Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 3, 2022 17:34:41 GMT
Nessie wrote:
If the intercept doesn't exist then the "translation" is a forgery. Then does the intercept conform to before and after intercepts.
The telegram wasn't "found" until 2000. Was it a forgery placed in the archive? That is precisely the kind of chicanery that hoaxers are known to engage in and the mistakes made in the translation are a red flag.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 3, 2022 18:35:48 GMT
Nessie wrote: If the intercept doesn't exist then the "translation" is a forgery. Then does the intercept conform to before and after intercepts. We do not know what the procedure was. If it was to destroy all of the original intercepts, then its absence is not evidence of a forgery. If the series of intercepts are traced and the Hofle Telegram is missing, then you do have evidence it was forged by slipping in a fake message at Bletchley in Jan 1943. The evidence of file handling is then important. When was the file first put together and what happened to it afterwards. If it was put together in Jan 1943 and archived and only accessed for the first time in 2000, then that is evidenced it is original to Jan 1943. If there is evidence that file was handled by various people over the years, then enquiry can be made as to who they were and why they accessed the files. There is no reason why a typist back in Jan 1943, would fake such a message, slip it into a file and then say nothing, leaving it to be found in 2000. That would also require the typist in Jan 1943 to know about AR, the camps at T, B, S and L and who Hofle was and the figure Korherr would use two months later in March 1943. That is a rather far-fetched allegation and not possible.
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 3, 2022 18:51:19 GMT
First show me the intercept. The copy is full of mistakes and dodgy as hell. It MAY be authentic or it may be a forgery but seeing if a real intercept exists is the first step. Curious how you hoaxers never want to actually prove your claims of mass murder. The fact that it is a "one off" transmission and vague means it is of limited value; the fact that it may be a forgery is enough to be cautious. It is a message completely out of context, the gaps being filled in by the "believers".
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 3, 2022 21:58:36 GMT
The evidence of file handling is then important. When was the file first put together and what happened to it afterwards. If it was put together in Jan 1943 and archived and only accessed for the first time in 2000, then that is evidenced it is original to Jan 1943. If there is evidence that file was handled by various people over the years, then enquiry can be made as to who they were and why they accessed the files. There is no reason why a typist back in Jan 1943, would fake such a message, slip it into a file and then say nothing, leaving it to be found in 2000. That would also require the typist in Jan 1943 to know about AR, the camps at T, B, S and L and who Hofle was and the figure Korherr would use two months later in March 1943. That is a rather far-fetched allegation and not possible. Holy moly! ๐ฎ Of course the Hรถfle file wasnโt โ...handled by various people over the yearsโ. . The files were archived, kept secret and not โdeclassifiedโ and made available to researchers/historians until the late 1990s. Most documents held by the PRO used to be kept "closed" (or secret) for 50 years after being archived there. That changed to 30 years after 1967. So as usual, this imbecile doesnโt know what he is talking about. And OBVIOUSLY it isnโt being suggested that โa typist back in Jan 1943 faked the messageโ. OBVIOUSLY IF the filed Hรถfle message IS a forgery, it would have been created and inserted shortly before the files were declassified and made accessible to the public. And the motivation IF this occurred, would have been in order to support the increasingly beleaguered and collapsing mass-gassing mythology. Further implication that it is a convincing forgery seems to me to be the slim likelihood of it just being randomly discovered out of all the several hundreds of thousands of decrypted intercepts, so soon after they were declassified. A reasonable, rational person would be aware that the โdiscoveryโ was either extremely โluckyโ and/or very unlikely. As I understand it, the ones who made public the โdiscoveryโ of it are Peter Witte and Stephen Tyas. Presumably one of them โfoundโ it. But in their publication they donโt mention who found it, nor how whoever did, just happened upon this particular intercept amongst the many, many thousands. This fact alone should make any reasonable person suspicious. There are 101 archives of files, and each one contains several thousands of decrypted intercepts. So who found it and how? But nobody dare question things like this. Most everybody in the world knows nothing about this kind of detail, and so just gullibly and obediently โbelieveโ what they are told to believe. As I stated before, for a historian to publically question in this way would be career-suicide. The only academics and publishing historians who question any of this H-narrative have been ostracised and smeared. Look what happened to Prof Nolte, Prof. Faurisson, Prof Hayward, Roques, Germar Rudolf and David Irving for proof of that.
