NEW Considerations on Treblinka and the AR Camps

[Hektor]

And speaking of Butterfangers:

I'll save you a Google search since you apparently can't be bothered to learn common terms and phrases in English before debating here. My definition agrees with this one (the legal definition):

"The legal definition of direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a key fact. On the other hand, indirect evidence, which is sometimes called circumstantial evidence, is a set of facts that, if they are true, allows a reasonable person to infer the fact in question."

Well let's see for ourselves:

DIRECT EVIDENCE:

https://dictionary.thelaw.com/direct-evidence/

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:

https://dictionary.thelaw.com/circumstantial-evidence/

Why are PR and BF so afraid of my trying to figure out what kind of evidence they are proffering here; especially since they are the ones who brought the issue up? (As a way to obfuscate what issue it is I brought up and as a greasy way to attempt to dodge my simple questions.)

Why are they so afraid to let people know if the "facts" they are presenting are actually proven facts or inferred facts?

With circumstantial evidence the issue is that it easily blends and blurs with innuendo type of pseudo-evidence.

If you gas millions, there should at least be some 'direct evidence', but for the Holocaust it simply isn't there. Instead we get circumstantial innuendo over and over again: Piles with shoes, photos of typhus victims, obscure documents and also some phony stuff. Added to this are assertions and make belief statements. Hence the evidence points to this being a deception operation.

[Archie]

Iris,

Where are you going with all of this? I can't tell what you're trying say.

[Iris]

Iris,

Where are you going with all of this? I can't tell what you're trying say.

Well Archie, to begin, take a look at this:

hypothesis
noun

an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

Now look at this:

Butterfangers:

The hypothesis being put forth is that the question of "where did Jews [sent to Treblinka II] go" is perhaps irrelevant (or less relevant) as it can be argued that a majority of them never arrived at TII in the first place... Many or most, it would seem, departed at various labor camps along the way... There were stops all along that route... The topic I have raised here is the question of, what proportion of Jews---of those sent out of the ghettoes onto a train with the final destination listed as "Treblinka"---actually ever made it to Treblinka II at all... I cannot prove where anyone did or did not disembark from the trains, I can only say that evidence strongly suggests many (if not most) of them disembarked before ever getting as far as Treblinka.

What PR and BF want to do here is ague their assumptions that are based on circumstantial evidence, but they want to present those as statements of fact. When challenged to clarify if their numerous statements of fact are in fact proven truths, they intentionally obfuscate and dodge. (Notice how they both (?) have the same habit of mixing in 'may" and "it would seem" and "possibly" and "one could argue" and "strongly suggests," etc. with their statements of fact.)

So "where I'm going with this" Archie, is to try and keep these two honest by keeping this discussion in the realm of honest and open debate and not let it devolve into an argument based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions. I want to establish a foundation of proven facts, but PR and BF are doing all they can to keep that foundation of truth from being built. Had they both been honest and didn't dodge so often, that foundation would have been built already. Why are they so afraid of establishing a foundation of proven facts? (Just look at all the simple questions that they both refuse to answer.)

Keep in mind, this is BF's OP:

Please pardon the "NEW" in the title if I have somehow missed that this topic is already being discussed elsewhere in the forum but it was definitely new to me and I want to ensure it is brought further into the Revisionist sphere of discussion as it seems like a critical advancement on the topic of Treblinka and the AR camps and the looming question of "where did they [Jews] go?".

They want to talk about "where did the jews go" but refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject:

PR:

It is impossible to say how many Jews actually set foot inside the TII camp.

Iris:

PR, is it possible or impossible to say that at least one jew actually set foot inside the TII camp?

Again, if BF's own words:

The topic I have raised here is the question of, what proportion of Jews---of those sent out of the ghettoes onto a train with the final destination listed as "Treblinka"---actually ever made it to Treblinka II at all

In order to answer that question, we have to avoid assumptions and focus on facts - which is what I'm trying to do.

Archie:

With circumstantial evidence the issue is that it easily blends and blurs with innuendo type of pseudo-evidence.

And that is exactly what PR and BF are trying to do here.

[Iris]

BF:

The topic I have raised here is the question of, what proportion of Jews---of those sent out of the ghettoes onto a train with the final destination listed as "Treblinka"---actually ever made it to Treblinka II at all

PR:

It is impossible to say how many Jews actually set foot inside the TII camp.

How can one answer the question of "what proportion of Jews---of those sent out of the ghettoes onto a train with the final destination listed as "Treblinka"---actually ever made it to Treblinka II at all" without knowing how many jews actually made it to Treblinka II?

They are so confused.

[Butterfangers]

Iris,

Where are you going with all of this? I can't tell what you're trying say.

Join the club. He's completely incoherent.

Iris:
It appears Butterfangers' thesis is based on assumption.

Butterfangers:
So is yours, even more so than mine.


Iris:
Show me the thesis that I have proffered here in this thread. Exact quotes please.

Butterfangers:
You have not proferred any thesis here in this thread

Butterfingers forced to admit that he lied.

