Sunday, September 27, 2009
Gerdes Attacks Hannover's Sourcing
On CODOH, Gerdes is claiming that this scan is of dubious origin and that there is no proof that it was taken at Treblinka or that it came from Krege's study. However, the scan was posted on CODOH by none other than Hannover, aka forum moderator Jonnie Hargis. So Gerdes is now playing the 'show me' game with Hargis's own source. Ooops.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is Lamprecht from that CODOH thread, also posting in it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should contribute something instead of just whining on your blog. Why not contact Krege and ask him if it's accurate? Why not find out the origin of the scan yourself?
Why not ask yourself why Krege's study hasn't been published, which would probably give us an answer to this question.
Hi Mr. Lamprecht,
ReplyDeleteNice to see you come out of the warm and cozy Führerbunker for a change. Did your cowardice in mouthing off about opponents on a censored forum make you feel sick? Or did you just become temporarily emboldened by too much alcohol? In the former case, congratulations on a step in the right direction.
As to the Krege scan, it has been paraded by "Revisionists" as evidence that there are no mass graves in the soil of Treblinka. So if "Revisionists" are now claiming that this scan is not the "correct" one, it's their fucking job to support their claim and provide a duly sourced "correct" scan. Don't expect others to do your homework, Mr. Lamprecht.
As to why Krege's study hasn't been published, I wouldn't ask that question if I were you. The obvious reason, also considering what GPR expert Lawrence B. Conyers wrote about the scan you now claim is not the "correct" one, is that Krege realized he had found exactly what he had hoped not to find - soil disturbances compatible with the presence of huge mass graves in the soil of Treblinka - and thus got cold feet and decided to keep the detailed results of his GPR exercise to himself. Haven't you noticed that reference to Krege has disappeared from the NAFH site of your friend Greg Gerdes? If you have, aren't you wondering why that is so?
Ah, and one more thing: it's not for critics of "Revisionism" to demonstrate that what Krege has published clearly shows mass graves in the Treblinka soil. It's for Krege to demonstrate that it does not. He's the one challenging a large body of documentary, eyewitness and physical evidence whereby the remains of hundreds of thousands of people are buried in the soil of Treblinka. The burden of proving that all this evidence is wholly unreliable lies with him. And what he has so far done, be it through what he published from his bumbling GRP exercise or through his conspicuous silence ten years after that exercise, is to (unnecessarily) further confirm the accuracy of the mass murder evidence.
Now that you took your first step out of CODOH cowardice, how about coming over to the RODOH forum (or any other place where we can talk without the intervention of a partisan moderator) and having a chat with me there? You can also bring along your pals Drew J and "Pepper" a.k.a. Greg Gerdes, if you can get them drunk enough to overcome their fear.
Hi Lamprecht,
ReplyDeleteAs I stated in the blog, it was your own forum's moderator, Jonnie Hargis, who posted that scan as 'proof' of no mass graves at Treblinka. Ask him for the source.
Muehlenkamp, you seem to make quite a few personal allegations about me that go unsupported.
ReplyDeleteCome out of the Fuehrerbunker? What is this nonsense? I have been mouthing off opponents? I have not made one personal attack on you, I have not insulted you at all. Please do not pretend that I have.
The Krege scan given is part of Krege's report that has not been published. For the time being, it isn't worth much at all.
You also seem to look at revisionists as if they are one big entity where everyone agrees - this is not so. It's not an amazing breakthrough for exterminationists if some revisionists to believe one thing and other's not.
One revisionist can claim the scan is from an alleged mass grave by Krege, and another can claim it isn't. - there's nothing wrong with that. Do you not understand the purpose of revision?
As I understand it, Krege's study was going to be published but Rudolf was imprisoned and there was a halt on it, among other reports too.
It may have been taken off of the NAFCASH website, but the 1/10 of 1% and money reward are still there, correct? Why not use Krege's study to your own advantage if it's really in support of mass graves? Why not use a GPR scanner yourself?
As for CODOH's "partisan moderator" I fail to see your point. The rules are clearly posted, it's not hard to follow them.
Have any of your viewpoints been censored? So far not one has been given - if they have, there's a thread where you can post it.
Lamprecht, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"One revisionist can claim the scan is from an alleged mass grave by Krege, and another can claim it isn't. - there's nothing wrong with that."