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 4, 2022 13:23:25 GMT
Above is the image of the decrypt as it appears in a chapter written by Peter Witte and Stephen Tyas in a part of a study called Holocaust and Genocide Studies, V15 N3, Winter 2001, pp 468-486.
In the notes at the back are some interesting quotes from the interrogations of German PoWs. They have to do with the use of initial letters for the Aktion Reinhardt camps.Globocnik's successor in Lublin, Jakob Sporrenburg, apparently said during interrogation that "Globocnik's men would talk about Camp 'S'โ This is supposedly recorded in a report on the interrogation of SS Gruppenfuhrer Jakob Sporrenberg that was carried out in London on February 25th 1946. The file containing his interrogation is apparently in the PRO, WO 208/4673 166970, folder 14. In another post-war interrogation at Nuremberg, on November 15th 1945, the prisoner Dieter Wishceny is reported to have stated that in Eichmann's office, the Aktion Reinhardt camps were marked only with their initial letters. But when asked which camp the letter T represented, he curiously gave the answer that T stood for Lublin?!? ๐ฎ Source: interrogation of Dieter Wishceny, Nuremberg, November 15, 1945, folders 2โ3. Printed in The Holocaust, edited by John Mendelsohn, (New York, London- Garland, 1982), vol 8, pp 72-73
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 4, 2022 14:26:19 GMT
So, still no original intercept. Just a "lookee what we found" from Witte and Tyas. The Brit's handling instructions are certainly different from what we used only 20 years later. "Most Secret" would be "Top Secret" and the similarity ends there. Distribution and handling instructions would be by the codeword e.g. "Top Secret Jumbo" (not a real codeword). All the verbiage about "lock and key" and "don't remove from the office" isn't necessary but that may be the Brit's way.
I find the message of Nov. 12 to be very suspicious as it has complete call signs, is classified a "Geheime Reichssache" and has a perfectly clear partial decode but then marked, "rest missed". Even if the intercept op hit a blocked patch he wouldn't just give up and essentially say, "Oh well, missed some characters so the hell with it". Another very large red flag.
The Hofle telegram MAY be authentic but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 4, 2022 16:01:45 GMT
The evidence of file handling is then important. When was the file first put together and what happened to it afterwards. If it was put together in Jan 1943 and archived and only accessed for the first time in 2000, then that is evidenced it is original to Jan 1943. If there is evidence that file was handled by various people over the years, then enquiry can be made as to who they were and why they accessed the files. There is no reason why a typist back in Jan 1943, would fake such a message, slip it into a file and then say nothing, leaving it to be found in 2000. That would also require the typist in Jan 1943 to know about AR, the camps at T, B, S and L and who Hofle was and the figure Korherr would use two months later in March 1943. That is a rather far-fetched allegation and not possible. Holy moly! ๐ฎ Of course the Hรถfle file wasnโt โ...handled by various people over the yearsโ. . The files were archived, kept secret and not โdeclassifiedโ and made available to researchers/historians until the late 1990s. Most documents held by the PRO used to be kept "closed" (or secret) for 50 years after being archived there. That changed to 30 years after 1967. So as usual, this imbecile doesnโt know what he is talking about. The archivists responsible for administering and maintaining the archives prior to declassification and then arranging their availability when they are declassified, will have handled the files and it is normal for a file handling record to be kept. Turnagain has been making all sorts of suggestions, and I have been trying to pin him down on when he claims the document was added to the archives and who could have done so. I do not believe your claim that the mass gassing narrative has been collapsing and if it had, then the Hofle Telegram is a rather odd way to prop the narrative up, since it merely confirms what was already known and does not relate directly to gassings. Which again makes it an odd document to forge. Why forge something that merely confirms what was known, does not directly relate to gassings and could have not been found? Why not write to Tyas or Witte and ask who found it and more details abot the find? It would not be career suicide to ask about that.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 4, 2022 16:04:02 GMT
So, still no original intercept. Just a "lookee what we found" from Witte and Tyas. The Brit's handling instructions are certainly different from what we used only 20 years later. Which is why your opinion is pretty irrelevant. You used a different system to intercept and decode. IOW, you have no actual evidence it was forged.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 4, 2022 16:13:49 GMT
Nessie wrote: And you have a lack of evidence that it's authentic other than the claim of Witte and Tyas. At least I have reasons for doubting the authenticity of the document. Where's the original intercept, Nessie?