No, this is you lying yet again. Your assumption is implied in the fact that you are challenging me (and PR, etc.) on the relevance of there now being zero evidence of any particular number (or range thereof) of Jews having ever arrived at TII. Since you refuse to clearly state your conviction and instead resort to asking belligerent, obnoxious questions, I of course cannot be certain at what you are intending to say (a point I have made repeatedly), so I have to argue against what I can only infer you mean to say.

You pretend you have a point to make but refuse to actually make it. Whatever your reason, it is not productive.

Let's stick to the facts here Butterfangers. I have no interest in hearing about your assumptions of what could be argued based on indirect evidence that something may have happened.

The fact (which you admit) is that we have NO idea how many Jews ever set foot in TII. Previously, we did have some idea of this (we thought we did). Establishment historians said so and leading Revisionists (Graf, etc.) wholeheartedly agreed. We no longer do. You evade this fact. This is a FACT that you evade. It is factual (a factual fact!), one which you [factually] disregard because of facts unknown to the rest of us.

Butterfangers, do you deny that you made the following contradictory statements:

Butterfangers:

it can be argued a majority of them never arrived at TII... ]I can only say that evidence strongly suggests many (if not most) of them disembarked before ever getting as far as Treblinka.

I think some, or many, or perhaps even most of them could have continued past Treblinka.

FACT: The only rational explanation provided thus far for the lengthy stops at labor camps by a train filled with laborers is the departure/exchange of laborers. You have refused to address this point. Why is that?

FACT: We do not have hard, incontrovertible proof of precisely how many laborers disembarked (or onboarded) at each labor camp. Hence, it remains possible that "some, or many, or perhaps even most of them could have continued past Treblinka."

There is no contradiction; there is only you, pretending there is one in order to obfuscate those points you cannot deal with (and which you, thus, avoid entirely).

...you did claim "evidence strongly suggests." Does that mean strong evidence? Does "strong evidence" fall into the direct or indirect category of evidence? Or is it a sub category of each?

"Evidence strongly suggests" means that there is evidence (which may be direct or indirect) which altogether strongly suggests a particular inference or conclusion to be true. Any honest person can understand my use of this phrase. You are not being honest, though (perhaps), so you pretend not to.

Butterfangers, please list each and every level of evidence that you are aware of.

You're pressuring us into irrelevance yet again. It's a rather bizarre effort (though, thankfully, transparent to any honest readers who will peruse this thread). Here you go:

Now you have even more ammunition to carry us further off-topic. LOL. 'Let's discuss pyramids/levels of evidence instead of what it means now that we know there are no documents which can assert an estimated number-range of Jews who entered TII.'

So because those jews used the word "Treblinka" and not "Treblinka II' Butterfangers is claiming that is not direct evidence.

Butterfangers, is there any indirect evidence that Jews within the, shall we say "Treblinka watershed," were put on trains on the, shall we say "Treblinka line" and, regardless of whether they disembarked and reembarked anywhere along the way or not, were transited as far east along the line to the area in or around what is generally referred to as "Treblinka" (which includes all things that are commonly called "Treblinka"), disembarked from the train, actually set foot within the confines of what is called "Treblinka Two" then got back on a train and were transited further east?

Now lets sit back and watch Butterfangers greasy reply.

Reading your responses is as cringe-inducing as seeing headlines about "Drag Queen Story Hour".

"lEt'S wAtCh BOoTerFaNgERs GReeSiE reePLy."

You're off-topic, unnecessarily hostile, and all-around ridiculous. Even those who seem to remain neutral here (e.g. Archie) have no clue what you are talking about, even after 5 pages of dialogue and interaction. You're completely incoherent and have no point to make, so you apparently just ramble on about whether Jews transiting further east actually happened (not making actual arguments as such but simply asking aggressive questions which imply your position).

You admit you have no idea how many Jews ever made it to TII. You ADMIT this! You "don't know" if that number is zero (0); 10; 100; 1,000; 10,000; 100,000; etc. Yet you get ultra-defensive, apparently, when others come to suggest that a great number of Jews disembarked before the train(s) ever made it to what is generally referred to as "Treblinka" and that this further eliminates any confidence whatever in how many Jews reached (let alone were transited out of) TII.

Since you're a slippery one, let me make myself absolutely clear with regard to your last question. Here it is (your question) again:

Butterfangers, is there any indirect evidence that Jews within the, shall we say "Treblinka watershed," were put on trains on the, shall we say "Treblinka line" and, regardless of whether they disembarked and reembarked anywhere along the way or not, were transited as far east along the line to the area in or around what is generally referred to as "Treblinka" (which includes all things that are commonly called "Treblinka"), disembarked from the train, actually set foot within the confines of what is called "Treblinka Two" then got back on a train and were transited further east?

My answer is: There is indirect evidence that this may have been the case. But the significance of this point in the question of the "Holocaust" as a whole depends ENTIRELY on HOW MANY Jews were transited in this way.

The evidence for the question of "how many?", specifically, has fundamentally changed with the evidence brought forth in this thread.