Er, there's something very wrong with that, namely that the first revisionist (Gerdes) is accusing other revisionist sites of publishing a scan that is not taken from the source they claim. That's a serious accusation, essentially an accusation of fraud, to make against one's fellow revisionists. I would not make such an accusation against my colleagues without very solid proof.
Do you think that Gerdes' behaviour on CODOH (using sock-puppets to promote his own work; attacking his colleagues) is anything other than sociopathic? Seriously? Have you not been following what your colleagues Laurentz Dahl, aka Thomas Kues, Carto's Cutlass Supreme (CCS), and Mark Turley concluded about Gerdes? CCS had Gerdes reprimanded for plagiarism. Dahl has effectively quit the forum, as has Mr Turley only this weekend. Open your eyes, friend.
Jonathan Harrison:
ReplyDeleteI don't see revisionists as one big entity that must agree and have only one opinion.
They don't attempt to revise the history surrounding the Holocaust because they don't like Jews or something like that, but to find the truth and make it known.
Disagreement among revisionists is to be expected, just as much as there is disagreement among mainstream historians.
They aren't my "colleagues" at all - we just post at the same forum and often have similar ideas on the Holocaust.
I don't think Peppers believes the scan is a complete fraud and can't possibly be from Treblinka - but he just questions the authenticity.
Big difference there.
L.
ReplyDelete"Muehlenkamp, you seem to make quite a few personal allegations about me that go unsupported. Come out of the Fuehrerbunker? What is this nonsense? I have been mouthing off opponents? I have not made one personal attack on you, I have not insulted you at all. Please do not pretend that I have."
Really, Mr. Lamprecht?
Let's have a look at your post of Fri Sep 25, 2009 6:43 pm on this thread (The thread contains a list of questions that still have to be matched for imbecility even in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo land. I'll get to them as soon as time permits – they are just variations of the kind of nonsense I have slapped around Greg Gerdes' ears several times on various discussion forums.):
L. on CODOH
"Looks like Muehlenkamp is doing exactly what Gerdes accused him of doing. Telling half the story and deceiving by omission."
So you're accusing me of "deceiving by omission" but not attacking me personally, Mr. Lamprecht? What kind of double-thinking freak are you?
By the way, the issue is not soil disturbances or no soil disturbances. The issue is soil disturbances compatible with the presence of huge mass graves or no such soil disturbances. And as your next comment indicates, you are well aware of this – which makes you a liar, and one so dumb as to expose his lie in the very next comment.
L. on CODOH
"Exactly. Enough of this, "consistent with" or "compatible with" nonsense. Show us what is actually there Muehlenkamp. Don't tell us what you think is there."
So yelling "enough" and "show us" at me on a forum on which I am not posting and to which I have no access is not a personal attack to you, Mr. Lamprecht? I’d say it's a rather lowly one. But then, you're a rather lowly piece of scum, aren't you?
L.
"The Krege scan given is part of Krege's report that has not been published. For the time being, it isn't worth much at all."
Actually it's worth a lot in that it a) shows Krege to be a bumbling dilettante and b) shows "things" that "could easily be mass graves", in the words of GPR expert Lawrence B. Conyers, who wrote the following (emphasis mine):
"I looked at the web site, and the image you sent. It is only one small part of his 'grid'. The picture shows him using a 200 MHz antenna and collecting about 1 meter spaced transects in a huge grid. That image is not processed, and only shows about a 5 meter long section in one line. And even in that profile it looks like a bunch of "things" in the ground on the right hand side that could easily be mass graves. It is apparent that this guy either does not know anything of GPR, or at the very least does not know how to process it. To really do a good job, the data need to be put into a 3-D cube of reflections and processed in a batch, including ALL the profiles collected. If you really wanted to get to the bottom of this you either need to get his data and let someone else process it, or re-collect it all and re-process your own data. This is NOT a scientific or representive study of the ground by any stretch."
L.
"You also seem to look at revisionists as if they are one big entity where everyone agrees - this is not so. It's not an amazing breakthrough for exterminationists if some revisionists to believe one thing and other's not. One revisionist can claim the scan is from an alleged mass grave by Krege, and another can claim it isn't. - there's nothing wrong with that. Do you not understand the purpose of revision?"
