality?


I happen to know that Lucja Pawlicka Nowak is a professional archaeologist, and you are producing increasingly inane nonsense. Nowhere outside your deranged brain did I write that the report is not based on an investigation – on the contrary, I consider it to be what it obviously is, the result of an extensive and detailed archaeological investigation. And please accept a well-meaning suggestion: stop making a fool of yourself by calling a report about an archaeological investigation, written by the archaeologist who conducted that investigation, a "second hand source". Such report is a first hand source, the first-hand testimony of the first-hand expert witness that would be requested to testify about her archaeological finds in court at a criminal trial.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Authority Raul Hilberg spoke too about two Hitler´s orders without evidence in his opus DoEJ, without source and then he later removed these alleged orders from his next edition, so do you understand what I mean with my approach?

No I don’t. Which orders, by the way, and where in Hilberg’s work are they mentioned?

I really wonder how is possible that you don´t know this important fact. Raul Hilberg, in his work (The Destruction of the European Jews, Quadrangle Books, Chicago 1967, p. 177.) mentioned two alleged Hitler´s orders for extermination of the Jews without source/evidence to back it up. In his second edition of his opus from 1985, these mentions of Hitler´s orders just vanished in to the air. Christopher Browning in his article "In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the "Final Solution" have been systematically excised" (The Revised Hilberg, in: Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual, 1986, p. 294.)
http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp ... G&b=395051

You still do not understand to my approach to "your" report and why I don´t accept every written text no matter from whom without evidence to back it up?


No, for the reasons I already explained and you will quote below.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:You would propably say "these orders are propably stored there or there and no reason to doubt what is written in his book" as you did in this case of this report, correct?

No, that’s a lousy analogy. If a historian doesn’t provide sources for important claims, one might suspect that these sources do not exist as it is standard procedure for historians to source their claims. But when an archaeologist describes the results of his or her own research on site, it is obvious (whether this is expressly mentioned or not) that they are based on finds made and recorded and categorized according to the profession’s standard procedures, and that the records are kept where archaeologists usually keep the records of their work.

In the other words Mr. Muhlenkamp, if historian doesn´t provide sources and evidence for his text, you can suspect him and don´t accept it. But if archeologist doesn´t provide sources and evidence for his text, you have no reason to suspect him and you can accept it, correct? Pardon Mr. Muhlenkamp, but this is clear double standard since these examples are completely the same, only the profession is different, and you just used this "double standard" since you propably know very well this issue about Hilberg and you must somehow defend "credibility" of "your" report.


No, the examples are not the same. Whereas it is obvious what an archaeologist’s report about his or her finds is based on (documentation of such finds in accordance with standard archaeological procedures, stored where archaeologists usually store their documentation), it is never obvious where a historian derived his claims from. Therefore a historian must always mention the source on which his claims are based.

Bob wrote:This prove what is written about your approach above.


No, this proves that you have a clear difficulty in telling apples from oranges at best.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What I asked you to do is to give me a reason why anyone should care about what you claim you would like to see. You haven’t provided such reason, so your private wishes are irrelevant.

But Mr. Muhlenkamp, i already answered you here - "Nobody should have to care. I am only curious if you can present your proof to ordinary dude as me, because sholars are higher in their demands than ordinary public dudes as me" (Feb 18, 2012 1:32 am)


To which I replied as follows:

Ordinary dude me only can at this moment only show you what is available in public sources, sorry. And that doesn’t include detailed archaeological documentation kept in the archives of a museum. What scholars would not accept the accuracy of an archaeological report without checking the documentation kept in a museum’s archives, by the way? Show me a few.


Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Only to be sure, you already admited that you don´t have anything and you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?

I haven’t admitted anything, I have just stated that I have not yet been to the Chełmno museum to look up the presumably vast archaeological documentation on which the report is based. Unless you can demonstrate that this was any default on my part, that’s no concession of anything. It’s a plain statement of fact.

Really? You forgot your answer on question 4), you admited it, see again "Correct." (Feb 17, 2012 9:55 pm) If you are going to visist Chelmno someday to verify your own claims is irrelevant, at this time, you have nothing.


You seem to have problems understanding the English language. Saying that I haven’t been to the Chełmno museum yet is one thing, admitting it is another. One admits to not having done something one ought to have done. As visiting the Chełmno museum is nothing I ought to have done already (notwithstanding your insistence to the contrary), I’m not admitting that I wasn’t there yet. I’m just stating the plain and value-neutral fact that I wasn’t there yet.

Bob wrote:"Presumably", in the other words, as you already admited, you don´t know.


Again, the "admitted" is stupidly out of place. It would be appropriate if I had previously claimed certain knowledge. I didn’t, so I’m not admitting anything. I’m just stating that I have no certain knowledge of something I reasonably assume to be true.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:You think these (photo, video, remains, etc. or at least photo or video of location of grave) are high demands? Interesting.

Yes, the way they are put forward they are high demands.

I wanted sources and evidence from historian Hilberg to back up his text.

I want the same from your archeological report to back up your text since no double standard,


A comparison between apples and oranges, for the reasons explained. A historian not identifying the sources of his claims is one thing, and archaeologist not stating in which box of his archive he kept the documentation of a given archaeological find is quite another.

By the way, there’s also an enlarged and amply footnoted version of Mrs. Pawlicka-Nowak’s report, with more photos including one showing excavations in Pit no. 4, a May 1942 photograph of the Rzuchów forest and 1999 photograph of the Rzuchów forest cemetery. It also includes A3 copies of the archaeological maps. When I’m through with this discussion I’ll scan this report for the benefit of our interested readers (among which I do not include Mr. Bob).

Bob wrote:you already admited you don´t have it and you don´t know if this material exist.


I would only have admitted something if I were supposed to have it or to have positive knowledge of its existence. As neither applies, your "admited" is a showpiece of your silliness. The spelling is "admitted", by the way. Where are you from?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Ordinary dude me only can at this moment only show you what is available in public sources, sorry.

In the other words, only text without value since is not backed up


No, just because I don’t have the backup at my disposal, this doesn’t mean that the report is not supported by the kind of documentation that usually backs up an archaeological report.

Bob wrote:and you allegedly didn´t have time to check


No, I actually didn’t yet have the means and time to look up the documentation. And when I have that time and means, I will look up the documentation not to check if the report is accurate (for I have no doubt that it is), but to learn some more about archaeological finds at Chełmno.

Bob wrote: if some evidence at least exist and where, you only assume it without evidence.


I’m not assuming without evidence. I very reasonably assume, without having seen the evidence backing up the archaeological report, that this evidence exists and that it supports the evidence I rely on, which includes but is not limited to a report by a first-hand expert witness. Very reasonably because in the real world archaeological reports are backed up by archaeological evidence, I have no indications that the archaeologists in question are bumblers or manipulators, and their reported finds are perfectly compatible with what is known about Chełmno from sources independent of them.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And that doesn’t include detailed archaeological documentation kept in the archives of a museum. What scholars would not accept the accuracy of an archaeological report without checking the documentation kept in a museum’s archives, by the way? Show me a few.

I already said that at least small fragment would be enough.

Your question is logical fallacy, you even don´t know if this documentation exist, so is logical fallacy to make such a question and want answer from me.


Nonsense. You claimed that scholars would want to see the documentation before accepting the report as accurate, if I understood you correctly. So I’m very logically and consequently asking you to show me a scholar who would visit the museum and check of the report is accurate before quoting the report as evidence. As to your claim that "at least small fragment would be enough", we’ll have fun with that below.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:For example old investigation of Katyn, correct? Please, let me know if I am correct.

Of course you have excessive demands. Unless you can demonstrate that the wonderful job your Nazi heroes did at Katyn is what is required according to reasonable rules and standards to prove the occurrence and the authors of mass murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that according to such reasonable rules and standards mass murder cannot be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt unless it has been investigated and documented as thoroughly as the Germans documented their Katyn investigation (though I don’t think they had videos back in 1943).

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Again, as I said above, I am speaking for myself, I am not depended on rules of someone else.

As long as you’re only speaking for yourself and cannot demonstrate that your demands are based on accepted rules and standards of evidence, don’t expect anyone to give flying {!#%@} about your demands.

First, you are right, not videos in this case, but films, my fault, is that correct now and you agree that they made films and used cameras to document it?


Yeah. And so?

Bob wrote: Pardon, but even a one single grave is usually treated in the same way except international comissions/organisations, third party observers from different nations or media, or am I mistaken?


Evidence that these correspond to standard procedure, please. As you say "usually", evidence can be a) examples numerous enough to suggest a standard procedure and not an exceptionally thorough one, or b) quotes of rules or standards of evidence mandating such procedure.

Bob wrote: Only to be sure, archeological investigation of crime scene is treated with using photo/films/video, physician examinations, documenting human remains, measuring of crime site, dimensions, location and then publish data to "public" which means that not only the ones who have conducted this investigation are able to see data, this is standard procedure for just one single grave containing humans on crime site, correct?


About the methods of documenting archaeological finds you may be right, but I don’t know where you got the «publish data to "public"» from. Don’t ask me to confirm that it is standard procedure, provide evidence that it is.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The reason is that a) crime site investigations are not usually done by "more than one team" let alone by two teams of which one works for the crime suspect’s defense attorneys. Where do you see that happen?

Again pardon, but is standard to publish all materials at least to defense to let them conduct own investigation on the same place using own methods, team, tools and verify their findings, this is pure standard, correct?


Not that I know, but I’m open to being shown that this is «pure standard». And, what is more important, to being shown that this is considered necessary to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bob wrote: So answer my question please, where is problem to allow revisionists to conduct their investigation or at least invite them to exterminationists´s investigation?


First you back up your «pure standard» claims. But I can tell you something right away: the comparison between "Revisionists" and honest defense attorneys was a favorable one. Actually "Revisionists" have amply shown that they are dishonest propagandists who shouldn’t be allowed to go near evidence incriminating their heroes unless there’s someone to watch them and make sure that they don’t destroy or otherwise mess with that evidence. I for my part wouldn’t mind you to attend an archaeological investigation. But I would be behind you every step of the way to kick your Nazi behind if I catch you trying to muddle with evidence.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Do you know at least one single investigation conducted by teams from both sides of the "barricade"?

No, I don’t, but you still have to show me where in the world crime site investigations are conducted in that manner (with a team from the prosecution and one from the defense examining the crime site at the same time), and explain why on earth only investigations conducted in that manner should be considered suitable to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

So not even single case, ok.


Now for your relevance demonstration, my friend. For unless you can show me that crime site investigations are usually conducted in the manner you postulate and only such investigations can be considered suitable to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s completely irrelevant that there is "not even a single case" complying with your wishes.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Crime scene is always crime scene and crime scene don´t stop being crime scene, correct?

Correct

I have cut the rest of you response, this is the only relevant part of your answer, thanks.