You ignore this fact. It's a fact that the numbers previously thought to have arrived at TII (even by top historians and Revisionists) are now shown to be unreliable (whereas, previously, all parties thought them as reliable).

They were previously thought of as reliable because:
1) Jews in the ghettos were put in locked containers,
2) the number of Jews was documented in official records, and
3) the destination said "Treblinka".

The thinking (of both exterminationists and Revisionists) was that this meant those Jews who left the ghettos ended up in TII. No one had considered whether some Jews disembarked along the way. There was no evidence that Jews reasonably could have disembarked along the way. Such evidence now exists: Jews reasonably could have disembarked along the way.

Moreover, as PR has shown, the fact of this condition is coupled with the fact that "TII" was never named explicitly in any train schedule or related document and that there is more evidence of TII as a property sorting camp (including physical evidence, documents, etc.) than of it as a transit camp. Thus, TII may have had a limited (or non-existent) role insofar as transit further east. We really do not know. And by "we" I mean me, you, Mattogno, Graf, Nick Terry, Hans--you name it.

The main reason we do not know this, as said repeatedly, is because we do not even know how many Jews arrived at TII in the first place. You do not know this--you ADMIT this fact. So it is bizarre you would even be arguing about the fate of "Jews" when, for all you know, these "Jews" you refer to could be entirely in your imagination. It could be zero (0) Jews, one Jew, fifteen Jews, fifteen-thousand Jews, etc. You don't know and neither do I. "What happened to Jews who were at TII?" is officially moot.

I will make clear, just to avoid further distractions from you, that no one has denied that some Jews (possibly in the low thousands, which was the camp muster at TII) may have been employed there for [property-sorting] labor. I am certainly not suggesting zero (0) Jews having set foot in TII is likely, with that in mind. I am merely making the point that your obsession with how many were transited further east is eclipsed by the consideration of how many set foot in TII at all. You admit you "don't know". And that's the point.

Here is what you ignored in my last reply, Iris. Why are you dodging?:

To bring things back on-track, how about you tell us what you feel the significance of these labor camps en route toward Treblinka are, Iris?

Why do you seem to deflect from the obvious significance of these camps? What are your intentions in this regard?

Please respond.

Back to your nonsense:

Butterfangers, is there any indirect evidence that those jews who used the word "Treblinka" were referring to Treblinka Two?

Not that I am aware.

Butterfangers, is there any indirect evidence that those jews who used the word "Treblinka" were NOT referring to:

1) The Treblinka village near Malkinia?

2) The Treblinka train station on the Malkinia-Siedlce branch line?

3) Treblinka One?

Same question (and same answer) as above.

Buterfangers:

I never claimed "proof". What I did was share evidence. The evidence for Jews having disembarked is stronger than any evidence suggesting they did not.

So Butterfangers wants to play the preponderance of evidence game, AKA "the convergence of evidence" game.

No, what you have done here is associate me with those who claim lesser-forms of evidence (e.g. testimony and spurious documentation) outweigh those such as physical evidence (via "convergence"). I give priority to those higher forms of evidence, physical evidence in particular. There is no physical evidence of mass murder at TII. Simple. But until now, the question has remained of, "where did the Jews [sent to TII] go?". Leading Revisionists have answered: "further East". Exterminationists said: "killed and buried underground". Both sides began their discussion in agreement that the Hoefle telegram, Korherr report, etc. were a reliable indication of how many Jews actually ended up at TII at all. As such, both were factually wrong on this premise. As such, any conclusions drawn were unsound.

With circumstantial evidence the issue is that it easily blends and blurs with innuendo type of pseudo-evidence.

If you gas millions, there should at least be some 'direct evidence', but for the Holocaust it simply isn't there. Instead we get circumstantial innuendo over and over again: Piles with shoes, photos of typhus victims, obscure documents and also some phony stuff. Added to this are assertions and make belief statements. Hence the evidence points to this being a deception operation.

If you are suggesting, Hektor, that physical evidence should take priority, I wholeheartedly agree.

An absence of physical remains at the TII site takes priority in the conclusion that no Jews were killed en masse there. Done and done.

If you are also suggesting that any indirect (or circumstantial) evidence on tangentially-related questions must be ignored altogether, and that any consideration of this sort of evidence indicates a deception operation, I would say that is a silly conclusion based on faulty logic.

EDIT: On a second read-through, I now get the impression that Hektor's intent here was to describe the "Holocaust" as a deception operation and not the concepts described by myself, PR, etc. Apologies if I misunderstood.

What PR and BF want to do here is ague their assumptions that are based on circumstantial evidence, but they want to present those as statements of fact. When challenged to clarify if their numerous statements of fact are in fact proven truths, they intentionally obfuscate and dodge. (Notice how they both (?) have the same habit of mixing in 'may" and "it would seem" and "possibly" and "one could argue" and "strongly suggests," etc. with their statements of fact.)

