My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Discussions
User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:50 pm

David wrote: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
Opps, "what these guys stand for."
Why not just admit the Museum's investigation is unclear and agree
that we should investigate properly?


[/quote]

I totally agree with the idea of a thorough independent scientific investigation. A group of archaeologists with ground radar, bore holes and excavations to thoroughly search and map out what (if anything ) is found.

Re he is a denier.....I was referring to Bob's inability to interpret the image of the KKK and the information that can be gleened from that image, so how would Roberto showing Bob images make any difference? If it does not suit Bob it is ignored or dismissed rather than dealt with.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Lennon
Account Locked
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:14 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Lennon » Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:51 pm

Nessie
I totally agree with the idea of a thorough independent scientific investigation. A group of archaeologists with ground radar, bore holes and excavations to thoroughly search and map out what (if anything ) is found.
Hasn't all of this already been done? Why not just publish the results of what has already been done first?

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.
For what reason then would Shermer endorse Muehlenkamps submittal?

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:54 pm

David wrote: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.
Hollow hysterical bitching, David style. Why are these "Revisionists" always so hysterical?
David wrote: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.
Yeah, archaeologists and their maps lied because Dodging David says so.
David wrote: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’s because Treblinka I was a relatively small labor camp with a relatively low mortality. At Treblinka II Polish investigators found a mass graves area with a size of 1.8 – 2 ha (an area covered by human ashes and larger human remains can only have been a mass graves area), and the grave they excavated to the bottom was 7.5 meters deep.
David wrote:That is probably the same situation at Chelmno.
Only in David’s wishful thinking.
David wrote:The Poles also included trash burning areas in the "graves."
What Poles are supposed to have included trash burning areas in what graves?
David wrote: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?
For some reason a significant mixture of human remains is only mentioned in regard to grave # 5, not in regard to the other graves where human remains were also found. This means that the concentration of human remains in grave # 5 must have been somewhat higher than in the other graves.
David wrote: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.
That’s not my source. That’s the Konin Regional Museum, not the Chełmno Museum. The Konin Regional Museum mentions a local legend as part of the regional folklore, big deal.
David wrote:I just wondered what parts of the "Museum's" tales you believed and what parts you dismissed.
I do believe the Konin Regional Museum’s mention that so-and-so reported having seen a ghost. Superstitious people sometimes believe they see the subjects of their superstitions. But that doesn’t mean such things exist or that the KRM states that they do. Local lore is probably mentioned by many a regional museum in the world. It’s a good anecdote for tourist entertainment.
David wrote: 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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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.
Yells hysterical David and stomps his feet. No, I haven’t proven that there are teeth in grave 1/34, even though it’s reasonable to assume that there are. But neither do I have to, nor was that my intention. What I have to do for your fellow chimp is to provide proof that the grave contains human remains (no matter of what kind) corresponding to at least 19 human bodies. This I have done by showing that the grave contains human remains (the ash layer can only have been a layer of human ash, even though this is not expressly mentioned, for otherwise the archaeologists would not have concluded that grave # 1 was a grave) and providing a reasonable minimum estimate of the quantity of such remains.
David wrote: 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.
Much ado about nothing, that’s my David.
David wrote: Snip remaining "excuses, diversions, and insults"
[snip]
Self-projection and hysteria, that’s my David.
David wrote: 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.
Then what are you waiting for to sent Prof. Shermer an e-mail suggesting that he organize or sponsor such investigation? You may even ask him if he would hire you to count bone fragments, teeth and such.
David wrote: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-
"Inconcise"? How so?
David wrote:2. Total lack of human material which would be in a mass grave, especially teeth.
Lack of human material? Even in regard to grave # 1 an ash layer is mentioned, which can only have been human. In regard to the other four graves human remains are expressly mentioned.
David wrote:3. Base information from a questionable source, it a tourist promotion board which also posts testimony about a ghost which haunts the area.
Typical David silliness. If the Chełmno Museum is somehow linked to the Konin Regional Museum, that doesn’t change the fact that the archaeological investigation of the Chełmno area and its mass graves was carried out by qualified professional archaeologist. And it’s not like the KRM had endorsed the reported ghost testimony as accurate. It merely mentioned the same as a curiosity of local folklore, like any English or Scottish castle museum may mention tales about ghosts haunting the respective castle. If archaeologists have reconstructed the history of such castle by archaeological means, poor David will argue that their work is not reliable because the museum amuses tourist visitors with ghost lore. :roll:
David wrote:In short, Roberto has spent his time with highly questionable data.
Not at all, but calling David’s rubbish highly questionable is to praise it.
David wrote:That is not to say he is incorrect. But he clearly has not proven anything.
It’s not Dodging David who gets to decide what is proof and what is not. Not in the context of this submission, and neither in any other context.
David wrote:The obvious Skeptical solution is to reject his claim and to call for a public, scientific, investigation of the site by independent investigators.
Let the skeptical Mr. Shermer decide that. He doesn’t need advice from an un-skeptical true believer who automatically lashes out at anything that is not in accordance with his articles of faith.
David wrote:Why not just admit the Museum's investigation is unclear and agree that we should investigate properly?
Just how is the museum’s investigation "unclear", David? Any precedent of a "clear" archaeological investigation of a mass killing site that you can show us? Preferably one where the archaeologists tried to quantify human cremation remains.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:57 pm

Bob wrote: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.
I confirmed I played a joke on dead-serious Bob. :mrgreen:
Bob wrote: 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.

You can´t ok, I though it.
I didn’t say that. I may join your "can you show me a gas chamber" – game on the other thread if I should have time and feel like it, but it’s not the topic of the present thread.

Meanwhile, you may ponder the following:

Suppose that no one is able to show you a former Nazi homicidal gas chamber because all such chambers were at some time destroyed or dismantled or converted into delousing chambers or other facilities.

What exactly would this logically mean?

That there were never any Nazi homicidal gas chambers, despite the abundant evidence to the contrary and the non-existing evidence to an alternative scenario as concerns the fate of hundreds of thousands deported to certain camps?

Or that what Nazi homicidal gas chambers existed were at some time destroyed or dismantled or converted into delousing chambers or other facilities, nothing more and nothing less?
Bob wrote: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.
You have answered nothing, my dear friend. I don’t feel like and neither need to attempt figuring out what your answer to a given question might be considering what you have said. Either provide direct answers to the questions repeated below, or admit that you can’t answer these questions or don’t want to answer them because the answer might be inconvenient for you.

Unanswered questions from previous posts, one by one (please forgive me if I forgot one – in that case I’ll add it later):

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?

---

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?

---

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?

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?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9995
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Pyrrho » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:33 am

Lennon wrote:Nessie
I totally agree with the idea of a thorough independent scientific investigation. A group of archaeologists with ground radar, bore holes and excavations to thoroughly search and map out what (if anything ) is found.
Hasn't all of this already been done? Why not just publish the results of what has already been done first?

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.
For what reason then would Shermer endorse Muehlenkamps submittal?
You already have a user account. I'm locking this one.
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.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:45 am

I didn’t say that. I may join your "can you show me a gas chamber" – game on the other thread if I should have time and feel like it, but it’s not the topic of the present thread.
You still can´t, ok.
Suppose that no one is able to show you a former Nazi homicidal gas chamber because all such chambers were at some time destroyed or dismantled or converted into delousing chambers or other facilities. Or that what Nazi homicidal gas chambers existed were at some time destroyed or dismantled or converted into delousing chambers or other facilities, nothing more and nothing less?
There are still existing chambers for example in Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Hartheim, Natzweiler, and of course in Auschwitz, so untrue.
What exactly would this logically mean?
That you are wrong, since your claim is untrue as mentioned above. You also missed, that you can show what you want, not only physical evidence, you can show plan, blueprints, sketches, models, take your pick, and show me how gassing was possible as alleged. Of course, is logical to choose physical evidence when we have it instead of other possibilities.
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?
I am not familiar with "other overhelming majority" of other crimes as you claim, so I can´t answer. You have propably far better knowledge so you must inform me about this majority, I can´t answer when i don´t see this alleged majority here. Simply name all examples and prove that you are true about overhelming majority, this means that you must list all examples of all Soviets crimes and at least 51% of them must be proved by you as not properly investigated or you must prove level of their investigation. Then I can answer.
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?
Same as above, you must list here all "other" crimes as you claim, prove that all were not subjected to proper investigation possible accept by me as listed by examples, list all examples and prove each of them as not properly investigated. Then I can answer.
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 you can provide me with similar pictures as you showed above from your grave 1/34, I will accept them, no problem, show me excavated grave and other pictures of your proof 1/34.
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?


If you can provide me with pictures showed in your question 2., no problem, I will accept them, show me these pictures of your grave 1/34.
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?
If you can provide me with pictures showed in your question 3., no problem, I will accept them, show me these pictures of your grave 1/34.
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

b)Microchemical analyses of some of these corpses confirming that they contain human cremation remains or remains of corpses in wax-fat transformation
If you can provide me with analyses of content of your excavated grave 1/34, yes i can accept analyse together with your previous evidence mentioned above.
c) An archaeological map of the mass graves like shown below
As proven, archeological map is useless for you, because you don´t know where is your grave, you only read this map and everybody is able to read, but locate it in reality is another issue. If you can provide me with map together with marked grave on satelitte photo to prove me that you know where is your grave to let the others to verify this grave, yes i can accept it.
c) A matching of the mass graves on the map with shapes visible on a satellite photo, like shown below
Yes, if you can mark your grave on satelitte photo as I requested several days ago I would be glad to accept it, mark your grave 1/34 on photo, show his shape, dimensions, location.
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:
If you can provide me with photos of human remains from your grave 1/34, I will accept them, simply excavate them and show your excavated grave previously marked on satelitte photo together with your found remains.
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?
Same as above. List all examples which you are talking about, list all other crimes and its investigations about each example to prove level of their investigation. Then I can answer your question.

Is this fair enough? Back up your claims, adress my points then I can answer you. You use too often claims with zero value like "all other" "overhelming majority" and similar appels. Now your unanswered questions are based on claims with no value like "all historians drink pepsi" "overhelming majority of peoples can swim" and similar appels. So back up your questions, I will see if you are right or not and then I can answer your questions, thanks

In the meantime when you will be very busy with proving of your claims, you can check my thread and show Nazi homicidal gas chamber and show me how was gassing possible as alleged.

Looking forward to your answers, please, no dodging.

Note - pelase, note, that in fact, I demanded only three simple photos of your grave 1/34 as already listed above, I did not demanded anything like Katyn since you already said that you can´t provide anything similar and I respected it. Please stop with your untrue claim about my demands and your questions are thus irrelevant. Simply show me your three basic photos of your grave 1/34 mentioned above to support "your" report/proof and that is all what i want to see from your pictorial evidence, then you can provide only simple source where is the rest of your material stored (if exist).

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 23, 2012 9:20 pm

Bob wrote: I didn’t say that. I may join your "can you show me a gas chamber" – game on the other thread if I should have time and feel like it, but it’s not the topic of the present thread.

You still can´t, ok.
Bob still cannot read, OK.
Bob wrote: Suppose that no one is able to show you a former Nazi homicidal gas chamber because all such chambers were at some time destroyed or dismantled or converted into delousing chambers or other facilities. Or that what Nazi homicidal gas chambers existed were at some time destroyed or dismantled or converted into delousing chambers or other facilities, nothing more and nothing less?

There are still existing chambers for example in Majdanek, Dachau, Mauthausen, Flossenburg, Hartheim, Natzweiler, and of course in Auschwitz, so untrue.
Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?
Bob wrote: What exactly would this logically mean?

That you are wrong, since your claim is untrue as mentioned above.
Wrong about what, and what claim would be untrue?
Bob wrote: You also missed, that you can show what you want, not only physical evidence, you can show plan, blueprints, sketches, models, take your pick, and show me how gassing was possible as alleged. Of course, is logical to choose physical evidence when we have it instead of other possibilities.
So the gas chamber can be one that at some time after homicidal use was destroyed or dismantled or converted into a delousing chamber or another facility, i.e. one that no longer has the features it had when used for homicidal gassing?

And what’s the "as alleged" supposed to mean? "Alleged" by whom? By eyewitnesses? Are eyewitness descriptions of events they witnessed mere "allegations" in your book? Are they not evidence? If so, why not? What accepted rules or standards of evidence that you can quote whereby eyewitness testimonies are not evidence?
Bob wrote: 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?

I am not familiar with "other overhelming majority" of other crimes as you claim, so I can´t answer. You have propably far better knowledge so you must inform me about this majority, I can´t answer when i don´t see this alleged majority here. Simply name all examples and prove that you are true about overhelming majority, this means that you must list all examples of all Soviets crimes and at least 51% of them must be proved by you as not properly investigated or you must prove level of their investigation. Then I can answer.
I must prove that the Soviet crimes have not been subject to a Katyn-style investigation, i.e. prove a negative? Nice try, Bobby.
Bob wrote: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?

Same as above, you must list here all "other" crimes as you claim, prove that all were not subjected to proper investigation possible accept by me as listed by examples, list all examples and prove each of them as not properly investigated. Then I can answer.
As I said, nice attempt to shift the burden of proof. Let’s do the following: for every one of the mass crimes listed hereafter, Bobby shall answer the following questions:

1. Do you accept as factual a) the occurrence of this crime and b) the minimum reported death toll? Yes or no?

2. If the answer to the previous question should be «yes»: has the factuality of this crime and the minimum reported death toll been established on hand of a crime site investigation like the German Katyn investigation, yes or no?

3. If the answer to the previous question should be «yes», where can one read about this Katyn-style crime site investigation?

4. If the answer to the previous question should be «no», then on the basis of what evidence and what reasoning do you accept these crimes and the respective minimum reported death toll as factual?

The following data are from Matthew White’s Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century:
• Kolyma, USSR (Soviet GULAG: 1930-mid 1950s): 500 000 [make link]
• Adam Hochschild, The Unquiet Ghost: asked four researchers. "One estimated [the death toll] at 250,000, one at 300,000, one at 800,000, one at more than 1,000,000."
• * Nanjing, China (massacre of civilians and POWs by Japanese: 13 Dec. 1937-Feb. 38): 260 000
• see sources
• * Bykivnia, near Kiev, USSR (Stalinist burial site, 1930s): 200 000 [make link]
• Raymond Pearson, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire, 2nd ed. (2002): "near-incredible" 200,000
• Michael Hamm, Kiev: "Perhaps 120,000 victims were buried there; another estimate puts the figure as high as 225,000."
• Taras Kuzio, Ukraine: Perestroika to Independence (2000): "a mass grave reputed to contain over 200 000 bodies."
• * Kuropaty, near Minsk, USSR (Stalinist massacre site: 1938-39): 150 000 [make link]
• Raymond Pearson, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire, 2nd ed. (2002): 30,000
• Some guy on Internet (Marika Henneberg): around 30,000 people buried in 510 mass graves at Kuropaty Woods, but there may actually be 900 graves [That indicates some 60/grave and maybe 54,000 people total]
• Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): 150,000-200,000 bodies
• Some other guy on Internet: 510 burial pits found in Kuropaty, each containing ca. 150 bodies, or some 75,000 bodies total. Possibly 1,000 pits originally [If 1,000 pits, then ca. 150,000 bodies]
• Ian Dear, The Oxford Companion to World War II, "Belorussia": "several hundred thousand" in mass graves.
• Vorkuta, USSR (Soviet GULAG: 1932-62): 100 000 [make link]
• Davies, Europe: a history: no death toll offered, but it "held some 300,000 souls in 1953"; "more human beings perished there than at Auschwitz" [Davies exaggerates these things, IMO.]; "second only to Kolyma".
• 3/1/04 Telegraph: >100,000
* Manila, Philippines (massacre of civilians by Japanese: Nov. 1944-Feb. 1945): 100 000
• Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 100,000 Filipinos k.
• William Manchester, American Caesar (1978): "nearly 100,000 Filipinos were murdered by the Japanese"
• PBS: "100,000 of its citizens died."
• World War II Database: 100,000
• Tokyo, Japan (air raid by US: 9 March 1945): 84 000
• Factmonster.com: "Two fire bombing raids on Tokyo [the second was in May 1945] killed 140,000 citizens."
• Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century, v.2, p.650: first official death toll was 83,793, but eventually set at 130,000
• Mark Selden, Before the Bomb: The "Good War", Air Power and the Logic of Mass Destruction: Official estimates of roughly 100,000 seem "implausibly low".
o Strategic Bombing Survey: 87,793 [sic]
o Rhodes: > 100,000
o Tokyo Fire Department: 97,000
• The History Net: 83,793
• Clodfelter: 83,793
• ww2guide.com: 83,000
• Paul Johnson, Modern Times, p.424: 83,000
• Douglas Brinkley, David Rubel, World War II: the Allied counteroffensive, 1942-1945, p.279: 83,000
• Howard Zinn, The people's history of the United States, p.422: 80,000
• Hamburg, Germany (air raid by UK: 28-29 July 1943): 42 000
• Johnson, Modern Times: 40,000
• Gilbert: 42,000
• US Strategic Bombing Survey: 60,000-100,000
• Dresden, Germany (air raid by UK & US: 13-14 Feb. 1945): 35 000
• Houston Chronicle review of Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945 by Frederick Taylor (2004)
o "[C]asualty figures the German press put out -- 135,000 or 250,000 or even 400,000 dead.... nothing more than creative efforts of Nazi propagandists."
o "[O]nly after the fall of the Soviet Union did records emerge that documented the true casualty figures -- 25,000 to 35,000 dead."
o see also Palm Beach Post and NY Times reviews: 25,000-40,000
• Martin Sorge, The Other Price of Hitler's War (1986): 35,000
• Spartacus: "Recent research suggest that 35,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 100,000" [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm]
• Messenger, The Chronological Atlas of World War Two (1989): 50,000
• Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century: 39,773 bodies IDed. At least 20,000 missing. All told, as many as 80,000 d.
• NOTE: The most commonly cited death toll is 135,000, but not among scholars.
• Wikipedia: 135,000 ("Aerial bombing of cities" 5/04)
• Johnson, Modern Times: 135,000
• Irving: The Destruction of Dresden (1966): 135,000. See also Nizkor's discussion of this.
Sook Ching Operation, Singapore (massacre of Chinese by Japanese: Feb-March 1942): 25 000
• The lowest of the high estimates. See sources
• * Bataan, Philippines (abuse of POWs by Japanese: 9 April-May 1942): 23 000
• Gilbert, History of the Twentieth Century
o Death March: more than 5,000 Filipinos and 600 USAns d.
o First few weeks after: more than 16,000 Filipinos and 1,000 USAns d.
• Herat, Afghanistan (Soviet air raids, March 1979): 20 000
• 2 June 2002 LA Times: 20,000 civilians
• Pforzheim, Germany (air raid by UK: 23-24 Feb. 1945): 18 000
• Gilbert: 17,600
• * Choeung Ek, Phnom Penh, Cambodia (Khmer Rouge killing field: 1975-79): 16 000
• 30 Dec. 2003 AP: of 16,000 prisoners at S-21, only 14 survived
• Rachel Hughes: Prisoners from S-21 were taken to Choeung Ek for execution. 89 graves with 8,985 skeletons have been exhumed, out of an estimated 129 graves total. [Calculation: 129/89*8985=13023]
• Generally it's reported that 17,000 people died here, but I can't find a solid source for this.
• Bautzen, East Germany (Soviet concentration camp: 1945-50): 16 000
• 9 April 1990 UPI: 16,000 German political prisoners d.
• * Katyn etc., USSR (massacre of Polish POWs by Soviets: April-May 1940): 15 000
• see sources.
• Hama, Syria (urban uprising: Feb.1982): 10 000
• Eckhardt: 10,000 Conserv. Muslims massacred, 1982
• 11 June 2000 Houston Chronicle: 10,000 massacred in Hama, 1980s
• Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam (2003): 10,000-25,000, citing Amn.Int.
• InfoPlease: 20,000+
• 20 June 2000 Christian Science Monitor: ca. 10,000
• Buchenwald, East Germany (Soviet concentration camp: 1945-50): 10 000
• 11 June 1991 Chicago Tribune: 8,000-13,000 German political prisoners d.
Bob wrote: 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 you can provide me with similar pictures as you showed above from your grave 1/34, I will accept them, no problem, show me excavated grave and other pictures of your proof 1/34.
The question was not about Bełżec grave "1/34". The question was about what happened at Serniki and Ustinovka in Ukraine according to the investigation conducted by forensic archaeologist Richard Wright, whose reports are illustrated by photos like I showed you. The following is an excerpt from Richard Wright’s article "Where are the Bodies? In the Ground" (The Public Historian, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 96–107):
In January 1990 the Special Investigations Unit (the SIU) of the Australian Attorney General’s Department was looking into the cases of three men in Adelaide. It was alleged that they had killed some hundreds of Jews in Ukraine in 1942, after Nazi occupation of the area. The SIU wanted to know if there was material evidence in the ground for one of these killings. Was there a mass grave at a place called Serniki in northwestern Ukraine? If so, what were its properties?
They approached Dr. Godfrey Oettle, pathologist at the New South Wales Institute of Forensic Medicine, to ask whether he would be prepared to find and excavate the supposed mass grave at Serniki. He was told that there was an eyewitness to the murders. As a youth of 16, the eyewitness was one of several local youths the Nazi Einsatzgruppen forced to refill the grave. The eyewitness said the grave was some 50 meters long, 5 meters wide, and 2–3 meter deep. It contained up to 800 bodies and was probably dug to below the local water table.
Locating and excavating such a site promised to be a formidable job. Dr. Oettle had the professional good sense to say to the SIU that he was a pathologist and that Serniki was a job for an archaeologist. I had been excavating for Late Pleistocene archaeology in spring-fed swamps in New South Wales, and so he suggested my name. The SIU approached me and I jumped at the offer to do this extraordinary work in Ukraine.
Godfrey’s professional judgment was right. The work of pathologists is primarily in the laboratory, examining human remains and determining the cause and manner of death. They are not professionally trained for archaeological fieldwork, and so are likely to be objected to as proper expert witnesses in court, if presenting critical archaeological testimony.
In order to prepare evidence for cross-examination, the discovery and excavation of a mass grave requires that the archaeologist must know how to address logistics issues such as estimating how long the job will take and what resources are needed, how to dig a deep pit safely in sand, how to control groundwater in a wet soil environment, how to run a team of diggers, and how to manage dangerous machinery, as well as addressing research issues including how to record evidence three dimensionally and how to read in the soil the stratigraphy of original burial and later disturbance.
The work of preparing for cross-examination went beyond routine archeological fieldwork. Certainly evidentiary work at the Serniki mass grave was more challenging than any archaeology I had done before 1990. I enlisted my wife Sonia, a field archaeologist, and with her as my field assistant we excavated Serniki and two more mass graves in the Ukraine in 1990 and 1991 for the SIU.
[…]
How right was the sixteen-year-old witness of Serniki in his memories of that ghastly event? His recollection led the archaeological team to the grave, which turned out to contain some 550 bodies and not the 800 he had estimated. The grave was also some 10 m shorter than he said. But these were small discrepancies to be held against the memories of a lad under stress, and
the excavation demonstrated the power of bodies to bear out his recollection in other ways.
More specifically, the witness said that we would find a ramp on one side of the grave, down which the Jews were herded before being made to lie down like sardines and shot in the back of the head. At the base of the ramp he said we would find the bodies of those who were brought to the grave after the main mass of the murdered had been shot. These residual few had been mostly clubbed to death. We found these claims about the Serniki grave to be materialized in the soil — namely the general size and shape of the grave, the fact that there were hundreds of bodies in it, the two types of disposition of the bodies, and the manner of death.
Having found the bodies in Serniki, in 1991 we turned to excavation of the site of Ustinovka in Ukraine, where it was alleged that some 150 adults were killed and buried in a mass grave in 1942. The police chief, under orders from the Germans, was said to have complained to his lieutenant that the children of mixed marriage (Jewish and Gentile) were not brought to him for killing. So the chief ordered his deputy back to the village, where he commandeered a cart, put some 20 children into it, and drove the cart up to the grave. The chief then threw the children in and shot those whose necks were not broken.
Our excavation supported the statements of eyewitnesses to these atrocious events at Ustinovka. We found the bodies of the children first, ranging between six months and twelve years old at their deaths. The surface on which the children lay higgledy-piggledy looked at first like the base of the grave. However further probing showed that this supposed base was in fact soil that had been thrown back over the adults below.
In Ustinovka, archaeology not only supported the statement of eyewitnesses, but it also elaborated their statements. None had mentioned that the grave was partly refilled, merely that there was an interval of time between the killing of the adults and the killing of the children. Archaeology tested the oral testimony, confirmed it, and supplemented the initial inquiry with evidence of bodies that addressed further atrocity.
Do you accept as accurate Richard Wright’s account of the Nazi massacres at Serniki and Ustinovka?

Do you accept that the Nazis committed these atrocities as established on hand of eyewitness testimonies and forensic archaeology?

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?
Bob wrote: 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?

If you can provide me with pictures showed in your question 2., no problem, I will accept them, show me these pictures of your grave 1/34.
The question was another. The question was:

Do you accept as accurate Father Desbois account of the excavations conducted at Busk, the physical finds that were made there and the events that were revealed by these finds and other evidence?

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?
Bob wrote: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?

If you can provide me with pictures showed in your question 3., no problem, I will accept them, show me these pictures of your grave 1/34.
The question was not about Chełmno mass grave "1/34" but about Nazi mass killings at Drobitski Yar near Kharkov. You may read the related Soviet reports and corroborating evidence from the German side on the RODOH thread Kharkov under Nazi Occupation and in the blogs Drobitski Yar and The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1) .

Do you accept as factual the massacre at the Drobitski Yar near Kharkov as it becomes apparent from this Soviet and German evidence?

Yes or no?

If the answer should be "no", why not?
Bob wrote: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

b)Microchemical analyses of some of these corpses confirming that they contain human cremation remains or remains of corpses in wax-fat transformation

If you can provide me with analyses of content of your excavated grave 1/34, yes i can accept analyse together with your previous evidence mentioned above.
My question was not about Chełmno grave "1/34", if was about the Sobibór mass graves. But OK, we’ll get to that later. Point taken regarding the analyses, when I should have the privilege of talking to Mrs. Pawlicka-Nowak I’ll ask her to show me what she’s got by way of analyses showing the presence and concentration of human remains in Chełmno grave # 1.
Bob wrote:c) An archaeological map of the mass graves like shown below

As proven, archeological map is useless for you, because you don´t know where is your grave, you only read this map and everybody is able to read, but locate it in reality is another issue.
I can’t use as proof a map drawn by an archaeologist unless I can point out on a Google Earth satellite picture the location depicted on the map?