By the way, notation was different but the intercept was done in the same way. Either somebody had the schedule or just got on the knobs. Both were done with CW.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 4, 2022 16:59:27 GMT
Nessie wrote: And you have a lack of evidence that it's authentic other than the claim of Witte and Tyas. At least I have reasons for doubting the authenticity of the document. Where's the original intercept, Nessie?
By the way, notation was different but the intercept was done in the same way. Either somebody had the schedule or just got on the knobs. Both were done with CW. The National Archive at Kew is happy with the document, as is Bletchley, as is every historian who has seen it. Even Irving admitted it was most likely genuine.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Feb 4, 2022 18:23:35 GMT
Even Irving admitted it was most likely genuine. The post above uses the word likely genuine. However in an earlier post the same author said this: Irving said he was 80% sure it was genuine. "80% sure" and "most likely" are not synonyms.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 5, 2022 3:08:44 GMT
Nessie wrote:
Nessie goes for the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Which is OK with Nessie when it supports the holyhoax. However, the opinions of experts shouldn't be ignored. Nessie doesn't present the opinions of any experts. Who represents the National Archive at Kew and Bletchley? David Irving expressed reservations about the authenticity of the telegram so not "every" historian agrees with it. I'm was an expert intercept operator and without further documentation I can't say that the telegram is authentic. Nessie's appeal to authority falls on its arse.
As I said, the decode from January 12 is VERY suspicious. Why would the chatter be copied perfectly and the message itself be missed entirely? That and the mistakes in the 13/15 Hofle telegram renders the entire document suspect. Do actual intercepts exist for these alleged decodes? At the moment that is an unknown.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 5, 2022 8:02:50 GMT
Nessie wrote: Nessie goes for the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Which is OK with Nessie when it supports the holyhoax. However, the opinions of experts shouldn't be ignored. Nessie doesn't present the opinions of any experts. Who represents the National Archive at Kew and Bletchley? David Irving expressed reservations about the authenticity of the telegram so not "every" historian agrees with it. I'm was an expert intercept operator and without further documentation I can't say that the telegram is authentic. Nessie's appeal to authority falls on its arse. You appeal to Irving's authority, and he accepts is more then likely the document is genuine. Your appeal to your supposed authority is suspect. You have decided the outcome before seeing any evidence other than an online copy of the document. That proves you are not interested in a genuine enquiry.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 5, 2022 8:34:47 GMT
Nessie wrote:
(sigh) Nessie continues with his lies. I have said multiple times that I don't know if the alleged decode is authentic or not. I've even said that it MAY be authentic. I have also said that there are multiple red flags about the supposed decode. I have asked for the original intercept and Nessie has resorted to frantic weasel dodges and lies to cover the fact that the original intercept may not exist.
Does an original intercept exist and does its content match the alleged decode? Why is the chatter copied exactly and the message missed entirely for the decode of the 12th? Why didn't Witte and Tyas include the original intercept in their "discovery"? Until those questions are answered the so-called decode is worthless as a historical document.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,752
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 5, 2022 8:48:39 GMT
Nessie wrote: (sigh) Nessie continues with his lies. I have said multiple times that I don't know if the alleged decode is authentic or not. I've even said that it MAY be authentic. I have also said that there are multiple red flags about the supposed decode. I have asked for the original intercept and Nessie has resorted to frantic weasel dodges and lies to cover the fact that the original intercept may not exist. Does an original intercept exist and does its content match the alleged decode? Why is the chatter copied exactly and the message missed entirely for the decode of the 12th? Why didn't Witte and Tyas include the original intercept in their "discovery"? Until those questions are answered the so-called decode is worthless as a historical document. From the first time you asked about the original intercept, I said that I do not know if it still exists or if it exists, where it is, except to suggest you check the National and Bletchley archives, which you have suspiciously failed to do. Your suggestion I have weasel dodged and lied about the original intercept is a lie.
Why are you dodging doing any of your own enquiry? Are you worried that what you find will not back up your suspicions? Have you looked and found everything is fine, so you are now lying to keep your suggestion the document is faked going? You suggest you are an expert, but you clearly know nothing about British WWII enigma intercept procedures, which makes your claims very suspect.
|
|