So "where I'm going with this" Archie, is to try and keep these two honest by keeping this discussion in the realm of honest and open debate and not let it devolve into an argument based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions. I want to establish a foundation of proven facts, but PR and BF are doing all they can to keep that foundation of truth from being built. Had they both been honest and didn't dodge so often, that foundation would have been built already. Why are they so afraid of establishing a foundation of proven facts? (Just look at all the simple questions that they both refuse to answer.)

You circumvent the proven truths entirely, as shown by the two key questions you have dodged, as already mentioned, here again:

...how about you tell us what you feel the significance of these labor camps en route toward Treblinka are, Iris?

Why do you seem to deflect from the obvious significance of these camps? What are your intentions in this regard?

I need to add to the above questions the following:

Iris, why did the trains packed with laborers make lengthy stops (an hour or more) at each of the stops with labor camps en route toward "Treblinka"? Why did they stop there for so long, Iris?

It is a fact that the trains made these stops, Iris. It is not conjecture. It is a fact that has not been discussed until recently (and until this thread, here on CODOH).

Please answer, no dodging. Remember, your explanation needs to explain the fact that these trains made these stops. You need to explain why. Were they loading some other type of non-human cargo? Were the train conductors very lazy, preferred to nap at each station? Please, be reasonable.

Let's be clear, here: you ASSUME a number of Jews actually worth discussing arrived at TII. You admit you "don't know" how many ever did. It's quite rich that you claim to "want to establish a foundation of proven facts" yet you IGNORE the facts which you are seeing now, for the first time, here on this thread.

You did NOT know about these labor camps before seeing this thread. Now you do know about them, yet your only reaction is to try and dismiss them and/or their relevance outright.

They want to talk about "where did the jews go" but refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject:

The "Jews" you keep asking about are not even proven to exist. Until we answer "how many Jews made it to TII?" any discussion of whether they were transited further east is 100% irrelevant.

And yet you keep asking about whether 'Jews who set foot in TII were transited further east' as if this question takes precedent over that of how many Jews ever arrived in TII. It quite obviously does not, if only as a matter of chronology.

Yet, you persist in your BS line of questioning. You will continue to do so. It's rather impressive.

...we have to avoid assumptions and focus on facts - which is what I'm trying to do.

No, that is a lie. What has happened here is that you are afraid to let go of an assumption; one that you, I, your favorite Revisionists, or anyone else can claim as fact that even 1; 10; 100; 1,000; 5,000; 100,000 Jews ever made it to TII at all (for reasons other than some limited labor operations on-site).

You keep lazer-focused on "were they transited further east?", skipping right over whether "they" even exist.

The facts do not matter to you.

[Iris]

Butterfangers:

The fact (which you admit) is that we have NO idea how many Jews ever set foot in TII. Previously, we did have some idea of this (we thought we did). Establishment historians said so and leading Revisionists (Graf, etc.) wholeheartedly agreed. We no longer do. You evade this fact. This is a FACT that you evade. It is factual (a factual fact!), one which you [factually] disregard because of facts unknown to the rest of us.

Butterfangers,has it ever been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one jew actually set foot inside the camp known as TII?

Butterfangers, you've made the following two contradictory allegations:

I can only say that evidence strongly suggests many (if not most) of them disembarked before ever getting as far as Treblinka.

I think some, or many, or perhaps even most of them could have continued past Treblinka.

Which one can you prove is a fact?

Butterfangers;

FACT: The only rational explanation provided thus far for the lengthy stops at labor camps by a train filled with laborers is the departure/exchange of laborers. You have refused to address this point. Why is that?

Butterfangers, answer the following: It is a proven fact / truth that no less than ? jews disembarked from a train heading east towards the area known as Treblnka and never got back on another train heading east. IOW, they never got as far east as "Treblikna."

Butterfangers:

"Evidence strongly suggests" means that there is evidence (which may be direct or indirect) which altogether strongly suggests a particular inference or conclusion to be true.

As Archie said: "With circumstantial evidence the issue is that it easily blends and blurs with innuendo type of pseudo-evidence."

Iris:

Butterfangers, is there any indirect evidence that Jews within the, shall we say "Treblinka watershed," were put on trains on the, shall we say "Treblinka line" and, regardless of whether they disembarked and reembarked anywhere along the way or not, were transited as far east along the line to the area in or around what is generally referred to as "Treblinka" (which includes all things that are commonly called "Treblinka"), disembarked from the train, actually set foot within the confines of what is called "Treblinka Two" then got back on a train and were transited further east?

Butterfangers:

There is indirect evidence [circumstantial] that this may have been the case.

Thank you BF. If you wouldn't have been dodging so much, we could have gotten past that a long time ago.

Butterfangers:

Such evidence now exists: Jews reasonably could have disembarked along the way.

Could those same jews have gotten back on a train and continued east to and even past the area known as Treblinka?

Could any of those jews have gotten back on a train and continued east to the camp known as Treblinka II and actually set foot in such camp?

