Markiewicz Report in 1994

[Stubble]

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

This answers the question of what happened with the pellets, so several previous pages of bickering are now moot.

What's worse, it has been moot for at least a week and a half, as Mr Hill pointed out this exactly in the other thread.

Of course, I lean on Muller here who said that the columns were perforated sheet metal and had a spiral ramp in them to distribute the pellets like a seed spreader, but, dropping the pellets together in a clump on the cold floor is just as absurd and creates many of the same problems.

There is also the problem of making them secure, as they didn't touch the floor. These things would have had to have been built in some way to prevent them being pulled out of the ceiling and trampled and crushed by panicked people in their last chance at life.

Point is, by volume of testimony, the sonderkommando say the pellets were dropped in the room in some way to off gas, not retracted in a contrivance.

The Luftl report highlights some of the absurdity here...

https://codoh.com/library/document/the-luftl-report/

[...]Assuming that the floor temperature was 25 degrees Celsius (which is quite warm, since the gas chambers were mostly cold, damp cellars), [...] After one half hour, there would have been at most 16 grams of HCN in the air of the chamber. [...]The hydrocyanic acid content in the air of the chamber would thus have been 363.6 mg/m³. (That is, 16,000 mg/44 m³ = 363.6 mg/m³.) That certainly would have been enough to kill them. (That is, 270 ml/m³ x 1.23 = approximately 330 mg/m³.)

[...]if we assume that the hydrocyanic acid did not condense on the cold ambient surfaces inside the room[...]during the ventilation process, Zyklon B would still have retained 92 percent of its hydrocyanic acid content, and would thus continue merrily on its way, releasing hydrocyanic acid gas.[...] it would continue to do so for fully 15 1/2 hours[...] this would mean a huge pile of excrement, vomit, and similar material, thoroughly contaminated with 184 grams of hydrocyanic acid (which would still continue to evaporate, although slowly). But the remaining 184 grams of hydrocyanic acid would still be enough to kill approximately 3,000 persons (at 0.001 gram per kilogram, assuming an average body weight of 60 kg per person).[...]

In the words of Schopenhauer:

Nothing is more galling
Than to fight with facts and arguments
Against an adversary
In the belief
That one is dealing with his understanding,
When in reality
One is dealing with the will,
Which obdurately closes its mind to the truth.
One must understand that reason
Applied against the will
Is like seed sown on bare rock
Like light arrows against armor,
Like the stormwind against a beam of light.

Nothing can be done for those who do not want to face the truth. But perhaps, after reading the following, some will be ready to want to comprehend.

Of course, the bickering over Kula and his columns must necessarily continue...

[AreYouSirius]

I'm not positive but it seems like they installed the mesh columns so that they could pull up the pellets safely and expedite the process. That's my working hypothesis.

How are you "not positive"? You came here to defend something you don't know?

You've seen what the sonderkommandos said. You've seen what the experts said. Now shit or get off the pot.

That's not how forensic analysis works.

Correct, your actions in this thread are not how forensic analysis works. Forensic analysis relies on evaluating verifiable evidence systematically, not starting with a supposition and presenting it as given or as a fact. Forensic analysis also doesn't involve dismissing available evidence or speculating on indeterminate findings to support a claim.

[Archie]

What's worse, it has been moot for at least a week and a half, as Mr Hill pointed out this exactly in the other thread.

Of course, I lean on Muller here who said that the columns were perforated sheet metal and had a spiral ramp in them to distribute the pellets like a seed spreader, but, dropping the pellets together in a clump on the cold floor is just as absurd and creates many of the same problems.

There is also the problem of making them secure, as they didn't touch the floor. These things would have had to have been built in some way to prevent them being pulled out of the ceiling and trampled and crushed by panicked people in their last chance at life. [...]

I can't quite tell what Mueller is describing. It sounds to me like he's saying the column was hollow with holes for the gas to escape and the spiral thing was inside? So maybe when he says even distribution, he just means within the column? I guess he thinks if it was a straight shot it would all just clump at the bottom. I think you would still get clumping with his spiral thing. At any rate, Van Pelt's model of the columns doesn't have any spiral.