What utter, slobbering nonsense.

But ok, let’s humor our over-demanding friend. Have a look at this thread of the "Holocaust Controversies" forum, where you can see both archaeological maps and the site depicted by these maps as seen from satellite perspective. If we compare Plan 3 and Plan 4 with my GE screenshots, we see that this triangular clearing in the Rzuchów forest:

Image

is where grave # 1 is located. Although the scale of the maps and the photo don’t seem to be the same, I can use the former to give you a rough idea of where I think the grave is in the latter:

Image
Bob wrote:If you can provide me with map together with marked grave on satelitte photo to prove me that you know where is your grave to let the others to verify this grave, yes i can accept it.

c) A matching of the mass graves on the map with shapes visible on a satellite photo, like shown below

Yes, if you can mark your grave on satelitte photo as I requested several days ago I would be glad to accept it, mark your grave 1/34 on photo, show his shape, dimensions, location.
See above.
Bob wrote: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:

If you can provide me with photos of human remains from your grave 1/34, I will accept them, simply excavate them and show your excavated grave previously marked on satelitte photo together with your found remains.
Ok, when I should have time to go to Chełmno (hopefully this year), I’ll try to collect some human remains from grave # 1, unless the archaeologist can provide me with samples. Without a special permission (which I don’t count on obtaining), I won’t be able to do much digging, however, as this is a memorial site. It would be sort of like digging up graves at Arlington National Cemetery.

Now, if I understood you correctly, the only thing you are still missing to accept as accurate Prof. Andrzej Kola’s finds about the Sobibór mass grave as rendered in his archaeological report about Sobibór (after I have shown you core sample photos and photos of human remains I found myself, and matched the archaeological map with a GE satellite photo of the Sobibór graves), is a micro-chemical analyses of some representative core samples confirming that they contain human remains.

The rest of your blather I think we can skip. I have provided examples and specific Soviet and other crimes, and asked that you answer, regarding each of these examples, the following questions:

1. Do you accept as factual a) the occurrence of this crime and b) the minimum reported death toll? Yes or no?

2. If the answer to the previous question should be «yes»: has the factuality of this crime and the minimum reported death toll been established on hand of a crime site investigation like the German Katyn investigation, yes or no?

3. If the answer to the previous question should be «yes», where can one read about this Katyn-style crime site investigation?

4. If the answer to the previous question should be «no», then on the basis of what evidence and what reasoning do you accept these crimes and the respective minimum reported death toll as factual?

Then there are the above questions regarding Serniki and Ustinovka, Busk, Drobitski Yar and Sobibór, which I look forward to you answering.

I for my part will try to satisfy your picture demands regarding Chełmno grave # 1, even though you have not explained their relevance, namely why they are needed on top of the evidence already submitted to prove that this grave exists and contains human remains. Of course this will require a trip to Chełmno.

I shall also look up your gas chamber thread when I have time (even though the subject doesn’t exactly excite me), after you have answered my related clarification questions. And don’t worry about my dodging anything. Dodging I leave to folks like you.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:23 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?
You should know it, right? For example Majdanek chamber no. III/A or IV/C. You claim, that these chambers are altered and not in original condition, right?
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Wrong about what, and what claim would be untrue?
See above.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: So the gas chamber can be one that at some time after homicidal use was destroyed or dismantled or converted into a delousing chamber or another facility, i.e. one that no longer has the features it had when used for homicidal gassing?
Just show me some chamber in condition in which was used, physical, sketches, blueprints, models, take your pick. Do you have something to see this legendary device which allegedly gassed millions of peoples?
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: And what’s the "as alleged" supposed to mean? "Alleged" by whom? By eyewitnesses? Are eyewitness descriptions of events they witnessed mere "allegations" in your book? Are they not evidence? If so, why not? What accepted rules or standards of evidence that you can quote whereby eyewitness testimonies are not evidence?
As alleged means - as your source/s claims, simple.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: I must prove that the Soviet crimes have not been subject to a Katyn-style investigation, i.e. prove a negative? Nice try, Bobby.
No, everything what you need to prove is the level of investigation, simply list all examples, list all Soviets crimes as you claimed, show their investigation, provide here all information about investigations, then i will see or no see that really "overhelming majority" or "all other" crimes are not properly investigated and they I can answer your questions which depend on this claim of your.

Your following questions are thus irrelevant, adress my points, no dodging, you made claim, you placed questions, back up your claim then I can answer your questions.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question was not about Bełżec grave "1/34".
Belzec 1/34? You are confused, this is your Chelmno 1/34 thread.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Do you accept as accurate Richard Wright’s account of the Nazi massacres at Serniki and Ustinovka?

Do you accept that the Nazis committed these atrocities as established on hand of eyewitness testimonies and forensic archaeology?

Yes or no?
Provide here full report and all materials you have to let me see it, then I can answer.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question was another. The question was:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Do you accept as accurate Father Desbois account of the excavations conducted at Busk, the physical finds that were made there and the events that were revealed by these finds and other evidence?
Yes or no?
Same as above.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question was not about Chełmno mass grave "1/34" but about Nazi mass killings at Drobitski Yar near Kharkov. You may read the related Soviet reports and corroborating evidence from the German side on the RODOH thread Kharkov under Nazi Occupation and in the blogs Drobitski Yar and The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1) .

Do you accept as factual the massacre at the Drobitski Yar near Kharkov as it becomes apparent from this Soviet and German evidence?

Yes or no?
Sorry, from Soviet communist investagation was "apparent" that previously investigated Katyn was comitted by Nazis, so I don´t accept these Soviet/communist "investigations" BUT, if you provide me with points adopted from previously mentioned examples, I will accept them, see:

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.

Provide this for Soviet/communist investigations mentiond above, and I accept them, fair? I hope so, no double standard between the Nazis or Soviets, right?
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I can’t use as proof a map drawn by an archaeologist unless I can point out on a Google Earth satellite picture the location depicted on the map?

What utter, slobbering nonsense.
Then sorry, your acheological map has zero value when you are not able to use it in reality. Feel free to contact your source to explain this map to you, where is problem. Just apply this map to real photo, to real location, what are you waiting for? Open Image editor, copy map over chelmno satelitte photo, change blending value and then show it here with saying "this is 100% position of my proof 1/34 with dimensions and shape"
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:is where grave # 1 is located. Although the scale of the maps and the photo don’t seem to be the same, I can use the former to give you a rough idea of where I think the grave is in the latter:
"rough idea of where I think the grave is" in the other words you don´t know. Don´t know where is you problem to locate it, you have scanned book. I see excavated pit, but no human remains. So no Jewish law applied for this pit as I see, interesting, or they knew that no human remains will be found in this pit? Hardly.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Ok, when I should have time to go to Chełmno (hopefully this year), I’ll try to collect some human remains from grave # 1, unless the archaeologist can provide me with samples. Without a special permission (which I don’t count on obtaining), I won’t be able to do much digging, however, as this is a memorial site. It would be sort of like digging up graves at Arlington National Cemetery.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Now, if I understood you correctly, the only thing you are still missing to accept as accurate Prof. Andrzej Kola’s finds about the Sobibór mass grave as rendered in his archaeological report about Sobibór (after I have shown you core sample photos and photos of human remains I found myself, and matched the archaeological map with a GE satellite photo of the Sobibór graves), is a micro-chemical analyses of some representative core samples confirming that they contain human remains.
You undestand incorrectly, I did not say anything about this investigation and what I think about ti or if you matched or not matched something. I only said "If you can provide me with analyses of content of your excavated grave 1/34, yes i can accept analyse together with your previous evidence mentioned above." That´s all.

The rest is no need to adress, you only repeat it what is above.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I for my part will try to satisfy your picture demands regarding Chełmno grave # 1, even though you have not explained their relevance, namely why they are needed on top of the evidence already submitted to prove that this grave exists and contains human remains. Of course this will require a trip to Chełmno.
"Your" written report from your source has no value especially when I saw your answers here, your assumptions about how perfect is this report have no value too, sorry.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I shall also look up your gas chamber thread when I have time (even though the subject doesn’t exactly excite me), after you have answered my related clarification questions. And don’t worry about my dodging anything. Dodging I leave to folks like you.
This subject don´t excite you? Fascinating. Your answer should be quick and simple, I expected that such a sketch, photo, model and etc. is in almost every book and webpage about this subject, so just spend a few seconds with this answer. Hope that at least somebody is exicted about device responsible for more than three millions murdered peoples, I really hope so. I can save your time, user Nessie already quoted this link below, maybe this could be your answer, I don´t know.

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/ ... ebcad.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You still waste our time Mr. Muehlenkamp, I wanted to show only just simple three pieces of photos of your grave 1/34 and that´s all from your pictorial evidence and you still add more and more examples of other investigations and more and more off topic questions. Just show three photos mentioned above, simple. I already wanted to leave this forum since nobody answered my simple question and my threads are already dead, so tell me directly now if you can or if you can´t provide this material, Yes or No?

I expected that you have this prepared, if you don´t have it, no problem, is up to Mr. Shermer to review your "evidence".

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 24, 2012 5:17 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Yeah, archaeologists and their maps lied because Dodging David says so.
Why don't we just say that the Tourist Promotion Board
did not state the amount of human remains found? You yourself spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out the "correct" percentage of the pit were human remains.


David wrote: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 found
lots of little graves.
That’s because Treblinka I was a relatively small labor camp with a relatively low mortality. At Treblinka II Polish investigators found a mass graves area with a size of 1.8 – 2 ha (an area covered by human ashes and larger human remains can only have been a mass graves area), and the grave they excavated to the bottom was 7.5 meters deep.

So we can all be clear, the evidence regarding Treblinka I is clear, Many small
graves close together containing about a week's number of fatalities.


That pattern of burial was what was also found at Majdanek...instead of the mass graves with the promised 400,000 dead in them there were several small graves.

Rather than learn from what we know was the pattern of burial at various
camps,
Like a dog returning to its vomit, Roberto goes off on the unclear, unquantified description of the Polish Tourist agency, puts a Believer spin on it, and then crows out that he has proven something. :roll: :roll:


David wrote:That is probably the same situation at Chelmno.
Only in David’s wishful thinking.
One could reply that only a Believer's ghoulish desire
for more and more human remains blinds them to the obvious obfuscation
in the Polish Tourist Board "report."




David wrote:The Poles also included trash burning areas in the "graves."
What Poles are supposed to have included trash burning areas in what graves?
The guys hired to promote Chelmno as a tourist destination.
David wrote: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?
For some reason a significant mixture of human remains is only mentioned in regard to grave # 5, not in regard to the other graves where human remains were also found. This means that the concentration of human remains in grave # 5 must have been somewhat higher than in the other graves.

The reason is obviously that there was NOT a significant
mixture of human remains found in any "grave" but #5.
Again, "Aren't any detectable human remains of an alleged murder victim "significant? Of course!
Anyone but a Believer Ghoul would see the obvious.


David wrote: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?
Your indignation is misplaced, Roberto.
When the Poles have an actual body to report they do so with relish!
"The research season in 1998 finished in October with a shocking discovery of reburied human remains. They were uncovered during excavations carried out north of the southeastern corner of the palace. In one place the remains of two men were buried, in another a fragment of a man's skeleton without a head and thighbones.
http://www.muzeum.com.pl/en/chelmno.htm#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

so in one site they found two bodies. In another site one body.
In another grave they found (note the precision)
we found several unburned objects belonging to the victims. These are: flatware, a mirror with the image of a young woman on the back, a bottle, a toothbrush, a full box of the Nicea cream (with the inscription "Posen")."

Then the Poles reported finding "6 similar badges were found near the "włocławska" grave."
So the Poles carefully quantify everything including the few human
bodies that they do find...about three

Once again, you are totally wrong in your "visualizing" what the report
says.






You miss the point...your source also mentions "solid eye witnesses" who saw the ghost.
That’s not my source. That’s the Konin Regional Museum, not the Chełmno Museum. The Konin Regional Museum mentions a local legend as part of the regional folklore, big deal.
David wrote:I just wondered what parts of the "Museum's" tales you believed and what parts you dismissed.
I do believe the Konin Regional Museum’s mention that so-and-so reported having seen a ghost. It’s a good anecdote for tourist entertainment.
Any tales of horror are, Roberto.



Yells hysterical David and stomps his feet. No, I haven’t proven that there are teeth in grave 1/34, even though it’s reasonable to assume that there are.

If you remember, you where strutting your claim out as "proof." Now you are admitting you haven't proven that teeth were found in a "mass grave." But, oddly, you are claiming that it is reasonable to assume
that there are teeth in the grave! Yes, that is my point.
It is reasonable to assume that there would be teeth found in a mass grave
and none were...ergo "grave #5 was not a mass grave.

Time for you to go back to your "explanations" and "excuses" :lol: :lol:




But neither do I have to, nor was that my intention. What I have to do for your fellow chimp is to provide proof that the grave contains human remains (no matter of what kind) corresponding to at least 19 human bodies. This I have done by showing that the grave contains human remains (the ash layer can only have been a layer of human ash, even though this is not expressly mentioned, for otherwise the archaeologists would not have concluded that grave # 1 was a grave) and providing a reasonable minimum estimate of the quantity of such remains.
What about "not expressly mentioned don't you understand?
Particularly in light of the "report's" excitement of 2 bodies in one other grave
and one body in another?



Much ado about nothing, that’s my David.
"Nothing" is probably very close to the right word, Roberto

David wrote: 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.
Then what are you waiting for to sent Prof. Shermer an e-mail suggesting that he organize or sponsor such investigation? You may even ask him if he would hire you to count bone fragments, teeth and such.
David wrote: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-
"Inconcise"? How so?
David wrote:2. Total lack of human material which would be in a mass grave, especially teeth.
Lack of human material? Even in regard to grave # 1 an ash layer is mentioned, which can only have been human. In regard to the other four graves human remains are expressly mentioned.
David wrote:3. Base information from a questionable source, it a tourist promotion board which also posts testimony about a ghost which haunts the area.
Typical David silliness. If the Chełmno Museum is somehow linked to the Konin Regional Museum, that doesn’t change the fact that the archaeological investigation of the Chełmno area and its mass graves was carried out by qualified professional archaeologist. And it’s not like the KRM had endorsed the reported ghost testimony as accurate. It merely mentioned the same as a curiosity of local folklore, like any English or Scottish castle museum may mention tales about ghosts haunting the respective castle. If archaeologists have reconstructed the history of such castle by archaeological means, poor David will argue that their work is not reliable because the museum amuses tourist visitors with ghost lore. :roll:
David wrote:In short, Roberto has spent his time with highly questionable data.
Not at all, but calling David’s rubbish highly questionable is to praise it.
David wrote:That is not to say he is incorrect. But he clearly has not proven anything.
It’s not Dodging David who gets to decide what is proof and what is not. Not in the context of this submission, and neither in any other context.
David wrote:The obvious Skeptical solution is to reject his claim and to call for a public, scientific, investigation of the site by independent investigators.
Let the skeptical Mr. Shermer decide that. He doesn’t need advice from an un-skeptical true believer who automatically lashes out at anything that is not in accordance with his articles of faith.

Just how is the museum’s investigation "unclear", David? Any precedent of a "clear" archaeological investigation of a mass killing site that you can show us? Preferably one where the archaeologists tried to quantify human cremation remains.[/quote]

Katyn.

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 24, 2012 1:36 pm

Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?

You should know it, right? For example Majdanek chamber no. III/A or IV/C. You claim, that these chambers are altered and not in original condition, right?
I don’t know and I’m not claiming anything at this moment. I’m asking a question that Bob is running away from.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Wrong about what, and what claim would be untrue?

See above.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: So the gas chamber can be one that at some time after homicidal use was destroyed or dismantled or converted into a delousing chamber or another facility, i.e. one that no longer has the features it had when used for homicidal gassing?

Just show me some chamber in condition in which was used, physical, sketches, blueprints, models, take your pick. Do you have something to see this legendary device which allegedly gassed millions of peoples?
I guess so, but no single device gassed millions of people let alone peoples. Different devices operated in different manners.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: And what’s the "as alleged" supposed to mean? "Alleged" by whom? By eyewitnesses? Are eyewitness descriptions of events they witnessed mere "allegations" in your book? Are they not evidence? If so, why not? What accepted rules or standards of evidence that you can quote whereby eyewitness testimonies are not evidence?

As alleged means - as your source/s claims, simple.
Bob is dodging at least half the question.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: I must prove that the Soviet crimes have not been subject to a Katyn-style investigation, i.e. prove a negative? Nice try, Bobby.

No, everything what you need to prove is the level of investigation, simply list all examples, list all Soviets crimes as you claimed, show their investigation, provide here all information about investigations, then i will see or no see that really "overhelming majority" or "all other" crimes are not properly investigated and they I can answer your questions which depend on this claim of your.
Bob continues hiding behind the undue demand that I "show their investigation", so let’s make this real simple: none of the Soviet crimes I listed, except for Katyn and Vinnitsa, has been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations. Neither has any other of the crimes I listed been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations, as far as I know. What we know about Kuropaty and Bykivnia, Kolyma and Vorkuta and those East German camps under Soviet rule is based on the memoirs of survivors and on documents, and where site inspections were carried out they can be called cursory and superficial at best, nothing that would remotely compare with the thoroughness of the German Katyn and Vinnista investigations (I assume that Vinnitsa was as thorough and well-documented as Katyn, though I have been shown no evidence in this direction).
Bob wrote: Your following questions are thus irrelevant, adress my points, no dodging, you made claim, you placed questions, back up your claim then I can answer your questions.
Claim has been backed up as follows, just to keep self-projecting dishonest dodger Bob from running away: none of the crimes I listed has to my knowledge been subject to a crime site investigation that remotely compares to the German Katyn investigation as concerns thoroughness of exhumation, autopsies and related documentation, participation of impartial observers and all the other features that Bob makes so much of. The only Soviet crime sites that have to my knowledge been subject to an inspection (which, as I said, does not remotely compare to the German Katyn investigation, as one can already see from the different claims made by different sources) are Kuropaty and Bykivnia. As to the other places, zilch crime site investigation. If there had been, "Revisionist" charlatans like Bob wouldn’t be reduced to exulting Katyn and Vinnitsa as the kind of crime site investigations that are required to prove mass murder. With this in mind, dodging Bob will now stop dodging my questions and answer the following two questions, regarding each of the mass crimes I listed in my previous post:

1. Do you accept as factual a) the occurrence of this crime and b) the minimum reported death toll? Yes or no?

2. If the answer to the previous question should be «yes», then on the basis of what evidence and what reasoning do you accept these crimes and the respective minimum reported death toll as factual?

No "I can’t answer unless I have seen" – crap please. Unless you can show otherwise, assume that there is nothing to see, at least nothing of the kind you proclaim to be a must in order to establish the facts of a mass crime. Just answer the above questions.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question was not about Bełżec grave "1/34".

Belzec 1/34? You are confused, this is your Chelmno 1/34 thread.
Yep, that’s what I meant, but my question was not about Chełmno grave "1/34" either.
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Do you accept as accurate Richard Wright’s account of the Nazi massacres at Serniki and Ustinovka?

Do you accept that the Nazis committed these atrocities as established on hand of eyewitness testimonies and forensic archaeology?

Yes or no?

Provide here full report and all materials you have to let me see it, then I can answer.
First he dodged the question with the following non-answer, which states that he would accept the existence and contents of Chełmno grave "1/34" if shown photographic documentation like I showed regarding Serniki and Ustinovka:
If you can provide me with similar pictures as you showed above from your grave 1/34, I will accept them, no problem, show me excavated grave and other pictures of your proof.
Reminded that the question referred to the Serniki and Ustinovka crimes and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the pictures I showed are no longer enough to convince him that Richard Wright’s account of the Serniki and Ustinovka crimes is accurate. Now he wants "full report and all materials you have to let me see it".

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously. That’s my Bob.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question was another. The question was:

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Do you accept as accurate Father Desbois account of the excavations conducted at Busk, the physical finds that were made there and the events that were revealed by these finds and other evidence?

Yes or no?

Same as above.
First he dodged the question with the following non-answer, which states that he would accept the existence and contents of Chełmno grave "1/34" if shown film documentation like I showed regarding Busk:
If you can provide me with pictures showed in your question 2., no problem, I will accept them, show me these pictures of your grave 1/34.
Reminded that the question referred to the Busk killings and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the film documentation I showed is no longer enough to convince him that Father Desbois’s account of the Busk killings is accurate. Now he wants "full report and all materials you have to let me see it".

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously. That’s my Bob.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The question was not about Chełmno mass grave "1/34" but about Nazi mass killings at Drobitski Yar near Kharkov. You may read the related Soviet reports and corroborating evidence from the German side on the RODOH thread Kharkov under Nazi Occupation and in the blogs Drobitski Yar and The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1) .

Do you accept as factual the massacre at the Drobitski Yar near Kharkov as it becomes apparent from this Soviet and German evidence?

Yes or no?

Sorry, from Soviet communist investagation was "apparent" that previously investigated Katyn was comitted by Nazis, so I don´t accept these Soviet/communist "investigations" BUT, if you provide me with points adopted from previously mentioned examples, I will accept them, see:

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.
First he dodged the question with the following non-answer, which states that he would accept the existence and contents of Chełmno grave "1/34" if shown photographic documentation like I showed regarding Drobitski Yar:
If you can provide me with pictures showed in your question 3., no problem, I will accept them, show me these pictures of your grave 1/34.
Reminded that the question referred to the Drobitski Yar killings and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the film documentation I showed is no longer enough to convince him that what becomes apparent from Soviet and German evidence (independently of each other) regarding the killings at Drobitski Yar is accurate. Now he wants a crime site investigation meeting Katyn standards. Which of course he knows cannot be provided as the Soviets never invited "third party observers" to their investigations, so he has a pretext to continue sheltering his articles of faith.

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously again. That’s my Bob.
Bob wrote: Provide this for Soviet/communist investigations mentiond above, and I accept them, fair? I hope so, no double standard between the Nazis or Soviets, right?
Except, of course, that the contents and results of the Soviet investigation, while not watched by third-party or neutral observers on site, were essentially confirmed by evidence on which the Soviets could not have had any influence, including but not limited to the documents and the testimonies before West German courts mentioned on the RODOH thread Kharkov under Nazi Occupation and in the blogs Drobitski Yar and The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1) . And that, insofar as sources of evidence independent of each other match, there is no reason to suspect Soviet manipulation, unlike in the Soviet investigation of the Katyn crime, whose results we know to have been manipulated because they were contradicted by evidence on which the Soviets could have had no influence.

If all that matters for Bob is whether a crime site investigation complied with a certain protocol, then I would like to hear from him is what parts of this protocol:

«-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backup materials»


were missing in the Soviet investigation of the Katyn killings, in which they also exhumed corpses and made autopsies and filmed the procedures and concluded that the Germans and not the Soviet NKVD had done the killing.

If he cannot identify any part of his protocol that is missing in the Soviet Katyn investigation, he can then tell us why he nevertheless does not accept the results of the Soviet Katyn investigation as accurate.

If he can identify any part of the protocol that is missing in the Soviet Katyn investigation, he can then tell us whether he would accept as accurate the results of the Soviet Katyn investigation if it had complied with all parts of his protocol.
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I can’t use as proof a map drawn by an archaeologist unless I can point out on a Google Earth satellite picture the location depicted on the map?

What utter, slobbering nonsense.

Then sorry, your acheological map has zero value when you are not able to use it in reality. Feel free to contact your source to explain this map to you, where is problem. Just apply this map to real photo, to real location, what are you waiting for? Open Image editor, copy map over chelmno satelitte photo, change blending value and then show it here with saying "this is 100% position of my proof 1/34 with dimensions and shape"
I was looking forward to Bob’s explanation why he thinks it is not slobbering nonsense to claim that one cannot can’t use as proof a map drawn by an archaeologist unless one can point out on a Google Earth satellite picture the location depicted on the map.

What do I get instead? More slobbering nonsense, which Bob’s hysterical foot-stomping doesn’t make any less nonsensical.
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:is where grave # 1 is located. Although the scale of the maps and the photo don’t seem to be the same, I can use the former to give you a rough idea of where I think the grave is in the latter:

"rough idea of where I think the grave is" in the other words you don´t know.
Of course I cannot be sure (before I have a chance to visit the Chełmno site) that the place on the photo where I drew the grave’s outlines corresponds exactly to the place where the grave is drawn on the map. But at least I’m pretty close. If Bob should disagree, he is welcome to try improving on my location of the grave on the satellite photo.

Here’s the map:

Image

Here’s the photo, with the red line showing where I located the grave according to the map:

Image

Where do you think my drawing is wrong, Bobby?