Butterfangers:

I will make clear, just to avoid further distractions from you, that no one has denied that some Jews (possibly in the low thousands, which was the camp muster at TII) may have been employed there for [property-sorting] labor. I am certainly not suggesting zero (0) Jews having set foot in TII is likely, with that in mind. I am merely making the point that your obsession with how many were transited further east is eclipsed by the consideration of how many set foot in TII at all. You admit you "don't know". And that's the point.

So Butterfangers alleges that the number of jews who actually set foot in TII is "possibly in the low thousands."

With that figure in mind BF, would you care to answer your own question:

The topic I have raised here is the question of, what proportion of Jews---of those sent out of the ghettoes onto a train with the final destination listed as "Treblinka"---actually ever made it to Treblinka II at all.

[Nazgul]

Leon “Poldek” Rytz

In my search for evidence of transports from TII to "forced labour camps for Jews" the exploits of Leon Rytz appeared.

Leon Rytz has outlived the "last survivor of Treblinka, "Sam Willenberg". Rytz like many Holocaust survivors, was imprisoned in several different Nazi camps, including Majdanek, Treblinka II, Buchenwald, and Bergen-Belsen.

After his capture in Warsaw, Rytz waited with hundreds of others for several days at the railway square for deportation. He was transported south, to the Majdanek camp, where he stayed for over a month. He was then again put onto a train and taken to Treblinka "death camp". At TII Rytz was separated by a friend of his fathers, a "Jozef Kaufman". Kaufman was Jew trusted by the commandant Stangl who "had him collect and deliver all valuables he found in the prisoners’ luggage and clothes to Franz Stangl every evening". Here is the story:

The Story

While packing the train cars one day, Kaufman pulled the guard on duty into one of the wagons, where he strangled him and took his bayonet. Kaufman pushed Rytz, along with another inmate, with him into another wagon filled with murdered inmates’ belongings, just before the train left the camp.
The three hid among the clothes as the train left Treblinka. Later, in seeing the approaching forest, Kaufman used the bayonet he had taken from the Ukrainian guard and opened the wagon’s lock. The three prisoners jumped from the moving train. Kaufman and Rytz ran into the woods; the third prisoner did not survive the fall.

After a few nights in the forest, the pair joined the Polish partisans, with whom they participated in different missions with the goal of blowing up railway lines and bridges.

‘After some days we received word that the partisans were planning to kill us, as they too did not like us Jews’

The pair escaped the partisans and tried to go towards Warsaw. Close to Warsaw, at Praga, they saw smoke in the distance. “The Poles told us that Warsaw was burning,” and they shifted course. They were soon captured again and taken to a forced labour camp in the German-occupied town of Skarżysko-Kamienna Hasag, about 150 kilometers (90 miles) south of Warsaw.


“At once I was taken to work at Werk C, where my task was to fill up missiles with trinitrotoluene. It was an extremely dangerous environment that caused the entire body to turn yellowish. Protective clothes were unthinkable, since the average survival time at this work was approximately three-four months,” writes Rytz.

Kaufman and Rytz quickly assessed their options and decided to attempt another escape, through a sewer, and also with a third prisoner.

“The spotlight fell on the first man who came out of the sewer pipe, and he was shot. As we came out, we raised our hands so we were captured and taken back to the camp,” writes Rytz.

The pair were ordered to stand on barrels for a full day in a spot where all inmates must pass, with a sign around their necks stating, “Due to an escape we are to be executed in the evening.”

Rytz relates that a woman several years older than him “approached an SS officer and offered him a diamond she had hidden in her shoe, if her ‘brothers’ were saved.” By a miracle they were saved.

In 1944, as the Russians encroached on Nazi-occupied territory, Rytz was transported to Czestochowa Hasag, and then to Germany, to the KZ Buchenwald camp. From Buchenwald, Leon was taken to Dora-Nordhausen Group Zawatski.

On the way to Buchenwald, Rytz was separated from his protector and companion, Kaufman, whom he never saw again. The train they were transported on was hit by Russian artillery. Half of the trainload of prisoners remained on the tracks and the rest were taken to Buchenwald.

In February 1945 Rytz was taken 300 kilometers away to Bergen-Belsen, where he was placed among the Russian prisoners of war. He ended up in Fallesleben where he was liberated by US forces
hot copper

This individual went to the following camps:

1. Majdanek
2. Treblinka II
3. Skarzysko-Kamienna
4. Częstochowa aka Tschenstochau
5. Buchenwald
6. Dora
7. Belsen
8. Fallesleben

The Treblinka escape appears to be an absolute fantasy but from there he ends up at the HASAG ammunition factory at Skarzysko.
Fahrplananordnung 587 list both Treblinka and Skarzysko. Both were the sites of Zwangarbeitslager für Juden.

Czestochowa aka Tschenstochau is also a place he visited. Czestochowa was the location of 7 Zwangarbeitslager für Juden, all HASAG munitions factories, most in commission until late war. Tschenstochau is mentioned on Fahrplananordnung 587 as well. I have reproduce Fplo 587 below with the names highlighted.

Fplo 587

On Fplo 567 Czestochowa aka Tschenstochau is the starting point of the transport.

