Evidence and Implementation

[Archie]

You are entitled to your personal belief that it has all been proved, but here on the Debate board we treat it as an open question, i.e., you can't assume it has been proved. That's what we are debating. If the proof is indeed "out there" and readily available, then you should have an extremely easy time making your case. So what are you waiting for?

To be honest, it does feel like I am debating with people who think the world is flat. I don't know how you could persuade those people that the world is in fact round, but I'd be curious to explore the flaws and contradictions in their arguments.

How would you go about doing that exactly?

Thank you for admitting that you do not know how to defend the Holocaust intellectually. And yet you are so confident.

You say there is a "large body of evidence" that supports the Holocaust. Okay. Well, according to the Holocaust story, about half of the victims were killed in gas chambers. But where are these gas chambers? How many did they find after the war? Who designed them and how did they work?

If you check into it, you will discover that the "gas chambers" the Allied found look like this:

[Wahrheitssucher]

You haven’t yet provided ANY evidence at all. You just make many false claims from ignorance of the detail of that evidence.

If you disagree, then list the ‘evidence’ you have provided, plus include verifiable references showing where you got it.

I came to believe it through reading, researching, analysing, discussing with holocaust true-believers on numerous holocaust chat-forums. It was the latter that has been most convincing as I have NEVER yet come across a single true-believer who can intelligently and rationally defend the narrative.
You yourself are a prime example. You can’t even admit what explicit means.

I have provided evidence but… [waffle omitted]…

Then reproduce the evidence you claim you previously provided.

If you again do not, then understand that this is proof you are either: a.) lying to us, or b.) to yourself and are hopelessly self-deluded.

Are you absolutely 100% certain that the Holocaust didn't happen or do you still have questions?

You are not paying attention.
I have already explained that the usage of the term ‘holocaust’ varies. Thus its meaning is vague and imprecise. It means different things at different times. It has no clear and definite meaning.

No serious person denies the Nuremberg laws against jews. Nor denies that jews were arrested and incarcerated in camps. Nor that they were used as a labour force. Nor denies that many died as a result of disease and hardship. Etc., etc.

It is a common ‘strawman’ fallacy to try and denounce, discredit and demonise doubters of aspects of the narrative as ‘deniers’ of all of it. I presume that is what you are attempting to do here with this question.

SUMMARY: no serious person is saying that “the Holocaust didn't happen”.

Do you understand?

I have NEVER denied ‘the holocaust’.
I question certain aspects of the narrative that comes under that imprecise rubric.

I also am of the belief that anyone who takes the time to honestly and intelligently study its main component parts, should have some questions and doubts.

My understanding is — as I have repeatedly explained to you — that YOU have not yet studied it. You are instead arguing from a position of wilful and stubborn ignorance of: a.) the actual contested parts and b.) the evidence refuting those parts.

[Nessie]

.... a.) the actual contested parts and b.) the evidence refuting those parts.

There is no evidence refuting the contested parts. So-called revisionists think that their arguments that gassings, graves and cremations were impossible, implausible, form evidence. They don't. Evidence to refute the contested parts would be a witness who worked inside a Krema in 1943-4, who states it did not have a gas chambers and it was used to store corpses. Or, a document recording mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people out of TII, to another location. Revisionists do not have any such evidence. That is why they resort to their arguments.

[Nazgul]

Or, a document recording mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people out of TII, to another location. Revisionists do not have any such evidence.

I have shown it is highly probable that the never arrived. FPLO records show the extended stops at jewish labour camps, a plethora of them.

[Nessie]

Or, a document recording mass transports of hundreds of thousands of people out of TII, to another location. Revisionists do not have any such evidence.

I have shown it is highly probable that the never arrived. FPLO records show the extended stops at jewish labour camps, a plethora of them.

You have cherry-picked the FPLO's and have no evidence to corroborate your claim that people got off the trains and they mostly did not arrive at the AR camps.

[Nazgul]

You have cherry-picked the FPLO's and have no evidence to corroborate your claim that people got off the trains and they mostly did not arrive at the AR camps.