Come on, show your drawing skills.
Bob wrote:Don´t know where is you problem to locate it, you have scanned book.
With maps good enough to match with GE satellite photos, as I have done regarding grave # 1. The only problem I have is that scales aren't necessarily the same and my drawing skills are not the best.
Bob wrote:I see excavated pit, but no human remains. So no Jewish law applied for this pit as I see, interesting, or they knew that no human remains will be found in this pit? Hardly.
Bob must be referring to the lower of the following photos:

Image

The pit shown there is called Pit No. 4. It is not one of the mass graves in the Rzuchów Forest Cemetery but a waste pit found "in the palace and park grounds", as Bob would know if his hysteria had not kept him from reading even the online version of the report, where this pit is described as follows:
Localized about 15.5 m from the western granary wall, pit no. 4 contained layers of brown humus mixed with inclusions of clay. The profile showed legibly the backfilling layers. The structure of the layers revealed that the pit was filled in alternately from west and east. Most likely some of the objects were burned, which is supported by blackened marks on the pit walls as well as partly burned waste. The accounts of the elder Chełmno residents confirm this assumption. The pit was rectangular in shape, about 8.0 m long, 3.6 m wide, and 2.5 m deep. Its cross-section was trapezoidal in shape. On the basis of stratigraphy it may be concluded that it had been used for a long time. The earth inside the pit was very compact; many small objects were stuck in the burned lumps. For this reason all the excavated earth was washed and sifted several times. After the war, its upper part was explored by Judge W. Bednarz. Later, during the Agricultural Cooperative's operation in the grounds,the pit was filled with 'contemporary' waste. We retrieved incredibly rich and valuable historical material in the form of the victims' belongings, on the basis of which it is possible to link the pit to the first phase of the camp operation. Among others, human teeth and gold and metal tooth caps were found. The most precious object was an oval, silver-made badge, 2.3 cm in diameter. On the obverse on the right, there is the image of a disabled person, facing the tablet bearing the inscription "WOHNGEBIET DER JUDEN",supporting himself on a crutch, with a prosthesis instead of the right leg, wearing a uniform, a four-cornered hat worn by Polish soldiers, and a Star of David on his right shoulder. At the top there is a curve-shaped inscription saying "INWALIDA WOJENNY" ("WAR-DISABLED PERSON"). At the bottom, in three lines, there is the inscription "Litzmanstadt Getto 1940". The reverse bears a trace of a pin or screw thread, at the lower part it has the number "20". Moreover, we found an anniversary badge of the BUND with the name in Hebrew letters and the date "1897" on the obverse, as well as a badge awarded by the Minister of Industry, Craft and Trade for prominent achievements. Among rare findings there are a round silver badge of the Religious-Scout Youth Organization "Bnej Akiwa" (presenting the tables of the Decalogue, a crossed hammer and rake, and the Hebrew inscription "BNEJ AKIWA" ("the sons of Akiwa"). Of all the ornaments, special attention should be paid to: a silver cufflink made in the filigree technique, silver broochess:with roses motif, in the shape of a lizard, as well as a significant amount of the ghetto ornaments, such as: a brooch with the name "MADZIA" bent from copper wire, ornamental hangers representing a woman dancer and a Chinese man, cut out of thin brass sheet, as well as Stars of David of various kind, cut out or embossed. Among the latter ones, a significant group is represented by initials; some of them had been made amateurishly, mostly of brass or copper sheet Still some had been made of silver by engravers and jewelers. Small, at times undervalued objects after a closer analysis can tell us something about the person they belonged to. Thus an ornamental, small, silver monogram from some woman's clutch bag or purse with the letters "dr RB", most likely belonged to Dr. Rojza Basior. A special group of exhibits is represented by objects related to cult; these are: a fragment of a setting of a Saturday knife with the Hebrew inscription "HOLY SABBATH", glass cups - vodka glasses with the inscription "PESACH", a heavily burned enameled pendant with the number "13", a silver ornamental hanger in the shape of the tables of the Decalogue, oval enameled pendants with the image of Moses on the obverse and the Hebrew prayer "Listen Israel". We also found a silver, openwork hanger with the tables of the Decalogue, which might have been a memento of bat micwa, and Christian crosses. The confirmation of the fact that Jews who had become Polish soldiers also died in Chełmno were the following objects found in this pit: shreds of a soldier's uniform, buttons with the Polish Eagle (the Polish national emblem), and a silver badge with the inscription "Dowódca 14 p.p." ("Commander of the 14th infantry regiment"). Moreover, we found buttons of a firefighter's uniform (made in Łódź in the Bronisław Grabski's plant), as well as of scout and school uniforms. Of other interesting exhibits, we should mention a brass badge with the initials "LG", another brass badge with Hebrew inscriptions and the name "L. Auerbach", as well as a ceramic figurine of a lying lion, a metal figurine of a dog, and stone figurines of a "silent" monkey. A few objects may be linked to the German and Austrian Jews; these are: 2 iron crosses from the period of WW I, a brass 6-square top for playing "drejdl" with the inscriptions in Yiddish (Arab letters), a silver thimble with the German inscription "D.H. Aus Freundschaft", three glass medallions made in a mold - a blue one with the image of Schiller, yellow and white with Frederick the Great, a badge with the inscription "Berlin", a badge of the Nurses Association from Wiesbaden (Jewish nurses; in the center of the badge there is the Star of David), and a glass vial after a medicine against insect bites and frostbite manufactured by Aachen. Among numerous findings from the pit, we should also pay special attention to medicine boxes, fragments of syringes and needles, a fragment of a probably promotional mirror from Vienna, a fragment of a faience dish with the sign of C. Freudenreich's factory in Koło, the German name of the town - "Wartbrücken" - and the data "1942", small toys for children in the shape of animal figurines. The tools found included: textile magnifying glasses, jeweler's, shoemaker's, and tailor's tools.
---
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Ok, when I should have time to go to Chełmno (hopefully this year), I’ll try to collect some human remains from grave # 1, unless the archaeologist can provide me with samples. Without a special permission (which I don’t count on obtaining), I won’t be able to do much digging, however, as this is a memorial site. It would be sort of like digging up graves at Arlington National Cemetery.

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Now, if I understood you correctly, the only thing you are still missing to accept as accurate Prof. Andrzej Kola’s finds about the Sobibór mass grave as rendered in his archaeological report about Sobibór (after I have shown you core sample photos and photos of human remains I found myself, and matched the archaeological map with a GE satellite photo of the Sobibór graves), is a micro-chemical analyses of some representative core samples confirming that they contain human remains.

You undestand incorrectly, I did not say anything about this investigation and what I think about ti or if you matched or not matched something. I only said "If you can provide me with analyses of content of your excavated grave 1/34, yes i can accept analyse together with your previous evidence mentioned above." That´s all.
Then say something about the Sobibór investigation now, Bobby. Answer this question:
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 wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I for my part will try to satisfy your picture demands regarding Chełmno grave # 1, even though you have not explained their relevance, namely why they are needed on top of the evidence already submitted to prove that this grave exists and contains human remains. Of course this will require a trip to Chełmno.

Your" written report from your source has no value especially when I saw your answers here, your assumptions about how perfect is this report have no value too, sorry.
Repeating a baseless assertion is not the same as explaining/justifying it, except perhaps in Bob’s cloud-cuckoo-land
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I shall also look up your gas chamber thread when I have time (even though the subject doesn’t exactly excite me), after you have answered my related clarification questions. And don’t worry about my dodging anything. Dodging I leave to folks like you.

This subject don´t excite you? Fascinating. Your answer should be quick and simple, I expected that such a sketch, photo, model and etc. is in almost every book and webpage about this subject, so just spend a few seconds with this answer.
Is there any reason why your expectations should be realistic, or why anyone should care about what you expect?
Bob wrote:Hope that at least somebody is exicted about device responsible for more than three millions murdered peoples, I really hope so.
I’m interested in the people who were murdered and in those who murdered them, actually. The devices that the murderers used are usually of secondary importance to reasonable human beings, though I can understand they are of primary importance to Nazi-apologists who see themselves reduced to pointless and nonsensical "it couldn’t have worked that way" – bitching in the utter and unexplainable absence of evidence suggesting that the camps in question were not the places of mass that all known evidence shows them to have been.
Bob wrote:I can save your time, user Nessie already quoted this link below, maybe this could be your answer, I don´t know.

http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ebcad.html
Looks nice, I’ll consider it.
Bob wrote:You still waste our time Mr. Muehlenkamp, I wanted to show only just simple three pieces of photos of your grave 1/34 and that´s all from your pictorial evidence and you still add more and more examples of other investigations and more and more off topic questions. Just show three photos mentioned above, simple. I already wanted to leave this forum since nobody answered my simple question and my threads are already dead, so tell me directly now if you can or if you can´t provide this material, Yes or No?
The three pieces of photos? Not from where I’m writing at this moment, but there’s a good chance I’ll get them if and when I should visit the Chełmno museum and have a chance to talk to Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak or another of the archaeologists involved in the mass graves investigation. As that is not going to happen within the next month or two, you’ll have plenty of time to provide an explanation of your demands’ relevance that is not as piss-poor as what you have come with so far. If you want to leave this forum, on the other hand, feel free to do so. I won’t miss you, and it doesn’t look to me like anybody else will.
Bob wrote:I expected that you have this prepared, if you don´t have it, no problem, is up to Mr. Shermer to review your "evidence".
Bob has finally realized that the expectations of Mr. Shermer and not his own are relevant here. If he had left out the silly quote marks around the word "evidence", one might even say that he managed another of his rare reasonable statements.

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 24, 2012 4:39 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?

You should know it, right? For example Majdanek chamber no. III/A or IV/C. You claim, that these chambers are altered and not in original condition, right?
I don’t know and I’m not claiming anything at this moment. I’m asking a question that Bob is running away from.
Then is your question "Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?" irrelevant, I only wanted to see nazi homicidal gas chamber used for killing, not which one is or isn´t altered.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I guess so, but no single device gassed millions of people let alone peoples. Different devices operated in different manners.
You "guess so" - in the other words, you don´t know or what? Mr. Muehlnekmap only "guess so" that he can show me Nazi homicidal gas chamber, interesting.
none of the Soviet crimes I listed, except for Katyn and Vinnitsa, has been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations. Neither has any other of the crimes I listed been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations, as far as I know.
But you didn´t speak about crimes you listed you clearly said "the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes which have been subjected to less-than-exemplary investigation or to no criminal investigations" or here "and other of Stalin’s Gulag camps, about Soviet crimes" and here "Do you maintain that all Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres"

You based your questions on these claims, so back this claims, list all of these crimes and majority of them, show me their level of investigation, than i can answer you. From you response I see that you can´t back it, correct? So end.
Reminded that the question referred to the Serniki and Ustinovka crimes and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the pictures I showed are no longer enough to convince him that Richard Wright’s account of the Serniki and Ustinovka crimes is accurate. Now he wants "full report and all materials you have to let me see it".

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously. That’s my Bob.

Reminded that the question referred to the Busk killings and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the film documentation I showed is no longer enough to convince him that Father Desbois’s account of the Busk killings is accurate. Now he wants "full report and all materials you have to let me see it".

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously. That’s my Bob.
I requested full reports to be able answer your questions if I accept these reports, how can I answer them when you did not show these full reports, you refused and accused me, so end.

Previously, I only confirmed that pictures you provided will be accepted for your grave, I did not say anything about reports.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Except...
So much text, but no answer, so again, provide points listed below to avoid double standard and then I can answer you.

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.
Of course I cannot be sure (before I have a chance to visit the Chełmno site) that the place on the photo where I drew the grave’s outlines corresponds exactly to the place where the grave is drawn on the map. The only problem I have is that scales aren't necessarily the same and my drawing skills are not the best.
This ruined all of your effort to mark grave, you are not sure, in the other words, you don´t know, final confirmation I guess. I am not here to correct your marks Mr. Muehlenkamp, you should know it where is your proof, not me.
The pit shown there is called Pit No. 4. It is not one of the mass graves in the Rzuchów Forest Cemetery but a waste pit found "in the palace and park grounds", as Bob would know if his hysteria had not kept him from reading even the online version of the report, where this pit is described as follows:
You completely missed my point, how they knew what will be in the pit to avoid violation of alleged Jewish law, they knew what is in the pit before excavation, but how.

Your "Sobibor" questions are adressed above.
Is there any reason why your expectations should be realistic, or why anyone should care about what you expect?
Adressed previously many times.
I’m interested in the people who were murdered and in those who murdered them, actually. The devices that the murderers used are usually of secondary importance to reasonable human beings
I only wonder how can you say this when you are not able to show how this was possible.

Any proof that usually reasonable peoples consider murder weapon as thing of secondary importance? Same claim with zero value as previously, this is your favorite one as I see - "argumentum ad populum"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You are also able to accomodate another fallacy to your claim - "reasonable peoples consider murder weapon as thing of secondary importance thus who consider it as first or third importance is not reasonable". Two logical fallacies in one package, this is really useless for deabte.
The three pieces of photos? Not from where I’m writing at this moment, but there’s a good chance I’ll get them if and when I should visit the Chełmno museum and have a chance to talk to Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak or another of the archaeologists involved in the mass graves investigation.
Strange question, I already said what three photos would be sufficient to publish, see here again.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 34#p271974" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you can´t, ok, than end of discussion I guess, all information were already provided by Mr. Muehlnekamp. I did not adressed your ad hominems I just skipped them, also you use incredible amount of nonrelevant text just as you colleagues like Mr. Terry, adress points directly.

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 24, 2012 5:55 pm

Roberto writes- "Then say something about the Sobibór investigation now-"

Seems you have a hard time sticking to your topic,
Roberto.
You have admitted that it is reasonable to expect to find teeth in a mass grave.
You have admitted that none were found in Chelmno "Grave" 1/34.

You have claimed that the Poles did not need to quantify the amount of
human remains. Your calculations are enough.

Oddly, you admit the Polish figures are speculative yet you claim them as
"Proof." Garbage in=Garbage out.

I have shown that the Poles did quantified the number and condition of any human
remains that they actually found, which they did not do with your "Grave 1/34.

I have also shown, and you admit, the actual burial pattern of German camps
like Treblinka/Labor. Numerous small graves with 2 - 12 bodies in them.
That fact also blows apart your "Proof."

I noticed that you have backed down to a mere 19 bodies from the
135,000 "Ghoul Figure."
In fact, it is probable that Chlemno did have a series of
19-20 body graves which the Polish enthusiastically made into one
large grave. But you have not proven that.



User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:34 pm

The revisionist/deniers yet again fail to see the wood for the trees. That pulverised (as in ashes and tiny fragments of bone) human remains mixed in with soil have been found at Chelmno, Treblinka II and Sobibor in unmarked graves that have been left so that they are not even apparent as graves, in camps that were themselves raised to the ground, it is clear that the aim was to hide what happened.
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 » Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:37 pm

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?

You should know it, right? For example Majdanek chamber no. III/A or IV/C. You claim, that these chambers are altered and not in original condition, right?

I don’t know and I’m not claiming anything at this moment. I’m asking a question that Bob is running away from.

Then is your question "Which of these is supposed to have not been modified since it was used for homicidal gassing?" irrelevant, I only wanted to see nazi homicidal gas chamber used for killing, not which one is or isn´t altered.
So Bob would be happy with an image of a gas chamber that has been destroyed? OK, here is one:

Image

Source

Here's another, showing the same lovely cellar or its twin construction when in operation or about to start operation:

Image

Source

Here is a document that helps to understand what the holes identified in the first of the above photos and the "chimneys" visible on the second photo were related to:

"Four wire-mesh introduction devices, four wooden covers"

Here's a document in which one of Bob's heroes revealed what the purpose of that lovely cellar was:

"Vergasungskeller"

And this is another document in which one of Bob's heroes spilled the beans:

"Cremation with simultaneous Special Treatment"
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:I guess so, but no single device gassed millions of people let alone peoples. Different devices operated in different manners.

You "guess so" - in the other words, you don´t know or what?
No, I was only joking a little with a humorless hysteric ...
Bob wrote: Mr. Muehlnekmap only "guess so" that he can show me Nazi homicidal gas chamber, interesting.
... who reacted just like expected him to. :mrgreen:

Is the hysteric so excited that he can no longer even spell my name correctly, by the way?
Bob wrote:none of the Soviet crimes I listed, except for Katyn and Vinnitsa, has been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations. Neither has any other of the crimes I listed been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations, as far as I know.

But you didn´t speak about crimes you listed you clearly said "the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes which have been subjected to less-than-exemplary investigation or to no criminal investigations" or here "and other of Stalin’s Gulag camps, about Soviet crimes" and here "Do you maintain that all Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres"

You based your questions on these claims, so back this claims, list all of these crimes and majority of them, show me their level of investigation, than i can answer you. From you response I see that you can´t back it, correct? So end.
So what is furious Bobby trying to tell me here? Maybe he's projecting his own dishonesty and suspecting that I withheld from him Soviet crimes that were subject to what he would accept as a proper crime scene investigation, even though I gave him the biggest Soviet crimes sites and some of those that have been subject to at least some site investigation/inspection. OK, then lets look at the complexes that make up the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes as a whole. These are the following:

1. Famines of 1932/33
In 1932 the crisis finally produced massive famine. In a vast swathe of population from Kazakhstan through the northern Caucasus to the Ukraine, as a consequence of excessive procurement levels, loss of manpower and horses, peasant demoralization and resistance, an estimated 4 5 million died of malnutrition and hunger-induced disease in the winter of 1932/3. That year the crisis ushered in by the second revolution reached its peak. Industrial output slowed and inflation rose. A strike movement broke out among the Moscow industrial workforce in April in reaction to food shortages. The situation in the Ukraine, where the party insisted on extracting the maximum quotas as a punishment for peasant resistance, was so desperate that it prompted Stalin to remark, in an urgent letter written in August 1932, we may lose the Ukraine, though his reaction was, characteristically, to insist on tougher measures against saboteurs and criminals.
(Richard Overy, The Dictators, page 42. Emphasis added)

2. Executions of unwanted people
One of the most difficult things for historians to establish is just how many victims of state repression there were. The Soviet security system generated a mass of secret statistics, most of which have become available since the fall of European communism. The Third Reich was less statistically fastidious, and more secretive. While record-keepers in the NKVD wrote down every conviction and sentence, German camp and prison records were not so scrupulously maintained, or were deliberately destroyed every few months. At the end of the war bonfires of security papers blazed all over the Reich. Even with the better Soviet records, it stretches belief to assume that every victim was recorded, or that some were not recorded twice by rival agencies keen to demonstrate that they were over-fulfilling their norms, particularly under the exceptional conditions during the Ezhovshchina and the war. The two dictatorships incarcerated and murdered prisoners in millions, not hundreds. A statistically precise figure of the victims of either dictatorship is beyond historical recovery, and it is in the nature of murderous repression that it should be so.
The existing figures do, nonetheless, give a clear indication of the scale and character of the repression. For years the figures circulating in the West for Soviet repression were greatly inflated. Anton Antonov-Oveseyenko, the son of a leading party victim in the 1930s, claimed in memoirs written in 1980 that Politburo sources indicated that 18.84 million people were sent to Soviet prisons between 1935 and 1940, and that 7 million of these were shot; some 16 million were said to be in the camps; the number of dead in the 1930s from famine and repression he calculated to be 41 million. Some of these figures were accepted and reproduced in the West, where estimates ranging from 8 to 20 million arrests and 9 to 40 million deaths have been widely circulated.
The archive shows a very different picture. Aggregate statistics of arrests, convictions and executions were compiled in 1953 after Stalins death. Those arrested, convicted and sentenced by the NKVD agencies between 1930 and 1953 total 3,851,450. The total executed, according to these figures, was 776,074, which is very close to the figure of 786,098 for those sentenced to execution between 1930 and 1953 published under Gorbachev in 1990. The full record is set out in table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Sentences of Cases brought to Trial by State Security 1930-1953
Year; Death; Camps; Exile; Other; Total

1930; 20.201; 114.443; 58.816; 14.609; 208.069
1931; 10.651; 105.683; 63.269; 1.093; 180.696
1932; 2.728; 73.946; 36.017; 29.228; 141.919
1933; 2.154; 138.903; 54.262; 44.345; 239.664
1934; 2.056; 59.451; 5.994; 11.498; 78.999
1935; 1.229; 185.846; 33.601; 46.400; 267.076
1936; 1.118; 219.418; 23.719; 30.415; 274.670
1937; 353.074; 429.311; 1.366; 6.914; 790.665
1938; 328.618; 205.509; 16.842; 3.289; 554.258
1939; 2.552; 54.666; 3.783; 2.888; 63.889
1940; 1.649; 65.727; 2.142; 2.228; 71.746
1941; 8.011; 65.000; 1.200; 1.210; 75.421
1942; 23.278; 88.809; 7.070; 5.249; 124.406
1943; 3.579; 68.887; 4.787; 1.188; 78.441
1944; 3.029; 73.610; 649; 821; 78.109
1945; 4.252; 116.681; 1.647; 668; 123.248
1946; 2.896; 117.943; 1.498; 957; 123.294
1947 1.105; 76.581; 666; 458; 78.810
1948* - ; 72.552; 419; 298; 73.269
1949 - ; 64.409; 10.316; 300; 75.025
1950 475; 54.466; 5.225; 475; 60.641
1951 1.609; 49.142; 3.452; 599; 54.802
1952 1.612; 25.824; 773; 591; 28.800
1953 198; 7.894; 38; 273; 8.403

* Capital punishment was abolished in 1947, but was reintroduced in 1950 for particularly severe cases.
Source: J.P. Pohl, The Stalinist Penal System (London 1997), p. 8.

These figures are substantially lower than the more speculative pre-glasnost estimates. The statistics for those sent to camps are consistent with what is know from the archives of the Gulag, about the size and composition of the camp population. In 1940 there were 4 million in the various penal institutions: approximately 1.3 million in the Gulag camps, 300,000 in prison, 997,000 in special settlements and 1.5 million in deportee camps.
The exceptional years are 1937 and 1938. In the two central years of the Ezhovshchina are to be found 35 per cent of all convictions between 1930 and 1953, and 88 per cent of all executions, a total in two years of 681,692 victims.
(Overy, as above, pp. 193-95. Emphases added).

3. The Gulag labor camps, 1934-53
By 1950 there were 6.45 million in the various parts of the camp empire. Total deaths in the Gulag from 1934 (when accurate records start) to 1953 numbered 1,053,829, in the most part from disease, overwork, frostbite and malnutrition. Some of the NKVD executions were carried out in the camps, and may be double counted in the global total of NKVD killings. More difficult to assess is just how many of the cases tried under the security agencies were in face criminal cases (like the case of two unfortunate peasant boys sent to mind the collective farm cows, who were caught eating three cucumbers and were each sentenced to eight years in a camp). Nor is it possible to calculate how many cases in the ordinary justice system were in face raised under Article 58 and punished by execution or imprisonment. The numbers who died in transit camps, in overcrowded wagons, short of food and water, in sub-zero temperatures can only be hazarded. The full reckoning of the victims of Soviet repression is certainly larger than the figures show, though by hundreds of thousands rather than millions. Executions and camp deaths between them total 1,829,903; this figure should be treated as a minimum.
(Overy, as above, pp. 195-96. Emphases added)

4. Mass deportations of unwanted populations
The regime's anti-nationalism ripened with the coming of war. Between 1940 and 1948 more than 3 million non-Russians were uprooted from their homelands and sent to the Soviet interior. Here they shared the same fate as the Soviet Germans, left in special settlements in remote and desolate areas of Kazakhstan and Siberia without food or water supply, little or no housing and few ammenities. Ten per cent of all those sent to special settlements - around 377,000 people - died of disease, malnutrition and hypothermia. Thousands more died en rout to the settlements in long, slow train journeys or grueling forced marches.
(Overy, as above, p. 562. Emphases added).

These four complexes do not account for all of Stalin's crimes, but for the overwhelming majority of them (something like 90 % is my rough guess). There are estimates higher than those of Overy, but for now let's stick with Overy's estimates, which turn out the following murder record for Uncle Joe Stalin, in round figures:

1. Famines 1932/33: about 4,500,000
2. Executions, 1930-53: about 800,000
3. Gulag camps about 1,500,000 (to Overy's about 1,050,000, I added an assumed 450,000 who died who died "in transit camps, in overcrowded wagons, short of food and water, in sub-zero temperatures", for good measure)
4. Deportations about 400,000
Sum total: about 7,200,000

Quite a guy he was, Uncle Joe. But wait, now comes our friend Bob, who only accepts as proven crimes that have been established by crime scene investigations meeting German Katyn Investigation Standards (hereinafter "GKIS" for short). Bob has even kindly informed us what a crime scene investigation must comply with to meet GKIS:

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.


So let's see what we got regarding these four major Stalinist crime complexes.

1. Famines 1932/33: no investigation complying with GKIS. No investigation at all that I know of, as a matter of fact.

2. Executions, 1930-53: assuming that the executions of Polish POWs in May 1940 and the Vinnitsa massacre in 1937-38 are included in these execution figures, we have two investigations complying with GKIS:

- the Katyn investigation, in which 4,243 corpses were exhumed.

- the Vinnitsa investigation, in which 9,432 corpes were exhumed.

As concerns other Soviet shooting sites (see the Wikipedia page Mass graves in the Soviet Union), mass graves have been found, a part of the corpses has been exhumed, but unless I missed something no crime scene investigation complying with GKIS has been carried out. Correct, Mr. Bob?

So the only Soviet mass killings that have been proven according to GKIS = Bob standards are those at Katyn (4,243 exhumed corpses) and Vinnitsa (9,432 exhumed corpses). In total, a mere13,675 people shot by the NKVD, out of about 800,000 that have been established on hand of documentary and other evidence, have been proven according to GKIS = Bob standards. A miserly 1.71 %. Correct, Mr. Bob?

3. Gulag Camps: No site investigation/inspection that I know of, let alone a crime scene investigation complying with GKIS that I remember having heard or read about.

4. Deportations: Same as Gulag camps.

I'm open to being corrected as concerns the above information, but it's not up to me to do detailed research in order to find out if any crime site investigation beyond those I remember having heard or read about has been carried out regarding any of the above-mentioned crime complexes, let alone if such investigation lived up to GKIS. That's Bob's job if he wants to avoid a double standard in accepting as factual the above-mentioned crimes of Uncle Joe Stalin while denying Nazi crimes that are, if anything, much better documented than Stalin's crimes (not by GKIS crime scene investigations, but by, among other evidence, many crime scene investigations that do not comply with GKIS but are essentially corroborated by documentary and eyewitness evidence on which those who conducted these crime scene investigations couldn't possibly have had any influence, like documents and eyewitness testimonies assessed by crime investigators and judicial authorities of the German Federal Republic.

Unless, of course, Bob wants to tell me that, of the 7,200,000 deaths I attributed to the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes, he considers proven only the 13,675 stiffs unearthed by the Germans at Katyn and Vinnitsa (0.19 % of the total), whereas the other 7,186,325 victims of Stalin, 99.81% of the total, are mere unproven allegations because they haven't been verified according to GKIS/Bob standards. As a matter of fact, that's what Bob is trying to tell me, if I understand him correctly.

Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Bob?

If I should not understand you correctly, which of Stalin's crimes that I listed do you consider proven even though the evidence doesn't live up to GKIS/Bob standards? How many stiffs do you consider Stalin do be responsible for? And on what basis, if only 13,675 have been proven according to GKIS?
Bob wrote:Reminded that the question referred to the Serniki and Ustinovka crimes and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the pictures I showed are no longer enough to convince him that Richard Wright’s account of the Serniki and Ustinovka crimes is accurate. Now he wants "full report and all materials you have to let me see it".

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously. That’s my Bob.

Reminded that the question referred to the Busk killings and not to Chełmno grave "1/34", what does dodging Bob do? He shifts the goal posts. Now the film documentation I showed is no longer enough to convince him that Father Desbois’s account of the Busk killings is accurate. Now he wants "full report and all materials you have to let me see it".

In other words, Bob got cold feet and backpedaled furiously. That’s my Bob.