---

This story of miraculous escapes, diamonds and death is appears to be a combination of fact interspersed with some cattle excrement. Taking out the miraculous escapes, what we have is a man, a Jew who worked at various Zwangarbeitslager, including Treblinka II.

It would be highly unlikely one could murder an SS guard and not be caught in that region.

It is highly likely that Rytz boarded a train as part of a normal transport for labour allocations to travel to the HASAG factory at Skarzysko-Kamienna, then again a short while later to another HASAG factory where his skills were needed at Czestochowa. To me this is strong evidence of the relocation of Jews from Treblinka to other labour camps. I have given evidence of Jews being transited out of Treblinka to konzentrationslager here

Due to the massive disinformation surrounding Treblinka Rytz would have little choice but to fabricate the escape story he did. He would have known the truth about Treblinka but had little choice but to be frugal with the historical realities. Rytz knew the conditions at Skarzysko and the poisoning by TNT; this happened in the UK as well, the workers called "canaries" due to the yellow colour after being poisoned.

He wanted to tell his story of his journey through those years and in a way forced to deflect from telling the whole truth. To do so would attract extreme unwanted attention from other Jews and the global media.

[Iris]

Butterfangers:

To bring things back on-track, how about you tell us what you feel the significance of these labor camps en route toward Treblinka are, Iris?

Why do you seem to deflect from the obvious significance of these camps? What are your intentions in this regard?

Butterfangers, how many jews within the, Treblinka watershed were put on trains connected to the Treblinka line and transited east?

How many of those jews disembarked from one of those trains, entered one of those camps you speak of along the line and never got back on a train heading east (or any other mode of transportation, including walking) and thus never got as far east as the area known at Treblinka (much less any area further east than Treblinka)?

Butterfangers:

But until now, the question has remained of, "where did the Jews [sent to TII] go?". Leading Revisionists have answered: "further East". Exterminationists said: "killed and buried underground". Both sides began their discussion in agreement that the Hoefle telegram, Korherr report, etc. were a reliable indication of how many Jews actually ended up at TII at all. As such, both were factually wrong on this premise. As such, any conclusions drawn were unsound.

Neither revisionists nor exterminationists ever proved that the numbers claimed to have set foot in the camp actually did soI. I do not a.nd never have denied that fact.

Butterfangers:

What happened to Jews who were at TII?" is officially moot.

No it's not. You need to prove how many jews were put on trains, how many never made it as far east as the area known as Treblinka, how many made it as far east as the area known as Treblinka, how many actually set foot in the TII camp and how many jews, regardless of whether or not they got off at some point during the journey or ever did set foot inside the TII camp, continued further east past the area known as Treblinka.

You have no more proven your claims than the revisionists or exterminationists proved theirs.

Butterfangers:

Let's be clear, here: you ASSUME a number of Jews actually worth discussing arrived at TII. You admit you "don't know" how many ever did. It's quite rich that you claim to "want to establish a foundation of proven facts" yet you IGNORE the facts which you are seeing now, for the first time, here on this thread.

Do I? We'll see about that.Butterfangers:

You keep lazer-focused on "were they transited further east?", skipping right over whether "they" even exist.

If you and PR had answered my simple questions, this would have been settled already. So let's make up for lost time.

You insist that there were labor camps along the Treblinka line and you insist jews who were being transited east got off at these c;amps. You insist that this is a fact.

Foundational fact #1:

The number of jews in the Treblinka watershed who were put on trains and transited east along the Treblinka line has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by PR and BF to be no less than?

[Butterfangers]

Butterfangers,has it ever been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one jew actually set foot inside the camp known as TII?

How is this even possibly relevant to the thread? I'll bite, nonetheless. I will say, firmly: I am not aware of said proof regarding any detail of any Jews setting foot in TII.

Butterfangers, you've made the following two contradictory allegations:

I can only say that evidence strongly suggests many (if not most) of them disembarked before ever getting as far as Treblinka.

I think some, or many, or perhaps even most of them could have continued past Treblinka.

Which one can you prove is a fact?

There is no contradiction here and I have already explained it quite clearly. When you remove all context, perhaps dishonestly, as you do here, you can present a "contradiction". The point is (and always has been) that we have no idea how many Jews made it to TII. The fact is there were lengthy stops, strongly suggesting (given no other rational explanation) some departures. We have no idea how many actually disembarked. What all of this means is we have no idea how many made it to TII. Both of my points above, therefore, are fully consistent and not contradictory at all. Yet you keep citing them, which shows how flimsy your case is. You are desperately clinging to the handful of things you can misrepresent as fallacy, inconsistency, etc. You fail.

How many Jews can you prove, in fact, arrived at TII? Even just a ballpark estimate, perhaps? Please do not dodge this important question.

Butterfangers;

FACT: The only rational explanation provided thus far for the lengthy stops at labor camps by a train filled with laborers is the departure/exchange of laborers. You have refused to address this point. Why is that?

Butterfangers, answer the following: It is a proven fact / truth that no less than ? jews disembarked from a train heading east towards the area known as Treblnka and never got back on another train heading east. IOW, they never got as far east as "Treblikna."