Let’s see:

Correct, but the purpose of a crime scene investigation is a) to establish that a crime has been committed and b) find traces that allow for identifying the criminal. The crime at Chełmno had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, on hand of eyewitness and documentary evidence and crime site investigations conducted or assessed by Polish and German crime investigation and judicial authorities, before the first archaeologist even set foot on the site. And as you may understand, archaeologists do not work to establish traces of a crime in order to find and prosecute a participant in that crime. They work to gather knowledge about a site of historical events, whether it’s Roman Pompeji or Chełmno extermination camp.


It seems that Bob mixes up relevance with convenience to his argument.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If you were talking to Łucja Pawlicka-Nowak or another representative of the Chełmno museum, your demand might not be considered excessive. But you are not.
I don´t have to, I am not here to present proof, i expected from you that you did this, but you admited that you didn´t and you don´t have anything except for written text.


Which is proof insofar as a) it is the first-hand testimony of an expert witness and b) there’s every reason to assume that it is duly backed up by documentation, even if I haven’t yet had access to that documentation. If you asked the people who have access to the documentation to show examples and they failed to do so, you might have reasons to suspect that their conclusions aren’t duly supported. But to derive conclusions from the fact that an outsider like me doesn’t have such documentation at his disposal is just wishful thinking. And to dismiss an archaeological report without any indication that it isn’t duly supported by documentation as archaeological reports usually are, and that despite its results being in line with all other known evidence about what happened at the place, is what I would call baselessly jumping to convenient and self-serving conclusions.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Didn’t your question refer to an investigation by two teams pursuing different interests and attended by independent observers, by the way?

Sorry, I don´t see any question in my quote here which you adress - "So answer is Yes, you can´t provide demands like - photos, video, photos of drilling, samples, exacavation, some remains, you even cant provide photo of this alleged grave without excavation, I mean only photo location and its measurements. You call it excessive. Very strange to me, but thanks for answer."


The question I answered as follows:

Yes, I guess I can’t meet the excessive demands behind which you seek to shelter your articles of faith.


was the following:

I would like to add that I expected this investigation conducted by different teams to verify findings and also accompanied by independent observers or media to document it by third party. I am used to see this in crime scenes (edit - I actually see this even during usual ordinary excavations of ancient things and sites), so no extra demands.
If I am correct, you can´t provide anything from these examples, correct?


---

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:No, the challenger didn’t specify that he demands photos and such or the results of an investigation fulfilling your requirements. He required proof conclusive enough to convince Michael Shermer, whose proof requirements I expect to be reasonable and not excessive.

I see, but I assumed that you want to present the best possible proof from you to answer challenge, but you only repeated second-hand report without much effort from your side.


The best possible proof for a charlatan’s publicity act? Not worth the effort. An archaeologist’s summary report (the testimony of a first hand expect witness) is good enough for that purpose. For an academic paper I might go to the Chełmno museum and take a close look at the documentation backing up the report, but not for Greg Gerdes. And please do yourself the favor to cut out the "second-hand report" nonsense. Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak is not reporting what someone told her. She’s reporting the results of an investigation she conducted and led herself.

Bob wrote:When challenger does not specify what exactly he wants, this doesn´t mean that you can provide him with the most (no offense) ridiculous proof you have, you for sure are going to show smoking gun.


There’s nothing ridiculous about the proof I provide. It’s as good, or almost as good as a summary crime site investigation report by a criminal justice authority. What’s ridiculous here is your stance, Mr. Bob.

Bob wrote:Your problem is that what I see is everything what you have, but everything what was needed to at least somehow support your proof was to contact source and request help or at least providing a source for materials or some basic information about materials, correct?


Not correct. An expert eyewitness’s first-hand report is sufficient proof unless its accuracy is called in question in a substantiated manner. When that happens, backup documentation must be shown to bolster the expert eyewitness’s account. So far I haven’t seen a substantiated challenge of this expert eyewitness’s first hand report from Boring Bob. All he can do is repeat his "I don’t believe it until I’ve seen the backup" over and over again.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:-Don´t understand your comment, you wanted example of what I consider as acceptable as investigation of mass grave to avoid double standard approach, correct?
-You got it, correct?
-So you don´t need to be afraid of double standard, I will not demand more that what was done during mentioned Katyn investigation, fair enough to you?

Yep, it’s fair enough if you tell me that the only crime of Stalin’s you consider proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the killing of 4,000 or so Polish officers at Katyn whereas all other crimes attributed to Stalin (Kuropaty, Bykivnia, the Gulag camps, etc.) may just be baseless accusations because they haven’t been investigated the way the Germans investigated the Katyn killing. In that case you approach will still be wholly unreasonable, but at least it will not be a double standard approach.

Fair enough If I tell you that this is not my only example of proved crime beyond reasonable doubt? Ok, no problem, what about Vinnitsa massacre again investigated by the Nazis? I accept it again and I will not demand nothing more than this.


Whether its one or two exemplary investigations that your demands are based on, they are still irrelevant unless you demonstrate that these exemplary investigations are a) standard operating procedure and not shining exceptions, and b) the only means of proving mass murder and its perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt. As far as I’m concerned, a less-than-exemplary investigation (such as the many carried out by Soviet investigation commissions), while not sufficient to prove mass murder and the perpetrators thereof on its own, may contribute to such proof when compared with evidence on which the makers of this less-than-exemplary investigation had no influence. For insofar as at least two sources of evidence independent of each other point in the same direction, it is safe and reasonable to conclude that things happens as results from the convergence of these two sources. If a Soviet investigation commission claimed they found graves containing the bodies of thousands of "peaceful Soviet citizens" at a place where Nazi massacres of Jews were committed according to German documents like the Einsatzgruppen reports and/or according to the testimonies of perpetrators and/or bystanders before a West German court, there’s no room for reasonable doubt that the Soviets did not manipulate their report in that particular case (except perhaps in that they concealed the victims’ Jewish ethnicity) and that your Nazi heroes murdered thousands of people at that site as described in the Soviet report. And that applies regardless of how much photographic material illustrates the report and despite the absence of neutral observers such as those that Goebbels invited to Katyn for his propaganda show.

Now, as you are dodging the question I asked you, I’ll repeat it adding the Vinnitsa massacre investigation assuming that this investigation was as exemplary as the Katyn investigation, with lots of gory pictures and with neutral experts invited to attend the procedures.

Can I conclude from your demanding something like the German Katyn and Vinnitra investigation that you consider unproven the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes which have been subjected to less-than-exemplary investigation or to no criminal investigations let alone forensic crime site investigation at all? Yes or no?

Can I conclude that you have the same "doubts" about Kuropaty, Bykivnia and other reported Stalinist killing sites, about Kolyma, Vorkuta, Archangelsk and other of Stalin’s Gulag camps, about Soviet crimes committed against German prisoners of war and German civilians during and after World War II, as you have about Chełmno and other Nazi extermination camps? Yes or no?

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:25 pm

Bob wrote:Here you can see lot of examples which signalize what is standard, please note, that these examples are even about just ordinary "boring" research and not about such an important investigations like crime sites.
http://research.history.org/Archaeological_Research.cfm I see really volumniously published material and I do not know how many examples you want, probaply no number is enough.


I just see one photo of an excavation when following the link, but let’s assume there’s some "volumniously published material" on that site. This takes us to a number of questions, which I hope you will not run away from.

1. Would you accept as accurate Richard Wright’s reports about his investigations of Nazi mass killings at Serniki and Ustinovka in Ukraine, considering that Wright published photographs of his finds like those shown below?

Serniki 1

Ustinovka

Serniki 2

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?

2. Would you accept as accurate Father Desbois report about his excavations at Busk, considering that Father Desbois has published a video showing these excavations, from which the stills below were taken?

Busk 1

Busk 2

Busk 3

Busk 4

Busk 5

Busk 6

Busk 7

Busk 8

Busk 9

Busk 10

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?

3. Would you accept as accurate the Soviet report about the Nazi mass killings at Drobitski Yar near Kharkov, considering that the Soviets published related footage from which the stills below (included in my blog The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1)) were taken?

Kharkov 14

Kharkov 15

Kharkov 16

Kharkov 17

Kharkov 18

Kharkov 19

Kharkov 20

Kharkov 21

Kharkov 22

Kharkov 23

Kharkov 24

Kharkov 25

Kharkov 26

Kharkov 27

Kharkov 28

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?

4. Would you accept as accurate an archaeological report about core drilling investigations at Sobibór extermination camp if it were published with

a) Photos of core sample like those shown below

Sobibór Core Drill F5

Sobibór Core Drill F6

Sobibór Core Drill F7

b) Microchemical analyses of some of these corpses confirming that they contain human cremation remains or remains of corpses in wax-fat transformation

c) An archaeological map of the mass graves like shown below

Sobibór Kola 09

c) A matching of the mass graves on the map with shapes visible on a satellite photo, like shown below

Sobibór Kola 09 commented

Sobibór Satelite photo enlarged edited3

d) Ground photos of the area and of human remains found in the area, such as included in my blog Mass Graves at Sobibor – 10th Update and the RODOH thread My Trip to Sobibór, e.g. the following:

Bone fragment on soil by hole 1

Three bone fragments 2

Two bone fragments west of monument

20081014 Afternoon Captures 0037

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0030

Long bone fragment from side stripe 3

White bone fragment 2

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0047

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0049

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0052

Soil texture

Soil under green grass east of path 1

Soil under green grass east of path 3

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "yes", I’ll do my best to get you similar material from Chełmno, if possible such that pertains to the documentation on which our archaeological report is based.

If the answer should be "no", why not?
Last edited by Roberto Muehlenkamp on Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:30 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Now we have three posts in a row by Dodging David. He must be getting nervous.

The more one learns about your "proof" the more questions arise.
My point is you have engaged in an extended "garbage in = garbage out"
operation. You have not proved anything.




Nervous is perhaps not the adequate term. Hysterical seems more like it.


What would that expectation be based on, and why should anyone give a damn about what "Revisionist" loonies would expect?


Perhaps my hysterical friend can explain why his heroes would have needed graves with lengths of 62, 254, 174 and 192 meters (not to mention the 11 ash disposal pits that make up grave # 5) to dispose of just a few thousand bodies.
Because the graves were not that long.
We have an example at Treblinka I.
What logically happened at any camp was that people were buried in a
string of small graves as they died. Usually about a week's number
of fatalities (depending on the weather) At Treblinka I the Soviet find
lots of little graves. That is probably the same situation at Chelmno.

The Poles also included trash burning areas in the "graves."




And why they cremated the bodies, as becomes apparent from the presence of soil containing "some percent" of human cremation remains outside the pits that make up grave # 5 and "a significant mixture" of such remains in those pits.
"A significant mixture?" Aren't any detectable human
remains of an alleged murder victim "significant?