A lot better than you, actually. And I’d say you have just described the way "Revisionists" (who are not to be confounded with revisionists) see those they idiotically refer to as "exterminationists".
(t.b.c.)
[continuation]
ReplyDeleteL.
"As I understand it, Krege's study was going to be published but Rudolf was imprisoned and there was a halt on it, among other reports too."
Go no lamer excuse? Krege could have easily found himself another publisher, like Frederick Toben for instance. No, the "Rudolf was imprisoned" tale sucks. The obvious reason why Krege did not publish his study is his being understandably concerned that the study would be a big shot in the foot of "Revisionism".
L.
"It may have been taken off of the NAFCASH website, but the 1/10 of 1% and money reward are still there, correct?"
Don’t change subjects, my friend. Why do you think Krege was taken off the NAFH website? Aren’t you curious to know? If so, what are you waiting for to ask Gerdes about the reason?
L.
"Why not use Krege's study to your own advantage if it's really in support of mass graves?"
I have used Krege's scan for this purpose in discussions with Gerdes, and it is part of my list of exhibits proving the existence of huge mass graves at Treblinka, together with Conyers' above-quoted assessment. If you had paid attention to my discussions with Gerdes (who now prefers to ramble against me as "Pepper" on CODOH rather than confront me directly, as becomes the whimpering coward he has amply shown himself to be), you would know that.
L.
"Why not use a GPR scanner yourself?"
Because I have neither the money to buy or lease such a device and spend weeks in Poland running around with it like Krege did, nor the expertise to use it (apparently Krege didn’t have it either but didn't care) nor any permission to do archaeological research on the Treblinka site. How about asking a less stupid question?
L.
"As for CODOH's "partisan moderator" I fail to see your point. The rules are clearly posted, it's not hard to follow them. Have any of your viewpoints been censored? So far not one has been given - if they have, there's a thread where you can post it."
You must be dumb as a door if it hasn't yet dawned on you that the CODOH moderator (currently Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, but I'm looking forward to seeing Greg Gerdes in that role in a near future) controls discussion by deleting or retaining inconvenient posts and/or banning inconvenient posters, and that I'm one of many whose posts were deleted or retained and who was eventually banned from the place.
In the unlikely case that you are really as dumb as you pretend to be, I suggest you pay a visit to the Memory Hole section of the RODOH forum, where CODOH censorship practices and other funny stuff there are regularly recorded. My own experiences with CODOH censorship you may read about on the threads For Roberto and The Memory Hole Festival goes on ....
Unrelated comment is unrelated, but:
ReplyDelete@Harrison
"Do you think that Gerdes' behaviour on CODOH (using sock-puppets to promote his own work; attacking his colleagues) is anything other than sociopathic?"
Just wanted to say that even though Gerdes is a headache-inducing charlatan with delusions of grandeur and an IQ in the lower negatives I wouldn't call him a sociopath.
I have no good real-life examples off the cuff, but Rorschach in Watchmen was written as a textbook example (as per the 1980s...) of sociopathy. Gerdes doesn't even reach up to Rorschach's trench-coat tails.
Gerdes/Pepper/tfsfcsupporter has some diagnosis, but I doubt it to be sociopathy.
Just my two cents.
Lamprecht, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"As I understand it, Krege's study was going to be published but Rudolf was imprisoned and there was a halt on it, among other reports too."
You may not be aware that Krege attended the Teheran Conference in 2006, where papers were published. His failure to produce his findings at that venue is curious, surely? He had the perfect stage and he had enough finance to fly from Australia to Iran. The idea that he was dependent on Rudolf to get this work in the public domain is absurd.
Roberto, I did not say that - Drew J did.
ReplyDeletehttp://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5701#p38353
I just quoted him.
The same is with the next two "L. on CODOH" quotes - none of them are mine, but Drew's.
For the last comment in the 1st post, I may have denounced some revisionists. So what? I am not going to support a fallacious belief just because I agree with them in some aspects of the Holocaust.
As for why Krege was taken off of NAFCASH, I don't know. Isn't there a thread covering it on CODOH? Doesn't Gerdes have his email on his website? I have not contacted Gerdes once, you know him more than me.
Oh, that's a nice Memory Whole section - with my statistical analysis thread in it.
