"Muehlenkamp accepts nafcash's challenge" - 5th Update

Original article and 1st update

2nd update, 24.07.2008, 23:55 hours GMT

3rd update, 26.07.2008, 15:08 hours GMT

4th update 29.07.2008, 15:00 hours GMT

Update, 30.07.2008, 23:59 GMT

As he continues mouthing off about me on a forum to which he knows I have no access, miserable coward Greg Gerdes provides a classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Read more!


In his post Wed Jul 30, 2008 2:39 pm on the Cesspit thread Muehlenkamp accepts nafcash's challenge, he writes the following:

Malle:

"Sorry to say Greg, you have found a new low-water level in the Holocaust history."

Well, no offense Malle, but, while "debating" Dull-enkamp, I see new lows every day. Take this one for example - I caught him red handed in yet another lie (virtually every one of his posts has at least one lie in it), and she tried to weasel out of it with this gem:

My question to RM (after this comment):

"unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at who commissioned his investigation")

Gerdes:

Prove it liar.

Who commissioned his "investigation?"

What is Kola allegedly "pissed off" about?

Let's see proof – or is this just another one of your baseless lies?

RM's response:

"Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay?

Isn't that the most shameless thing you've ever seen? But then again, like I'm always saying to the pathological liar:

Thank you - have I ever told you that you're priceless?

Having the dullest of the dull, display to the world every day what a shameless, pathological liar he is priceless indeed.

As so often before, Gerdes’ invective has a markedly self-projecting quality, for everything he calls me he has amply shown himself to be.

Lows of "Revisionist" mendacity and cowardice are what I find every day on the VNN thread Archeological Investigations of Treblinka (which is currently inaccessible from my server, for whatever reason). Examples of Gerdes’ cowardice I listed in today’s post # 903 (the following was copied from a PDF screenshot, so the links do not work):

Actually the pathetic coward here is Gerdes, who keeps running away from my pertinent question about the relevance of his demands. For the purpose of historically proving the mass murder at Sobibor (which is historically proven already anyway), they have no relevance whatsoever. And insofar as they are relevant within the context of the NAFCASH challenge (which Gerdes has been requested to demonstrate) they shall be answered in the form required on the NAFCASH site, that is, in an article published in SKEPTIC magazine. Unless, of course, Gerdes changes the NAFCASH challenge requirements and also allows for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements on this forum instead of in SKEPTIC magazine).

And that’s not the only demonstration of the pathetic cowardice that Gerdes self-projectingly accuses me of.

Readers who have followed this discussion will surely remember how little of the evidence I have shown (last recap see my post # 777 under http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php...&postcount=777 Gerdes even dared to address.

Readers who have followed this discussion will also remember how many questions (regarding evidence I have shown, regarding the relevance of his infantile "show me" – demands and regarding the rules and standards of evidence – if any – that these demands are based on, among other things) I have asked the fellow, and how few of these – if any at all – he has not run away from.

Readers will further remember Gerdes’ persistent refusal to define more precisely the requirements of the NAFCASH challenge and to state what exactly he would accept as proof meeting those requirements, even though I made it real easy for him by providing a draft of such specification and asking him to modify it as he considered necessary (see my posts # 506 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php p...&postcount=506 , # 528 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=528 , # 536 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php? p...&postcount=536 , # 540 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=540, # 545 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php? p...&postcount=545 , # 566 under http://206.41.117.128/showpost.php?p...&postcount=566 , among others) . The staple reply to my suggestion was the idiotic "what part of proof do you not understand?" – rhetoric. Asked if this meant submission to reasonable standards of proof such as applied in criminal investigation
and historical research, Gerdes ignored the question.

Readers will further remember my suggestion that Gerdes make the NAFCASH challenge more transparent by clearly describing the procedure for selecting eligible applicants, submittal of evidence by such applicants, assessment of evidence submitted by NAFCASH and their decision about entitlement to the reward. The NAFCASH site is rather vague in this respect. Yet all requests that a potential applicant be informed more precisely about the procedures were met with the hysterical derision and Simian howling that is the hallmark of Gerdes’ "argumentation".

Another thing that I’m sure our readers recall is Gerdes’ refusal to introduce an escrow account provision (as is usually done in challenges of this nature, I’ve been told) or at least make it clear to a potential applicant that he may well have to run after x different challenge supporters (the number is 21 including Gerdes, according to the same) at y different places for z part of the reward amount to which each supporter has committed – a fact that would probably make a potential applicant whose first and foremost interest is the money think twice. Gerdes’ response to this reasonable suggestion was a most imbecile "why don’t you get the money from those filthy stinking-rich Jews" – rant.
As if these examples of Gerdian cowardice were not enough, Gerdes also excluded Belzec and Chelmno extermination camps from the challenge, obviously in order to limit a potential applicant’s opportunities to meet the challenge requirements. Asked why he had done so, the best he could come up with was some notoriously lame babbling about "simplification" and "focus", IIRC. Bullshit.