David wrote: David wrote: To give you a specific and obvious example of what was "forgotten" in the Report...how many human teeth were recovered?

Are archaeological reports supposed to quantify human remains found, all of a sudden?


So what’s clown trying to tell us here? That the report was not prepared by qualified archaeologists just because of the Konin Regional Museum’s tourist attraction background (which it presumably has in common with every regional museum) and because the Konin Regional Museum mentions popular lore about a ghost in Gosławice castle (none of which has anything to do with the background and purpose of the Museum of the former Extermination Camp in Chełmno-on-Ner, of course)?

If so, poor David’s convoluted mind has again produced a pearl of imbecility.

David wrote:Roberto, since you are so enthusiastic about the Museum's reports do you
believe that there really is a ghost at the Museum? After all they have
lots of "eye witnesses!"


Unlike clowning David, who obviously believes in evidence-manipulation conspiracies with supernatural powers, I don’t believe in supernatural phenomena, though I’m aware that sometimes superstitious people think they perceived such phenomena. It’ not likely that the accounts of such people would be taken seriously by historians let alone stand up to judicial examination, of course. They are just part of the popular folklore that goes well with a museum of local habits and traditions.

You miss the point...your source also mentions "solid eye witnesses" who saw the ghost.
I just wondered what parts of the "Museum's" tales you believed and
what parts you dismissed.


David
Persistent Poster


I like that title, by the way. It suggests a silly pain-in-the-ass who has so little else to do with his time than persistently post puerile rubbish.

David wrote:Hello Roberto-
I had asked about the number of teeth found in your grave 1/34.
Seems that none of the graves you mentioned in your first post
ie. Archeological work carried out in 2003-2004 found any teeth.
http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm

The vague references to teeth being found related to Pits 1 -4
In pits 5-9 no teeth were found
Just as in the 5 graves not one tooth was mentioned.


Yeah, and that still doesn’t mean that the presence of teeth in any of the graves needs to be excluded, for the reasons previously explained:

I am not saying you have not come up with an
"explanation." I am saying you have not come up with a PROOF.



No, the archaeological report doesn’t mention teeth in the graves. But considering what happens to teeth when a corpse is burned and what survives burning is crushed (most but not all are reduced to ashes or tooth meal), that the expression "ash" does not exclude ashed teeth or tooth meal, and that the archaeologists didn’t exactly dig up each grave to the bottom, its entirely reasonable to assume that the human remains in each grave also include teeth or tooth meal. Anyway, it’s completely immaterial to my calculations what parts of the human body exactly the human remains found in the graves belong to, as David might have noticed if he had read my OP with more attention.


---
David wrote:So we can understand your claim...were teeth found in the grave 1/34?
If so, how many?
Please try not to conflate with other graves. Thank you


No, no teeth were reported found in grave "1/34".
There is it. Thank you.
Snip remaining "excuses, diversions, and insults"
[snip]

My suggestion is that an honest, public, scientific investigation of the
Chelmno site be held to quantify the amount of human remains.
It would be a useful and Skeptical action for Prof. Shermer to call for
such an investigation.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:32 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I just see one photo of an excavation when following the link, but let’s assume there’s some "volumniously published material" on that site. This takes us to a number of questions, which I hope you will not run away from.


Hm, but you must click on "reports" link to download all pdf reports with documentation Mr. Muehlenkamp

http://research.history.org/Archaeologi ... eports.cfm

No running from questions from me, I already said what is my standard, I gave you examples you demanded to avoid treating your investigation with double standard, I also stated that regarding the photos I would be content with the photos mentioned in my last comment, there were three simple photos, correct?

Now I look forward to your answer on my previous comment.

Thanks.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:00 pm

Bob wrote:So again, fair enough and can you provide me with at least similar investigation and materials to prove me that some material exist and I have no reason to suspect content of this report?


You have no reason to suspect the contents of this report with or without such materials, but once you have clearly identified what would satisfy you in response to my above questions, I’ll do my best to get you as much material from Chełmno as I can find.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Are you able to present at least similar investigation as Katyn almost 70 years ago?

I don’t think so.

This is the only relevant part of your answer, so you can´t, ok.


The only relevant part? Here’s the rest:

But neither do I consider it necessary, because I can demonstrate that evidence from crime site investigations less wonderful than the German Katyn investigation converges with evidence on which those who conducted such less than wonderful investigations could have had no influence (like documents found or assessed by western researchers or criminal investigators, eyewitness testimonies before West German criminal investigators or courts of law). Where sources independent of each other converge towards the conclusion of large-scale mass murder by the Nazis, moreover with no evidence whatsoever pointing to an alternative scenario, large-scale mass murder by the Nazis can be considered proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even if there was no crime site investigation as good as the German Katyn investigation.


Bob is again mixing up relevance with convenience to his argument. Playing ostrich games, Mr. Bob?

Bob wrote:So last try, are you able to at least show me just fragment of what did happen during Katyn investigation, I mean just photos, at least basic photos of findings and location with marked grave/proof?


Even though you haven’t yet explained the relevance of what you demand for proving mass murder at Chełmno, I’ll go about to do just that as soon as you have answered my above questions.

Bob wrote:You already admited that you can´t, but I want to be sure, can you?


I didn’t admit anything, actually. I didn’t even say that I can’t. I said that I haven’t had the time and means to do it yet. Big difference.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Why should that be correct? Because Bob says so?

Answer me please. Has written text value if the text is not backed by evidence which is mentioned in text?

No, if there’s no evidence supporting what is written, than what is written has no value.

Again, this is the only relevant part, thanks for answer. The rest of your quote is adressed above in previous parts.


Where exactly is this addressed?

But there’s no reason to assume that what is written in the archaeological report in question is not backed up by archaeological evidence. Just because the text is not copiously illustrated with photographs and what have you, this doesn’t mean that such backup documentation does not exist. On the contrary, it would be contrary to archaeological procedures, rules and standards if such backup documentation would not exist. And as the rule in the real world is that professional archaeologists do things according to the procedures, rules and standards of their profession and don’t just make up things, there’s no reason to assume that there’s a lack of evidence backing up the report in question, regardless of whether or not that evidence or any part thereof (including all of it would make the report far too voluminous to be read by anyone) is included in the report or anywhere else.


It seems that Bob is again mixing up relevance with convenience to his argument. And that Dodging David has found a soul-mate in Dodging Bob.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Proper court would not accept this report if the answers of author of such a report during cross examination would be the same or similar to yours presented here Mr. Muehlenkamp.

The answers to cross examination questions wouldn’t be the same as mine because the person cross-examined would be the archaeologist who conducted the investigation and not just little me who read the archaeological report.

In the other words, you again only assume this without single piece of evidence.


A first-hand eyewitness testimony from an expert witness (the archaeologist who wrote the report) is not only a single piece of evidence but very good evidence, which I think it is reasonable to rely on even without having looked at the corroborating archaeological evidence (the corroborating documentary and eyewitness evidence of mass murder at Chełmno I’m well aware of, as I’m aware of the corroborating postwar crime site investigation report).

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And how does Bob know what "proper court" would or not accept as evidence? From any procedural rules or rules of evidence he read and can quote, or just from what little birdie told him?

Pardon Mr. Muhlenkamp, I wrote it directly about you and not about your imaginary assumed witness above,


Who do you call an "imaginary assumed witness"? Mrs. Pawlicka-Nowak, who led the archaeological investigations and wrote the report? I’d call her a very real expert witness. Or the direct eyewitnesses to the crime mentioned in the HC blogs collected under the Chełmno label?

Bob wrote:and if you are not able to at least locate your alleged proof or mark it on the photo, I am 100% sure that no proper court would accept such a ridiculous "expert-witness" together with his report who even don´t know where is his proof.


The expert witness’s not being able to identify the grave on an air photo of the camp displayed in the courtroom might be an indication against the expert witness’s competence and thus her credibility – or not. My inability to identify the grave on an air photo, on the other hand, means nothing at all. I’m not the expert witness.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?

Correct. And so? Am I supposed to assume that the Chełmno archaeologists didn’t do a proper job and duly document their finds just because I haven’t seen their documentation? If so, on what basis am I supposed to assume that?

Thanks for answer, that is all what I wanted to know.

You’re welcome. Now answer my questions, will you?

I am afraid that I answered your points above, you know it now, see Hilberg part and Krege part.


The ones where you showed that you dismissed Krege’s crap for the wrong reasons and are prone to compare apples with oranges. OK.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Little deatil, are you at least able to name just one single human being which wasn´t part of team/s which allegedly conducted investigation of this grave and who actually saw alleged "volumnious materials" stored in Chelmno which is consisted of photos/video/etc. of human remains, core drillings, excavation and etc., do you know at least one human who wasnt member of team and who saw these crucial findings?

No, and so what? In case you haven’t understood, it’s not for me to prove that the archaeologists did a proper job and duly documented their finds, because that’s what normally happens and what archaeologists usually do. It is for you to prove that in this case archaeologists exceptionally {!#%@} up, failed to properly document their finds or even manipulated their report.

No, thanks for answer. My last try in this issue, do you know at least some human being who saw these materials, I mean, did at least your sources mentions such a material or source and that exists somewhere and they mention it?


We’ll get to that when I have scanned the expanded and footnoted version of the report. Then we can see how the archaeologist identifies the whereabouts of the documentation underlying her report.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:4)Pardon, but these materials weren´t published since even you don´t know anything about them, correct?

Don’t obfuscate. Not published doesn’t mean hidden, unless you can show that such materials are usually published after archaeological investigations.

The answer on this quote should be only "Correct", no more, because they were not published as you admited, that Is all I wanted to know in this quote.

First of all, Mr. "correct", I provide what answer I feel like providing, and not what answer you think I should provide.

I see, but this cannot change the fact that the only possible correct answer in this case is only "correct" since you already admitted that material is not published, so "not correct" choice is not possible from you. So Mr. Correct ask you - correct?


What, that the documentation underlying the archaeological report has not been published (except for the maps and photographic exhibits that accompany the report)? Correct. But not published doesn’t mean hidden.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Bob - 4)"in all propability"? In the other words, you don´t know and you never saw this alleged materials and you don´t know if exist, because otherwise you would not wrote "in all propability" correct?

Roberto - Correct. And so?

So where is your logic Mr. Muehlenkamp? You speak about non-publishing of something which you even don´t know if exist, correct?

Exactly, I don’t know if it exists insofar as I haven’t yet seen it. But I very reasonably assume that it does.

In the other words, you again acknowledge that in fact you don´t know, you only assume without evidence.


Yes, I accept without evidence that the documentation supporting the report exists, because that’s how things normally are in real-world archaeological investigation. There’s nothing wrong with accepting as true what corresponds to the normal course of business, is there?

Bob wrote:Rest of your quote is adressed in previous parts to see my reason why I don´t accept written text without evidence and I even provided nice examples including not-accepted revisionist´s report, which is according to your standard considered as accepted for you.