I requested full reports to be able answer your questions if I accept these reports, how can I answer them when you did not show these full reports, you refused and accused me, so end.

Previously, I only confirmed that pictures you provided will be accepted for your grave, I did not say anything about reports.
BS, Bobby. If you are prepared to accept the existence and contents of Chełmno grave # 1/34 provided only that the information about this grave is illustrated with photos/film footage like Richard Wright’s photos of Serniki and Ustinovka that I showed you, of like the stills from Father Desbois’ Busk footage that I also showed you, then what is keeping you from accepting as accurate Richard Wright’s accounts of his finds at Serniki and Ustinovka (of which I quoted one) and Father Desbois’ account of his finds at Busk (which I provided a link to)? You’re not making sense, my friend. You’re contradicting yourself.
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Except...

So much text, but no answer, so again, provide points listed below to avoid double standard and then I can answer you.

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.
These are my arguments/questions that Bob is running away from:
Bob wrote: Provide this for Soviet/communist investigations mentiond above, and I accept them, fair? I hope so, no double standard between the Nazis or Soviets, right?
Except, of course, that the contents and results of the Soviet investigation, while not watched by third-party or neutral observers on site, were essentially confirmed by evidence on which the Soviets could not have had any influence, including but not limited to the documents and the testimonies before West German courts mentioned on the RODOH thread Kharkov under Nazi Occupation and in the blogs Drobitski Yar and The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1) . And that, insofar as sources of evidence independent of each other match, there is no reason to suspect Soviet manipulation, unlike in the Soviet investigation of the Katyn crime, whose results we know to have been manipulated because they were contradicted by evidence on which the Soviets could have had no influence.

If all that matters for Bob is whether a crime site investigation complied with a certain protocol, then I would like to hear from him is what parts of this protocol:

«-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backup materials»


were missing in the Soviet investigation of the Katyn killings, in which they also exhumed corpses and made autopsies and filmed the procedures and concluded that the Germans and not the Soviet NKVD had done the killing.

If he cannot identify any part of his protocol that is missing in the Soviet Katyn investigation, he can then tell us why he nevertheless does not accept the results of the Soviet Katyn investigation as accurate.

If he can identify any part of the protocol that is missing in the Soviet Katyn investigation, he can then tell us whether he would accept as accurate the results of the Soviet Katyn investigation if it had complied with all parts of his protocol.
What flagrant, cowardly dodging.

You should be careful with exulting GKIS crime scene investigation as the only suitable proof for two reasons, my friend.

One is that the Soviets might easily have put up a show just like Goebbels (if Goebbels had not anticipated them) and invited neutral observers, and exhumed the bodies and made autopsies in front of such observers, etc., and still jinxed the whole thing as they had control of the site, like the Nazis before them. Who was to keep them from removing all documents from the Polish officers showing that they had been killed in 1940 and not in 1941? Ballistics pointed to a German killing anyway, as the NKVD had used German guns and bullets. Witnesses could have been intimidated into making false statements. All that before the neutral observers arrived, and the neutral observers would then have seen a nice and proper investigation showing that the Germans had done the killing. In other words, no however thorough and professional crime site investigation, even with third party observers, is a guarantee of accuracy as long as it is conducted by an entity that a) has a vested interest in the outcome and b) controls the evidence. The only guarantee of accuracy is a convergence between the results of such crime site investigation on the one hand and evidence that the entity conducting the investigation could have had no influence on on the other. The reason to conclude that the Germans and not the Soviets did the Katyn killings is not that the Germans conducted a better investigation, but that the results of the German investigation are in line with evidence on which the Germans had no influence, whereas the results of the Soviet investigation are belied by all evidence that was not under Soviet control. That's the test any crime site investigation report should pass before it can safely be considered accurate:it must be corroborated by evidence that the investigating entity had no control over and could not have influenced. The Soviet investigation of the Nazi massacre at Drobitski Yar near Kharkov may not have lived up to GKIS, but insofar as its results are confirmed by evidence that the Soviets could not have manipulated, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of these results.

The other reason why your insistence on GKIS proof is BS is the one already mentioned above: if only a crime site investigation according to GKIS can prove the occurrence and scale of a mass crime, you would have to acquit Stalin of responsibility for 99.81% of the 7.2 million dead I mentioned above. And the figures I presented are most conservative ones, there are higher figures (as you may realize if you should read Anne Applebaum's book about the Gulag) that also stand a good chance of being accurate.

So much for my free lesson in elementary common sense. Now to the rest of your babblings.
Bob wrote:Of course I cannot be sure (before I have a chance to visit the Chełmno site) that the place on the photo where I drew the grave’s outlines corresponds exactly to the place where the grave is drawn on the map. The only problem I have is that scales aren't necessarily the same and my drawing skills are not the best.

This ruined all of your effort to mark grave, you are not sure, in the other words, you don´t know, final confirmation I guess. I am not here to correct your marks Mr. Muehlenkamp, you should know it where is your proof, not me.
You never think before writing, do you, Bob?

I'm 100 % sure that grave # 1 is in this clearing of the Rzuchów Forest, which is small enough:

Image

By comparing the photo of this clearing with the map of the same clearing that shows the grave:

Image

I'm even able to draw the grave on the photo:

Image

with what may be 100 % accuracy. And if it is not, if I drew my lines a little more to the right or to the left of what would be a correct rendering of the grave's location on the map, what would that mean?

That I cannot locate the grave, however irrelevant that would be? BS.

That the grave does not exist? Even greater BS.

That I have to get to closer to the place and/or find or make a photo on the same scale as the map in order to be 100 % accurate in my depiction of the grave's outlines? Maybe, but that's all.
Bob wrote:The pit shown there is called Pit No. 4. It is not one of the mass graves in the Rzuchów Forest Cemetery but a waste pit found "in the palace and park grounds", as Bob would know if his hysteria had not kept him from reading even the online version of the report, where this pit is described as follows:

You completely missed my point, how they knew what will be in the pit to avoid violation of alleged Jewish law, they knew what is in the pit before excavation, but how.
Very easily. Unlike blustering Bob, the archaeologists made themselves familiar with the history of Chełmno extermination camp befor they started digging anywhere. They examined the documentary and eyewitness evidence, which told them that no bodies and no ashes of bodies had been buried in the castle area (where pit 4 is located) but the burial area had been in the Rzuchów forest, 1 or 2 km away from the castle area. So they could reasonably expect to find no human remains in the castle area when they started digging there. If they nevertheless found some (teeth with gold caps removed), that was due to facts they could not have predicted on hand of their pre-excavation research, for no documents or eyewitnesses mentioned that the Germans had broken gold fillings from teeth in the castle area and then thrown the teeth away.
Bob wrote:Your "Sobibor" questions are adressed above.
Is there any reason why your expectations should be realistic, or why anyone should care about what you expect?

Adressed previously many times.
Dodged previously many times, and now once again.
Bob wrote:I’m interested in the people who were murdered and in those who murdered them, actually. The devices that the murderers used are usually of secondary importance to reasonable human beings

I only wonder how can you say this when you are not able to show how this was possible.
Who said I'm not able to show how it was possible to kill human beings in a gas chamber?

It's not a big deal, actually. All you need is a room that you can close more or less hermetically and a means to introduce poison gas into that room. Your Nazi heroes discovered various rather easy ways of doing this, which we can talk about in all detail on another thread if you are interested. I can tell you quite a lot about these methods and why related "Revisionist" objections are a load of crap - even though, as I said before, these devices are of secondary importance to me.
Bob wrote:Any proof that usually reasonable peoples consider murder weapon as thing of secondary importance? Same claim with zero value as previously, this is your favorite one as I see - "argumentum ad populum"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; You are also able to accomodate another fallacy to your claim - "reasonable peoples consider murder weapon as thing of secondary importance thus who consider it as first or third importance is not reasonable". Two logical fallacies in one package, this is really useless for deabte.
Poor Bobby talks a lot of {!#%@} when the day is long.

If you want proof that killing devices are of secondary importance to reasonable people, look up any monograph or court judgment related to extermination camps that was written before "Revisionists" started making a fuss about the supposed implausibility of certain killing methods. You will see that the exact mechanics of the killing were a footnote of historical interest to scholars like Reitlinger and Hilberg. They were also a footnote of judicial interest to West German courts, except insofar as these details were important to establishing the perpetrator's identity (which was never the case in any judgment I have read) or to establishing whether the victims had died in agony and the defendants were guilty of assistance to qualified murder for this reason (German courts sometimes heard experts to establish what death in the gas chambers had been like, the experts' conclusion being that the victims had suffered a lot). If criminal investigators are often interested in murder weapons, that's because the murder weapon is often the only or the main evidence that can provide a clue about the murderer's identity. But where the murderer's identity can be established on hand of other evidence, and where the murder weapon is immaterial to establishing the crime's judicial qualification, the murder weapon is a matter of secondary importance also in criminal justice, and even more so in historiography.

To be sure, some historians/researchers, including myself, have followed in the late Pressac's footsteps and taken a closer look at gassing devices and the mechanics of the gassing process. However, this is not done out of any particular interest in the subject, at least as far as I'm concerned. It is only done in order to refute the related "technical" or "scientifical" claims of loonies like yourself, none of which stand up to scrutiny as far as I have seen.
Bob wrote:The three pieces of photos? Not from where I’m writing at this moment, but there’s a good chance I’ll get them if and when I should visit the Chełmno museum and have a chance to talk to Mrs. Pawlicka Nowak or another of the archaeologists involved in the mass graves investigation.

Strange question, I already said what three photos would be sufficient to publish, see here again.
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17734#p271974
The second sentence of my quoted statement shows that I'm well aware of what photos are meant and that the question at the beginning is not meant to express uncertainty. Do you have basic understanding problems, or is it just your difficulty with the English language?
Bob wrote:So you can´t, ok, than end of discussion I guess, all information were already provided by Mr. Muehlnekamp. I did not adressed your ad hominems I just skipped them, also you use incredible amount of nonrelevant text just as you colleagues like Mr. Terry, adress points directly..
First of all, not having photos or data at my fingertips at a given moment doesn't mean that I can't obtain them.

Second, text is not "nonrelevant" just because it's inconvenient to you and you have no arguments against it. Ignoring such text is called dodging, which is something your excel at.

Third, a dodger like you shouldn't accuse his opponent of not addressing points directly, like one shouldn't throw stones when one lives in a glass house.

And fourth, if you can't spell my last name correctly, I'd appreciate you addressing me by my first name. If you want to continue addressing me by my last name, on the other hand, I would also like to know yours.

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 25, 2012 11:02 pm

David wrote:Roberto writes- "Then say something about the Sobibór investigation now-"

Seems you have a hard time sticking to your topic,
Seems poor David has been smoking something weird. Maybe that's why he writes in green letters.
David wrote:Roberto.
You have admitted that it is reasonable to expect to find teeth in a mass grave.
No, I have stated that and explained why it is reasonable to expect that there are teeth in Chelmno mass grave "1/34", even though none are mentioned in the archaeological report.
David wrote:You have admitted that none were found in Chelmno "Grave" 1/34.
No, I stated that none were reported found in Chelmno mass grave "1/34", but that doesn't mean there are no teeth in that grave because the archaeologists didn't exactly dig up the whole grave, they just made some probing excavations to establish its size.
David wrote:You have claimed that the Poles did not need to quantify the amount of
human remains.
What would they need to quantify them for? The number of Chelmno victims can be more reliably established on hand of documentary evidence, and only "Revisionist" chimps make an issue about what amounts of human remains are in a certain grave.
David wrote:Your calculations are enough.
To meet a chimp's idiotic challenge, you mean? Certainly so.
David wrote:Oddly, you admit the Polish figures are speculative yet you claim them as
"Proof."
I don't feel like guessing what statement of mine you might be referring to, chimp. Please quote what you are babbling about.
David wrote:Garbage in=Garbage out.
... is what David's tiny brain produces all day. I couldn't have said it better.
David wrote:I have shown that the Poles did quantified the number and condition of any human
remains that they actually found, which they did not do with your "Grave 1/34.
Where have you shown what you claim to have shown, chimp? Show me. While it makes sense to quantify the number and condition of whole bodies, I don't see much of a purpose, from an archaeological or forensic point of view, in quantifying human cremation remains.
David wrote:I have also shown, and you admit, the actual burial pattern of German camps
like Treblinka/Labor. Numerous small graves with 2 - 12 bodies in them.
If your claim is that the Nazis buried bodies in an extermination camp like they buried them in a small labor camp (the enormous pits they made at Treblinka II and its sister camps must then have been made just for the fun of digging), then all you have shown is what a bloody idiot you are.
David wrote:That fact also blows apart your "Proof."
Wishful thinking is the kind of thinking that David excels in, and his hysteria suggests that my proof submission for his fellow chimp's "challenge" rattled poor David's cage.
David wrote:I noticed that you have backed down to a mere 19 bodies from the
135,000 "Ghoul Figure."
I noticed that you are still too stupid to understand that the 19 bodies are just the minimum per grave your fellow chimp requires to be proven in order to pay his reward. It's not my fault if he chose a figure so ridiculously below the demonstrable minimum contents of the graves in question for his imbecilic publicity act.
David wrote:In fact, it is probable that Chlemno did have a series of
19-20 body graves which the Polish enthusiastically made into one
large grave.
Actuallly that's not probable at all, as there's no evidence suggesting it. On the contrary, eyewitnesses and archaeological investigation converge to proof that there was a small number of very large graves, as would be needed for a place where about 157,000 people are known (mainly through documentary evidence) to have disappeared from the face of the earth.
David wrote: But you have not proven that.
No, I have proven that the very large mass graves at Chelmno still contain the remains of a considerable part of the people murdered at Chelmno.

My hysterical friend David, on the other hand, has again proven that incoherent hollering in green letters is the best he can contribute to "Revisionism".

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 25, 2012 11:35 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So Bob would be happy with an image of a gas chamber that has been destroyed? OK, here is one:
Krema II chamber, ok, I have just simple question, tell me how they introduced Zyklon B to this chamber to make gassings possible, thanks. Describe it somehow.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Here is a document that helps to understand what the holes identified in the first of the above photos and the "chimneys" visible on the second photo were related to:
You propably mean "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden”, these things refers to Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room) as clearly can be seen on this document, can you tell me what these things in inventory list have to do with alleged "holes" or "chimneys" in your alleged gas chamber when they belongs to alleged undressing room?

As I see, this is refuted or in better words - false.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Here's a document in which one of Bob's heroes revealed what the purpose of that lovely cellar was:
Here is content of this document
January 29, 1943,

“Crematorium II has been completed, except for minor details, by using all available manpower, in spite of extreme difficulties and severe frost and by running day and night shifts. The ovens were fired up in the presence of senior engineer Prüfer of the contracting firm, Messrs. Topf & Söhne of Erfurt, and function perfectly. The planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling of the corpse cellar could not yet be stripped because of the effect of frost. This is, however, of no importance, because the gassing cellar can be used for this instead.

On account of freight restrictions, Topf & Söhne have as yet been unable to supply in time the aeration and de-aeration system as requested by Zentralbauleitung. On arrival of the aeration and deaeration equipment installation will proceed immediately, and it is expected that the unit will be ready for operation on February 20, 1943. A report by the test engineer of Messrs. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt, is attached.”

APMO, BW 30/34, p. 100.
Where do you see that alleged homicidal gas chamber on your pictures is the one "gassing cellar" mentioned in this document? Not even L1 or L2 is mentioned.

If I assume that this term belongs to Leichenkeller 1 then pardon, but according to this document, the function of Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room aka morgue) could be subsituted by Leichenkeller 1 (alleged homicidal gas chamber aka vergassungskeller/morgue) because L2 wasn´t completed, so in the case that gassing story is correct, how was possible to use alleged homicidal gas chamber for both purposes and even in time (January 1943) when no gassing took place according to histography (first gassing took place allegedly on 14/15 March 1943 Danuta Czech/Henryk Tauber)?

How was possible to gas someone when this document clearly state that alleged homicidal gas chamber could be used for purpose of "corpse cellar" instead of L2, in the other words, for storing bodies of deceased prisoners?

And finally how was possible to undress and gas peoples in alleged gas chamber when Topf und Sohne did not deliver aeration and de-aeration equipment for alleged gas chamber as stated in document?

I can finish it with Jean Claude Pressac
“To affirm, solely on the basis of the letter of January 29, 1943 that the term ‘Vergasungskeller’ designated a homicidal gas chamber installed in Leichenkeller 1/corpse cellar 1 of Krematorium II, was irresponsible, for though ‘gas chamber’ was correct, there was no proof that it was ‘homicidal’”

“The existence of a gas chamber in the basement of Krematorium II is thus proven, BUT THAT IS ALL.”

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0503.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Carlo Mattogno add
In purely logical terms, this document does not even demonstrate the existence of a gas chamber, but only a mere project, the realization of which depended on the shipment of the ventilation equipment.

A:Case for sanity, p. 56
As you see again, refuted, "vergasungskeller" has nothing to do with homicidal gassing.
And this is another document in which one of Bob's heroes spilled the beans:
I see that this is based solely on presence of the term "special treatment" alleged code word for gassing.

Here is document
October 29, 1942.

“16a) Delousing facility
1. for special treatment
Area: 50.00 x 20.00 = 1,000 m²
Height of building: 6.20
Enclosed space: 1,000.00 x 6.20 = 6,200 m³
Cellar section: 35.00 x 20.00 x 3.20 = 2,240 m³
total 8,400 m³
Cost for 1 m³ RM 28.00
8,400.00 x 28.00 = 236,320.00
Extra charges for heating, shower
and disinfestation facilities RM 73,680.00
310,000.00

16b) 2. For the guard troops
Area: 12.25 x 12.65 + 12.40 x 8.70 = 262.84 m²
Height of building: 2.80 m
Enclosed space: 262.84 x 2.80 = approx. 736.00 m³ […]
Costs for 1 m³: RM 30.00
736.00 x 30.00 = RM 22,080
Extra charges for heating, shower
and disinfestation facilities RM 7,920
RM 30,000”

“Vorhaben: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz (Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung),” VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8, pp. 9-10.
Carlo Mattogno adds with help of the documents:
The two disinfestation facilities mentioned are listed under the same numbers (16a and 16b) in another report of the Central Construction Office, dated February 2 1943. Here, facility 16b is designated a “delousing facility for the guard troops,” and its dimensions correspond exactly to those stated in the project – of October 28, 1942: “12.65/12.25 + 12.40/8.70 m”; facility 16a is called a “delousing facility for prisoners” and shows dimensions different from those given in the project: 40m × 12m + 34m × 12m. This reduction in volume can be explained by a shortage of building materials, for the document referring to this is, in fact, titled “Auditor’s Report on Saving Building Material.” 95 The new dimensions of the installation agree perfectly with those of drawings no. 1841 of the Central Construction Office of November 24 and no. 1846 of November 25, 1942, in which the “Disinfection and Delousing Facility in the POW Camp” is depicted and which reflect the original project of the Birkenau central sauna. 96.

The “site plan of the prisoner of war camp” of October 6, 1942, confirms this situation explicitly: The rectangle representing the central sauna bears the designation “16a disinfestation.”97 Thus the “disinfestation facility for special treatment” of the project of October 28, 1942, was nothing other than the central sauna, the most important hygienic-sanitary facility of the entire Auschwitz- Birkenau camp complex.

95. “Prüfungsbericht Nr. 491 über Baustoffeinsparung gemäß G.B.-Anordnung Nr. 22”. RGVA,
502-1-28, pp. 234-238. The two facilities are mentioned on p. 236.

96.Plans printed in: Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, pp. 68f.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 068-01.jpe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 069-01.jpe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

97.VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8.
Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p. 40-41
If the "special treatment" means murder or murder by gassing as stated in your source which present document as evidence, the Birkenau Central Sauna where nobody claims that gassing or murdering took place, had been used as gassing facility too according to you and your source? Really? Fantastic, where are those homicidal gas chambers in Central Sauna?

Again, refuted.

As I see, your "sources" for evidence are completely false, interesting, what a pity you did not present it in my thread.
OK, then lets look at the complexes that make up the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes as a whole. These are the following:
Again, very long text with no answer, I see that you are not able to list all Soviet crimes and show their level of investigation to back your claims, ok, thanks for confirmation.
meet GKIS:
As I see, you did not list even one single investigation of Nazi crime by Soviets to meet investigation of Soviet crimes by Nazis, because no double standard allowed between the Nazis and Soviets, you are not able to show example, ok, thanks for confirmation.
Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Bob?
No since I never said anything about your examples of Soviet crimes, obviously, this is your thread about alleged grave 1/34.
BS, Bobby. If you are prepared to accept the existence and contents of Chełmno grave # 1/34 provided only that the information about this grave is illustrated with photos/film footage like Richard Wright’s photos of Serniki and Ustinovka that I showed you, of like the stills from Father Desbois’ Busk footage that I also showed you, then what is keeping you from accepting as accurate Richard Wright’s accounts of his finds at Serniki and Ustinovka (of which I quoted one) and Father Desbois’ account of his finds at Busk (which I provided a link to)? You’re not making sense, my friend. You’re contradicting yourself.
Another false information, I never claimed this, in fact I said that I will accept these kind of photos as a evidence for Mr. Muehlenkamp´s grave 1/34 and his findings. I never claimed that I accept reports only with using these photos.

As I see, Mr. Muehlnekamp is not able to provide it, ok, thanks for confirmation.
I'm 100 % sure that grave # 1 is in this clearing of the Rzuchów Forest, which is small enough:
You contradict yourself, you said "Of course I cannot be sure (before I have a chance to visit the Chełmno site) that the place on the photo where I drew the grave’s outlines corresponds exactly to the place where the grave is drawn on the map."
That I cannot locate the grave, however irrelevant that would be? BS.
You can´t, I know.
They examined the documentary and eyewitness evidence, which told them that no bodies and no ashes of bodies had been buried in the castle area (where pit 4 is located) but the burial area had been in the Rzuchów forest, 1 or 2 km away from the castle area.
What documents and eyewitness?
Who said I'm not able to show how it was possible to kill human beings in a gas chamber? t's not a big deal, actually. All you need is a room that you can close more or less hermetically and a means to introduce poison gas into that room.
You Mr. Muehlenkamp, see above your alleged gas chamber. Let see how Mr. Muehlenkamp is able to tell me how this was possible and prove his claim "no big deal" in connection with his alleged gas chamber in Krema II, I am really curious if he is able to show me at least how they introduced killing agent to this chamber.
Poor Bobby talks a lot of {!#%@} when the day is long....
In the other words, you can´t prove you claim "that reasonable peoples usually consider murder weapon as thing of secondary importance", ok, thanks.
First of all, not having photos or data at my fingertips at a given moment doesn't mean that I can't obtain them.
For examination of value of your proof is irrelevant if you can obtain them in following weeks, months or years, the only relevant thing is - you don´t have them now.

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 26, 2012 5:46 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So Bob would be happy with an image of a gas chamber that has been destroyed? OK, here is one:


Krema II chamber, ok, I have just simple question, tell me how they introduced Zyklon B to this chamber to make gassings possible, thanks. Describe it somehow.
I'll let some witnesses do that for me, if you don't mind.

Rudolf Höss:
Die Türen wurden nun schnell zugeschraubt und das Gas sofort durch die bereitstehenden Desinfektoren in die Einwurfluken durch die Decke der Gaskammer in einem Luftschacht bis zum Boden geworfen. Dies bewirkte die sofortige Entwicklung des Gases. Durch das Beobachtungsloch in der Tür konnte man sehen, daß die dem Einwurfschacht am nächsten stehenden sofort tot umfielen. Man kann sagen, daß ungefähr ein Drittel sofort tot war. Die anderen fingen an zu taumeln, zu schreien und nach Luft zu ringen. Das Schreien ging aber bald in ein Röcheln über, und in wenigen Minuten lagen alle. Nach spätestens 20 Minuten regte sich keiner mehr. Je nach Witterung, feucht oder trocken, kalt oder warm, weiter je nach Beschaffenheit des Gases, das nicht immer gleich war, nach Zusammensetzung des Transportes, viele Gesunde, Alte oder Kranke, Kinder, dauerte die Wirkung des Gases fünf bis zehn Minuten. Die Bewußtlosigkeit trat schon nach wenigen Minuten ein, je nach Entfernung von dem Einwurfschacht. Schreiende, Ältere, Kranke, Schwächliche und Kinder fielen schneller als Gesunde und Jüngere.
Filip Müller:
In den Krematorien I und II fuehrten von oben hohle Saeulen von der Decke bis zum Fussboden. Diese Saeulen waren mit durchbrochenem Blech umgeben. Oben befand sich eine Spirale in der Saeule. Wenn Gas eingeworfen worden ist, diente die Spirale dazu, das Gas zu verteilen.
Josef Erber:
In each of these gassing areas [of the crematoria [II and III] in Birkenau] were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim. Attached to this tin was a wire by which it could be pulled up to the roof. When the lids were lifted, one could pull up the tin canister and shake the gas crystals into it. Then the canister was lowered, and the lid closed.
Henryk Tauber:
On either side of these pillars there were four others [C I to C4], two on each side. [Here Tauber is mistaken. This arrangement is found only in the gas chamber of Krematorium III. In Kr II, they were in a row down the east side of the room]. The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Michal Kula:
Among other things the metal workshop made the false showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the wire-mesh columns for the introduction of the tins with Zyklon into the gas chambers. These columns were around 3 meters high, and they were 70 centimeters square in plan. Such a column consisted of 6 wire screens with were built one within the other. The inner screen was made from 3 millimeter thick wire, fastened to iron corner post of 50 by 10 millimeters. Such iron corner posts were on each corner of the column and connected on the top in the same manner. The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At th top it was closed by a metal sheet at the bottom with a square base. At a distance of 25 millimeters from the sides of this columns were soldered tin corners supported by tin brackets. On these corners were mounted a thin mesh with openings of about on millimeter square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from there ran in the [collection cup] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column. The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out. The ventilation system of the gas chamber was installed in the side walls of the gas chambers. The ventilation openings were hidden by zinc covers, provided with round openings.
Pressac made a sketch of the introduction device based on Kula's description.

Like all eyewitness testimonies provided independently of each other - especially by witnesses with different degrees of proximity to the objects, procedures or events in question - , these descriptions match in their essentials but differ in certain detail. Human observation and recollection is not perfect. "Revisionist" idiots make a fuss about the differences without realizing that these differences prove that several witnesses are describing the same thing independently of each other, and that there is thus no room for doubt about the essential accuracy of their descriptions.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Here is a document that helps to understand what the holes identified in the first of the above photos and the "chimneys" visible on the second photo were related to:
You propably mean "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” and “Holzblenden”, these things refers to Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room) as clearly can be seen on this document, can you tell me what these things in inventory list have to do with alleged "holes" or "chimneys" in your alleged gas chamber when they belongs to alleged undressing room?