But that’s not yet all, folks. Apparently for no reason other than my apparent preference for ARCHAEOLOGY magazine over SKEPTIC magazine as the publisher of my future article containing evidence that meets the NAFCASH challenge requirements, miserable coward Gerdes excluded ARCHAEOLOGY magazine from the already limited list of accepted publishers (if he had balls, as I said before, he would at least have accepted any pertinent scientific magazine for publication of evidence meeting the challenge requirements) and limited a potential applicant’s choice of publishers to SKEPTIC magazine alone (to be sure, it was stated on the NAFCASH site that an applicant rejected by SKEPTIC "MAY" be given the chance to publish in ARCHAEOLOGY magazine instead, but Gerdes wouldn’t be Gerdes if that "MAY" did not mean "WILL NOT").

And what is more, Gerdes started making a fuss about an unfavorable opinion I had uttered on Topix about Shermer’s qualities as a researcher, obviously in order to make sure that Shermer’s resentment over such statement would hinder his publishing an article of mine in SKEPTIC magazine.

Shall I also mention Gerdes’ persistent failure, after mouthing off about my fellow HC bloggers and my subsequent request that he address them directly, to do soby posting a comment below the HC article Update on Gerdes & NAFCASH under http://holocaustcontroversies.blogsp...s-nafcash.html , despite my several reminders in this sense?

Or Gerdes having opened a thread on the CODOH Revisionist Forum, a place he knows I am banned from, to mouth off about me there together with the fellow coward (Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis) who was so scared of me that he banned me from that place?

To cut a long story short, the fellow who calls me a "pathetic coward", and that just because I don’t respond here to questions that

a) have obviously been asked just because Gerdes knows that I cannot yet provide answers;

b) are of no relevance except perhaps within the context of the NAFCASH challenge, in which case the place to respond to them is an article in SKEPTIC magazine and not this forum,

is himself one of the most pathetic and miserable cowards in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land, a buffoon who tries to mask his fear, and his inability to cope with that fear, between bigmouthed howling, foul invective and infantile "show me, show me, right here and now" – demands reminiscent of a spoilt brat’s yelling for a lollipop.

Readers of the above may reach their own conclusions about why Gerdes still has not given the CODOH clowns a link to the VNN thread where he claims to be performing so splendidly.

Just like his accusations of cowardice, Gerdes’ claims that I have been caught lying have a distinctly self-projecting character. Gerdes has not caught me lying even once and made a fool of himself several times when accusing me of lying. I, on the other hand, have long stopped counting the straw-man misrepresentations, quote-mines and other lies of his that I have exposed. A particularly fat and equally stupid lie of Gerdes' was pointed out in my VNN post # 839: after the fellow had accused me of having reported for deletion "his" post # 797 in our discussion on the Topix forum, I showed that the deleted Topix post # 797 was actually one of my posts. I had even asked Gerdes what had happened to that post in my later post # 801, which the showpiece of "Revisionist" genius obviously had forgotten to report to the Topix moderator for deletion and also forgot to read before telling this ridiculously stupid lie.

Now to the "most shameless thing" that Gerdes went whining to his CODOH buddies about.

First of all, the fellow mutilated my response, which in VNN post # 904 reads as follows:

Originally Posted by Gerdes
Retardo:
"unlike Prof. Kola (who seems to be pissed off at
who commissioned his investigation")
Prove it liar.

Stinking liar Gerdes calling me a liar is like – what parallel may I use so as not to hurt your feelings, CS?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Who commissioned his "investigation?"

Probably the same entity that commissioned his Belzec investigation. I’ll let you find out which entity that was, it’s mentioned somewhere on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
What is Kola allegedly "pissed off" about?

Something I would probably also be pissed off about in his place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerdes
Let's see proof – or is this just another one of
your baseless lies?

Lies are usually baseless and the hallmark of stinking liar Gerdes, who I wouldn’t trust to correctly tell me the time of the day. What I tell you, on the other hand, always has a source behind it.

Care to know what Prof. Kola is pissed off about, Mr. Gerdes? That’s information not in the public domain you will have to pay for. How much are you willing to pay?

Obviously Gerdes considered only the last paragraph of my response "safe" enough for the CODOH clowns to read and therefore left out the rest, especially the inconvenient reference to his own mendacity.

Second, there’s no lie whatsoever in what I wrote. The information about the nature of Prof. Kola’s problems with the Polish government is not in the public domain indeed; I obtained it in a private phone conversation with the director of the Sobibor Archaeological Project. And if I baited Gerdes by telling him that he would have to pay for this information, that was treating him with the contempt an asshole like he deserves (which obviously pissed him off a lot), but certainly not a statement against better knowledge.

Gerdes shouldn't project his own behavior onto his opponents. And he should get used to the idea that people are not lying or have anything to hide just because they don't dance as he whistles. He is being treated as corresponds to his obnoxious ways.

I have no problem with telling Gerdes just what Prof. Kola’s problems with the Polish government are, according to my conversation with Yoram Haimi. All he has to do is ask more politely.

6th update, 03.08.2008, 0:48 GMT