While it corresponds to the normal course of business that a professional archaeologist has sufficient archaeological documentation to back up his or her report, the same cannot be said about an ideologically motivated charlatan with an ideological axe to grind, like Mr. Krege. So in his case it would be reasonable to doubt if he really has what he doesn’t show. I think he has it, though. And I think the reason why he doesn’t show it is that he has realized how damaging to "Revisionism" his GPR scans are, given that they show he found the very major soil disturbances at Treblinka that he had expected not to find.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I would be content with just a few fragments published to public, I never claimed that i wanted to see whole materials, so what are the problem with publishng at least small fragment of this alleged stored volumnious material?

Wrong question. The right questions are:

1. Why the "alleged" crap? Is there any reason to assume that the archaeologists didn’t properly record and document their finds?

2. Why should anyone bother to publish what little Bob wants to see?

3. If little Bob really wants to see some of the archeological documentation, what is he waiting for to either visit the Chełmno museum or contact them and ask them to send him some photos and such?

First, adress my question and do not invent your own questions to say that your questions are better/right, so adress my quote again.


OK, my answer to the question is that there is no problem with publishing at least small fragments of the stored voluminous material and that such fragments have been published – some in the internet article, more in the printed version. Not the kind of material that bone-fragment hungry Bob claims he wants to see, but then there are reasons for that which I have explained.

Bob wrote:1. I already aressed it above, and also in following parts.


I don’t remember Bob having given me any reason to assume that the archaeologists didn’t properly record and document their finds. Did I miss something?

Bob wrote:2. I already said, nobody, I don´t force anybody to bother.


Great, then bugger off.

Bob wrote:3. Bob only wonder how is possible that this hadn´t been done by Mr. Muehlenkamp himself who came to this forum with his proof to answer challenge of his challenger.


That’s because Bob has unrealistic ideas of what effort Mr. Muehlenkamp considers worth while to respond to a charlatan chimp’s publicity act.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I see lot of photos of "boring" things in "your" report here http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm#

Actually those photos of things that belonged to the people murdered at Chełmno are quite interesting to me, as they are to others readers interested in archeology and the history of the camp. If Bob finds them "boring", that tells us something about the contents of Bob’s mind but little else.

Pardon, but this is fallacy, you actually don´t know if these things belonged to some murdered victims, you only assume it without seeing even single piece of evidence in your report, you just read it in your report, correct?


No, my friend. Unlike you, I’m able to look at more than one piece of evidence at a time and to put two and two together, and I don’t expect a single source to tell me all the story. You see, these objects (some of which are clearly of Jewish origin) were found at the site of Chełmno extermination camp. Chełmno extermination camp, as we know from documentary and eyewitness evidence independent of archaeological investigations, was a place where they brought about 157,000 people, thereof 152,000 Jews, where these people were murdered and their bodies buried and eventually burned in a manner confirmed by a number of eyewitnesses independently of each other (including but not limited to former Chełmno SS-men testifying before West German courts), and which only a handful of people (three, if I remember correctly) are known to have left alive. So regardless of how much corroborating physical evidence the expert archaeological witness shows in her report, it is wholly reasonable to assume that these objects pertain to some of the people murdered at Chełmno. In fact, any other assumption is completely baseless and unreasonable under the circumstances.

Bob wrote:These things are boring in comparison with materials which are missing in the report and are the most important, or Mr. Muhlenkamp don´t agree about importance?


No, I don’t. Objects pertaining to the victims are no less but also no more important archaeological evidence than the victims’ ashes and bone fragments. And the reasons why these are not shown in their report I have explained.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:So where is problem to publish stuff which is the most important instead of these?

What is most important for Bob is not necessarily what’s most important to archeologists or the average reader for whom the report is meant. The average reader may be more interested in photos of objects belonging to the victims than in photos of mass graves or human remains.

In the other words, average reader of article about crime sites is more insterested in personal belonging of alleged victims than about the victims themselves which are invisible to him and don´t even know if actually exist since no evidence in the report is shown and backed. This is your answer to me, correct?


No, my answer is that the average reader is not so idiotic as to assume that the victims do not exist just because none of their remains are shown in the report. Such idiocy is restricted to the Bob type of deranged brains.

Bob wrote:Yes, I am not average reader, when somebody point out some thing with saying "this is property of murdered victim" without single piece of evidence, doesn´t mean that I will believe it and i only wonder if some sane person could believe it, but "average" reader does as you claim.


Meaning that the average reader is more reasonable than Bob, who keeps babbling about there being no single piece of evidence after reading at least one such piece of evidence, the first-hand testimony of an archaeological first-hand witness. And who apparently expects all evidence to be handed to him on a silver plate by a single source, as he is unable to understand that proof consists of several elements of evidence independent of each other converging towards a certain conclusion.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And it stands to reason that the people who presumably urged the archaeologists to apply "methods which did not disturb the layers and places where human remains were expected to be found" wouldn’t have liked to see the report illustrated with photos of human bone fragments and such.

Ouch, Mr. Muehlenkamp, what a statement! In the other words you want to tell me that thanks to some "presumably existing "peoples who urged archeologist´s investigation" no materials could even exist since no actual excavation has been conducted and no remains could be documented because of reason to "not disturb human remains" so nobody can expect illustrations and photos of human remains, correct?


No, my dear friend. Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak and her colleagues did probing excavations as such are mentioned in the report, and they certainly came upon human remains as such are also mentioned in the report. What happened was that, like Father Desbois at Busk, they has to conduct their excavations carefully so as to avoid disturbing such remains by moving them from where they were to another place. Like Father Desbois left the skeletons where he found them, Pawlicka Nowak et al left the crushed bones and ashes and other human remains they found in the place where they were. Deep excavation necessarily leading to dislocation of human remains, they refrained from digging so deep that the remains they found could no longer be put back in the place where they had found them. Sort of like Alan Heath when he put those bone fragments back to where he had found them after exhibiting them to his audience.

And of course I’m not saying that no photos of the human remains found were taken. They probably were, like Prof. Kola at Sobibór took the core sample photos shown above. What I’m saying is that Orthodox Jewish authorities whose concerns about respect for the dead the archaeologists were supposed to respect would have frowned on photos of human remains being published in the report.

Bob wrote:This means that mentions of found human remains, skeleton, and etc. "uncovered during excavations". mentioned in your report here http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm# are pure inventions, correct?


Even if the human remains had not been photographed (which I consider unlikely, as mentioned before) this would not mean that they don’t exist. Except, of course in the minds of slobbering loonies who claim that things only exist if they have been photographed. No Kolyma mass graves, then. No Vorkuta mass graves. Horror tales about procedures inside the Soviet Gulag are pure inventions, because we have no photographs of them, just the claims of former inmates (who were never cross-examined in court) and some drawings.

Bob wrote:Explain to me these contradictions, both statements couldn´t be correct:

a)No disturbing, no excavations and etc., so logically no materials which documented it could exist and no wonder that are missing in report = Report´s findings are invented together with personal property which had been allegedly excavated too.

b)Human remains collected, excavated, bones found, sites exhumed, personal property of alleged victims found during excavations, but no documentation exist since nobody saw it and for some reason, the report is only full of photos of alleged personal property and unimportant things = Mr.Muehlenkamp´s claim about not disturbing is untrue and this material must exist but for some reason, cannot be seen in report and even Mr. Muehlenkamp don´t know where is, he only assume.

Solve this problem for me please.


The answer is neither a) nor b), of course. It is: human remains uncovered during probing excavations and left lying where they had been found or put back where they had been found, of which photographs were taken for documentation purposes but without the photographs being published in the report as publishing these photos would have hurt the fine sensibilities of Orthodox Jews (The Sobibór core sample photos are not included in Prof. Kola’s report about Sobibór, by the way. And I’m sure that any Orthodox Jew who has seen my collection of Sobibór bone fragment photos hates my guts for it, and that if I were an archaeologist working at Sobibór with the permission of Rabbi Schudrich I would never be allowed to show these photos in my archaeological report.)

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Nobody bothered to show crucial evidence of human remains, drillings, samples, excavation, grave, location and etc. and instead of this they decided to fill report with useless photos of things which could be found propably even in ordinary yards?

The location of the graves is clearly shown on maps I pointed, and also marked on the ground, as you can see in the films made by Alan Heath [...] Including them in the report would be bad form for the reasons explained. Photos of the victims’ belongings, on the other hand, are not only respectful mementos but also impressive for who pauses to think about the fact that ordinary people with ordinary lives were brought to this place to be murdered. It is for such people, and not for brainless denier scum, that the archaeological report is made.

Mr. Muhlenkamp, you did not answer quote, answer my question about reason to not publish at least fragment of this material in "your" report again please. You did not explain the reason why not to publish them.


The question has been answered very clearly: including photos of human remains in the report would hurt the religious sensibilities of certain people (namely Orthodox Jews) and is therefore a no-no. It’s not my fault if Boring Bob cannot read or is unable to understand what I write.

Bob wrote:In the other words, this report is some kind of "emotional thinking text" about something what according to you "don´t know if exist" I find this really ridiculous and you have no problem to say about all of this, that this make sense, ok.


What I find increasingly ridiculous are your antics, my friend. The report is the first-hand testimony of an expert witness mentioning all that a) exists and b) is documented, and showing such parts of what a) exists and b) is documented that are held to be of illustrative value without hurting the religious feelings of certain readers. Therefore objects are shown but human remains are not. As simple as that.

Bob wrote:I also wasn´t interested in "graves of Alan Heath", I am interested in your grave 1/34 here in your 1/34 thread.


If you were interested in that grave, you would at least have tried to find ground images thereof in one of Alan Heath’s videos, which show the current outlines of several Chełmno grave. But as you are interested only in some nagging and bitching, I’m not surprised that you didn’t even try.

Bob wrote:Why externinationist always speaks in plular and appel to some imaginary vast evidence instead of adressing simple point by direct answer?


The vast evidence I can show you is very real, my friend. I can also show you and have offered to show you grave # 1/34 on an archaeological map. What I see no point in doing is trying to find it on a google map for you. I’m not here to attend your whims and wishes, especially if you cannot explain to me in what respect they should be relevant.

Bob wrote:I recall experiences of Robert Faurisson when he asked for just one single photograph of Nazi gas chamber.

I now come to the “Holocaust.” How did I proceed? I had heard people say that there were gas chambers. Others said, even back then, that there had been no gas chambers. What method of revising history was in accord with my nature, myself? It was to say: “Very well, I see that people are arguing over whether the gas chambers existed, but, a simple question, please: ‘What is a Nazi gas chamber? I need to see one.’”