As I see, this is refuted or in better words - false.
How smart you think you are, Bobby. Unfortunately your reasoning leaves much to be desired, as usual.
For unless you can explain a) what, other than the wire mesh introduction devices described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula, the "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” mentioned in the inventory could possibly have been, and b) what the undressing cellar called "Leichenkeller 2" should have needed those devices for, the obvious explanation for their being listed in the inventory as belonging to LK2 is that the clerk who filled in the inventory simply made a mistake and put the numbers in the wrong line. Big deal.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Here's a document in which one of Bob's heroes revealed what the purpose of that lovely cellar was:
Here is content of this document
January 29, 1943,

“Crematorium II has been completed, except for minor details, by using all available manpower, in spite of extreme difficulties and severe frost and by running day and night shifts. The ovens were fired up in the presence of senior engineer Prüfer of the contracting firm, Messrs. Topf & Söhne of Erfurt, and function perfectly. The planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling of the corpse cellar could not yet be stripped because of the effect of frost. This is, however, of no importance, because the gassing cellar can be used for this instead.

On account of freight restrictions, Topf & Söhne have as yet been unable to supply in time the aeration and de-aeration system as requested by Zentralbauleitung. On arrival of the aeration and deaeration equipment installation will proceed immediately, and it is expected that the unit will be ready for operation on February 20, 1943. A report by the test engineer of Messrs. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt, is attached.”

APMO, BW 30/34, p. 100.
Where do you see that alleged homicidal gas chamber on your pictures is the one "gassing cellar" mentioned in this document? Not even L1 or L2 is mentioned.
It so happens that there is report written by Engineer Prüfer on the same day as Bischoff's letter, which reads as follows (Kogon, Langbein, Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas, p. 220, emphasis added):
Krematorium II. - Dieser Gebäudekomplex ist baulich bis auf kleinere Nebenarbeiten fertiggestellt (Decke des Leichenkellers 2 kann wegen Frost noch nicht eingeschalt werden) ... Die Anlieferung der Be- und Entlüftungsanlage für die Leichenkeller verzögern sich infolge der Waggonsperre, so daß der Einbau voraussichtlich erst in 10 Tagen erfolgen kann ...
It follows from the junction of both documents that the "Leichenkeller" whose ceiling could not yet be finished due to frost as LK2, which in turn means that the "gassing cellar" mentioned in Bischoff's letter was the other "Leichenkeller", LK1.
Bob wrote:If I assume that this term belongs to Leichenkeller 1 then pardon, but according to this document, the function of Leichenkeller 2 (alleged undressing room aka morgue) could be subsituted by Leichenkeller 1 (alleged homicidal gas chamber aka vergassungskeller/morgue) because L2 wasn´t completed, so in the case that gassing story is correct, how was possible to use alleged homicidal gas chamber for both purposes and even in time (January 1943) when no gassing took place according to histography (first gassing took place allegedly on 14/15 March 1943 Danuta Czech/Henryk Tauber)?
If we accept that the "Leichenkeller" in Bischoff's letter = "Leichenkeller 2" in Prüfer's report was already meant to be used as an undressing cellar for the victims at the end of January 1943, I don't see where your problem is. What Bischoff was telling his superior was, quite simply, that as long as the undressing cellar was not yet finished the undressing of the victims could take place in the place where they were meant to be killed, the "gassing cellar". Remove the clothes after everyone has stripped, lock the doors and drop the Zyklon in, no sweat. Whether this was actually done at the time the letter was written or the first homicidal use of Krema II LK1 only took place some time later is completely irrelevant. What Bischoff was telling his superior was that (were it not for circumstances beyond his control, which we will get to right away) it would be possible to start gassing operations even though the undressing cellar was not yet finished.
Bob wrote:How was possible to gas someone when this document clearly state that alleged homicidal gas chamber could be used for purpose of "corpse cellar" instead of L2, in the other words, for storing bodies of deceased prisoners?
Mr. Bischoff obviously assumed that his superior knew what the actual purpose of LK2 was and that it was not storing bodies of deceased (how sweet!) prisoners.
Bob wrote:And finally how was possible to undress and gas peoples in alleged gas chamber when Topf und Sohne did not deliver aeration and de-aeration equipment for alleged gas chamber as stated in document?
Bischoff was telling his superior that the impossibility of finishing the roof of LK2 (something he was responsible for) did not hinder gassing operations insofar as undressing could take place in the gas chamber. If gassing was not yet possible because the ventilation equipment had not yet arrived, that was something he could blame on persons or circumstances other than himself. In other words, what Bischoff was telling his boss was the following: "As far as things depend on me we could start, if we can't start it's just because of circumstances that I can do nothing about and am not responsible for". Bischoff was covering his ass, so to say.
Bob wrote:I can finish it with Jean Claude Pressac
“To affirm, solely on the basis of the letter of January 29, 1943 that the term ‘Vergasungskeller’ designated a homicidal gas chamber installed in Leichenkeller 1/corpse cellar 1 of Krematorium II, was irresponsible, for though ‘gas chamber’ was correct, there was no proof that it was ‘homicidal’”

“The existence of a gas chamber in the basement of Krematorium II is thus proven, BUT THAT IS ALL.”

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0503.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With all due respect for the late Pressac, he doesn't seem to have realized what situation poor Bischoff was in and what he was trying to tell his boss to avoid being shitcanned: he had done everything he could to get gassing operations started, if they couldn't start yet that was because others had failed or due to circumstances beyond everyone's control, not due to any fault of his.
Bob wrote:Carlo Mattogno add


In purely logical terms, this document does not even demonstrate the existence of a gas chamber, but only a mere project, the realization of which depended on the shipment of the ventilation equipment.

A:Case for sanity, p. 56
Hollow blah, blah, blah from my good old friend Mattogno. The Vergasungskeller was no mere project but a facility already in existence, which Bischoff had done everything to make operational and which only was not yet operational due to circumstances for which Bischoff was not at fault.
Bob wrote:As you see again, refuted, "vergasungskeller" has nothing to do with homicidal gassing.
What I actually see is that not even my good friend Charlie, not to mention his untalented disciple Bob, is able to provide a coherent explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to.
Bob wrote:
And this is another document in which one of Bob's heroes spilled the beans:
I see that this is based solely on presence of the term "special treatment" alleged code word for gassing.

Here is document
October 29, 1942.

“16a) Delousing facility
1. for special treatment
Area: 50.00 x 20.00 = 1,000 m²
Height of building: 6.20
Enclosed space: 1,000.00 x 6.20 = 6,200 m³
Cellar section: 35.00 x 20.00 x 3.20 = 2,240 m³
total 8,400 m³
Cost for 1 m³ RM 28.00
8,400.00 x 28.00 = 236,320.00
Extra charges for heating, shower
and disinfestation facilities RM 73,680.00
310,000.00

16b) 2. For the guard troops
Area: 12.25 x 12.65 + 12.40 x 8.70 = 262.84 m²
Height of building: 2.80 m
Enclosed space: 262.84 x 2.80 = approx. 736.00 m³ […]
Costs for 1 m³: RM 30.00
736.00 x 30.00 = RM 22,080
Extra charges for heating, shower
and disinfestation facilities RM 7,920
RM 30,000”

“Vorhaben: Kriegsgefangenenlager Auschwitz (Durchführung der Sonderbehandlung),” VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8, pp. 9-10.
Carlo Mattogno adds with help of the documents:
The two disinfestation facilities mentioned are listed under the same numbers (16a and 16b) in another report of the Central Construction Office, dated February 2 1943. Here, facility 16b is designated a “delousing facility for the guard troops,” and its dimensions correspond exactly to those stated in the project – of October 28, 1942: “12.65/12.25 + 12.40/8.70 m”; facility 16a is called a “delousing facility for prisoners” and shows dimensions different from those given in the project: 40m × 12m + 34m × 12m. This reduction in volume can be explained by a shortage of building materials, for the document referring to this is, in fact, titled “Auditor’s Report on Saving Building Material.” 95 The new dimensions of the installation agree perfectly with those of drawings no. 1841 of the Central Construction Office of November 24 and no. 1846 of November 25, 1942, in which the “Disinfection and Delousing Facility in the POW Camp” is depicted and which reflect the original project of the Birkenau central sauna. 96.

The “site plan of the prisoner of war camp” of October 6, 1942, confirms this situation explicitly: The rectangle representing the central sauna bears the designation “16a disinfestation.”97 Thus the “disinfestation facility for special treatment” of the project of October 28, 1942, was nothing other than the central sauna, the most important hygienic-sanitary facility of the entire Auschwitz- Birkenau camp complex.

95. “Prüfungsbericht Nr. 491 über Baustoffeinsparung gemäß G.B.-Anordnung Nr. 22”. RGVA,
502-1-28, pp. 234-238. The two facilities are mentioned on p. 236.

96.Plans printed in: Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas
Chambers, Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, New York 1989, pp. 68f.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 068-01.jpe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 069-01.jpe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

97.VHA, Fond OT 31 (2)/8.
Special Treatment in Auschwitz, p. 40-41
If the "special treatment" means murder or murder by gassing as stated in your source which present document as evidence, the Birkenau Central Sauna where nobody claims that gassing or murdering took place, had been used as gassing facility too according to you and your source? Really? Fantastic, where are those homicidal gas chambers in Central Sauna?

Again, refuted.
So what is Charlie's ground-breaking argument here? That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context (and his convoluted argumentation in this sense doesn't exactly convince me, for even if his conjectures about the place for this particuar Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna, by a simple shot in the back of the head without any need for gassing facilities), it could not have meant homicidal gassing in the file note of 29 January 1943 (same date as Prufer's above-quoted report and Bischoff's letter to Kammler)? I'm again very disappointed by Charlie's perfomance. If Sonderbehandlung in this file note did not mean killing, then what the hell did it mean? After all we're talking about a building here whose essential features were the Leichenkeller in the basement and the cremation room on the ground floor, which means that the Sonderbehandlung was something meant to take place in the Leichenkeller. And what kind of Sonderbehandlung could that have possibly been, in Charlie's erudite opinion?
Bob wrote:As I see, your "sources" for evidence are completely false, interesting, what a pity you did not present it in my thread.
What I actually see is that Bob is reduced to wishful thinking and quoting scripture, and he should consider himself lucky that I didn't slap both around his ears before.
Bob wrote:
OK, then lets look at the complexes that make up the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes as a whole. These are the following:
Again, very long text with no answer, I see that you are not able to list all Soviet crimes and show their level of investigation to back your claims, ok, thanks for confirmation.
Having been presented with the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes (and the level to which they were investigated where there was any investigation at all, which was the case only as concerns shootings and which only in two cases - Katyn and Vinnitsa - matched Bob's German Katyn Investigation Standards), dishonest Bobby ("and show their level of investigation") now shifts the goalposts from the overwhelming majority of to all Soviet crimes. What a show.

Of course I could add Stalin's other crimes to make the list complete - crimes against German POWs and civilians during World War II - but that would only raise the number of deaths that have not been proven by investigations according to GKIS/Bob standards, for while it is true that West German authorities in the 1970s investigated Soviet crimes against German civilians, these investigations were limited by circumstances to questioning surviving eyewitnesses and did not include a single crime scene investigation (let alone one that would meet GKIS / Bob standards).
Bob wrote:
meet GKIS:
As I see, you did not list even one single investigation of Nazi crime by Soviets to meet investigation of Soviet crimes by Nazis, because no double standard allowed between the Nazis and Soviets, you are not able to show example, ok, thanks for confirmation.
What's that supposed to mean now? The object of my exercise was to demonstrate that, except for the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres, there are no Soviet crimes that have been investigated according to the standards of the German Katyn investigation, and therefore no Soviet crimes that Bob could consider proven if he postulates that only a crime scene investigation meeting German Katyn Investigation Standards can prove a mass crime. Unwilling to acknowledge that demonstration and with no arguments against it, Bobby now goes into some incoherent babbling about investigations of Nazi crimes by Soviets vs. investigation of Soviet crimes by Nazis, presumably in order to change the subject. And this even though I already told him that a) no Soviet crime scene investigation regarding Nazi crimes met GKIS, and b) despite this, and despite the known Soviet manipulations at Katyn, Soviet investigations of Nazi crimes can often be considered reliable because and insofar as their results are matched by evidence on which the Soviets could have had no influence. I can even offer quite a few examples of such convergence, see the following blogs:

Mass Graves in the Polesie

Neither the Soviets nor the Poles have found any mass graves with even only a few thousand bodies …

More Mass Graves in the Polesie

Drobitski Yar

The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (1)

The Atrocities committed by German-Fascists in the USSR (2)
Bob wrote:
Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Bob?
No since I never said anything about your examples of Soviet crimes, obviously, this is your thread about alleged grave 1/34.
It was until Bobby opened his big mouth. After that it also became my thread about the idiocy of maintaining that mass murder can only be proven by a crime scene investigation according to German Katyn Investigation Standards, which is what my examples of Soviet crimes are related to.
Bob wrote:
BS, Bobby. If you are prepared to accept the existence and contents of Chełmno grave # 1/34 provided only that the information about this grave is illustrated with photos/film footage like Richard Wright’s photos of Serniki and Ustinovka that I showed you, of like the stills from Father Desbois’ Busk footage that I also showed you, then what is keeping you from accepting as accurate Richard Wright’s accounts of his finds at Serniki and Ustinovka (of which I quoted one) and Father Desbois’ account of his finds at Busk (which I provided a link to)? You’re not making sense, my friend. You’re contradicting yourself.
Another false information, I never claimed this, in fact I said that I will accept these kind of photos as a evidence for Mr. Muehlenkamp´s grave 1/34 and his findings. I never claimed that I accept reports only with using these photos.
If so, my dear Bobby, you should have expressed yourself more clearly, because your acceptance of crime scene investigation or archaeological reports if illustrated with photos of graves and stiffs is the logical conclusion to be derived from your statement that you would accept my evidence for Chelmno grave 1/34 if illustrated with such photos. In case you haven't noticed, my above-quoted remark is about the incoherence of and absence of logic in your position (quite apart from the fact that it's not supported by any accepted rules or standards of evidence, but that's another issue).
Bob wrote:As I see, Mr. Muehlnekamp is not able to provide it, ok, thanks for confirmation.
Sorry, but what am I supposedly not able to provide now? My friend seems exceedingly prone to jump to convenient conclusions.
Bob wrote:
I'm 100 % sure that grave # 1 is in this clearing of the Rzuchów Forest, which is small enough:
You contradict yourself, you said "Of course I cannot be sure (before I have a chance to visit the Chełmno site) that the place on the photo where I drew the grave’s outlines corresponds exactly to the place where the grave is drawn on the map."
Is poor Bob to stupid to understand that my "contradicting" statement referred to the exact position of grave # 1 within this small clearing, and thus doesn't contradict my statement that I'm 100 % sure of the grave's being inside this clearing?

Or is his English just so lousy?
Bob wrote:
That I cannot locate the grave, however irrelevant that would be? BS.
You can´t, I know.
Mind the context instead of writing crap, Bobby. This is the context:
I'm 100 % sure that grave # 1 is in this clearing of the Rzuchów Forest, which is small enough:

Image

By comparing the photo of this clearing with the map of the same clearing that shows the grave:

Image

I'm even able to draw the grave on the photo:

Image

with what may be 100 % accuracy. And if it is not, if I drew my lines a little more to the right or to the left of what would be a correct rendering of the grave's location on the map, what would that mean?

That I cannot locate the grave, however irrelevant that would be? BS.

That the grave does not exist? Even greater BS.

That I have to get to closer to the place and/or find or make a photo on the same scale as the map in order to be 100 % accurate in my depiction of the grave's outlines? Maybe, but that's all.
Do you expect readers to be so dumb as to read only what you write and never look up what your opponent wrote, Bobby?
Bob wrote:
They examined the documentary and eyewitness evidence, which told them that no bodies and no ashes of bodies had been buried in the castle area (where pit 4 is located) but the burial area had been in the Rzuchów forest, 1 or 2 km away from the castle area.
What documents and eyewitness?
Documents and eyewitnesses that my esteemed interlocutor never bothered to inform himself about, such as those mentioned in the HC blogs collected under the label Chelmno. Time for you to educate youself, my friend.
Bob wrote:
Who said I'm not able to show how it was possible to kill human beings in a gas chamber? t's not a big deal, actually. All you need is a room that you can close more or less hermetically and a means to introduce poison gas into that room.
You Mr. Muehlenkamp, see above your alleged gas chamber. Let see how Mr. Muehlenkamp is able to tell me how this was possible and prove his claim "no big deal" in connection with his alleged gas chamber in Krema II, I am really curious if he is able to show me at least how they introduced killing agent to this chamber.
As described by the witnesses I quoted, no big deal. I'm looking forward to Bob's pathetic objections.
Bob wrote:
Poor Bobby talks a lot of {!#%@} when the day is long....
In the other words, you can´t prove you claim "that reasonable peoples usually consider murder weapon as thing of secondary importance", ok, thanks.
Bob the ostrich only reads what he wants to read. This he must have missed:
If you want proof that killing devices are of secondary importance to reasonable people, look up any monograph or court judgment related to extermination camps that was written before "Revisionists" started making a fuss about the supposed implausibility of certain killing methods. You will see that the exact mechanics of the killing were a footnote of historical interest to scholars like Reitlinger and Hilberg. They were also a footnote of judicial interest to West German courts, except insofar as these details were important to establishing the perpetrator's identity (which was never the case in any judgment I have read) or to establishing whether the victims had died in agony and the defendants were guilty of assistance to qualified murder for this reason (German courts sometimes heard experts to establish what death in the gas chambers had been like, the experts' conclusion being that the victims had suffered a lot). If criminal investigators are often interested in murder weapons, that's because the murder weapon is often the only or the main evidence that can provide a clue about the murderer's identity. But where the murderer's identity can be established on hand of other evidence, and where the murder weapon is immaterial to establishing the crime's judicial qualification, the murder weapon is a matter of secondary importance also in criminal justice, and even more so in historiography.

To be sure, some historians/researchers, including myself, have followed in the late Pressac's footsteps and taken a closer look at gassing devices and the mechanics of the gassing process. However, this is not done out of any particular interest in the subject, at least as far as I'm concerned. It is only done in order to refute the related "technical" or "scientifical" claims of loonies like yourself, none of which stand up to scrutiny as far as I have seen.
---
Bob wrote:
First of all, not having photos or data at my fingertips at a given moment doesn't mean that I can't obtain them.
For examination of value of your proof is irrelevant if you can obtain them in following weeks, months or years, the only relevant thing is - you don´t have them now.
Actually, my dear friend, assessing the evidentiary value of a report made by professional archaeologists and compatible with all known evidence independent of these archaeologists requires no photos at all. Photos are only necessary to accommodate Bobby's irrelevant private wishes, and I don't see why I or anyone should be in a hurry to do that.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sun Feb 26, 2012 7:22 pm

Shame! Bob has got his way and can now go on about Krema II.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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 26, 2012 8:12 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: Actually, my dear friend, assessing the evidentiary value of a report made by professional archaeologists and compatible with all known evidence independent of these archaeologists requires no photos at all. Photos are only necessary to accommodate Bobby's irrelevant private wishes, and I don't see why I or anyone should be in a hurry to do that.
Like a Dog that returnth to its vomit, Roberto keeps
insisting on the "Authority" of the "professionals".
And the Authority of the "professionals" is reenforced by the authority of "all known evidence."

In fact, the actual facts given in the Report vitiate your delighted crowing over
having "found" a mass grave: No teeth found, no quantification of human remains.

You offer "explanations" for these facts but you don't have proof.

Why don't you just do the rational, Skeptical thing and call for
a Public, open, scientific excavation of Grave #1/34?
Then you can actually learn if there are even any teeth in the grave.

That also goes for Nessie. I say, "Don't Debate. Excavate!



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 26, 2012 8:15 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Michal Kula

described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula

Pressac made a sketch of the introduction device based on Kula's description.
So through the holes and some columns which were described as 70cm x 70cm and 3m high by its manufacturer Kula, ok. Can you show me square holes in the roof of the alleged gas chamber in Krema II which dimensions are at least 70cm x 70cm and which contained alleged columns as described your own source here?
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ematic.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:the clerk who filled in the inventory simply made a mistake and put the numbers in the wrong line. Big deal.
These things are assigned to L2, alleged undressing room, so this comment is irrelevant, your invention about mistake in connection with these things has no value.

Here can be pointed out another problems for you like, that these things are not in inventory protocol of Krema III, alleged lids of the holes were allegedly concrete and not wooden, also problems with the translation of these things which don´t means what you claim, but this is all irrelevant since these things belongs to L2.
It follows from the junction of both documents that the "Leichenkeller" whose ceiling could not yet be finished due to frost as LK2, which in turn means that the "gassing cellar" mentioned in Bischoff's letter was the other "Leichenkeller", LK1.

If we accept that the "Leichenkeller" in Bischoff's letter = "Leichenkeller 2" in Prüfer's report was already meant to be used as an undressing cellar for the victims at the end of January 1943, I don't see where your problem is. What Bischoff was telling his superior was, quite simply, that as long as the undressing cellar was not yet finished the undressing of the victims could take place in the place where they were meant to be killed, the "gassing cellar". Remove the clothes after everyone has stripped, lock the doors and drop the Zyklon in, no sweat. Whether this was actually done at the time the letter was written or the first homicidal use of Krema II LK1 only took place some time later is completely irrelevant. What Bischoff was telling his superior was that (were it not for circumstances beyond his control, which we will get to right away) it would be possible to start gassing operations even though the undressing cellar was not yet finished.
This is of course false - he did not say anything like that. He said that function of corpse cellar L2 can be substituted by vergasungskeller, so to place bodies of deceased peoples there, nothing sinister. Mr. Muehlenkamp is not able to explain nonsense why he called L2 as "corpse cellar" and L1 "vergasungskeller", ok.
Mr. Bischoff obviously assumed that his superior knew what the actual purpose of LK2 was and that it was not storing bodies of deceased (how sweet!) prisoners.
So this means, that his superior had no clue about purpose of L1 because his subordinate used term "gassing cellar" to inform his superior about secret gassing plan, but for some reason he camouflaged L2 by word "corpse cellar" because his superior somehow knew about purpose of L2 as undressing room for future victims of gassing in L1, the room of which purpose was unknown to him, and all of these nonsenses were mentioned in document which is not even marked as "secret", good Mr. Muehlenkamp, very good.
Bischoff was telling his superior that the impossibility of finishing the roof of LK2 (something he was responsible for) did not hinder gassing operations insofar as undressing could take place in the gas chamber. If gassing was not yet possible because the ventilation equipment had not yet arrived, that was something he could blame on persons or circumstances other than himself. In other words, what Bischoff was telling his boss was the following: "As far as things depend on me we could start, if we can't start it's just because of circumstances that I can do nothing about and am not responsible for". Bischoff was covering his ass, so to say.
Another invention, he did not say anything like that. According to you, the top "secret" Reich extermination operation depended on firm and their delivery of aeration/de-aeration equipment, again, very funny.

Mr. Muhlenkamp deny or dispute Pressac´s quotes, interesting.
explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to.
Carlo Mattogno, Case for Sanity, pp. 55-69.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So what is Charlie's ground-breaking argument here? That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context...Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna
Yes, your alleged code word is proven to be not a code word. Your invention about killing facilities in or around Central Sauna cannot change it, you simply invented this claim and this is one of the most absurd invention I have ever read.

I can finish alleged camouflaged or coded words with Pressac.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0247.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0556.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I see you only invent things freely but this can´t help you since this immediately bring up another problems for you, so as I see is quite useless to further discuss subjects above, because you simply invent things, I find it very ridiculous, I must say that your inventions are very funny.

But no problem, I would be content with just showing me alleged holes which allegedly served for introduction of Zyklon B since in this case I can be sure that you can´t invent them, the roof of alleged chamber still exist, if you can´t show them, no need to bother with the subjects above. Thanks.
dishonest Bobby ("and show their level of investigation") now shifts the goalposts from the overwhelming majority of to all Soviet crimes. What a show.
This is lie, in fact I did not shift anything, here is what Mr. Muehlenkamp said:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Can I conclude from your demanding something like the German Katyn and Vinnitra investigation that you consider unproven the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes

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?
And I requested to list all these examples, all these crimes, to show level of investigation to back up his claims and then I can answer. He refused, so he is not able to provide it, ok, so no answers from me.

No offense, but I am afraid you have just joined local club of liars like Nessie.
Documents and eyewitnesses that my esteemed interlocutor never bothered to inform himself about, such as those mentioned in the HC blogs collected under the label Chelmno.
Ok, you are not able to provide documents and eyewitnesses about excavated "pit 4".

Still no photos, no problem, I know that you don´t have anything, so for me the case of your 1/34 proof/thread is closed, since I waited one week and don´t see anything from you.

Nevermind, thanks, your information was priceless. Now I am only curious about alleged holes in roof of the Krema II, the most lethal building in Auschwitz, the most lethal gas chamber in the history of holocaust with death toll of 500k according to Robert Jan Van Pelt.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:31 pm

David wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: Actually, my dear friend, assessing the evidentiary value of a report made by professional archaeologists and compatible with all known evidence independent of these archaeologists requires no photos at all. Photos are only necessary to accommodate Bobby's irrelevant private wishes, and I don't see why I or anyone should be in a hurry to do that.
Like a Dog that returnth to its vomit, Roberto keeps
insisting on the "Authority" of the "professionals".
And the Authority of the "professionals" is reenforced by the authority of "all known evidence."

In fact, the actual facts given in the Report vitiate your delighted crowing over
having "found" a mass grave: No teeth found, no quantification of human remains.

You offer "explanations" for these facts but you don't have proof.

Why don't you just do the rational, Skeptical thing and call for
a Public, open, scientific excavation of Grave #1/34?
Then you can actually learn if there are even any teeth in the grave.

That also goes for Nessie. I say, "Don't Debate. Excavate!


What goes for Nessie?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:37 pm

Bob wrote:
........

No offense, but I am afraid you have just joined local club of liars like Nessie.