I have made very clear that I cannot answer that question... but neither can you. And yet your focus (not mine) is upon how many were transited further east. Was it 100? 1,000? 10,000? 100,000?

You admit, you "don't know". No one does, and less so now than ever. There once were some documents that were thought to provide some approximation of arrivals (at TII), at least. Now there are none.

Why don't you address this?

Could those same jews have gotten back on a train and continued east to and even past the area known as Treblinka?

Could any of those jews have gotten back on a train and continued east to the camp known as Treblinka II and actually set foot in such camp?

Sure, they absolutely could have. They also could have escaped the various labor camps and traveled elsewhere on-foot, by road, other train routes, etc. They could have been transferred between various camps by the same means. Many could have died by various causes in these camps before ever having any opportunity to get back on the line toward Treblinka. Many others may have survived the war without traveling further east. The point is, we don't know.

We used to "know". We had documents which all parties (Revisionists, exterminationists) accepted as valid in showing how many Jews made it to TII. Those documents are now essentially useless for evidence as such.

Will you admit this? If so, will you then describe how this affects the establishment and Revisionist narratives?

Please, no dodging. You're doing a LOT of that, here.

Butterfangers:

I will make clear, just to avoid further distractions from you, that no one has denied that some Jews (possibly in the low thousands, which was the camp muster at TII) may have been employed there for [property-sorting] labor. I am certainly not suggesting zero (0) Jews having set foot in TII is likely, with that in mind. I am merely making the point that your obsession with how many were transited further east is eclipsed by the consideration of how many set foot in TII at all. You admit you "don't know". And that's the point.

So Butterfangers alleges that the number of jews who actually set foot in TII is "possibly in the low thousands."

With that figure in mind BF, would you care to answer your own question:

The topic I have raised here is the question of, what proportion of Jews---of those sent out of the ghettoes onto a train with the final destination listed as "Treblinka"---actually ever made it to Treblinka II at all.

[/quote]
The issue at stake here is the fate of [hundreds of thousands of] allegedly 'exterminated' Jews. A few thousand possibly being stationed to sort property is beside that question, entirely. You're deflecting again from what matters, here, and are probably too embarrassed to stay on-topic as it's obvious your position has been demolished.

Neither revisionists nor exterminationists ever proved the numbers claimed actually set foot inside TII. I do not and have denied that fact.

Wrong. In writing "Treblinka" (Castle Hill, updated 2020), Graf accepts the numbers alleged as deported from the ghettos (per Hoefle telegram, etc.) as generally being those who arrived at AR camps, including TII.

His assumption:

Since Treblinka was much too small to be able to accommodate the large number of Jews deported there at the same time, the transit camp thesis is, in fact, the single plausible alternative to the conventional picture of the extermination camp. Tertium non datur – no third possibility is given.

...is false. There is a third possibility, that X number of Jews never made it to TII at all.

Also, in saying the following:

Neither revisionists nor exterminationists ever proved the numbers claimed actually set foot inside TII. I do not and have denied that fact.

...you focus on the idea that these numbers were 'never proven'. But there was some range that was generally accepted, at least. If the number could have been insignificant (let's say in the few thousands), there would have been no point to a focused effort on debating exterminationists on the AR camps and Treblinka at all. The point is, the numbers as alleged were huge, and they were based upon credible documentation which said (1) Jews were sent east out of the ghettos, and (2) to camps e.g. Treblinka/TII by the hundreds of thousands. All parties (Revisionists, exterminationists) accepted these premises. ALL debates on this topic in the history of Revisionism for the last few decades has accepted these premises. The point being made here (on this thread) is that these premises are now demonstrably invalid/unsound. The documents which have thus far validated the premise of X number of Jews ever reaching TII are now about as useful as toilet paper in answering that question with any degree of confidence.

And with NO confidence in how many Jews ever reached TII... the question of whether they were transited is secondary, at best.

[Iris]

Iris wrote:

Butterfangers,has it ever been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one jew actually set foot inside the camp known as TII?

Butterfangers:

I will say, firmly: I am not aware of said proof regarding any detail of any Jews setting foot in TII.

But BF insists that TII was a labor / sorting camp for jews!

IOW, he admits he can't even prove his own hypothesis.

Iris:

Butterfangers, answer the following: It is a proven fact / truth that no less than ? jews disembarked from a train heading east towards the area known as Treblnka and never got back on another train heading east. IOW, they never got as far east as "Treblikna."

Butterfangers:

I have made very clear that I cannot answer that question

IOW, he admits he can't even prove his own hypothesis.

Butterfangers:

They also could have escaped the various labor camps and traveled elsewhere on-foot, by road, other train routes, etc. They could have been transferred between various camps by the same means. Many could have died by various causes in these camps before ever h aving any opportunity to get back on the line toward Treblinka. Many others may have survived the war without traveling further east. The point is, we don't know.

And they "could have" been abducted by aliens.

Butterfangers, were these jews that you insist were put on trains and transited eastward, were they magically disappearing jews?