So I went to Paris, to the Centre de Documentation Juive Contemporaine. I remember the archivist asking me what I wanted. I told him, “A photo of a Nazi gas chamber.” The man said “We have many books.” I said, “A photo.” He continued, “We have many testimonies.” I said, “A photo.” “We have many documents.” I said, “A photo.” Then he summoned Mrs. Imbert (I remember her name): “Come in. This gentleman wants a photo of a Nazi gas chamber.” I swear to you she said, “We have many testimonies.” The archivist, exasperated, told her, “But this gentleman wants a photo.” I was told to sit down. I sat there for sixty minutes. That poor woman rifled the shelves, opening book after book without success. At last she brought me a photo known to everybody, of the helmeted American soldier standing in front of the disinfestation gas chambers in Dachau, and similar pictures. I thought to myself, “There’s a problem here.”

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v21/v21n2p-7_faurisson.html


Look what we got here, an epigone of stinking old Fauri. What a shame I wasn’t in that archive when Fauri went asking for a gas chamber photograph. For I would have simply told the old idiot that there is no photograph or an operating gas chamber to my knowledge, then asked him to explain why the {!#%@} such photograph should be necessary to prove homicidal gassing at Auschwitz when that is amply proven by a multitude of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence (or which I would have offered to show him as many samples as I had in the archive), then enjoyed his gagging as he tried to explain his irrelevant insistence on a photo as if a photo were the only evidence that counts. Thereupon I would have taken off Fauri’s glasses, spit in his right eye, turned him around and projected him out of the archive with a hearty kick in his Nazi ass. What a shame I wasn’t there, instead of those tame archivists who tried to comply with the cretin’s irrelevant demand instead of just telling him that and why he could go to hell.

Bob wrote:So Mr. Muehlenkamp, "a grave/proof 1/34" would be enough, otherwise “There’s a problem here.”


You have been shown proof, smart-ass. You have been shown the report of an archeologist (i.e. the testimony of a first-hand expert witness) describing that grave in detail. You have been shown an archaeological map on which you can easily identify this grave and all other Chełmno mass graves (if you’re too dumb for that, I’ll be glad to help you). You have been pointed to documentary and eyewitness evidence about the mass killings at Chełmno that corroborates and is corroborated by the archeologists’ reported finds. If you now want to tell me that the only evidence of the existence of grave "1/34" that you accept is a photograph of that grave’s current outlines, my answer is that you should either show me some rules or standards of evidence whereby only such photo could be considered relevant proof or do yourself the favor of not making yourself look like a bloody idiot any more than you have already.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Would you be content with saying that I have volumnious undoubtful material which prove that holocaust did not happen, but I didn´t publish it for some reason? Would you accept it?

No, but that’s because you are a lunatic piece of denier scum and what you claim to have is completely at odds with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years, which would strongly indicate that you have nothing to show for your claims. On the other hand, I have no problem with accepting the contents of a report prepared by professional archaeologists whose reported finds are perfectly compatible with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years about what happened at Chełmno. That was another of your lousy attempts at analogy, my friend.

The only pupose of this question was to expose that you actually don´t care about evidence or message, you are able to dismiss my unpublished evidence for simple reason that according to you I am some "lunatic piece of denier scum" and that´s all, you don´t bother to at least ask "show me, tell me, I want to see it to verify your claims, prove what you claim", on the contrary, you have no problem to accept everything what match your unfounded assumptions and belief like this unfounded second-hand report without single piece of evidence in perfect accordance with your double standard.
Thanks for your honest response.


You forgot a very important part of my statement in your hysterical slobbering about "this unfounded second-hand report" (which is actually a first-hand testimony from an expert witness whose reliability I see no reason to call in question, which is not what I could say of an obvious ideologically motivated propagandist like you) and my supposed "double standard". The important part is that the archeologist’s reported finds are perfectly compatible with all evidence that has become known over the past 70 years about what happened at Chełmno, with all eyewitness testimonies, contemporary German documents, deportation data and crime site investigation reports about the place that I have seen, which all point to large-scale mass murder while there is not a shred of evidence (even though there should be plenty such evidence) that would point to a scenario other than large-scale mass murder. What ideologically motivated propagandist Bob would be offering me, on the other hand, would fly in the face of all the voluminous evidence to the contrary of his claims that I have seen and read about since I started becoming interest in the subject. And it would require an alternative scenario for which I have seen no evidence whatsoever, even though evidence to a transit camp scenario should be all over the place if the Nazi extermination camps had been mere transit camps. That’s why I would either tell my friend Bob to bugger off and stick his alleged "undoubtful material" in his fat Nazi ass, or – if I were in a more humorous and patient mood – to show me what the {!#%@} he’s gut, just so that I may laugh a bit.

By the way, Bobby, if you think you can show me "undoubtful material" whereby Chełmno, Bełżec, Sobibór and Treblinka were not extermination camps but mere transit camps, you are cordially invited to respond to my Challenge to Supporters of the Revisionist Transit Camp Theory. All you have to do to earn a fair amount of money is to give me four names of persons who entered either of these places, were deloused and showed there and then moved onward to a final destination it the Reichskommissariat Ostland, the Reichskommissariate Ukraine or the Soviet territories under German military occupation. With proof, of course, but you can rest assured that, unlike you, I am very reasonable in my proof requirements.
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:And third, the arguments that "these evil deniers" produce are so feeble that the few who bother with them don’t need to show complete sets of archaeological documentation to refute such arguments.

(...)Or are you trying to tell me that bunch of fringe lunatics are a reason?

Sorry, I will not discuss this general issue with you here, since I am interested only in subject of this thread. Feel free to join other relevant threads and we can discuss it there. You can for exmaple join simple thread here viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17691 to back your claims.

I doubt you are interested in anything other than making a fuss in support of your articles of faith, but what "general issue" are you talking about? Just curious …

Your qouote above speaks about some arguments of evil deniers and etc. This looks like some general theme, but in this thread we speak only about your alleged proof 1/34.


Not alleged proof, my friend. Actual proof, even if I cannot yet show you a photograph of that grave or of human remains found in that grave. As you still haven’t understood, it is not for Mr. Bob or Mr. Fauri (maybe they are even the same person – Bobby sounds like a frog) to define what is proof and what is not.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:18 pm

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Archeology investigation of crime scene related to Nazi holocaust is not treated differently from investigation of other crime scenes and you see no difference, correct?

Exactly. What is required to prove a Holocaust mass killing beyond a reasonable doubt is what is required to prove any other mass killing beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing more and nothing less.

Can you demonstrate that other mass killing sites are treated in the same way only in the form of written text without single piece of evidence, without mentions if the documented evidence has been taken and if exist and without at least source to where the evidence is stored? Because this is how "your" report actually looks like.


Well, I can show you West German trials in which Polish crime site investigation reports "without mentions if the documented evidence has been taken and if exist and without at least source to where the evidence is stored" have been accepted as evidence (along with eyewitness testimonies and documents. Excerpts from such reports are quoted here.

Bob wrote:If you can´t, can you at least demonstrate that also ordinary archeological investigation are conducted in such a way?


Trying to reverse the burden of proof now, are we? You came here hollering that the archaeological report in question is just a piece of paper, so you show me what an archaeological report needs to have for you to not call it just a piece of paper, and some accepted rules and standards about what an archaeological report is supposed to contain.

Bob wrote:I didn´t ask so far what is actually your standard in this case of mass graves crime sites and do you think that your standard would be enough to be accepted by courts, tell me your standard as I did for you, do you?


My standard to accept the factuality of a mass crime is that applied by historians and criminal justice authorities: several elements of evidence independent of each other must converge towards a certain conclusion. As I explained above, if a Soviet investigation commission claims they found graves containing the bodies of thousands of "peaceful Soviet citizens" at a place where Nazi massacres of Jews were committed according to German documents like the Einsatzgruppen reports and/or according to the testimonies of perpetrators and/or bystanders before a West German court, there’s no room for reasonable doubt that the Soviets did not manipulate their report in that particular case (except perhaps in that they concealed the victims’ Jewish ethnicity) and that your Nazi heroes murdered thousands of people at that site as described in the Soviet report. If, on the other hand, the Soviet report is not matched by any evidence on which the Soviets could have had no influence, I’ll consider it possibly but not necessarily accurate at best. And that applies regardless of how much photographic material illustrates the report and whether or not neutral observers, such as those that Goebbels invited to Katyn for his propaganda show, have attended the investigation.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Since i never claimed that whole documentation/backing-up evidence used for these reports must be published, is irrelevant to adress your demand, correct?

If you don’t want the whole documentation, then show me precedents of archaeological reports pertaining to mass crimes that are published with samples of documentation that satisfy you as to the accuracy of these reports. Come on, give us an example of a mass crime archeological report that you consider to be comme il faut.

Mr. Muehlenkamp, did you forget Katyn? This link below is what I call big fragment of published pictoral report documentation which is really enough to me regarding the amount of photo published to public.
http://www.katyn.org.au/naziphotos.html

I counted 65 photos in this single link, and since I am no monster and don´t want to be cruel, in the case of pictoral evidence of"your" report I would be content, let say...with 3 basic photos of your proof/grave 1/34 - one photo of grave location with marked rough shape and dimensions, photo what is in the alleged grave and photo of one of the identified investigators in the location smiling at me, fair enough to you and are you able? .....Ok. ok. no need to have him/her smiling at me.


I thought we were talking about archaeological reports here, not about crime site investigation reports. But OK, when I get the photos you want to see I’ll show them to you. In the meantime, I hope you can explain the relevance of your demands for proving the existence of this mass grave beyond a reasonable doubt, and I hope you can show me the rules or standards of evidence whereby a mass grave and the occurrence of mass murder can only be proven by photographic evidence.

Ah, and you should be careful with making such a fuss about photographs. I can show you photographs of crimes committed by your Nazi heroes or their allies until you throw up your guts. None these are from Chełmno let alone from a particular Chełmno graves, but if that’s supposed to mean that Chełmno was not an extermination camp or that the Chełmno mass graves do not exist, then you can also say goodbye just about every camp in Stalin’s Gulag, and to just about every Stalinist massacre except for Katyn and Vinnitsa (where are your Vinnitsa photos, by the way?) The photos below, as we’re at it, are reported to have been taken at Chełmno:

Chelmno, Poland, Charred bodies

Chelmno, Poland, Apparently a mass grave, after the war.

Anything from Kolyma, Vorkuta, Archangelsk or another Soviet camp of your choice that looks like this?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:It has not been proven that they ever existed because they were never investigated the way the Germans investigated the Katyn killings. Is that what you are trying to tell us, my friend? Yes or No?

Pardon, but we discuss your proof, I am not interested in "Gulag theme" which has nothing to do with your proof and with subject of this thread.

It looks like that you want to tell me that if some investigation was not conducted like the proper ones (according to your claims about gulags) this means that your ridiculous investigation is apologized and proper, correct?