......
I have always marvelled at the nerve of people who say"no offence, but...." and then they are offensive. Show me a lie I have supposedly told.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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 26, 2012 9:21 pm

Ok, my last reply to Nessie since I already dealt with his claims before, here is his lie he had requested, no need to quote it from other threads because his another lie is directly in this thread:

Nessie - "Bob has got his way and can now go on about Krema II."

This is simple lie, Mr. Muehlenkamp was the one who decided on its own to bring up alleged gas chamber in Krema II here and not me.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here I can point out Nessie´s quote about Krema II
Bob - "May I ask Nessie, why he admited that no gassing happened in Krema II and why he stopped believing it"

Nessie - "Simple, showing one room in one building is not a lethal gas chamber does not mean that there were no rooms in any buildings which were lethal gas chambers."
Nessie thus can label himself as a denier as he did in other cases. But I assume that Nessie is going start to dispute his views and he will propably start to believe again to avoid being a denier and to avoid being spanked.

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 26, 2012 10:15 pm

Nessie wrote:
David wrote:
Why don't you just do the rational, Skeptical thing and call for
a Public, open, scientific excavation of Grave #1/34?
Then you can actually learn if there are even any teeth in the grave.

That also goes for Nessie. I say, "Don't Debate. Excavate!


[/color]
What goes for Nessie?

Sorry if I am unclear.
Would you support a public, open, scientific excavation of Grave # 1/34?

Sort of seems the best way to get some decisive new information.
And would only take a week.


User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:39 am

David wrote:
Nessie wrote:
David wrote:
Why don't you just do the rational, Skeptical thing and call for
a Public, open, scientific excavation of Grave #1/34?
Then you can actually learn if there are even any teeth in the grave.

That also goes for Nessie. I say, "Don't Debate. Excavate!


[/color]
What goes for Nessie?

Sorry if I am unclear.
Would you support a public, open, scientific excavation of Grave # 1/34?

Sort of seems the best way to get some decisive new information.
And would only take a week.

Yes, as I said back in post #41. Indeed I would support any such project at all sites of graves or suspected sites of graves.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:49 am

Bob wrote:Ok, my last reply to Nessie since I already dealt with his claims before, here is his lie he had requested, no need to quote it from other threads because his another lie is directly in this thread:

Nessie - "Bob has got his way and can now go on about Krema II."

This is simple lie, Mr. Muehlenkamp was the one who decided on its own to bring up alleged gas chamber in Krema II here and not me.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272710" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here I can point out Nessie´s quote about Krema II
Bob - "May I ask Nessie, why he admited that no gassing happened in Krema II and why he stopped believing it"

Nessie - "Simple, showing one room in one building is not a lethal gas chamber does not mean that there were no rooms in any buildings which were lethal gas chambers."
Nessie thus can label himself as a denier as he did in other cases. But I assume that Nessie is going start to dispute his views and he will propably start to believe again to avoid being a denier and to avoid being spanked.
Bob, back in post #36 you started to divert the thread and bring up the gas chamber topic and you have got your own way in that the debate has come round to gas chambers.

As for Krema II, there is another thread for that. I am here to wait to see what happens with Roberto's submission of evidence for the reward.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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 27, 2012 12:09 pm

It looks like that previous comment wasn´t my last response since Nessie´s lies are too obvious and worth of exposing. Nessie is lying again of course, in fact, R. Muehlenkamp started off topic about arguments of "deniers" when I asked him why allegedly existing materials supporting "his" report about grave 1/34 are not published when they can prove the biggest crime in history of which his Chelmno is an inseparable part and especially when there are deniers around which cast doubts, you can see it here in post #13:
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?"

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 34#p271792" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He also started with jumping to other subjects like "more than 7 millions non-Jews killed by Nazis" as also visible in post #13 mentioned above. I also adressed some of his off topic claims to prove that I am not used to dodge, like "more than five milions Jews killed by Nazis" which he mentioned in his post #13

My response to post #13 and quote mentioned above is here in post #16
Bob wrote:"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 http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17691" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to back your claims."
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 34#p271810" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From the beginning, I recommended to post this off topic to my thread or to other relevant threads and not here, this clearly refute accusation that I wanted to divert subject of this thread in post #36, is not my problem, that Mr. Muehlenkamp refused to post it to relevant thread and he posted it here, i did not force him to post it here, but I recommended the very opposite as proved above and below.

Nessie ignore, that Mr. Muehlenkamp decided to bring up Krema II and ignore my recommendation to post it to my thread as I recommended here again in post #46
Bob wrote:"In the meantime when you will be very busy with proving of your claims, you can check my thread and show Nazi homicidal gas chamber and show me how was gassing possible as alleged."
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p272410" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...but Mr. Muehlenkamp decided on his own to post it here anyway in his post #54, then Nessie came and he spread his lies and false accusations again.

No doubt, Nessie is a first class liar, he can´t be more dishonest that he already is.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Mon Feb 27, 2012 12:25 pm

Bob, do you want to debate gas chambers yes or no?

Bob, has this thread now shifted to include a debate about gas chambers, yes or no?

To help you out, the answer is yes to both. The evidence for that is contained in your thread "Can you show me Nazi Homicidal Gas chamber?" which shows you want a debate about such, and above in this thread where Roberto has succumbed to your request and posted about Krema II.

For me to make comment on that is no lie.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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 27, 2012 12:34 pm

Nessie wrote:Bob, do you want to debate gas chambers yes or no?

Bob, has this thread now shifted to include a debate about gas chambers, yes or no?

To help you out, the answer is yes to both. The evidence for that is contained in your thread "Can you show me Nazi Homicidal Gas chamber?" which shows you want a debate about such, and above in this thread where Roberto has succumbed to your request and posted about Krema II.

For me to make comment on that is no lie.
If I want to debate about gas chambers have nothing to do with your accusations that I diverted subject of this thread 1/34, the only relevant thing is that I recommended twice to post off topic to my thread or other threads, I recommended it twice to not post it here, but to relevant threads, your accusations are thus pure lies again as you did many times before and I proved it again above, you ignored it of course.

I am finished with you now, you have been demolished here and in other threads so much that there is nothing more to add, I also don´t see reason why debate with someone who can only lie.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:00 am

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Michal Kula

described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula

Pressac made a sketch of the introduction device based on Kula's description.

So through the holes and some columns which were described as 70cm x 70cm and 3m high by its manufacturer Kula, ok. Can you show me square holes in the roof of the alleged gas chamber in Krema II which dimensions are at least 70cm x 70cm and which contained alleged columns as described your own source here?
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ematic.gif

Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.
Don’t you just love it when "Revisionist" cretins think they are being smart? I know I do.

If the holes in the roof of Krema II (those that are considered to have been used for introducing the Zyklon B) are smaller than the outer column described by Kula, there is one explanation that takes all evidence into account and does not require unsubstantiated assumptions at odds with the evidence let alone silly conspiracy theories. It is that either the outer column narrowed towards the top or that only the inner column, which was obviously narrower than the outer column, protruded through the roof. If I understand Kula’s description correctly he didn’t give the inner column’s measurements, but it is not unlikely that its measurements were such that it fit through the hole in the roof, say 50cm x 50cm or 45cm by 45cm. Big freaking deal. Got no more difficult questions, Bobby?
Bob wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:the clerk who filled in the inventory simply made a mistake and put the numbers in the wrong line. Big deal.

These things are assigned to L2, alleged undressing room, so this comment is irrelevant, your invention about mistake in connection with these things has no value.

Here can be pointed out another problems for you like, that these things are not in inventory protocol of Krema III, alleged lids of the holes were allegedly concrete and not wooden, also problems with the translation of these things which don´t means what you claim, but this is all irrelevant since these things belongs to L2.
If these things are not in the inventory of Krema III, then either someone forgot to list them or there was a later inventory of Krema III that got lost. What inventory of Krema III did you have in mind, by the way? Show me.

If the inventory for Krema II mentions that the wire mesh introduction devices had wooden covers and a witness spoke of concrete covers, there are two possibilities:

a) the witness was mistaken about the material the covers were made of, or
b) the wooden covers originally foreseen were later replaced by concrete covers.

Again, nothing to make a fuss about.

And as to the wire mesh introduction devices and wooden covers being mentioned in the line for LK2 and not in the line for LK1, the likeliest explanation is still that the clerk mixed up the lines. Unless, of course, dodging Bob can explain a) what, other than the wire mesh introduction devices described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula, the "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” mentioned in the inventory could possibly have been, and b) what the undressing cellar called "Leichenkeller 2" should have needed those devices for.
Bob wrote: It follows from the junction of both documents that the "Leichenkeller" whose ceiling could not yet be finished due to frost as LK2, which in turn means that the "gassing cellar" mentioned in Bischoff's letter was the other "Leichenkeller", LK1.

If we accept that the "Leichenkeller" in Bischoff's letter = "Leichenkeller 2" in Prüfer's report was already meant to be used as an undressing cellar for the victims at the end of January 1943, I don't see where your problem is. What Bischoff was telling his superior was, quite simply, that as long as the undressing cellar was not yet finished the undressing of the victims could take place in the place where they were meant to be killed, the "gassing cellar". Remove the clothes after everyone has stripped, lock the doors and drop the Zyklon in, no sweat. Whether this was actually done at the time the letter was written or the first homicidal use of Krema II LK1 only took place some time later is completely irrelevant. What Bischoff was telling his superior was that (were it not for circumstances beyond his control, which we will get to right away) it would be possible to start gassing operations even though the undressing cellar was not yet finished.

This is of course false - he did not say anything like that. He said that function of corpse cellar L2 can be substituted by vergasungskeller, so to place bodies of deceased peoples there, nothing sinister.
Except, of course, that this doesn’t explain why he referred to LK1 as a Vergasungskeller and not as a Leichenkeller.
Bob wrote:Mr. Muehlenkamp is not able to explain nonsense why he called L2 as "corpse cellar" and L1 "vergasungskeller", ok.
If so, bigmouthed Bobby would still be a lot worse off, as he cannot explain why LK1 would be called a gassing cellar unless it was meant for gassing. My explanation for LK2 being called a corpse cellar is the following:

Mr. Bischoff obviously assumed that his superior knew what the actual purpose of the "corpse cellar" that was not the Vergasungskeller was, and that it was not storing bodies of deceased (how sweet!) prisoners.
Bob wrote:So this means, that his superior had no clue about purpose of L1 because his subordinate used term "gassing cellar" to inform his superior about secret gassing plan, but for some reason he camouflaged L2 by word "corpse cellar" because his superior somehow knew about purpose of L2 as undressing room for future victims of gassing in L1, the room of which purpose was unknown to him, and all of these nonsenses were mentioned in document which is not even marked as "secret", good Mr. Muehlenkamp, very good.
Hysterical Bobby can stomp his feet all he likes, but it’s obvious that Bischoff had to tell his superior which of the two Leichenkeller had not yet been finished and why things could work nevertheless (or could have worked but for circumstances that he, Bischoff, could do nothing about). This he did by mentioning that the Vergasungskeller had already been finished and that it could also perform the function of the other "Leichenkeller" until that one was finished. That function was obviously the undressing function, as it makes perfect sense that the victims could undress in the gassing cellar until the cellar meant specifically for undressing was finished. Why did Bischoff not refer to the undressing cellar as LK2 and to the gassing cellar as LK1, which must have got him a rebuke from his superior for violating secrecy regulations? We don’t know, but Bischoff may have been concerned that his superior, while knowing that one cellar was meant for undressing and the other for gassing, didn’t necessarily remember which bore which number and might thus be left in uncertainty about the function of the cellar that had not yet been finished. An unfinished Vergasungskeller would have meant that gassing operations could not yet be started due to circumstances for which Bischoff was responsible, and Bischoff may have reckoned that if his superior thought this to be the case he would be in worse trouble than a breach of secrecy regulations could get him into. Between breaching secrecy regulations and risking that his superior might get an unfavorable impression of his work performance, Bischoff chose the lesser evil and worded the letter so as to leave his superior in no doubt that the most important of the two cellars – the gassing cellar, which could also perform the function of the undressing cellar, whereas the opposite was not the case – was finished and only the less important of the two cellars still had some roof works to be done.
Bob wrote:Bischoff was telling his superior that the impossibility of finishing the roof of LK2 (something he was responsible for) did not hinder gassing operations insofar as undressing could take place in the gas chamber. If gassing was not yet possible because the ventilation equipment had not yet arrived, that was something he could blame on persons or circumstances other than himself. In other words, what Bischoff was telling his boss was the following: "As far as things depend on me we could start, if we can't start it's just because of circumstances that I can do nothing about and am not responsible for". Bischoff was covering his ass, so to say.

Another invention, he did not say anything like that. According to you, the top "secret" Reich extermination operation depended on firm and their delivery of aeration/de-aeration equipment, again, very funny.
Dishonest Bob is running away from his own previous statement, which read as follows:
And finally how was possible to undress and gas peoples in alleged gas chamber when Topf und Sohne did not deliver aeration and de-aeration equipment for alleged gas chamber as stated in document?
Short memory, Bobby?

That question you now conveniently forgot was a pertinent one, for a change. Aeration and de-aeration equipment was essential to gassing in an underground room, which could not be ventilated into the open. Without forced ventilation, the room would be inaccessible for a long time after the gassing, and this was certainly not the idea. So Bischoff mentioned this unfortunate fact, which didn’t allow for gassing in Krema II to begin right away:
On account of freight restrictions, Topf & Söhne have as yet been unable to supply in time the aeration and de-aeration system as requested by Zentralbauleitung. On arrival of the aeration and deaeration equipment installation will proceed immediately, and it is expected that the unit will be ready for operation on February 20, 1943. A report by the test engineer of Messrs. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt, is attached.
At the same time he made clear that the delay in delivering the essential aeration and de-aeration system was not his fault, and also not that of his suppliers (whose default might be blamed on his having not put enough pressure on them), but due to freight restrictions (presumably related to priority given to supplies for the front) that neither he nor Topf & Söhne could do anything about.

In the previous paragraph:
Crematorium II has been completed, except for minor details, by using all available manpower, in spite of extreme difficulties and severe frost and by running day and night shifts. The ovens were fired up in the presence of senior engineer Prüfer of the contracting firm, Messrs. Topf & Söhne of Erfurt, and function perfectly. The planking of the reinforced concrete ceiling of the corpse cellar could not yet be stripped because of the effect of frost. This is, however, of no importance, because the gassing cellar can be used for this instead.


Bischoff had assured his superior that, insofar as things depended on him (Bischoff), everything had been done to get things ready for gassing operations.

In other words, Bischoff was telling his superior that a) he had done his job and achieved his objective, which was to get Krema II ready to commence gassing operations, and b) the only reason hindering commencement of gassing operations was the freight restrictions that kept the essential aeration and de-aeration system from being delivered. He was covering his ass, as I said before.
Bob wrote:Mr. Muhlenkamp deny or dispute Pressac´s quotes, interesting.

explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to.
Quote-mining Bobby is again distorting my statements. The one he partially quoted referred to himself and Mattogno, not to Pressac:
What I actually see is that not even my good friend Charlie, not to mention his untalented disciple Bob, is able to provide a coherent explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to.


The statement about Pressac read as follows:
With all due respect for the late Pressac, he doesn't seem to have realized what situation poor Bischoff was in and what he was trying to tell his boss to avoid being shitcanned: he had done everything he could to get gassing operations started, if they couldn't start yet that was because others had failed or due to circumstances beyond everyone's control, not due to any fault of his.
Pressac did a great job, but that doesn’t mean all of his assessments are correct let alone that I have to accept them as gospel. There’s nothing "interesting" about that. Unlike faithful disciple Bobby, for whom everything Mattogno writes seems to be holy scripture, I have no gurus, and thus no problem stating that I consider a scholar to have been wrong in a certain respect – even if I admire that scholar.
Bob wrote:Carlo Mattogno, Case for Sanity, pp. 55-69.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So what is Charlie's ground-breaking argument here? That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context...Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna

Yes, your alleged code word is proven to be not a code word. Your invention about killing facilities in or around Central Sauna cannot change it, you simply invented this claim and this is one of the most absurd invention I have ever read.
Poor hysterical Bobby is making a fuss about my secondary considerations that Sonderbehandlung may not have been innocuous in connection with the Central Sauna and the Soviet POWs, while conveniently ignoring my main argument:
So what is Charlie's ground-breaking argument here? That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context (and his convoluted argumentation in this sense doesn't exactly convince me, for even if his conjectures about the place for this particuar Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna, by a simple shot in the back of the head without any need for gassing facilities), it could not have meant homicidal gassing in the file note of 29 January 1943 (same date as Prufer's above-quoted report and Bischoff's letter to Kammler)? I'm again very disappointed by Charlie's perfomance. If Sonderbehandlung in this file note did not mean killing, then what the hell did it mean? After all we're talking about a building here whose essential features were the Leichenkeller in the basement and the cremation room on the ground floor, which means that the Sonderbehandlung was something meant to take place in the Leichenkeller. And what kind of Sonderbehandlung could that have possibly been, in Charlie's erudite opinion?


(Emphases added)

You see, my dear dishonest friend, I have no problem at all with the argument that Sonderbehandlung did not always have a sinister meaning. That may well be so, and Mattogno can probably show examples in which Sonderbehandlung even meant something positive and pleasant. That, however, doesn’t answer the question what, other than killing, the term Sonderbehandlung could possibly have meant in the context in which it was used in the file note dated 29 January 1943, which mentioned that "cremation with simultaneous special treatment" would be possible under certain circumstances. Does Charlie explain what, other than killing, the term "special treatment" could have meant in this specific context? Or does he just say "hey look, Sonderbehandlung didn’t necessarily mean killing, so it didn’t mean killing here", thereby impressing gullible followers like Bobby but making a bloody fool of himself in the eyes of anyone who is not a "Revisionist" sucker?
Bob wrote:I can finish alleged camouflaged or coded words with Pressac.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 0247.shtml
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 0556.shtml
What are these links supposed to tell me? Please explain.
Bob wrote:As I see you only invent things freely but this can´t help you since this immediately bring up another problems for you, so as I see is quite useless to further discuss subjects above, because you simply invent things, I find it very ridiculous, I must say that your inventions are very funny.
I don’t invent things, buddy. I make reasonable arguments and defensible interpretations, which you as often as not ignore or even try to obfuscate by making a fuss about a side consideration that was not my main argument. And you seem to have realized how little you got to offer against my arguments and interpretations, judging by how you’re trying to find a way out of our discussion.
Bob wrote:But no problem, I would be content with just showing me alleged holes which allegedly served for introduction of Zyklon B since in this case I can be sure that you can´t invent them, the roof of alleged chamber still exist, if you can´t show them, no need to bother with the subjects above. Thanks.
Inventing things I leave to true believers like you, who are in need of much invention for lack of evidence and arguments. My explanation for this oh-so-mysterious discrepancy between the physically established size of the holes and Kula’s data about the measurements of the outer column has been provided above. No invention necessary, just common sense and the Occam’s Razor principle. Piece of cake.
Bob wrote: dishonest Bobby ("and show their level of investigation") now shifts the goalposts from the overwhelming majority of to all Soviet crimes. What a show.

This is lie, in fact I did not shift anything, here is what Mr. Muehlenkamp said:

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Can I conclude from your demanding something like the German Katyn and Vinnitra investigation that you consider unproven the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes

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?
Yeah, and the second paragraph means the following:
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?
All Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres can mean either of the following, depending on how many Soviet crimes have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres:

a) all Soviet crimes ever committed, except for the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres; or
b) a majority of Soviet crimes (if only a minority have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres); or
c) a minority of Soviet crimes (if a majority have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres).

It can even mean none at all, if all Soviet crimes have been been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres (which of course is not the case – the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations were the only ones of their kind, as far as I’ve been able to establish).

It’s not my fault if you’re dumb as a door and don’t understand written English, Bobby.

But I don’t like being called a liar by an anonymous bigmouth. I like to know the identity of who insults me.

So could I please have your full name, my fine friend?

The rest of your crap I’ll thrash tomorrow, along with the other hysteric’s slobbering. Now I have a pretty woman waiting for me.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2012 4:29 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If the holes in the roof of Krema II (those that are considered to have been used for introducing the Zyklon B) are smaller than the outer column described by Kula, there is one explanation that takes all evidence into account and does not require unsubstantiated assumptions at odds with the evidence let alone silly conspiracy theories. It is that either the outer column narrowed towards the top or that only the inner column, which was obviously narrower than the outer column, protruded through the roof. If I understand Kula’s description correctly he didn’t give the inner column’s measurements, but it is not unlikely that its measurements were such that it fit through the hole in the roof, say 50cm x 50cm or 45cm by 45cm. Big freaking deal. Got no more difficult questions, Bobby?


Ceiling of Krema II morgue/chamber is 2.41m, columns are 3m, see your source H-H.org and Kula testimony again. Also Tauber speaks about wire columns/pillars "which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh." (Pressac, 1989, p. 484) your comment above is thus irrelevant, even your witness Tauber confirmed that column went through the roof and your source H-H.org confirmed it too.

So try it again, show me square holes 70cm x 70cm in the ceiling of morgue 1 in Krema II, thanks.

I know that everything depend on the holes, but I will adress your inventions and nonsenses anyway.
If these things are not in the inventory of Krema III, then either someone forgot to list them or there was a later inventory of Krema III that got lost. What inventory of Krema III did you have in mind, by the way? Show me.


Nice invention again.

They didn´t forget lamps, faucets, but they forgot the most important devices for gassing, nonsense, thus false, invenory list of Krema III don´t contain any of these devices.
What inventory of Krema III did you have in mind, by the way? Show me.


Inventory list of Krema III
Document reproduced in Case for Sanity, p. 696, Document 10
RGVA, 502-2-54, pp. 77f.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If the inventory for Krema II mentions that the wire mesh introduction devices had wooden covers and a witness spoke of concrete covers, there are two possibilities:

a) the witness was mistaken about the material the covers were made of, or
b) the wooden covers originally foreseen were later replaced by concrete covers.


First, your are wrong, translation of "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" is not wire-mesh introduction device, but "to push, to slide", correct term for introduction device is "Drahtnetzeinführvorrichtung".

Second, translation of these wooden covers are again different, not "Holzblenden" since this means "blind" but "Holzdeckel", so you are wrong again.

You even don´t know correct translation which refute meaning of these things and their alleged function, this is really ridiculous.

a)Is not possible to mistake wood for concrete or concrete for wood, and not for someone who work for months or more in alleged place, so false and see below.

b)Tauber reported first alleged gassing in 15 March 1943, Danuta Czech in her Kalendarium speaks about 14 March 1943, so this happened using concrete covers since Tauber described concrete covers with wooden handles and is thus impossible for him to be mistaken when he clearly recognized concrete covers and wooden handles on them. Then they replaced concrete covers (never mentioned anywhere) for wooden "Holzblenden" (sic!) since inventory protocol is dated March 31, 1943. And now Mr. Muehlenkamp say, that they replaced wooden covers with concrete covers, which had been previously replaced by the wooden ones. Nice nonsense again.

So they were wooden or concrete Mr. Muehlenkamp?
And as to the wire mesh introduction devices and wooden covers being mentioned in the line for LK2 and not in the line for LK1, the likeliest explanation is still that the clerk mixed up the lines.
This is of course invention as I said. You have also problem, "devices" listed in inventory don´t mean what you claim here, translation is different, so again false. You still ignore that they are listed for L2 and your nonsensical invention cannot change it.

Also, in ledger of "WL-Schlosserei.", there is nothing about these devices described by Kula, there are lot of jobs ordered by ZBL for Crematoria, even the gas-tight doors, there is even job assigned to Kula and metalworking shop as judge Jan Sehn pointed out, but no columns, no documents about it, they never existed.
a) what, other than the wire mesh introduction devices described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula, the "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” mentioned in the inventory could possibly have been, and b) what the undressing cellar called "Leichenkeller 2" should have needed those devices for.
Quote here other witnesses which described Kula columns, show me their descriptions and convergence, I am really curious.

You know who and when added these things to inventory list since they are written by hand when you consider them as fact and you want explanation from me?
Except, of course, that this doesn’t explain why he referred to LK1 as a Vergasungskeller and not as a Leichenkeller.
He reffered to "corpse cellar" without number in connection with L2, so in the case that he would use again "corpse cellar" without number, this would tell nothing to his superior so he used term "vergasungskeller" to make clear which corpse cellar he mean. Why this term, see Mattogno, I provided you with source, you can refute his evidence if you don´t agree.
Hysterical Bobby.....
You dodged my points, if gassing is correct theory then:

Why he used term "vergasungskeller" for L1? To inform his superior about purpose and he forget "code language" and his superior didn´t know about purpose?

Why he used term code term "corpse cellar" for L2 in the same document? His superior knew about purpose and no need to inform him with term "undressing room" and he somehow knew about purpose of L2 even when he didn´t have clue about purpose of L1 as proven above?

Does it make sense to use code word for one room and don´t use code word for other room in the same document?

Is this document marked as secret? If not as I mentioned earlier, how is this everything above possible?

Nice nonsenses and contradictions, explain them please.
Aeration and de-aeration equipment was essential to gassing in an underground room, which could not be ventilated into the open. Without forced ventilation, the room would be inaccessible for a long time after the gassing, and this was certainly not the idea. So Bischoff mentioned this unfortunate fact, which didn’t allow for gassing in Krema II to begin right away:
And again as I said earlier, whole operation depended on firm and her delivery of device needed for this secret important task, as i said, ridiculous nonsense.

Tell me something about ideas, ventilation in this gas chamber (9,48 air exchanges) was less effective than in alleged undressing room (11 air exchanges)...can you tell why they used worse ventilation in gas chamber?

Can you tell me how they ventilated room, when the de-aeration duct is located near the floor, and little openings near floor would be thus blocked by bodies and prevent de-aeration of poisonous air?
Quote-mining Bobby is again distorting my statements.
In fact, you are the one who distort statements, your quote where you connected together sentence about Pressac and your demand for explanation is example of distortion. My response about your disputing of Pressac was response to this: With all due respect for the late Pressac, he doesn't seem to have realized what situation poor Bischoff was in and what he was trying to tell his boss to avoid being shitcanned: he had done everything he could to get gassing operations started, if they couldn't start yet that was because others had failed or due to circumstances beyond everyone's control, not due to any fault of his."

But my response to this request: "explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to. " was this reference for explanation in book of Carlo Mattogno, Case for Sanity, pp. 55-69.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You joined everything together and accused me, ridiculous. You even later connected my response about "vergasungskeller" in link to Mattogno´s book and you considered it as response to "special treatment" points, this is even more ridiculous, this clearly prove that you did not read Mattogno.
Pressac did a great job, but that doesn’t mean all of his assessments are correct let alone that I have to accept them as gospel.
Of course, you cand dispute Pressac, but where is your evidence?