Why didn't he give my comment on the chart? Only showing part of my post?
"Doesn't Gerdes have his email on his website? I have not contacted Gerdes once, you know him more than me."
ReplyDeleteYou haven't worked out that Gerdes is Pepper? Or you just want us to believe that you haven't worked it out?
"Why didn't he give my comment on the chart? Only showing part of my post?"
I linked to your thread. It's not my problem that Hargis deleted it. The point of my post was to highlight the fact that you have claimed that there's no statistical basis to the Holocaust yet you cite an author whose own work gives a statistical tabulation of the Holocaust in the USSR. And that table was accessible via your own link. Maybe you should ponder the deceptiveness of that sourcing?
Why are you still posting on a forum where the moderator deletes your threads, by the way?
Jonathan Harrison said...
ReplyDelete>>>You haven't worked out that Gerdes is Pepper? Or you just want us to believe that you haven't worked it out?<<<
I wouldn't know, I have never spoken to Gerdes (Or pepper) before a few days ago.
>>>I linked to your thread. It's not my problem that Hargis deleted it. The point of my post was to highlight the fact that you have claimed that there's no statistical basis to the Holocaust yet you cite an author whose own work gives a statistical tabulation of the Holocaust in the USSR. And that table was accessible via your own link. Maybe you should ponder the deceptiveness of that sourcing?<<<
There are obvious statistics on the Holocaust, sir, the claim that 5-6 million died is a statistic itself.
But the thing is - the link didn't give details on the formation of these statistics. No formulas or sources at all - it was supposedly on a floppy that couldn't be read.
>>>Why are you still posting on a forum where the moderator deletes your threads, by the way?<<<
My thread quickly went off topic to the Soviet death toll, it was understandably deleted.
I don't post much on CODOH if you didn't know anyway. I usually just read. I don't know too much about the Holocaust.
I study anthropology, not the Holocaust. History is just a side hobby that I read about, the Holocaust in particular interests me because I lost family in it.
"Roberto, I did not say that - Drew J did.
ReplyDeletehttp://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5701#p38353
I just quoted him.
The same is with the next two "L. on CODOH" quotes - none of them are mine, but Drew's."
My apologies. Drew J is an asshole and a loony beyond redemption. You still seem to have a chance.
"For the last comment in the 1st post, I may have denounced some revisionists. So what? I am not going to support a fallacious belief just because I agree with them in some aspects of the Holocaust."
That's good to know. What aspects do you agree in with "them", and what aspects not?
"As for why Krege was taken off of NAFCASH, I don't know. Isn't there a thread covering it on CODOH? Doesn't Gerdes have his email on his website? I have not contacted Gerdes once, you know him more than me."
I've already asked him in the blog The Old Chimp and his Apprentice. But you're right, I might sent him an e-mail on top of that.
"Oh, that's a nice Memory Whole section - with my statistical analysis thread in it.
Why didn't he give my comment on the chart? Only showing part of my post?"
Who is "he", and what Memory Hole thread are you referring to?
PS: Forget the last question, I see that JH already answered it.
ReplyDeleteRM:
ReplyDelete>>That's good to know. What aspects do you agree in with "them", and what aspects not?<<
I hope you don't plan to debate me on them, but I'll tell you.
I am skeptical of the death toll of Jews - I doubt it was 5 or 6 million as claimed, probably closer to 1.
I am also skeptical of the gas chambers, I don't think they were used to gas Jews 100s of 1000s of Jews.
>>Who is "he", and what Memory Hole thread are you referring to?<<
The thread "No Statistical Approach To Alleged Nazi Genocide" and I was referring to the poster.
"RM:
ReplyDelete>>That's good to know. What aspects do you agree in with "them", and what aspects not?<<
I hope you don't plan to debate me on them, but I'll tell you.
I am skeptical of the death toll of Jews - I doubt it was 5 or 6 million as claimed, probably closer to 1.
I am also skeptical of the gas chambers, I don't think they were used to gas Jews 100s of 1000s of Jews."
You're not skeptical. Skepticism tends to be reasonable.
L:
ReplyDelete"One revisionist can claim the scan is from an alleged mass grave by Krege, and another can claim it isn't. - there's nothing wrong with that."
Your moderator disagrees. He has locked the thread and will eventually delete it.