No, my dear friend, what I’m trying to tell you is that, if by your standards the investigations I show you are "ridiculous" and only a Katyn-style investigation can prove mass murder, then you’ll have to consider the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes (which never benefited from a Katyn-style investigation or any investigation at all) as unproven. So I want to know if that is what you’re trying to tell me. Again the question, and some more:

Do you maintain that all Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres have not been proven and may be mere allegations of anti-Soviet propaganda?

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", then on what basis do you deny Nazi crimes that have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, maybe not by a Katyn-style investigation but certainly by a convergence of various sources of evidence (like Soviet or Polish crime site investigations, German documents, eyewitness testimonies before West German courts, post-Soviet archaeological investigations) independent of each other?
What are your criteria for accepting the factuality of a certain mass crime and not accepting the factuality of another? I mean, other than the crime's compatibility with your ideological articles of faith?


Come on, Bobby, don’t run away. Answer my questions. Show your hand. Don’t be coward.

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:There is no "six million figure" where I come from. There are estimates by historians ranging between about five and about six million. The higher range of estimates is usually referred to in the media and in political discourse because it's more impressive, but that doesn't mean it's correct. My take is that the number of Jewish victims of the Nazi genocide is somewhere between 5 and 6 million, possibly closer to the former than to the latter.
So you deny 6 million figure, what a statement again, ok.


I don’t deny, my friend. I reasonably consider that figure a bit too high. Denial is by definition unreasonable.

Bob wrote: You speak about estimates, in the other words, these estimates are not based on evidence since it wouldn´t needed to use word "estimate", ok.


What garbage. Of course estimates are based on evidence, it’s just that evidence doesn’t always allow for exact death toll counts, especially when it comes to such orders of magnitude. Are you trying to tell me that there’s no evidence for those killed by Stalin except for the stiffs that your Nazi heroes counted at Katyn and Vinnitsa, or what is your idiotic remark supposed to mean?

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:How did you arrive to five millions? Documents from IMT Nuremberg Trial USSR-08 and USSR-29 allegedly proved that at least 5,5 (4+1,5) milions of Jews were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and Majdanek, you want to tell me that no significant number of Jews were murdered by Nazis in other places since you speak "only" about more than five and not six millions, or you doubt Nuremberg Trial findings? Take your pick and explain it to me please, I see confusion.

I see you know as much about the Nuremberg Trial findings as a pig does about Sunday. If you had ever read the IMT’s judgment, you might have realized that the Soviet prosecution’s claims of 4 million dead at AB and 1.5 million dead at Majdanek didn’t become the tribunal’s findings of fact. And even if they had become the tribunal's findings of fact, this would only mean that the IMT’s findings have since been overruled by more precise historical research. As it is, the total that the IMT accepted (4 million dead in all concentration and extermination camps, including but not limited to AB and Treblinka) is not so far away from what historical research has established since.

In the other words, you are telling me that plaques in the Auschwitz site were telling false claim about 4 millions for more than 40 years until the day when they changed them, ok.


Yep, those plaques had the wrong number. So {!#%@} what?

Bob wrote: Mr. Muehlenkamp with his demonstrated knowledge about Nuremberg for sure know Article 19 and mainly Article 21 of consitution of the international military tribunal in Nuremberg.

"The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations. "

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp


Yeah, I’ve written about that beaten old "Revisionist" mantra. In this blog, more precisely.

Bob wrote: Can Mr. Muehlenkamp tell me if these figures were common knowledge to prove that there was no need to extra mention these findings in his link since were accepted as common knowledge thanks to judical notice?


Are you slow on the uptake, Bobby? Or is your English just so bad? The IMT never concluded on 4 million dead at AB or 1.5 million dead at Majdanek. It concluded on a total of 4 million dead at all Nazi concentration and extermination camps, of which there were hundreds.

Bob wrote: Mr. Muehlenkamp admited incorrect findings of IMT, ok.


Why is that supposed to be an admission, Bobby? Has anybody claimed that the IMT’s figures and other conclusions are written in stone and cannot be corrected by subsequent criminal investigation and historical research? Unlike you, my friend, I believe in historical revisionism (which of course has nothing to do with the "Revisionism" of Nazi-apologetic charlatans like you).

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, instead of making excessive demands when it comes to events that don’t fit your ideological bubble? Please confirm.

By which historians and courts, you mean court which would need to decide if is correct to accept your proof here? I already adressed it above.

Are you too dumb to understand my question, or are you just playing dumb? Answer the question. Do you accept as proof what is accepted as proof by historians and courts of law according to reasonable rules and standards of evidence, yes or no?

I will answer for you when you have refused.


Here I’m a bit at loss about what the poem is trying to tell me. Maybe he doesn’t know himself.

Bob wrote: Accepted by historians? From example Hilberg? No, as proved above.


Not an answer to my question, but maybe Bob can explain what he’s trying to tell us. Is he trying to tell us that he doesn’t accept proof that a historian would accept just because Hilberg made a mistake?

Bob wrote: Accepted by courts? From well known IMT tribunal? No, as proved above.


Again no answer to my question, but maybe Bob can explain what he’s trying to tell us. Is he trying to tell us that he doesn’t accept proof that a court of law would accept just because the IMT wasn’t correct in all its findings of fact?

Bob wrote:If you need other example, don´t hesitate and give a whistle Mr. Muehlenkamp.


Sure. Do you accept as proof what the courts of law of a democratic constitutional state like the German Federal Republic, who are subjected to defendant-friendly procedural rules, would accept as proof?

Yes or no?

If the answer should be no, why not?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Demand to see at least photo of undisturbed grave without any excavation to at least see where exactly this grave 1/34 is located and what are his measurements, is excessive demand? Really?

If you’re trying to tell me that...

The only thing which I am trying to tell is that you are not able to provide even the basic piece of this allegedly existing material to show value of your alleged proof.


"Even the basic piece" is crap, unless Bobby can explain according to what rules or standards of evidence an archaeological report (prepared by the archaeologist who conducted the investigation, thus first hand expert witness testimony) and an archaeological map are not sufficient proof for the purposes of historiography and criminal justice? Where outside Bobby’s deranged mind is it stated that that "photo of undisturbed grave" is "the basic piece"? Can you show me any "photo of undisturbed grave" from Kolyma, Vorkuta or Archangelsk? No, you can’t. Would you thus call anyone an idiot who claims that these places never existed or never held murderous labor camps where hundreds of thousands perished? Yes of course, and rightly so.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If you to want to know what this grave looks like today, see if it is shown in one of Alan Heath’s above-mentioned clips. Or even better, move your ass to Chełmno nad Ner and visit the grave. What are you waiting for?

In the other words, you have no clue if this grave is in these mentioned clips, otherwise you would no write "if it is" which without a doubt prove that you actually don´t know where this grave 1/34 is located otherwise you would clearly write that is or that isn´t in these clips , correct?


Bingo, my dear Bobby. I don’t know if AH’s clips show this smallest of all Chełmno graves like they show the much bigger graves in the forest camp. So freaking what?

Bob wrote:In fact, what are you waiting for You Mr. Muhlenkamp, you should at least start to bother where is your proof.


What I have collected as proof (an archaeological map and an archaeologists description) is sufficient for my purposes. If its not sufficient for Boring Bob, that’s his problem. Especially if he cannot explain what accepted rules or standards he follows in not considering it sufficient.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I wanted to at least know if you bothered to visit memorial to see the alleged "volumniously documentation" allegedly stored there, and to at least bother to verify alleged findings in report.

I wanted to at least know if you bothered to speak with local memorial autorities about your proof to support your evidence.

I wanted to at least know if you at least saw with your own eyes this proof/grave which you presented here.

Your answer is NO to all of this and in fact you only assume that this grave as allegedly described in "your" report/s exist, but you never saw it to tell me if really exist and you have only second-hand piece of written text without allegedly existing materials to back it up, correct?

No, not correct. I have an archaeological report, which is first hand evidence by an expert witness, and which I have every reason to assume is backed up by the kind of documentation that usually backs up an archaeological report, even if I haven’t yet had the opportunity to look up that documentation. No, I didn’t bother to look up that documentation in order to check if the report is accurate. Not being an imbecilic conspiracy theorist but a reasonable person who lives in the real world, I see no reason to doubt that the investigation was conducted and the finds were documented in a due professional manner and that the report is a true and fair rendering of the results of this archaeological work.

So your answer is No, you really didn´t do anything what I have listed above, ok.


That is correct, Mr. Correct. And it is also as irrelevant as can be.

Bob wrote:You report is actually repetition of alleged findings of other teams since you admited that author of this report didn´t conducted any own investigation, so you are wrong, this is second hand evidence for you and even second-hand evidence for author of "your" report.


The exhaustingly repetitive "admited" poop aside (at least correct the spelling), where did I say that Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak didn’t conduct the investigation she describes? Her published report may be a summary of more detailed reports written by her and/or her fellow archaeologists, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t there. Which, in turn, is why your "second-hand evidence" is so idiotic that I can only feel sorry for your idiocy.

Bob wrote:You have "reason" to "assume" in the other words your reason is "to support you belief" and alleged proof, word "assume" means that you really don´t know anything about this alleged documentation as you already admited.


Yawn, there we go again. Yes, I have reason to assume that archaeologists duly document their finds like I have reason to assume that accountants record the actives and the passives on the correct sides of the balance sheet. Yes, I have reason to assume that the report in question is no exception to this rule. Yes, I have reason to assume that the report is accurate without having checked its backup for this reason, because it matches all other evidence about Chełmno extermination camp that I’m familiar with and because I have no indication that Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak or her colleagues are ideologically motivated charlatans like Mr. Faurisson or Mr. Krege. Got it?

Bob wrote:My last try in this case, did you at least bother to contact your source to request materials, or to provide you with "adress" for source of materials, or some help in this case or at least to ask if documentation exist and what documentation had been made for this report and what is actually stored somewhere? From your responses so far, I assume, that answer is no, correct?


Actually I did contact my source one time when I was planning a trip to Chełmno and told her that I would very much like to meet her and ask her some questions and learn something more about her archaeological investigations. Unfortunately the trip didn’t materialize at that time. Let’s see if I’m luckier this year. If so, I promise I’ll bring back lots of photos to rub under your Nazi nose, and any other material that Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak is prepared to make available to me.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Pardon my ignorance Mr. Muehlenkamp, but are you at least able to locate where is your alleged proof/grave in this area? You really can´t spend few seconds to show me where is located in this great google map?

No, I don’t see a reason why I should spend even a single second trying to show you on a Google map what you can see on two archaeological maps I have pointed out for you. Your demand is way too irrelevant and imbecilic to waste any time on.

I’ll give you a hint, my friend. You can see the grave on this map. It’s the smallest of all graves at Chełmno. If you’re too dumb too spot it on the map, just let me know and I’ll make a circle around it for you.