[Butterfangers]

No it's not. You need to prove how many jews were put on trains, how many never made it as far east as the area known as Treblinka, how many made it as far east as the area known as Treblinka, how many actually set foot in the TII camp and how many jews, regardless of whether or not they got off at some point during the journey or ever did set foot inside the TII camp, continued further east past the area known as Treblinka.

You have no more proven your claims than the revisionists or exterminationists proved theirs.

If, as you admit, neither Revisionists nor exterminationists have proven their claims regarding "how many jews were put on trains, how many never made it as far east as the area known as Treblinka, how many made it as far east as the area known as Treblinka, how many actually set foot in the TII camp...", etc., then why in the hell would I need to prove that here?



That is a demand that makes absolutely no sense. All that was shown here is that we now have less confidence than ever before of how many Jews ever made it to TII. That is the point, the whole point, and it is meaningful in and of itself. Why you have been fighting it is baffling.

You insist that there were labor camps along the Treblinka line and you insist jews who were being transited east got off at these c;amps. You insist that this is a fact.

Saying "evidence strongly suggests" is not saying "it is a fact". You know this. The fact is that, at present, there is only one rational explanation for why the trains stopped for extended periods at the locations of these labor camps, with trains full of laborers.

It is not possible to call it a "fact" that Jews disembarked at these stops because we (all parties) lack sufficient information to confirm or deny this, at present. Nonetheless, we can infer inductively (rather than deductively, which is necessary to confirm it absolutely as factual) that it probably did occur, for reason(s) already mentioned, which you have not challenged.

More importantly, those who will refer to the Hoefle telegram or other documents of ghetto deportations and train schedules as evidence of X number of Jews reaching TII must now prove departures at the various labor camps en route did NOT occur in order to sustain their claim that these X number of Jews actually reached TII.

[Iris]

BF missed this part because I was editing my post while he posted his:

You insist that there were labor camps along the Treblinka line and you insist jews who were being transited east got off at these c;amps. You insist that this is a fact.

Foundational fact #1:

Can it be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that at least one jew within the Treblinka watershed was put on a train and transited east along the Treblinka line toward the area generally known as Treblinka?

The number of jews in the Treblinka watershed who were put on trains and transited east along the Treblinka line, has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt by PR and BF, to be no less than?

[Iris]

BF:

All that was shown here is that we now have less confidence than ever before of how many Jews ever made it to TII.

There was never any confidence in the numbers claimed by either side. And there's no confidence in your claims either.

Butterfangers:

The fact is that, at present, there is only one rational explanation for why the trains stopped for extended periods at the locations of these labor camps, with trains full of laborers.

You cannot prove that the trains did or did not drop off, exchange or take on new passengers or drop off or pick up supplies.

You are proving nothing. You are making unsubstantiated allegations. You are doing nothing but assuming.

[Butterfangers]

But BF insists that TII was a labor / sorting camp for jews!

IOW, he admits he can't even prove his own hypothesis.

It's not my own hypothesis. I give credit to the analysis PR has provided in this thread. I also have not "insisted" it. And it is a fact that TII was a sorting and labor camp. The question is whether that was the priority of the camp (as opposed to transit or extermination):

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... mando.html

Iris:

Butterfangers, answer the following: It is a proven fact / truth that no less than ? jews disembarked from a train heading east towards the area known as Treblnka and never got back on another train heading east. IOW, they never got as far east as "Treblikna."

Butterfangers:

I have made very clear that I cannot answer that question

IOW, he admits he can't even prove his own hypothesis.

My hypothesis is that you do not know how many Jews disembarked at these labor camps, so you do not know how many were 'transited further east', any more than Nick Terry or Raul Hilberg 'know' how many were 'exterminated'.

Butterfangers:

They also could have escaped the various labor camps and traveled elsewhere on-foot, by road, other train routes, etc. They could have been transferred between various camps by the same means. Many could have died by various causes in these camps before ever h aving any opportunity to get back on the line toward Treblinka. Many others may have survived the war without traveling further east. The point is, we don't know.

And they "could have" been abducted by aliens.

This was a response to your question as to whether Jews who disembarked "could have" gotten back on the line and eventually transited "further east" past Treblinka. You brought this up to suggest that there is still some significant weight to any claim that X number of Jews were transited 'further east', apparently. I responded in-kind. A lot of things "could have" happened. The point is, we don't know. There are no documents which tell us how many Jews ended up at TII. Simple.

Butterfangers, were these jews that you insist were put on trains and transited eastward, were they magically disappearing jews?

Iris, do you collect farts in a jar for "emergencies"?

[Iris]

BF:

My hypothesis is that you do not know how many Jews disembarked at these labor camps,

BF, how many Jews disembarked at these labor camps?

Iris:

Butterfangers, were these jews that you insist were put on trains and transited eastward, were they magically disappearing jews?

BF:

Iris, do you collect farts in a jar for "emergencies"

Butterfangers, were these jews that you insist were put on trains and transited eastward, were they magically disappearing jews?