|
|
Post by been_there on Sept 19, 2022 12:54:11 GMT
...But what is clear is that historians are making huge assumptions when they say a train schedule with a destination of "Treblinka" referred to TII. They did not. Stroop is the only one who specifies TII, and that was a small proportion of all the Jews named in that particular report. Historians are not making assumptions... [blah, blah, blah]... ...When Hofle refers to AR and "T", he is referring to the camp that received mass transports as part of that action, which is evidenced to be TII, the camp on the spur line to TI labour camp. That is how historians have evidenced and so proved it was the camp that took the mass transports. They have not made assumptions and it is dishonest of you to claim they have. And yet in a post-war Allied interrogation of German PoWs at Nuremberg, on November 15th 1945, it is recorded that the prisoner Dieter Wishceny stated that in Eichmann's office, the Aktion Reinhardt camps were marked only with their initial letters. And when asked which camp the letter T represented, he gave the answer that T stood for Lublin?!? ๐ฎ That โeye-witnessโ account of Dieter Wishceny is evidence that doesnโt fit the belief-system, and thus is it ignored by the holyhoax, mass-gassing-narrative promulgators. Which proves that the so-called โconvergence of evidenceโ rhetoric is really cherry-picked details chosen by applying โconfirmation biasโ. This also proves that historians HAVE assumed T stands for Treblinka2. That IS an assumption by historians. One that is based on a highly likely forgery placed in the Bletchley archives. SUMMARY: historians DO make assumptions. Assumptions based on dodgy documents. And only a retard, or someone lying, or someone a bit insane would deny that. ๐ |
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773 
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 19, 2022 14:28:14 GMT
Historians are not making assumptions... [blah, blah, blah]... ...When Hofle refers to AR and "T", he is referring to the camp that received mass transports as part of that action, which is evidenced to be TII, the camp on the spur line to TI labour camp. That is how historians have evidenced and so proved it was the camp that took the mass transports. They have not made assumptions and it is dishonest of you to claim they have. And yet in a post-war Allied interrogation of German PoWs at Nuremberg, on November 15th 1945, it is recorded that the prisoner Dieter Wishceny stated that in Eichmann's office, the Aktion Reinhardt camps were marked only with their initial letters. And when asked which camp the letter T represented, he gave the answer that T stood for Lublin?!? ๐ฎ That โeye-witnessโ account of Dieter Wishceny is evidence that doesnโt fit the belief-system, and thus is it ignored by the holyhoax, mass-gassing-narrative promulgators. Which proves that the so-called โconvergence of evidenceโ rhetoric is really cherry-picked details chosen by applying โconfirmation biasโ. I gave you examples of the evidence that historians used to prove that Treblinka, "T" and TII appearing in documents relating to mass transports from ghettos, it referred to the camp on the spur line to TI labour camp. Wischceny is not an eyewitness, so his evidence is not going to be as reliable as the eyewitnesses who were at the camp in question. His evidence is hearsay. That is why I did not include it, because it is not reliable and he has obviously made a mistake. So, simply, an EYEwitness is someone who saw with his or her own eyes what they refer to. When a person who has knowledge of events, but did not see them, he is not an EYEwitness. His evidence, when he speaks of what he did not see, is hearsay. Historians, lawyers and the police all know EYEwitness evidence is more reliable and are able to differentiate it from other witness evidence. You struggle with that simple concept. It is not cherry picking to go with the most reliable evidence and not less reliable evidence. Again, any historian, lawyer or police understands that, you do not. All the Hofle Telegram did, was further confirm and add some detail to what was already evidenced by numerous eyewitnesses and the circumstances of Action Reinhard. Historians have not assumed the "T" in the Hofle telegram stands for Treblinka. There are multiple sources of evidence to prove Treblinka was one of the AR camps, so it is proved that when Hofle referred to "T" he was referring to the camp on the spur line leading to TI labour camp. Hofle, when composing his telegram in January 1943, when what was happening was clear in his memory, got the letters correct. Wisliceny, giving evidence in Nov 1945, over years later, got mixed up. Such is normal with memory. Historians, lawyers and the police understand that, you do not.
However, I would also say Wisliceny did not say T stood for Lublin. You quote him saying it was part of the Lublin system, which appears to refer to AR and that Majdanek was more than one camp and that it was also part of the AR camp system.
|
|
Turnagain
โ๏ธ
๐๐ผ๐ป๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐๐
Posts: 2,302
|
Post by Turnagain on Sept 19, 2022 16:51:34 GMT
Nessie "forgets" that the fahrplanaordnungs reference a Treblinka that is a short 7 minute train ride from Malkinia. Trains that entered that Treblinka took 2 hours and 40 minutes to discharge their passengers, clean the boxcars, service the steam locomotive and be on their way empty to pick up more Jews. That is from at least two different fahrplanaordnungs timetables so it wasn't just a misprint.
Nobody denies that trains were sent to Treblinka II. That's just a strawman from Nessie. The Treblinka at Malkinia, the Treblinka penal colony and the Treblinka II camp lends credence to Dieter Wishceny's claim that "T" stood for a part of the Lublin camp complex.
The crucial evidence of the actual train records are missing which, of course, gives Nessie and the holyhoaxers free rein to speculate wildly and endlessly as to what "coulda" happened. The number of trains that entered and left any of those Treblinkas carrying passengers or not is completely unknown.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,773
|
Post by Nessie on Sept 19, 2022 19:05:57 GMT
Nessie "forgets" that the fahrplanaordnungs reference a Treblinka that is a short 7 minute train ride from Malkinia. Trains that entered that Treblinka took 2 hours and 40 minutes to discharge their passengers, clean the boxcars, service the steam locomotive and be on their way empty to pick up more Jews. That is from at least two different fahrplanaordnungs timetables so it wasn't just a misprint. You are assuming that the timetable stops when the train gets inside TII. But we know from multiple witnesses it was split and then shunted in and out of the camp. The 7 minutes could easily be to the point where the splitting and shunting begins, a process which takes 2 hours and 40 minutes. Why this thread, if no one denies trains sent to TII, the AR camp on the spur line to the quarry and TI labour camp? Where is the evidence TI penal camp, which primarily took Polish prisoners, was part of AR? You claim regular mass transports back out of TII and millions resettled in the east, without any evidence. |
|