Actually I know exactly where the grave is, clown. Rzuchów Forest, Plot II. If you can’t find that on the above-mentioned map, I’ll be glad to help you.

Then write the following request:

So you can´t, or allegedly "you don´t want".


All you have to do is tell me that you’re too dumb to find the grave on the map, in the required form. What’s the matter, are you reluctant to humiliate yourself with such request? It shouldn’t be a big deal, considering you have already humiliated yourself with the inane slobber you have dished up.

Bob wrote:Obviously, you can provide "hint" instead of marking this grave in present air photo which I have provided to you a two days ago, ok. For some reason you ignore that I requested it already in Feb 17, 2012 8:03 pm


I could give it a try and probably would if I considered your request relevant. But you know, it’s just too plain silly to give it any attention.

Bob wrote:Plainly speaking - you really don´t know where is your proof located as I began suspected you some time ago and as you proved with your quotes. This is more and more fascinating Mr. Muhlenkamp.


Yeah, sure. I have a big archaelogical map of the Chełmno site showing where all the graves including this one are, but I don’t know where this grave is. Maybe poor Bobby needs to see a shrink.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Actually the challenger (I have good reasons to believe that it's this gentleman, by the way) has no sense at all. He’s counting on Michael Shermer considering it below his standing and dignity to address human garbage like the challenger in any way. If Michael Shermer should not ignore him as expected, the likely outcome is that the challenger will close down his website and run away.

Despite your insults, fact is that he have better sense to how to behave in this case and he has no problem to rely on strongly anti-revisionists/denier man, Michael Shermer.


I’ll believe that if and when Mr. Shermer should address my proof and Gerdes should then admit he was full of {!#%@} and humbly pay out the reward. But of course that’s not going to happen. If his publicity stunt should go awry, Gerdes will run away like the coward he has amply shown to be.

I’m serious about my challenge, on the other hand. If you so admire the chimp’s "sense", what are you waiting for to take it? Or you can apply for the arbiter position, if you only tell me your name and sign the required statement. Fauri as my challenge’s arbiter would be gold upon blue, as a Portuguese saying goes.

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:You are here to answer challenge, correct? So I assumed that you will make effort to answer challenge, but if I am correct, you actually only repeated report of someone else and that´s all, without this report you wouldn´t have anything because you didn´t have time and etc. as you told me, correct?

What’s the "only" supposed to mean? Unless you can show me that and explain why I would need anything other than a report about an investigation by professional archaeologists to reasonably respond to the challenge, do yourself a favor and cut out the crap.

Only means, that you actually didn´t conducted anything what has been mentioned above and I only wait if you admit that you didn´t bothered with other activities mentioned above. You just adopted report of someone else and you even didn´t bother to verify information in this report and this is propably the biggest fault as even you should have to know that this is the basic approach.


I have told you and tell you again that I haven’t bothered to check the archaeological report’s accuracy (except by comparing it with what I know about Chełmno from other evidence), but I can’t help chuckling at your imbecilic insistence in considering that an "admission". And if you’re trying to lecture about what is a "basic approach", please show me where it is written that a researcher should never rely on an archaeological report unless he has checked the documentation underlying that report. Bob say so doesn’t make what he claims to be a "basic approach" into a basic approach, sorry.

Bob wrote:But all what you have are naive and unfounded "assumptions" and double standard.


It’s not naïve to assume that things are done as they are supposed to be done bar evidence to the contrary. But it’s paranoid to assume that things are not done as they are supposed to be done even if there is not evidence in this direction. So no, my friend, I’m not naïve. You’re paranoid – though I suspect your paranoia is selective and only applies where reported facts don’t fit your ideological bubble. Am I right?

As to the "double standard" thing, we have been through that above. Tell me that there was never a complex of Gulag camps at Kolyma because the place was never subjected to a crime site investigation let alone an exemplary one like the German Katyn investigation, and I’ll accept that at least you’re not a loony with a double standard (a loony you’ll be nevertheless).

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Great, then move your ass to the Chełmno museumk and "examine" whether the documentation they have there supports their report. What are you waiting for?

In fact, What are you waiting for You, Mr. Muehlenkamp?


Time and means. Not to check if the report is accurate (for I’m not a paranoid loony), but to learn more about what is described therein.

Bob wrote:Hope this is my last question - Did you actually bother to do at least something about this proof except switching on your computer and quoting unfounded text of someone else when you even don´t know if the text is true and backed as you admited?


Yes. I switched on my computer and quoted a report by a first-hand expert witness (the archaeologist who wrote this report), which I have every reason to believe is well founded for the reasons explained, however often babbling Bobby baselessly calls it unfounded and repeats his misspelled reference to my supposed "admissions". Looks like poor Bobby, a fan of the Gerdes chimp and his NAFH "challenge", was shocked to see how easy it is to put together a proof submission that stands a good chance of being considered solid by the "sole appointed arbiter" of this "challenge", if he shouldn’t consider it below his standing and dignity to have any business with the chimp (who of course never contacted him to ask if he would accept the arbiter appointment). Hence Bob's pathetic nagging and bitching about what I should have done and did not do. Am I right, Bobby?

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Only if you assume that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption.

Mr. Muehlenkamp, after your return from beautiful Sunday shinning afternoon, don´t forget to include your answer what happened to the teeth during the cremations in Chelmno (or other camps if you want) when you claim that they didn´t remain intact. Don´t forget to source it.

Sunday comes earlier in loonieland than in the real world, it seems.

As to teeth, see the quotes and sources in my previous post.

I am sorry, but don´t see what happened to teeth during cremation in your quotes, I still wait for you to tell me if they melt, vaporized, exploded, vanished, whatever to support your claim "that teeth remain intact when bodies are burned, which is a mistaken assumption."


Bobby is not a very attentive reader, so I guess I’ll have to put those quotes on his plate.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... ns%22+fuel

"Teeth were only rarely helpful. Very few survived. The erupted adult Tooth was aImost invariably absent. Occasionally crowns of unerupted third molars are found. Apart from these and a few distorted roots nearly all the surviving tooth fragments were deciduous and appeared to be the crowns of unerupted molars which had been protected from firing by their positionin the jaw."


http://www.uic.edu/classes/osci/osci590 ... gy.txt.htm

"In a cremation, the enamel of erupted teeth rapidly flakes away from the dentin, but the unerupted teeth receive a measure of protection from their bony crypts and their enamel may be retained."


http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hu ... atanci.pdf

"Tooth enamel is the hardest and most durable tissue in the body and therefore teeth can survive adverse conditions of preservation for longer than other parts of the skeleton. During cremation, however, enamel breaks easily."


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

J Forensic Sci. 1986 Jan;31(1):307-11. Related Articles, Links

Postmortem examination of incinerated teeth with the scanning electron
microscope.

Carr RF, Barsley RE, Davenport WD Jr.

Fragments recovered from the burned wreckage of a gasoline truck and thought to be parts of teeth were confirmed as such after they were examined with a scanning electron microscope. The appearance of the fragments was compared with previously published descriptions of teeth which had been incinerated under laboratory conditions and also examined by scanning electron microscopy.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract

J Forensic Sci. 1990 Jul;35(4):971-4. Related Articles, Links
Methods for physical stabilization of ashed teeth in incinerated
remains.
Mincer HH, Berryman HE, Murray GA, Dickens RL.
Department of Biologic and Diagnostic Sciences, University of
Tennessee,
Memphis.

Methods for physically stabilizing the extremely fragile ashed teeth that are often encountered in incinerated human remains were investigated.
Results of a questionnaire sent to forensic anthropologists and forensic odontologists disclosed that, for these two groups, the most popular methods currently used are impregnation with a solution of polyvinyl acetate or application of cyanoacrylate cement, respectively. In addition,extracted human teeth were incinerated in the laboratory and impregnated with commercially available preparations of either cyanoacrylate cement, clear acrylic spray paint, hair spray, spray furniture varnish, clearfingernail polish, quick-setting epoxy cement, Duco household cement, polyvinyl acetate polymer in acetone, or self-curing clear dental acrylic resin. Every substance tested successfully stabilized the incinerated teeth. Clear acrylic spray paint was judged the most efficacious overall because of its ease of application, availability, inexpensiveness, and rapidity of setting.


I even highlighted the pertinent text passages for him. Am I not a nice guy?

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 5:23 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I just see one photo of an excavation when following the link, but let’s assume there’s some "volumniously published material" on that site. This takes us to a number of questions, which I hope you will not run away from.


Hm, but you must click on "reports" link to download all pdf reports with documentation Mr. Muehlenkamp

http://research.history.org/Archaeologi ... eports.cfm

No running from questions from me, I already said what is my standard, I gave you examples you demanded to avoid treating your investigation with double standard, I also stated that regarding the photos I would be content with the photos mentioned in my last comment, there were three simple photos, correct?

Now I look forward to your answer on my previous comment.

Thanks.


So Bobby doesn't run from questions?

Great, then I'm looking forward to his answers to these questions:

1. Would you accept as accurate Richard Wright’s reports about his investigations of Nazi mass killings at Serniki and Ustinovka in Ukraine, considering that Wright published photographs of his finds like those shown below?

Serniki 1

Ustinovka

Serniki 2

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?

2. Would you accept as accurate Father Desbois report about his excavations at Busk, considering that Father Desbois has published a video showing these excavations, from which the stills below were taken?

Busk 1

Busk 2

Busk 3

Busk 4

Busk 5

Busk 6

Busk 7

Busk 8

Busk 9

Busk 10

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?

3. Would you accept as accurate the Soviet report about the Nazi mass killings at Drobitski Yar near Kharkov, considering that the Soviets published related footage from which the stills below (included in my blog The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1)) were taken?

Kharkov 14

Kharkov 15

Kharkov 16

Kharkov 17

Kharkov 18

Kharkov 19

Kharkov 20

Kharkov 21

Kharkov 22

Kharkov 23

Kharkov 24

Kharkov 25

Kharkov 26

Kharkov 27

Kharkov 28

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?

4. Would you accept as accurate an archaeological report about core drilling investigations at Sobibór extermination camp if it were published with

a) Photos of core sample like those shown below

Sobibór Core Drill F5

Sobibór Core Drill F6

Sobibór Core Drill F7

b) Microchemical analyses of some of these corpses confirming that they contain human cremation remains or remains of corpses in wax-fat transformation

c) An archaeological map of the mass graves like shown below

Sobibór Kola 09

c) A matching of the mass graves on the map with shapes visible on a satellite photo, like shown below

Sobibór Kola 09 commented

Sobibór Satelite photo enlarged edited3

d) Ground photos of the area and of human remains found in the area, such as included in my blog Mass Graves at Sobibor – 10th Update and the RODOH thread My Trip to Sobibór, e.g. the following:

Bone fragment on soil by hole 1

Three bone fragments 2

Two bone fragments west of monument

20081014 Afternoon Captures 0037

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0030

Long bone fragment from side stripe 3

White bone fragment 2

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0047

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0049

20081014 Afternoon Capture 0052

Soil texture

Soil under green grass east of path 1

Soil under green grass east of path 3

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "yes", I’ll do my best to get you similar material from Chełmno, if possible such that pertains to the documentation on which our archaeological report is based.