Did you ever visited Auschwitz archives?
That, however, doesn’t answer the question what, other than killing, the term Sonderbehandlung could possibly have meant in the context in which it was used in the file note dated 29 January 1943, which mentioned that "cremation with simultaneous special treatment" would be possible under certain circumstances. Does Charlie explain what, other than killing, the term "special treatment" could have meant in this specific context? Or does he just say "hey look, Sonderbehandlung didn’t necessarily mean killing, so it didn’t mean killing here", thereby impressing gullible followers like Bobby but making a bloody fool of himself in the eyes of anyone who is not a "Revisionist" sucker?
I am content with the fact that special treatment is not code word as proven. For long explanation of document above see Mattogno, CfS, pp. 189-199.
What are these links supposed to tell me? Please explain.
Pressac explains in length, why code language is myth and thus he refute your claims, but you must read it first of course.

Quote below is quite ridiculous:
I don’t invent things
You do, see:
"That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context (and his convoluted argumentation in this sense doesn't exactly convince me, for even if his conjectures about the place for this particuar Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna"
According to Mr. Muehlenkamp, Central Sauna, the most important hygienic facility in Birkenau has been coded as "delousing facility" and also as "special treatment" facility in document above (so double coded Nazi language!), because this place had been used for shootings, he even know that victims were Soviet POWs, interesting. Also according to Mr. Muehlenkamp, the second facility in this same document 16b) coded as "delousing facility" for "the guard troops" and not for special treatment means, that they even constructed murdering facility where they propably murdered own guard troops since is also marked as "delousing facility". He also ignore, that in other document mentioned above by Mattogno, the Central sauna is called as “delousing facility for prisoners” so "delousing facility" is really next alleged code word for murdering according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.

No need to ask Mr. Muehlenkamp for evidence, because he completely invented this ridiculous nonsense.
Occam’s Razor principle.
What a statement again, thanks, Occam´s razor = "principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false." (Wikipedia) = no gassing. Feel free to post evidence, for example, those pesky holes.
All Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres can mean either of the following, depending on how many Soviet crimes have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres:
But you did not listed all these examples to show that they are not investigated as Katyn or Vinnitsa. So exactly as I said, you only used it as appel, thus logical fallacy and you cant back it, this also means, that you falsely accused me and my points about your lie were valid, I did not shifted goalposts as you accused me.

I also again proved that you are liar Mr. Muehlenkamp and you falsely accused me again from distorting, but in fact, you are the one who distorted quotes and connected non-relevant quotes together and then accuse.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:31 am

Continuing from post # 70
Bob wrote:And I requested to list all these examples, all these crimes, to show level of investigation to back up his claims and then I can answer. He refused, so he is not able to provide it, ok, so no answers from me.
Chicken continues running away. I have shown you the main complexes of Stalinist crimes as well as the level of investigation to the best of my knowledge, which is crime scene investigations only as concerns shootings, and only two of these investigations – Katyn and Vinnitsa – meeting German Katyn Investigation Standards. I might make the list of Stalin’s crimes complete by adding Red Army crimes against civilians and Soviet prisoners of war, but then the discrepancy between the magnitude of Stalin’s crimes and those among them that can be considered proven according to GKIS / Bob standards would be even larger. If Bob would like to be humiliated a little more, I’ll be glad to comply with his wishes.
Bob wrote:No offense, but I am afraid you have just joined local club of liars like Nessie.
As I said before, I don’t like being called names by an anonymous coward hiding behind an alias. Even if the fellow is a hysteric whose mental problems cause him to call his opponents liars when he freaks out. Could I have your full name please, Mr. Bob?
Bob wrote: Documents and eyewitnesses that my esteemed interlocutor never bothered to inform himself about, such as those mentioned in the HC blogs collected under the label Chelmno.

Ok, you are not able to provide documents and eyewitnesses about excavated "pit 4".
The archaeologists who excavated pit 4 in the castle/manor are expert eyewitnesses, and if I remember correctly (Bob is either shifting the goal posts again or has a very short memory) the question was on what basis the archaeologists expected not to find human remains and risk violating Jewish burial laws when excavating pit no. 4. The answer is that pit no. 4 is located in the castle/manor area and not in the Rzuchów forest cemetery, and that the historical record of Chełmno extermination camp (which becomes apparent from eyewitness testimonies and documents including but not limited to those I pointed out) shows that the camp’s place of body disposal was the Rzuchów forest cemetery but not the castle/manor area. So the archaeologists could reasonably expect that a pit located in the castle/manor area and not in the Rzuchów forest cemetery would contain no human remains. Pretty simple logic, really - at least for people with more brains inside their skull than boring Bob.
Bob wrote:Still no photos, no problem, I know that you don´t have anything, so for me the case of your 1/34 proof/thread is closed, since I waited one week and don´t see anything from you.
As you haven’t yet explained why on earth photos would be required for the archaeological report to constitute relevant evidence, your demand was irrelevant to start with. Thus it’s also irrelevant that I didn’t accommodate Bobby’s wishes. One week is very little time for a trip from Lisbon in Portugal to Chełmno in Poland, by the way – at least for a private citizen with reduced means like myself. But then, it’s rather obvious that poor Bob lives in a cloud-cuckoo-land out of touch with the real world.
Bob wrote:Nevermind, thanks, your information was priceless. Now I am only curious about alleged holes in roof of the Krema II, the most lethal building in Auschwitz, the most lethal gas chamber in the history of holocaust with death toll of 500k according to Robert Jan Van Pelt.
Reasonable answer to stupid question was provided in previous post. And with all due respect for Mr. Van Pelt, I don’t think Krema II alone killed all that many people. But that is also irrelevant. What matters is the total number of people murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
As concerns the Jewish victims, read Sergey Romanov’s blog The number of Hungarian Jews gassed upon arrival at Auschwitz.

Meanwhile, I see that hysterical Bobby has freaked out again, this time even to the point of writing in red letters.

I’ll have some fun with Bob’s latest hollering later on, now I’ll just reply to David’s previous antics and then I have some work to do. When I come back, I hope to see the real and full name of the coward who is calling me a liar.
Last edited by Roberto Muehlenkamp on Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:43 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
......
Bob wrote:No offense, but I am afraid you have just joined local club of liars like Nessie.
As I said before, I don’t like being called names by an anonymous coward hiding behind an alias. Even if the fellow is a hysteric whose mental problems cause him to call his opponents liars when he freaks out. Could I have your full name please, Mr. Bob?

......
Bob still cannot show any lies. Instead he has to twist what has really been said into a total misinterpretation and then claim lie!
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:56 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
.......
Bob wrote:Nevermind, thanks, your information was priceless. Now I am only curious about alleged holes in roof of the Krema II, the most lethal building in Auschwitz, the most lethal gas chamber in the history of holocaust with death toll of 500k according to Robert Jan Van Pelt.
Reasonable answer to stupid question was provided in previous post. And with all due respect for Mr. Van Pelt, I don’t think Krema II alone killed all that many people. But that is also irrelevant. What matters is the total number of people murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
As concerns the Jewish victims, read Sergey Romanov’s blog The number of Hungarian Jews gassed upon arrival at Auschwitz.

.........

Something that is clear is that according to genuine historical study is that the numbers killed was initially exagerated and over the years downgraded. Images from films, pictures and dramas about the Holocaust had me believing thousands were queuing at one side of the gas chambers as thousands were being cremated at the other. Clearly that is artistic licence and wrong. But the more the numbers are reduced, the more realistic gassing becomes. I cannot find the quote, but in a previous thread reference was made to a trial of one of the camp commanders who described putting about 30 people into a gas chamber. That was contrary to the then belief that hundreds if not thousands were being gassed at a time. Now, it makes far more sense.
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 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:59 am

David wrote: Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Actually, my dear friend, assessing the evidentiary value of a report made by professional archaeologists and compatible with all known evidence independent of these archaeologists requires no photos at all. Photos are only necessary to accommodate Bobby's irrelevant private wishes, and I don't see why I or anyone should be in a hurry to do that.

Like a Dog that returnth to its vomit, Roberto keeps
insisting on the "Authority" of the "professionals".
And the Authority of the "professionals" is reenforced by the authority of "all known evidence."
It’s not a matter of authority but of simple logic. Archaeologists are professionals and expert witnesses for whom it would be very counterproductive and damaging (and who would thus be very dumb) to report their finds incorrectly. Thus there is no reason to assume that they so did unless there’s a substantiated challenge to the correctness of an archaeological report, and a substantiated challenge doesn’t consist of yelling "hey, they didn’t show the photos I would like to see". Where reported archaeological finds are in line with the historical context that becomes apparent from other evidence, there’s even less reason to mistrust an archaeological report bar specific indications against its accuracy.
David wrote: In fact, the actual facts given in the Report vitiate your delighted crowing over having "found" a mass grave: No teeth found, no quantification of human remains.
The reported ash layer was obviously a human ash layers, otherwise the archaeologists wouldn’t have concluded that the grave was a mass grave. Quantification of partial human remains is not what archaeologists usually do, and if probing excavations meant to establish the outlines of a grave didn’t find teeth, that’s also nothing to write home about. So poor David’s hysterical hollering is again based on wishful thinking and an absence of common sense.
David wrote:You offer "explanations" for these facts but you don't have proof.
I don’t have proof for the presence of teeth in the grave, though it is reasonable to assume that teeth are present. But the presence of ashes (obviously of human origin) was expressly mentioned in the archaeological report, which has at least the evidentiary quality of an expert eyewitness testimony.
David wrote:Why don't you just do the rational, Skeptical thing and call for
a Public, open, scientific excavation of Grave #1/34?
Because that’s not the rational, skeptical thing to do, at least if you nonsensically postulate that such investigation is necessary to prove mass murder at Chełmno. Any investigation that would increase archaeological and historical knowledge about that mass murder is welcome, though.
David wrote:Then you can actually learn if there are even any teeth in the grave.
It’s certainly a curiosity I would like to satisfy, but that’s all. Whether or not teeth are brought to the surface from grave # 1 or any other grave, mass murder at Chełmno has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is also possible, on the basis of archaeological information, to establish certain minimum amounts of human cremation remains in the Chełmno grave. It is not possible to establish how much of these remains are teeth or tooth meal, how much are bone fragments and how much are ashes, for sure. But there are also no meaningful conclusions that could be derived from such breakdown if it were possible, as teeth are mostly destroyed when corpses are burned and the cremation remains crushed, which in turn means that one cannot establish the number of victims based on the number of surviving teeth.
David wrote:That also goes for Nessie. I say, "Don't Debate. Excavate!
I’d love to excavate, but I don’t think anyone would give me a permission to do so, any more than anyone would give me a permission to excavate at Arlington National Cemetery. However, there may be a way around this problem, considering that David apparently doesn’t care about permissions. Why don’t we meet at Chełmno one of these days, David? You with a shovel, I with a camera. You excavate, I photograph and film you excavating and what you bring to the surface. If we should be challenged by Polish authorities, I may be in trouble for not keeping you from digging without permission at a memorial site, but you’ll be in trouble for digging without permission at a memorial site. Each of us bears his own costs, of course (travel, accommodation, etc. and you’ll have to buy your shovel). How about that, David?

Ah, and you can bring along your cousin Bob with another shovel, if he should want to participate. Two excavate more than one.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:11 pm

David, why are you so interested in teeth? When bodies are cremated and the ashes returned to relatives, there are no teeth left mixed in with the ashes.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:53 pm

Chicken continues running away. I have shown you the main complexes of Stalinist crimes as well as the level of investigation to the best of my knowledge, which is crime scene investigations only as concerns shootings, and only two of these investigations – Katyn and Vinnitsa – meeting German Katyn Investigation Standards. I might make the list of Stalin’s crimes complete by adding Red Army crimes against civilians and Soviet prisoners of war, but then the discrepancy between the magnitude of Stalin’s crimes and those among them that can be considered proven according to GKIS / Bob standards would be even larger. If Bob would like to be humiliated a little more, I’ll be glad to comply with his wishes.
Again long, but as I see, you can´t provide all these examples, I don´t see them here.
As I said before, I don’t like being called names by an anonymous coward hiding behind an alias. Even if the fellow is a hysteric whose mental problems cause him to call his opponents liars when he freaks out. Could I have your full name please, Mr. Bob?
No.

Regarding the accusation from mental problems, I found this, very interesting, I see very opposite.
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/413 ... 0zJgPX2bMo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The archaeologists who excavated pit 4 in the castle/manor are expert eyewitnesses, and if I remember correctly (Bob is either shifting the goal posts again or has a very short memory) the question was on what basis the archaeologists expected not to find human remains and risk violating Jewish burial laws when excavating pit no. 4. The answer is that pit no. 4 is located in the castle/manor area and not in the Rzuchów forest cemetery, and that the historical record of Chełmno extermination camp (which becomes apparent from eyewitness testimonies and documents including but not limited to those I pointed out) shows that the camp’s place of body disposal was the Rzuchów forest cemetery but not the castle/manor area. So the archaeologists could reasonably expect that a pit located in the castle/manor area and not in the Rzuchów forest cemetery would contain no human remains. Pretty simple logic, really - at least for people with more brains inside their skull than boring Bob.
But i asked you which documents and which eyewitness testimonies told to archeologists what is in the pit 4. So?
As you haven’t yet explained why on earth photos would be required for the archaeological report to constitute relevant evidence, your demand was irrelevant to start with. Thus it’s also irrelevant that I didn’t accommodate Bobby’s wishes. One week is very little time for a trip from Lisbon in Portugal to Chełmno in Poland, by the way – at least for a private citizen with reduced means like myself. But then, it’s rather obvious that poor Bob lives in a cloud-cuckoo-land out of touch with the real world.
I explained it long time ago on previous pages. One week? Ok, this means that you prepared your "proof" one week? I guess no, no problem to prepare it before you came here with your "proof". I guess you still did not even contact your source to request some material.
Reasonable answer to stupid question was provided in previous post. And with all due respect for Mr. Van Pelt, I don’t think Krema II alone killed all that many people. But that is also irrelevant. What matters is the total number of people murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
You can see my answer to your "reasonable answer" above.

Now Mr. Muehlenkamp dispute even orthodox "expert" Robert Jan Van Pelt, this is better and better. This is not irrelevant, without holes, your comment is irrelevant.
this time even to the point of writing in red letters.
I only wanted to be sure you will not distort statements again and you will see them now.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3079
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:13 pm

My God, how low can people go :shock: This place is so tame by comparison, thankfully

http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/directory#.T0zSoPWLWSo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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 » Tue Feb 28, 2012 7:36 pm

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If the holes in the roof of Krema II (those that are considered to have been used for introducing the Zyklon B) are smaller than the outer column described by Kula, there is one explanation that takes all evidence into account and does not require unsubstantiated assumptions at odds with the evidence let alone silly conspiracy theories. It is that either the outer column narrowed towards the top or that only the inner column, which was obviously narrower than the outer column, protruded through the roof. If I understand Kula’s description correctly he didn’t give the inner column’s measurements, but it is not unlikely that its measurements were such that it fit through the hole in the roof, say 50cm x 50cm or 45cm by 45cm. Big freaking deal. Got no more difficult questions, Bobby?

Ceiling of Krema II morgue/chamber is 2.41m, columns are 3m, see your source H-H.org and Kula testimony again. Also Tauber speaks about wire columns/pillars "which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh." (Pressac, 1989, p. 484) your comment above is thus irrelevant, even your witness Tauber confirmed that column went through the roof and your source H-H.org confirmed it too.
Did I say the columns didn’t go through the roof, or what’s this babbling supposed to mean?
Bob wrote:So try it again, show me square holes 70cm x 70cm in the ceiling of morgue 1 in Krema II, thanks.
There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller. But this doesn’t get you a banana, for the reasons explained. The best you can argue is that Kula forgot to mention that only the inner column (which was certainly less than 70cm x 70cm square) was three meters high. So what?
Bob wrote:I know that everything depend on the holes, but I will adress your inventions and nonsenses
If these things are not in the inventory of Krema III, then either someone forgot to list them or there was a later inventory of Krema III that got lost. What inventory of Krema III did you have in mind, by the way? Show me.

Nice invention again.
Call it assumption or conjecture, but not invention. Invention is something else. Learn English, fellow.
Bob wrote:They didn´t forget lamps, faucets, but they forgot the most important devices for gassing, nonsense, thus false, invenory list of Krema III don´t contain any of these devices.
As Krema II and Krema III were mirror images of each other, that’s not exactly a reasonable conclusion. Either of my scenarios is more plausible.
Bob wrote:What inventory of Krema III did you have in mind, by the way? Show me.

Inventory list of Krema III
Document reproduced in Case for Sanity, p. 696, Document 10
RGVA, 502-2-54, pp. 77f.
Is that the inventory in which LK1 has 14 showerheads (presumably for bathing the stiffs) and a gas tight door (so that the corpses’ smell didn’t bother the surroundings, I guess)?

Unless I missed something, the Krema II inventory mentions no showerheads and no gas tight door.

Is that supposed to mean that this Krema’s LK1 didn’t have showerheads (for bathing the stiffs, I presume – at least in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land) and a gas tight door?

Or is it more reasonable to conclude that neither of the two inventories is complete?
Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:If the inventory for Krema II mentions that the wire mesh introduction devices had wooden covers and a witness spoke of concrete covers, there are two possibilities:

a) the witness was mistaken about the material the covers were made of, or
b) the wooden covers originally foreseen were later replaced by concrete covers.

First, your are wrong, translation of "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung" is not wire-mesh introduction device, but "to push, to slide", correct term for introduction device is "Drahtnetzeinführvorrichtung".
Sliding or pushing is a form of introduction, so the translation is not that bad. In German, einschieben and einführen are not mutually exclusive, but the former is a variety of the latter.
Bob wrote:Second, translation of these wooden covers are again different, not "Holzblenden" since this means "blind" but "Holzdeckel", so you are wrong again.
A Blende can also be a cover or cover plate, according to Leo. Better stop trying to teach me German. I don’t know if you’re a native speaker of the language, but I am.
Bob wrote:You even don´t know correct translation which refute meaning of these things and their alleged function, this is really ridiculous.
Cut the crap, Bobby.
Bob wrote:a)Is not possible to mistake wood for concrete or concrete for wood, and not for someone who work for months or more in alleged place, so false and see below.
Nonsense. If the witness wasn’t on the roof but watched the procedure from far away (and that not necessarily on a regular basis, even if he worked at the place), he may have wrongly assumed that the covers were made of concrete.
Bob wrote:b)Tauber reported first alleged gassing in 15 March 1943, Danuta Czech in her Kalendarium speaks about 14 March 1943, so this happened using concrete covers since Tauber described concrete covers with wooden handles and is thus impossible for him to be mistaken when he clearly recognized concrete covers and wooden handles on them. Then they replaced concrete covers (never mentioned anywhere) for wooden "Holzblenden" (sic!) since inventory protocol is dated March 31, 1943. And now Mr. Muehlenkamp say, that they replaced wooden covers with concrete covers, which had been previously replaced by the wooden ones. Nice nonsense again.
Nice nonsense is what "I’m so smart" – Bobby just produced, unless he can demonstrate that the gassing Tauber had in mind when saying this:
There were four small chimneys, the openings through which the gas was thrown in, that rose above the gas chamber. These openings were closed by concrete covers with two handles.
was necessarily the first gassing on 14 or 15 March 1943, or another gassing preceding the date of the inventory.

As Tauber had shortly before stated this:
At the end of 1943, the gas chamber was divided in two by a brick wall to make it possible to gas smaller transports.
he may just as well have recollected observations he made at a later time than March 1943, e.g. at the end of 1943.

If, on the other hand, Tauber was referring to the first gassing on 14 or 15 March 1943, the worst this would mean is that Tauber for some reason dramatized wooden covers into concrete covers. And Bobby would still have no explanation for what, other than the gassing-related devices described more or less accurately by witnesses, the Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung and the Holzblende could possibly have been, let alone what LK2 (as opposed to LK1) would have needed these devices for.
Bob wrote:So they were wooden or concrete Mr. Muehlenkamp?
In all probability first wooden, then concrete. But it doesn’t really matter what they were made of at one time or the other. What matters is that they were Blenden going together with
Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen, and that you cannot explain what on earth, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by several witnesses, these Blenden and Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been.
Bob wrote:And as to the wire mesh introduction devices and wooden covers being mentioned in the line for LK2 and not in the line for LK1, the likeliest explanation is still that the clerk mixed up the lines.

This is of course invention as I said.
Actually it’s the likeliest explanation, bar a demonstration that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen a) were something other than the introduction devices described by witnesses and b) had an application in LK2.
Bob wrote:You have also problem, "devices" listed in inventory don´t mean what you claim here, translation is different, so again false.
"Device" is one possible translation for Vorrichtung, so cut the crap.
Bob wrote:You still ignore that they are listed for L2 and your nonsensical invention cannot change it.
Stomping your feet and repeating that "they are listed for L2" doesn’t help you explain what the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen were and what they would have been used for in LK2. And that, my dear friend, is the explanation you have to provide.
Bob wrote:Also, in ledger of "WL-Schlosserei.", there is nothing about these devices described by Kula, there are lot of jobs ordered by ZBL for Crematoria, even the gas-tight doors, there is even job assigned to Kula and metalworking shop as judge Jan Sehn pointed out, but no columns, no documents about it, they never existed.
Or then the ledger in question does not mention all objects made in the Schlosserei, which is actually the likely explanation unless you can demonstrate that someone forged the inventory mentioning the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen. Bar such demonstration, these objects existed already because they are mentioned in the inventory. And you cannot explain what they were and what they were used for, whereas I can.
Bob wrote:a) what, other than the wire mesh introduction devices described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula, the "Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtung” mentioned in the inventory could possibly have been, and b) what the undressing cellar called "Leichenkeller 2" should have needed those devices for.

Quote here other witnesses which described Kula columns, show me their descriptions and convergence, I am really curious.
For someone who claims to be "curious", Bob was rather inattentive when I quoted these descriptions (emphases added):

Filip Müller:
In den Krematorien I und II fuehrten von oben hohle Saeulen von der Decke bis zum Fussboden. Diese Saeulen waren mit durchbrochenem Blech umgeben. Oben befand sich eine Spirale in der Saeule. Wenn Gas eingeworfen worden ist, diente die Spirale dazu, das Gas zu verteilen.
Josef Erber:
In each of these gassing areas [of the crematoria [II and III] in Birkenau] were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim. Attached to this tin was a wire by which it could be pulled up to the roof. When the lids were lifted, one could pull up the tin canister and shake the gas crystals into it. Then the canister was lowered, and the lid closed.
Henryk Tauber:
On either side of these pillars there were four others [C I to C4], two on each side. [Here Tauber is mistaken. This arrangement is found only in the gas chamber of Krematorium III. In Kr II, they were in a row down the east side of the room]. The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Michal Kula:
Among other things the metal workshop made the false showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the wire-mesh columns for the introduction of the tins with Zyklon into the gas chambers. These columns were around 3 meters high, and they were 70 centimeters square in plan. Such a column consisted of 6 wire screens with were built one within the other. The inner screen was made from 3 millimeter thick wire, fastened to iron corner post of 50 by 10 millimeters. Such iron corner posts were on each corner of the column and connected on the top in the same manner. The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At th top it was closed by a metal sheet at the bottom with a square base. At a distance of 25 millimeters from the sides of this columns were soldered tin corners supported by tin brackets. On these corners were mounted a thin mesh with openings of about on millimeter square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from there ran in the [collection cup] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column. The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out. The ventilation system of the gas chamber was installed in the side walls of the gas chambers. The ventilation openings were hidden by zinc covers, provided with round openings.
The descriptions are not identical, but they have the following in common:

1. All describe columns meant to introduce the Zyklon B into the chambers.
2. All describe things that one can call contraptions or devices (Vorrichtungen, in German).
3. Three (Erber, Tauber, Kula) mention that these contraptions or devices are at least partially made of wire mesh, i.e. of what one would call Drahtnetz in German.
4. Two (Tauber and Kula) mention that the devices consisted of various wire mesh grids, columns or cages that had been slid or shoved inside each other, the smaller into the larger (which matches the use of the verb einschieben in Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung).

Four witnesses independently of each other describe columns.
Four witnesses independently of each other describe contraptions/devices (Vorrichtungen).
Three mention wire mesh (Drahtnetz) as a material used in these Vorrichtungen..
Two furhtermore mention grids, columns or cages introduced into each other by a process that can be called einschieben.

So it's as clear as can be that these witnesses are describing objects for which the term Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung is an altogether appropriate and accurate designation.
Bob wrote:You know who and when added these things to inventory list since they are written by hand when you consider them as fact and you want explanation from me?
Why, looks like poor Bob is beginning to get cold feet on account of his inability to explain the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen in a faith-conform manner. So he does what "Revisionists" usually do when they cannot provide an innocuous explanation for incriminating evidence: he insinuates forgery.

Very classic Bobby. You make a good demonstration object of "Revisionist" imbecility.
Bob wrote:Except, of course, that this doesn’t explain why he referred to LK1 as a Vergasungskeller and not as a Leichenkeller.

He reffered to "corpse cellar" without number in connection with L2, so in the case that he would use again "corpse cellar" without number, this would tell nothing to his superior so he used term "vergasungskeller" to make clear which corpse cellar he mean.
That was more or less my argument. Bischoff didn't want his boss to miss the message that only the less important of the LKs (the undressing cellar, whose function could be temporarily taken over by the other LK) but not the most important of the LKs (the Vergasungskeller, whose function could not be taken over by the other LK) was not yet finished.
Bob wrote:Why this term, see Mattogno, I provided you with source, you can refute his evidence if you don´t agree.
Let me guess how Charlie explains the Vergasungskeller: he argues that it was an improvised delousing room because they didn't have sufficient delousing rooms at AB and were still doing the delousing by Zyklon B, right? :lol:
Bob wrote:Hysterical Bobby.....

You dodged my points, if gassing is correct theory then:

Why he used term "vergasungskeller" for L1? To inform his superior about purpose and he forget "code language" and his superior didn´t know about purpose?

Why he used term code term "corpse cellar" for L2 in the same document? His superior knew about purpose and no need to inform him with term "undressing room" and he somehow knew about purpose of L2 even when he didn´t have clue about purpose of L1 as proven above?