Fplo would have been used for all war government rail transports of urgency, different to normal timetable schedules. All the inmates or häftling tranported would have had an fplo for their transport. Fplo were used for everything government.
You cannot distinguish any fplo from any other. You are asked to provide paperwork proof of trains arriving with all "guests" to the end point. You cannot but instead resort to the spy Zabecki, who was probably paid to provide disinformation for military purposes. His only photo of burning was of the insurrection when the place was crawling with sicherhetispolizei and whatever. This is indication that confirms the observations of Marion Olszuk.

[Nessie]

You have cherry-picked the FPLO's and have no evidence to corroborate your claim that people got off the trains and they mostly did not arrive at the AR camps.

Fplo would have been used for all war government rail transports of urgency, different to normal timetable schedules. All the inmates or häftling tranported would have had an fplo for their transport. Fplo were used for everything government.
You cannot distinguish any fplo from any other. You are asked to provide paperwork proof of trains arriving with all "guests" to the end point. You cannot but instead resort to the spy Zabecki, who was probably paid to provide disinformation for military purposes. His only photo of burning was of the insurrection when the place was crawling with sicherhetispolizei and whatever. This is indication that confirms the observations of Marion Olszuk.

Zabecki is corroborated by the Hofle Telegram, Stroop Report and Ganzenmuller letter, that specify arrivals at TII.

[Nazgul]

Zabecki is corroborated by the Hofle Telegram, Stroop Report and Ganzenmuller letter, that specify arrivals at TII.

You are placing letters, which could mean anything in the telegram to mean something of profound importance. Sure the numbers correlate with Korherr, but that is extraction.

Wolff sent a respond to Ganzenmüller on 13 August 1942, in which he mentioned that he was "exceptionally delighted" about Ganzenmüller's information and the fact that "since 14 days a daily train" with Jews is going to Treblinka.

It is the train that is going to Treblinka, not necessarily the people. The train going to Treblinka is confirmed by the Fplo.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Wolff sent a respond to Ganzenmüller on 13 August 1942, in which he mentioned that he was "exceptionally delighted" about Ganzenmüller's information and the fact that "since 14 days a daily train" with Jews is going to Treblinka.

It is the train that is going to Treblinka, not necessarily the people. The train going to Treblinka is confirmed by the Fplo.

Well said.
The potential problem to overcome for all of us in evaluating the evidence is in being aware of and over-riding any confirmation biases we might have.

I appreciate your research findings showing the likelihood that Jews were dropped off at stops in between the departure point and Treblinka at the various labour camps.
People with an ‘extermination’ confirmation-bias will naturally have a problem accepting the FACT that there is evidence trains stopped at these intermediate stations, and so with that possibility. But that just shows a closed mind and less-than-honest approach to the evidence.

[Nessie]

It is the train that is going to Treblinka, not necessarily the people. The train going to Treblinka is confirmed by the Fplo.

Well said.
The potential problem to overcome for all of us in evaluating the evidence is in being aware of and over-riding any confirmation biases we might have.

I appreciate your research findings showing the likelihood that Jews were dropped off at stops in between the departure point and Treblinka at the various labour camps.
People with an ‘extermination’ confirmation-bias will naturally have a problem accepting the FACT that there is evidence trains stopped at these intermediate stations, and so with that possibility. But that just shows a closed mind and less-than-honest approach to the evidence.

There is no issue with accepting that trains stopped at stations on the way to TII. There is an issue with the claim that people got off the trains at those stations because of the following evidence;

1 - The Hofle Telegram, which speaks of "arrivals" at the AR camps, of whom 713,555 arrived at "T".
2 - The Ganzenmuller Letter, which records 5,000 Jews a day going to Treblinka, via Malkinia, from Warsaw.
3 - The Stroop Report, which recorded transports to TII.
4 - Every witness who was on a transport, who all report being kept on the trains till they arrived at TII.
5 - Every local Polish witness, many of whom worked on the railways, who also report people were kept on the trains.
6 - Every SS camp staff witness, who all report mass arrivals of packed trains at the camp.
7 - There is no evidence that camps near to the stops grew in population, indeed, the evidence is that those camps closed down, as people were sent to TII.

To suggest that believing in the mass arrivals at TII, because of that volume of corroborating evidence, is "confirmation bias" and "closed minded", is totally dishonest.

[Nazgul]

It is the train that is going to Treblinka, not necessarily the people. The train going to Treblinka is confirmed by the Fplo.