If the answer should be "no", why not?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:09 pm

Thanks for your response Mr. Muehlnekamp, I appreciate it. So as i see, you clearly use double standard, what suits you, you accept without evidence, what don´t suits you, you don´t accept. Also alleged Jewish law is double standard, ok.

You admited that you didn´t visit site, didn´t investigate it, din´t contact source, don´t know if report is true, don´t know if somebody saw documentary material, don´t know where is, don´t know person who saw it, don´t know source where could be checked, don´t know if exist, can´t provide anything to back what is in report and didn´t bother to check accuracy of report, ok. You admited that your investigation is constisted from turning on the computer, and quoting already existing report mentioned above.

And finally the most interesting issue. As I already suspected you from the beginning, you really even don´t know where is your alleged proof located, you only repeated where is located on archeological map because your report said it to you , but as you proved itself, this is useless for you since you don´t know where is it in real location of Chelmno site, I also suspect you that you actually don´t any single person who is able to locate it. Here are confirmations:

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bingo, my dear Bobby.

I don’t know where this grave is

My inability to identify the grave on an air photo, on the other hand, means nothing at all.

and

"I have told you and tell you again that I haven’t bothered to check the archaeological report’s accuracy"


And you have no problem to say that your "proof" would be accepted by court.

Thanks for these information.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Look what we got here, an epigone of stinking old Fauri. What a shame I wasn’t in that archive when Fauri went asking for a gas chamber photograph. For I would have simply told the old idiot that there is no photograph or an operating gas chamber to my knowledge, then asked him to explain why the {!#%@} such photograph should be necessary to prove homicidal gassing at Auschwitz when that is amply proven by a multitude of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence (or which I would have offered to show him as many samples as I had in the archive), then enjoyed his gagging as he tried to explain his irrelevant insistence on a photo as if a photo were the only evidence that counts. Thereupon I would have taken off Fauri’s glasses, spit in his right eye, turned him around and projected him out of the archive with a hearty kick in his Nazi ass. What a shame I wasn’t there, instead of those tame archivists who tried to comply with the cretin’s irrelevant demand instead of just telling him that and why he could go to hell.


Mr. Muehlenkamp don´t know about still existing alleged gas chambers, what a statement.

This quote propably need no further comment, but I aso suspect Mr.Muehlenkamp that in reality, he is not able to show at least some legendary Nazi homicidal gas chamber in any form, so propably no wonder that he is not able to show "proof. 1/34".

I only wonder, where is Nessie with his complains about behavior.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:16 pm

Bob wrote:Thanks for your response Mr. Muehlnekamp, I appreciate it. So as i see, you clearly use double standard, what suits you, you accept without evidence, what don´t suits you, you don´t accept.


Self-projecting horseshit. I accept nothing without evidence. An archaeological report (written by the archaeologist who led the archaeological investigation) is evidence, the first-hand testimony of an expert witness. A map drawn by an archaeologist showing the finds of an archaeological investigation is also evidence. And that applies independently of how much further archaeological documentation corrborates that evidence and what quality that corroborating archaeological documentation has.

Bob wrote:Also alleged Jewish law is double standard, ok.


If a law is double-standard because it is not always applied or because there are exceptions to or different interpretations of that law, then every law in the world is "double standard". What an idiot.

Bob wrote:You admited that you didn´t visit site, didn´t investigate it, din´t contact source, don´t know if report is true, don´t know if somebody saw documentary material, don´t know where is, don´t know person who saw it, don´t know source where could be checked, don´t know if exist, can´t provide anything to back what is in report and didn´t bother to check accuracy of report, ok. You admited that your investigation is constisted from turning on the computer, and quoting already existing report mentioned above.


Blah, blah, blah. However much poor Bobby would like me to "admit" things, I admitted nothing. I simply stated that I had not yet had the time and the means to collect further information about the archaeological investigation in question but saw no reason to question the accuracy of the report, because a) it can be reasonably assumed to be based on due documentation like archaeological reports usually are, b) I have no information about a lack of objectivity or ideological bias on the part of the archaeologists who conducted the investigation or the archaeologist who summarized the finds thereof and c) the reported finds are perfectly compatible with what becomes apparent about events at Chelmno from all other known evidence that I'm aware of. Instead of repetitively slobbering that I admitted this and that, Bobby should have given me a reason why I should mistrust the archaeological report and check behind it. He didn't. The best he could come up with was making a fuss about the report's not containing photos of human remains, go figure. Poor show, Bobby.

Bob wrote:And finally the most interesting issue. As I already suspected you from the beginning, you really even don´t know where is your alleged proof located, you only repeated where is located on archeological map because your report said it to you , but as you proved itself, this is useless for you since you don´t know where is it in real location of Chelmno site, I also suspect you that you actually don´t any single person who is able to locate it. Here are confirmations:

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bingo, my dear Bobby.

I don’t know where this grave is

My inability to identify the grave on an air photo, on the other hand, means nothing at all.

and

"I have told you and tell you again that I haven’t bothered to check the archaeological report’s accuracy"


And you have no problem to say that your "proof" would be accepted by court.

Thanks for these information.


More imbecilic sophistry, Bobby-style, with mendacious out-of-context quotes and all. I know perfectly well where to find the site of Chełmno extermination camp, I have shown films of it and I have shown two maps of it showing where the graves are, so precisely that anyone arriving at the place can easily find them. But in Bobby’s book I don’t know where a specific grave is because I saw no point in trying to point it out to him on a Google map or satellite photo (assuming it is necessarily recognizable on such photo the way some of the Sobibór mass graves can be made out on a satellite photo of the Sobibór area). Poor Bobby’s reasoning – if such it can be called – is so nonsensical that one has to seriously question the poor fellow’s sanity. Are you feeling well, Bobby?

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Look what we got here, an epigone of stinking old Fauri. What a shame I wasn’t in that archive when Fauri went asking for a gas chamber photograph. For I would have simply told the old idiot that there is no photograph or an operating gas chamber to my knowledge, then asked him to explain why the {!#%@} such photograph should be necessary to prove homicidal gassing at Auschwitz when that is amply proven by a multitude of eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence (or which I would have offered to show him as many samples as I had in the archive), then enjoyed his gagging as he tried to explain his irrelevant insistence on a photo as if a photo were the only evidence that counts. Thereupon I would have taken off Fauri’s glasses, spit in his right eye, turned him around and projected him out of the archive with a hearty kick in his Nazi ass. What a shame I wasn’t there, instead of those tame archivists who tried to comply with the cretin’s irrelevant demand instead of just telling him that and why he could go to hell.


Mr. Muehlenkamp don´t know about still existing alleged gas chambers, what a statement.


What, is there a gas chamber in existence that is still in operation? That's interesting. Who is being gassed there these days? :lol:

Bob wrote:This quote propably need no further comment, but I aso suspect Mr.Muehlenkamp that in reality, he is not able to show at least some legendary Nazi homicidal gas chamber in any form, so propably no wonder that he is not able to show "proof. 1/34".


I can understand poor Bobby is pissed at me, but that still doesn't mean he gets to define what is proof and what is not. The term is "probably" and no "propably", by the way. Learn English, Fauri frog.
Last edited by Roberto Muehlenkamp on Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:35 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What, is there a gas chamber in existence that is still in operation? That's interesting. Who is being gassed there these days?


Faurisson didn´t requested picture of currently operating chamber, your question is thus irrelevant.

Only to be sure, can you show me Nazi homicidal gas chamber which was used for gassings of peoples?

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Mon Feb 20, 2012 8:55 pm

Do we know if Michael Shermer is considering the evidence originally submitted?

Roberto, it is very much my experience that Bob is what we call in Scotland a wind-up merchant. He is out to get a rise out of people, upset and ridicule them for his own entertainment. He deliberately misrepresents what others say, will make up quotes to then further such misrepresentation. He suggests his own position on a matter and then when asked changes his position or avoids answering it. He finds insults and strawmen where there are none. Many of his points are vague to say the least so as to enable him to twist and turn his argument.

He is a denier who does not not even recognise what these guys stand for

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail ... d58a9c85b6

so you cannot expect him to deal with all the evidence you have provided by way of photos. :lol:
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:40 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What, is there a gas chamber in existence that is still in operation? That's interesting. Who is being gassed there these days?


Faurisson didn´t requested picture of currently operating chamber, your question is thus irrelevant.


No, I'm sure Fauri wanted to see a photo of a gas chamber operating during Nazi times. The currently operating gas chamber was a joke I allowed myself on account of Bobby's funny remark.

Bob wrote:Only to be sure, can you show me Nazi homicidal gas chamber which was used for gassings of peoples?


That's not the topic of this thread, and before we get to your "can you show me a gas chamber" games there are still a number of questions for you to answer.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:34 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:What, is there a gas chamber in existence that is still in operation? That's interesting. Who is being gassed there these days?


Faurisson didn´t requested picture of currently operating chamber, your question is thus irrelevant.


No, I'm sure Fauri wanted to see a photo of a gas chamber operating during Nazi times. The currently operating gas chamber was a joke I allowed myself on account of Bobby's funny remark.


You confirmed your wrong question, ok.

Bob wrote:Only to be sure, can you show me Nazi homicidal gas chamber which was used for gassings of peoples?


That's not the topic of this thread, and before we get to your "can you show me a gas chamber" games there are still a number of questions for you to answer.[/quote]

You can´t ok, I though it.

Here are questions, but I answered them, for some reason, you ignore my responses. Your questions in your repeated post with link to photos are irrelevant since I said what is ok in connection with the photos. I also gave examples of crime investigations and also huge collection of pdf of other archeological reports as you requested when you wanted to see standard. Nothing more to add.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:31 pm

quote="Nessie"]Do we know if Michael Shermer is considering the evidence originally submitted?
Nice try to stay on topic. Do we know if Prof. S is also considering the various comments on Roberto's attempt?
To list them regarding grave #1/34
1. Inconsise information regarding amount of human remains-
2. Total lack of human material which would be in a mass grave, especially
teeth.
3. Base information from a questionable source, it a tourist promotion board
which also posts testimony about a ghost which haunts the area.

In short, Roberto has spent his time with highly questionable data.
That is not to say he is incorrect. But he clearly has not proven anything.
The obvious Skeptical solution is to reject his claim and to call for a
public, scientific, investigation of the site by independent investigators.




He is a denier who does not not even recognise what these guys stand for
[/quote]

Opps, "what these guys stand for."
Why not just admit the Museum's investigation is unclear and agree
that we should investigate properly?