Does it make sense to use code word for one room and don´t use code word for other room in the same document?

Is this document marked as secret? If not as I mentioned earlier, how is this everything above possible?

Nice nonsenses and contradictions, explain them please.
I already did:
Hysterical Bobby can stomp his feet all he likes, but it’s obvious that Bischoff had to tell his superior which of the two Leichenkeller had not yet been finished and why things could work nevertheless (or could have worked but for circumstances that he, Bischoff, could do nothing about). This he did by mentioning that the Vergasungskeller had already been finished and that it could also perform the function of the other "Leichenkeller" until that one was finished. That function was obviously the undressing function, as it makes perfect sense that the victims could undress in the gassing cellar until the cellar meant specifically for undressing was finished. Why did Bischoff not refer to the undressing cellar as LK2 and to the gassing cellar as LK1, which must have got him a rebuke from his superior for violating secrecy regulations? We don’t know, but Bischoff may have been concerned that his superior, while knowing that one cellar was meant for undressing and the other for gassing, didn’t necessarily remember which bore which number and might thus be left in uncertainty about the function of the cellar that had not yet been finished. An unfinished Vergasungskeller would have meant that gassing operations could not yet be started due to circumstances for which Bischoff was responsible, and Bischoff may have reckoned that if his superior thought this to be the case he would be in worse trouble than a breach of secrecy regulations could get him into. Between breaching secrecy regulations and risking that his superior might get an unfavorable impression of his work performance, Bischoff chose the lesser evil and worded the letter so as to leave his superior in no doubt that the most important of the two cellars – the gassing cellar, which could also perform the function of the undressing cellar, whereas the opposite was not the case – was finished and only the less important of the two cellars still had some roof works to be done.
But I'll try to translate the above into language that even Bobby can understand:
Bob wrote:Why he used term "vergasungskeller" for L1? To inform his superior about purpose and he forget "code language" and his superior didn´t know about purpose?»
To make clear to his superior that the most important cellar (the Vergasungskeller) was finished and only the less important cellar (the "corpse cellar") was not yet finished.
Bob wrote:Why he used term code term "corpse cellar" for L2 in the same document?
To make clear that the "corpse cellar" that had not yet been finished was not the Vergasungskeller but the other "corpse cellar". And also to avoid the term "undressing cellar", which would have made the meaning of the document crystal clear to any outside reader: the undressing cellar is not yet finished, but the gassing cellar can be used for its purpose, i.e. for the purpose of undressing those to be gassed. If Bischoff had written "undressing cellar" instead of "corpse cellar", we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Bob wrote: His superior knew about purpose and no need to inform him with term "undressing room" and he somehow knew about purpose of L2 even when he didn´t have clue about purpose of L1 as proven above?
Superior knew the purpose of both cellars but may not have remembered which of them was called "L1" and which of them was called "L2". To avoid confusion, Bischoff had to describe both cellars in a manner that would make sure his superior understood which of them he was referring to each case. If he had written "L2 is not yet finished but that doesn't matter because L1 can be used for this purpose", superior may not have understood what exactly Bischoff was talking about. What is worse, he may have mistakenly assumed that the cellar not yet finished was the gassing cellar, and this would have made Bischoff look bad in his superior's eyes.
Bob wrote:Does it make sense to use code word for one room and don´t use code word for other room in the same document?
Yes. Using code words for both rooms might not get the message through to superior, as explained above. Using clear language for both rooms would have made the contents of the document too obvious to an outsider, as explained above. So Bischoff had to find a compromise between a) making the message clear enough for there being no misunderstanding about which LK was finished and which was not, and b) making it so clear that an outsider would also understand what he was talking about. The compromise he found was to refer to one cellar according to its actual purpose (Vergasungskeller) and to the other under its code designation (Leichenkeller). As I said before, if Bischoff had also called the undressing room by its proper name, the contents of his message would have been so clear that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Bob wrote:Is this document marked as secret?
Apparently not. The underlining of Vergasungskeller suggests that someone was upset about Bischoff's having to used the term Vergasungskeller in a document not marked as secret.
Bob wrote:IIf not as I mentioned earlier, how is this everything above possible?
For the reasons explained above. Bischoff tried to make the document clear enough to get the message through to his superior but not so clear that an outsider would clearly understand what he was talking about. That's why he was probably not shitcanned as badly as he would have been if he had also written "undressing cellar" and thus made the document a smoking gun par excellence.
Bob wrote:Aeration and de-aeration equipment was essential to gassing in an underground room, which could not be ventilated into the open. Without forced ventilation, the room would be inaccessible for a long time after the gassing, and this was certainly not the idea. So Bischoff mentioned this unfortunate fact, which didn’t allow for gassing in Krema II to begin right away:

And again as I said earlier, whole operation depended on firm and her delivery of device needed for this secret important task, as i said, ridiculous nonsense.
What's the poet trying to tell us here? Is that one of those utterly stupid "The Germans wouldn't have ... " arguments?
Bob wrote:Tell me something about ideas, ventilation in this gas chamber (9,48 air exchanges) was less effective than in alleged undressing room (11 air exchanges)...can you tell why they used worse ventilation in gas chamber?
If they so did (evidence?) that must have been because ventilation was originally designed for morgues, of which LK2 was the bigger and thus needed more powerful ventilation, and there was no time to change the ventilation design when it was decided to use one of the LK as a gas chamber and the other for undressing the victims.
Bob wrote:Can you tell me how they ventilated room, when the de-aeration duct is located near the floor, and little openings near floor would be thus blocked by bodies and prevent de-aeration of poisonous air?
Ventilation was originally designed for a morgue and there was no time to change the design when it was decided to use the morgue as a gas chamber. So the ventilation was not the ideal solution for a gas chamber, but it's nonsense to claim that the bodies would have blocked the openings and prevented de-aeration. The victims didn't lie down near the walls but tried to break open the door and then climbed over each other trying to get away from the gas. I wouldn't expect many bodies to be lying by the openings near the floor.
Bob wrote:Quote-mining Bobby is again distorting my statements.

In fact, you are the one who distort statements, your quote where you connected together sentence about Pressac and your demand for explanation is example of distortion. My response about your disputing of Pressac was response to this: With all due respect for the late Pressac, he doesn't seem to have realized what situation poor Bischoff was in and what he was trying to tell his boss to avoid being shitcanned: he had done everything he could to get gassing operations started, if they couldn't start yet that was because others had failed or due to circumstances beyond everyone's control, not due to any fault of his."

But my response to this request: "explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to. " was this reference for explanation in book of Carlo Mattogno, Case for Sanity, pp. 55-69.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You joined everything together and accused me, ridiculous.
Calm down, hysteric. If you wanted to avoid being misunderstood, you should have made it clear which of your comments referred to which of my statements. What I got to see was this:
Bob wrote:Mr. Muhlenkamp deny or dispute Pressac´s quotes, interesting.

explanation of what, if not a cellar meant for homicidal gassing, the term Vergasungskeller in Bischoff's letter could possibly have referred to.
---
Bob wrote:You even later connected my response about "vergasungskeller" in link to Mattogno´s book and you considered it as response to "special treatment" points, this is even more ridiculous, this clearly prove that you did not read Mattogno.
Don't know what you're talking about, but it's true that I don't read Mattogno or any other "Revisionist" scripture unless I set out to refute it. There are better reads than "Revisionist" toilet paper, you know.
Bob wrote:Pressac did a great job, but that doesn’t mean all of his assessments are correct let alone that I have to accept them as gospel.

Of course, you cand dispute Pressac, but where is your evidence?
See my above interpretation of Bischoff's letter, which I think I understood better than Pressac.
Bob wrote:Did you ever visited Auschwitz archives?
No, and I don't think one has to visit Auschwitz archives to understand what Bischoff's problem was and why he wrote the way he did.
Bob wrote:That, however, doesn’t answer the question what, other than killing, the term Sonderbehandlung could possibly have meant in the context in which it was used in the file note dated 29 January 1943, which mentioned that "cremation with simultaneous special treatment" would be possible under certain circumstances. Does Charlie explain what, other than killing, the term "special treatment" could have meant in this specific context? Or does he just say "hey look, Sonderbehandlung didn’t necessarily mean killing, so it didn’t mean killing here", thereby impressing gullible followers like Bobby but making a bloody fool of himself in the eyes of anyone who is not a "Revisionist" sucker?

I am content with the fact that special treatment is not code word as proven. For long explanation of document above see Mattogno, CfS, pp. 189-199.
OK, when I have time and feel like laughing a bit about what I presume is another of Charlie's hilarious mental gymnastics.
Bob wrote:What are these links supposed to tell me? Please explain.

Pressac explains in length, why code language is myth and thus he refute your claims, but you must read it first of course.
Sounds interesting, but if all he's got to say is that terms like "resettlement" and "special treatment" did not necessarily have a sinister meaning but only referred to mass murder in certain contexts, he'll be telling me nothing I don't know already.
Bob wrote:Quote below is quite ridiculous:
I don’t invent things

You do, see:
"That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context (and his convoluted argumentation in this sense doesn't exactly convince me, for even if his conjectures about the place for this particuar Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna"

According to Mr. Muehlenkamp, Central Sauna, the most important hygienic facility in Birkenau has been coded as "delousing facility" and also as "special treatment" facility in document above (so double coded Nazi language!), because this place had been used for shootings, he even know that victims were Soviet POWs, interesting. Also according to Mr. Muehlenkamp, the second facility in this same document 16b) coded as "delousing facility" for "the guard troops" and not for special treatment means, that they even constructed murdering facility where they propably murdered own guard troops since is also marked as "delousing facility". He also ignore, that in other document mentioned above by Mattogno, the Central sauna is called as “delousing facility for prisoners” so "delousing facility" is really next alleged code word for murdering according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Hysteric continues making a fuss about a secondary conjecture while ignoring the main argument (or bluntly referring me to guru Mattogno as concerns this argument):
So what is Charlie's ground-breaking argument here? That because "special treatment" may have been used in a non-homicidal sense in another context (and his convoluted argumentation in this sense doesn't exactly convince me, for even if his conjectures about the place for this particuar Sonderbehandlung being the Central Sauna are correct, it is quite possible that Soviet POWs earmarked for liquidation were meant to be bumped off in or near the Central Sauna, by a simple shot in the back of the head without any need for gassing facilities), it could not have meant homicidal gassing in the file note of 29 January 1943 (same date as Prufer's above-quoted report and Bischoff's letter to Kammler)? I'm again very disappointed by Charlie's perfomance. If Sonderbehandlung in this file note did not mean killing, then what the hell did it mean? After all we're talking about a building here whose essential features were the Leichenkeller in the basement and the cremation room on the ground floor, which means that the Sonderbehandlung was something meant to take place in the Leichenkeller. And what kind of Sonderbehandlung could that have possibly been, in Charlie's erudite opinion?


---
Bob wrote:No need to ask Mr. Muehlenkamp for evidence, because he completely invented this ridiculous nonsense.
Considering a possiblity is not inventing something, idiot. You may call it a conjecture, and it may be more or less plausible, but an invention is something else.
Bob wrote:Occam’s Razor principle.

What a statement again, thanks, Occam´s razor = "principle that generally recommends that, from among competing hypotheses, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions usually provides the correct one, and that the simplest explanation will be the most plausible until evidence is presented to prove it false." (Wikipedia) = no gassing. Feel free to post evidence, for example, those pesky holes.
Actually what the Occam's Razor principle (which my friend unsurprisingly doesn't understand) tells us in the context in which I mentioned it (openings in the ceiling of Krema II LK1 are smaller than the measurements of introduction columns given by Kula) is the following:

The hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions is the one that only the narrower inner column went through the roof and Kula forgot to mention this detail. The hypothesis that the columns described by Kula did not exist, on the other hand, requires a large amount of new assumptions: all inmate witnesses who described homicidal gassings at AB lied, all SS and bystander witnesses who described such gassings were tortured, all documents suggesting homicidal gassings at AB either have an innocuous explanation or were manipulated, examinations of cyanide residues in the homicidal gas chambers by Polish authorities were also manipulated, the hundreds of thousands supposedly gassed at AB were transported to the "Russian East", and there either the bad Russians ate them up or they were abducted by flying saucers or they changed their names and concealed their origins after returning to their countries or emigrating and decided to shut up, and all this was coordinated by an immensely powerful and proficient conspiracy covering the whole world and reaching all governments, historians, criminal investigators etc. over the last seven decades. In other words, the "Revisionist" hypothesis relies on a big bunch of new, very far-fetched assumptions and must ignore or unreasonably dismiss all known evidence, whereas my hypothesis duly takes all known evidence into consideration and requires only one very plausible new assumption, the assumption that Kula's description omitted a certain detail that becomes apparent when matching his testimony with physical evidence.

You should refrain from invoking the Occam's Razor principle, my friend. You know as much about it as a pig does about Sunday.
Bob wrote:All Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres can mean either of the following, depending on how many Soviet crimes have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres:

But you did not listed all these examples to show that they are not investigated as Katyn or Vinnitsa. So exactly as I said, you only used it as appel, thus logical fallacy and you cant back it, this also means, that you falsely accused me and my points about your lie were valid, I did not shifted goalposts as you accused me.

I also again proved that you are liar Mr. Muehlenkamp and you falsely accused me again from distorting, but in fact, you are the one who distorted quotes and connected non-relevant quotes together and then accuse.
Let's see:

Post # 46:
Bob wrote:
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?
I am not familiar with "other overhelming majority" of other crimes as you claim, so I can´t answer. You have propably far better knowledge so you must inform me about this majority, I can´t answer when i don´t see this alleged majority here. Simply name all examples and prove that you are true about overhelming majority, this means that you must list all examples of all Soviets crimes and at least 51% of them must be proved by you as not properly investigated or you must prove level of their investigation. Then I can answer.
Post # 51:
Bob wrote:
none of the Soviet crimes I listed, except for Katyn and Vinnitsa, has been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations. Neither has any other of the crimes I listed been subject to an investigation that remotely meets the standards of the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations, as far as I know.
But you didn´t speak about crimes you listed you clearly said "the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes which have been subjected to less-than-exemplary investigation or to no criminal investigations" or here "and other of Stalin’s Gulag camps, about Soviet crimes" and here "Do you maintain that all Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres"

You based your questions on these claims, so back this claims, list all of these crimes and majority of them, show me their level of investigation, than i can answer you. From you response I see that you can´t back it, correct? So end.
Bob demands that I back up my claim that the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes have been subjected to less-than-exemplary criminal investigation or to no criminal investigations at all.

Post # 54:
RM wrote:So what is furious Bobby trying to tell me here? Maybe he's projecting his own dishonesty and suspecting that I withheld from him Soviet crimes that were subject to what he would accept as a proper crime scene investigation, even though I gave him the biggest Soviet crimes sites and some of those that have been subject to at least some site investigation/inspection. OK, then lets look at the complexes that make up the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes as a whole. These are the following:
[...]
I comply with Bob's demand by listing the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes and pointing out that, except for the Katyn and Vinnitsa crimes, none of these have been subject to a crime site investigation that would meet Bob's Katyn standards.

Post # 56:
Bob wrote:
OK, then lets look at the complexes that make up the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes as a whole. These are the following:
Again, very long text with no answer, I see that you are not able to list all Soviet crimes and show their level of investigation to back your claims, ok, thanks for confirmation.
Bob doesn't want to acknowledge having been shown that the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes was not subject to a crime site investigation meeting Bob's Katyn standards. So he hides behind the claim that I didn't list "all" Soviet crimes.

Post # 57:
RM wrote:
Bob wrote:
OK, then lets look at the complexes that make up the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes as a whole. These are the following:
Again, very long text with no answer, I see that you are not able to list all Soviet crimes and show their level of investigation to back your claims, ok, thanks for confirmation.
Having been presented with the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes (and the level to which they were investigated where there was any investigation at all, which was the case only as concerns shootings and which only in two cases - Katyn and Vinnitsa - matched Bob's German Katyn Investigation Standards), dishonest Bobby ("and show their level of investigation") now shifts the goalposts from the overwhelming majority of to all Soviet crimes. What a show.

Of course I could add Stalin's other crimes to make the list complete - crimes against German POWs and civilians during World War II - but that would only raise the number of deaths that have not been proven by investigations according to GKIS/Bob standards, for while it is true that West German authorities in the 1970s investigated Soviet crimes against German civilians, these investigations were limited by circumstances to questioning surviving eyewitnesses and did not include a single crime scene investigation (let alone one that would meet GKIS / Bob standards).
I point out that the "all" is an additional demand in relation to "overwhelming majority", and that meeting that demand would make the fallaciousness of demanding German Katyn investigation standards even more patent.

Post # 60
Bob wrote:
dishonest Bobby ("and show their level of investigation") now shifts the goalposts from the overwhelming majority of to all Soviet crimes. What a show.
This is lie, in fact I did not shift anything, here is what Mr. Muehlenkamp said:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Can I conclude from your demanding something like the German Katyn and Vinnitra investigation that you consider unproven the overwhelming majority of Soviet crimes

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?

Bob claims that he's not making an additional demand, invoking as justification a question of mine that obviously does not contain a claim justifying such demand, as I point out in post # 70:
RM wrote:Yeah, and the second paragraph means the following:
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?
All Soviet crimes that have not been investigated as thoroughly at the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres can mean either of the following, depending on how many Soviet crimes have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres:

a) all Soviet crimes ever committed, except for the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres; or
b) a majority of Soviet crimes (if only a minority have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres); or
c) a minority of Soviet crimes (if a majority have been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres).

It can even mean none at all, if all Soviet crimes have been been investigated as thoroughly as the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres (which of course is not the case – the Katyn and Vinnitsa investigations were the only ones of their kind, as far as I’ve been able to establish).

It’s not my fault if you’re dumb as a door and don’t understand written English, Bobby.

But I don’t like being called a liar by an anonymous bigmouth. I like to know the identity of who insults me.

So could I please have your full name, my fine friend?
I'm still waiting for Bob's answer to this question.

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

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:30 pm

Bob wrote:Chicken continues running away. I have shown you the main complexes of Stalinist crimes as well as the level of investigation to the best of my knowledge, which is crime scene investigations only as concerns shootings, and only two of these investigations – Katyn and Vinnitsa – meeting German Katyn Investigation Standards. I might make the list of Stalin’s crimes complete by adding Red Army crimes against civilians and Soviet prisoners of war, but then the discrepancy between the magnitude of Stalin’s crimes and those among them that can be considered proven according to GKIS / Bob standards would be even larger. If Bob would like to be humiliated a little more, I’ll be glad to comply with his wishes.

Again long, but as I see, you can´t provide all these examples, I don´t see them here.
OK, let's make it "all", just for my friend Bob. In addition to the 4 Stalinist crime complexes mentioned in post # 54, we have the following:

5. Crimes against German prisoners of war
The fate of these prisoners of war is basically different, in what concerns their suffering and the number of victims, from that of all other prisoners in World War II. Both on the German and on the Russian side the incomplete surviving documentation makes it impossible to state unequivocally established figures. On the basis of the available Wehrmacht files it must be assumed that about 5.7 million Soviet soldiers fell into German hands, of whom about 3.3 million (57.8 %) lost their lives.(1) In what concerns the German prisoners of war the numbers are even more insecure. Were there 1,094,000 dead out of 3,155,000 taken prisoner (34.7 %), as a commission of West German scientists calculated in the 1960s, or 357,687 out of 2,388,443 (14.9 %), as per the NKVD files, or about 700,000 out of more than 3 million, as is estimated – in my opinion plausible – by Rüdiger Overmans? (2) The following juxtaposition can only outline the most important aspects of comparison. The required shortness does not allow for completely presenting the required differentiation.
(Christian Streit, “Deutsche und sowjetische Kriegsgefangene”, by Christian Streit, which appeared in Wolfram Wette/Gerd R. Uebeschär, Kriegsverbrechen im 20. Jahrhundert, 2001 Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, pages 178 to 192, my translation).

6. Crimes against German civilians

As I read in a recent study by German military historian Rüdiger Overmans, the assumed number of victims of the so-called “Gruesome Harvest”, the wartime flight and postwar expulsion of ethnic Germans from the Eastern territories of the Reich and from Eastern European countries, is by no means based on a detailed assessment of physical and documentary evidence, contrary to what has been said on this thread.

The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.

These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified.

This is where the results of the Overmans’ study take effect. According to that study, the number of men from the expulsion areas who lost their lives during Wolrd War II is about 1.44 million, i.e. 330,000 more than calculated by the authors of the “Balance of the Expulsion”. The question as to how this discrepancy comes about is easy to answer. Due to lack of concrete documents, the authors of the “Balance of the Expulsion” had to make assumptions about the drafting rate in the expulsion territories and the death rates of these soldiers, assumptions that have turned out to be wrong. The construction of the assessment in the Balance has the consequence that the number of civilian deaths sinks by the same figure by which the number of military deaths increases - given that the number of non-clarified fates diminishes. Thus the hitherto accepted data about the number of expulsion victims can no longer be upheld.

The source of the above information is the following:

Rüdiger Overmans, Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Schriftenreihe des Militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, München 2000, Pages 298 to 301.

I'll assume 700,000 POWs for item 5 and 500,000 civilian victims of wartime flight and postwar expulsion for item 6.

So we have the following total for all of Stalin's crimes:

1. Famines 1932/33: about 4,500,000
2. Executions, 1930-53: about 800,000
3. Gulag camps about 1,500,000
4. Deportations about 400,000
5. German POWs about 700,000
6. German civilians about 500,000
Sum total: about 8,400,000

What part of these crimes/deaths has been proven by investigations according to German Katyn Investigation Standards (GKIS) = Bob standards?

Still only the massacres at Katyn (4,243 exhumed corpses) and Vinnitsa (9,432 exhumed corpses). In total, a mere13,675 people shot by the NKVD, out of about 8,400,000 people murdered in one or the other way by Stalin's regime.

So, if one were to apply GKIS/Bob standards of proof, one would have to conclude that, out of about 8,400,000 deaths attibuted to criminal actions of Josef Stalin's regime, only 13,675 stiffs unearthed by the Germans at Katyn and Vinnitsa (0.16 % of the total) have been proven, whereas the other 8,386,325 victims of Stalin, 99.84% of the total, are mere unproven allegations because they haven't been verified according to GKIS/Bob standards.

I hope that Bob has now finally realized how nonsensical it is to maintain that mass murder can only be considered proven if it has been subject to a crime site investigation such as the Nazis conducted at Katyn and Vinnitsa.

Ah, and please let me know if you think I omitted any of Stalin's crimes. I don't want to give Uncle Joe less than his due.
Bob wrote:As I said before, I don’t like being called names by an anonymous coward hiding behind an alias. Even if the fellow is a hysteric whose mental problems cause him to call his opponents liars when he freaks out. Could I have your full name please, Mr. Bob?

No.
Thanks for admitting that you're a coward who accuses people of lying from safe anonymity. :lol:
Bob wrote:Regarding the accusation from mental problems, I found this, very interesting, I see very opposite.
http://hateblogwatch.yuku.com/topic/413" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 0zJgPX2bMo
Bob is delighted with the smear monologues between various alter egos of a lunatic by the name of Carmelo Lisciotto. It speaks volumes about Bob's critical sense that he falls for such obvious falsehoods like a pigeon. And it speaks volumes about Bob's character (or lack thereof) that he considers such garbage "very interesting".
Bob wrote:The archaeologists who excavated pit 4 in the castle/manor are expert eyewitnesses, and if I remember correctly (Bob is either shifting the goal posts again or has a very short memory) the question was on what basis the archaeologists expected not to find human remains and risk violating Jewish burial laws when excavating pit no. 4. The answer is that pit no. 4 is located in the castle/manor area and not in the Rzuchów forest cemetery, and that the historical record of Chełmno extermination camp (which becomes apparent from eyewitness testimonies and documents including but not limited to those I pointed out) shows that the camp’s place of body disposal was the Rzuchów forest cemetery but not the castle/manor area. So the archaeologists could reasonably expect that a pit located in the castle/manor area and not in the Rzuchów forest cemetery would contain no human remains. Pretty simple logic, really - at least for people with more brains inside their skull than boring Bob.

But i asked you which documents and which eyewitness testimonies told to archeologists what is in the pit 4. So?
No documents or eyewitnesses told them what is in pit # 4, as far as I know. But eyewitnesses and documents showing that the castle/manor area of Chełmno (where this pit was located) had not been used for body disposal (that had been done in the Rzuchów forest) gave them confidence that they would not be disturbing human remains. As I explained several times before. Are you that slow on the uptake, Bob?
Bob wrote:As you haven’t yet explained why on earth photos would be required for the archaeological report to constitute relevant evidence, your demand was irrelevant to start with. Thus it’s also irrelevant that I didn’t accommodate Bobby’s wishes. One week is very little time for a trip from Lisbon in Portugal to Chełmno in Poland, by the way – at least for a private citizen with reduced means like myself. But then, it’s rather obvious that poor Bob lives in a cloud-cuckoo-land out of touch with the real world.

I explained it long time ago on previous pages.
That was no explanation, that was rubbish.
Bob wrote:One week? Ok, this means that you prepared your "proof" one week?
No, stupid, I was responding to something you wrote about having waited one week. Short memory?
Bob wrote:I guess no, no problem to prepare it before you came here with your "proof".
Meeting a chimp's "challenge" doesn't require much effort. Neither does rattling poor Bob's cage.
Bob wrote:I guess you still did not even contact your source to request some material.
I have contacted my source before, but I wouldn't think of asking her to send me photos just because Bob yells for them.
Bob wrote:IReasonable answer to stupid question was provided in previous post. And with all due respect for Mr. Van Pelt, I don’t think Krema II alone killed all that many people. But that is also irrelevant. What matters is the total number of people murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

You can see my answer to your "reasonable answer" above.
Yeah, I had a lot of fun with it.
Bob wrote:Now Mr. Muehlenkamp dispute even orthodox "expert" Robert Jan Van Pelt, this is better and better.
Interesting remark, insofar as it suggests that "Revisionist" true believers wouldn't think of challenging their gurus' scripture. Unlike "Revisionism", historiography evolves as new evidence is discovered or known evidence is better analyzed - like any science.
Bob wrote:This is not irrelevant, without holes, your comment is irrelevant.
Wishful thinking and illogical reasoning go hand in hand in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.
Bob wrote:this time even to the point of writing in red letters.

I only wanted to be sure you will not distort statements again and you will see them now.
I don't distort statements, my friend. If I misunderstand them once in a while, that's because you don't express yourself clearly enough.