Well said.
The potential problem to overcome for all of us in evaluating the evidence is in being aware of and over-riding any confirmation biases we might have.

I appreciate your research findings showing the likelihood that Jews were dropped off at stops in between the departure point and Treblinka at the various labour camps.
People with an ‘extermination’ confirmation-bias will naturally have a problem accepting the FACT that there is evidence trains stopped at these intermediate stations, and so with that possibility. But that just shows a closed mind and less-than-honest approach to the evidence.

There is no issue with accepting that trains stopped at stations on the way to TII. There is an issue with the claim that people got off the trains at those stations because of the following evidence;

1 - The Hofle Telegram, which speaks of "arrivals" at the AR camps, of whom 713,555 arrived at "T".
2 - The Ganzenmuller Letter, which records 5,000 Jews a day going to Treblinka, via Malkinia, from Warsaw.

I will deal with these two at the moment. T could mean anything in the report. There were two Judenlagers at Treblinka so of course people would be going there. You were asked to distinguish the extermination fplo from the others which would have taken Jews to the labour camps. Of course some shut down with time as the war progressed westward. Enough maps have been produced to show the westward drive of the camps. However, I will stick to the alleged extermination period of 42.
Here is a copy of the G letter translated in English.

He is talking about the train going to the destination point not all the people. It is probable that the people were being sent to the labour camps en route as the fplo state.

[Nessie]

Well said.
The potential problem to overcome for all of us in evaluating the evidence is in being aware of and over-riding any confirmation biases we might have.

I appreciate your research findings showing the likelihood that Jews were dropped off at stops in between the departure point and Treblinka at the various labour camps.
People with an ‘extermination’ confirmation-bias will naturally have a problem accepting the FACT that there is evidence trains stopped at these intermediate stations, and so with that possibility. But that just shows a closed mind and less-than-honest approach to the evidence.

There is no issue with accepting that trains stopped at stations on the way to TII. There is an issue with the claim that people got off the trains at those stations because of the following evidence;

1 - The Hofle Telegram, which speaks of "arrivals" at the AR camps, of whom 713,555 arrived at "T".
2 - The Ganzenmuller Letter, which records 5,000 Jews a day going to Treblinka, via Malkinia, from Warsaw.

I will deal with these two at the moment. T could mean anything in the report. There were two Judenlagers at Treblinka so of course people would be going there. You were asked to distinguish the extermination fplo from the others which would have taken Jews to the labour camps. Of course some shut down with time as the war progressed westward. Enough maps have been produced to show the westward drive of the camps. However, I will stick to the alleged extermination period of 42.

Hofle was on the staff of AR, AR is mentioned in the telegram and B, S, T and L refer to the AR camps. He records sub and total arrivals of people at those camps, using figures far too high, if those transports had been dropping people off.

Here is a copy of the G letter translated in English.

He is talking about the train going to the destination point not all the people. It is probable that the people were being sent to the labour camps en route as the fplo state.

He is clearly speaking about the people, 5000 of them at a time and their destination.

[Nazgul]

He is clearly speaking about the people, 5000 of them at a time and their destination.

You are looking at this from the perspective of a believer, without knowing the context. The author is concerned about the movement of people on the Treblinka train.

[Nessie]

He is clearly speaking about the people, 5000 of them at a time and their destination.

You are looking at this from the perspective of a believer, without knowing the context. The author is concerned about the movement of people on the Treblinka train.

The context is the evidence of mass closures of ghettos and transports of people to the AR camps. Remember, I can evidence mass arrivals at the camps and that the camps nearby to the stops did not fill up with Jews, and instead, they also emptied.

You cannot evidence people getting off the trains and going to the camps near to the stops.

[Nazgul]

The context is the evidence of mass closures of ghettos and transports of people to the AR camps. Remember, I can evidence mass arrivals at the camps and that the camps nearby to the stops did not fill up with Jews, and instead, they also emptied.

You cannot evidence people getting off the trains and going to the camps near to the stops.

The first Warsaw transport of young men went to Bobrysk, several thousand of them. The stops along the way like Skyz Kam had up to 8 thousand workers. Sobibor witnesses mention they went to Skyz Kam on train. Trains do not stop for an hour at a time at any station unless it is for a purpose.
It takes 5 mins to fill a steam train full of water and coal or wood.