[bombsaway]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

This is classic bombsaway right here.

A normal reply to this would be something like this: "Maybe when they talked about pellets being swept up off the floor they were talking about a few errant pellets that got through the mesh?" This would be an attempt to harmonize the contradiction. If someone wants to make that argument, whatever. But notice how bombs never makes arguments in this straightforward manner. Note that he sneaks his key assumption in without comment, takes it as given, and implies that you are an idiot if you don't agree with him. What we end up with is a vague, implicit argument along with passive-aggressive insults as a means of manipulation. I do not think this is an honest style of argumentation. The reason he does this is obviously because if he were to simply state his assumptions and arguments clearly it would be more obvious how weak they are.

"Maybe when they talked about pellets being swept up off the floor they were talking about a few errant pellets that got through the mesh?"

And I said - "None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh."

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant here. Even your character attacks on me aren't corroborated by the evidence.

The argument was tackling the revisionist framing, which was a false binary : pellets stayed in the columns, or all fell through

[Callafangers]

So you have compared Holocaust statements to statements concerning similar events?

If you are claiming a reasonable degree of precision cannot be expected from people who actually witnessed specific features, day-in and day-out, often for months at a time, it is you who has the burden of proof (hence, also the burden of research) to support this extraordinary claim.

Industrial accidents, aviation disasters, nuclear incidents, etc., all rely on specific and measurable eyewitness statements which could be expected to have some reasonable range of precision about them. And crucially, many of these measurements would be particular to that specific day or event, whereas with 'gas chamber' claims, we are dealing with static features (e.g. Zyklon-B introduction features) that would have remained constant for the entire period the 'witnesses' worked there -- thus, we should expect a much higher degree of accuracy in witness statements.

To think that someone could work around a set of structural openings or columns for 30, 60, 90+ days and disagree on their size by a factor of some 2-3x or more is not tenable, nor is the wide-ranging disagreement on timelines (e.g. of gassing completion, entering/clearing the 'chamber'), nor are the bizarre divergences on other physical characteristics and observations (e.g. fire from chimneys, gas showers, conveyor belts and mechanical floors, etc.; also things like 'Nazis ran out of gas', gas chamber escapes, etc.).

The 'Holocaust' reads like a resistance movement's fabricated narrative aimed at post-war vengeance, not honest and traumatized witnesses simply retelling their painful experiences and observations.

[Stubble]

What's worse, it has been moot for at least a week and a half, as Mr Hill pointed out this exactly in the other thread.

Of course, I lean on Muller here who said that the columns were perforated sheet metal and had a spiral ramp in them to distribute the pellets like a seed spreader, but, dropping the pellets together in a clump on the cold floor is just as absurd and creates many of the same problems.

There is also the problem of making them secure, as they didn't touch the floor. These things would have had to have been built in some way to prevent them being pulled out of the ceiling and trampled and crushed by panicked people in their last chance at life. [...]

I can't quite tell what Mueller is describing. It sounds to me like he's saying the column was hollow with holes for the gas to escape and the spiral thing was inside? So maybe when he says even distribution, he just means within the column? I guess he thinks if it was a straight shot it would all just clump at the bottom. I think you would still get clumping with his spiral thing. At any rate, Van Pelt's model of the columns doesn't have any spiral.

You've got to read it all together, I'll take some time and snip it so it can be seen in whole as that is the most illustrative way.

He is talking about the pellets being cast into the room to evenly distribute the gas among the condemned.

That's how you end up with pellets at the door when they breech to start removing the dead, and everywhere else underneath the bodies.

The 'sweet smell of the gas' through his handkerchief ('cause that's all the protection you need).

I apologize for making this post without presenting the description from his 1979 book 'Eyewitness Auschwitz', but, it is going to take me time to put the relevant parts together to present them to you and I don't want to let this particular rest without remarking on it, lest someone (like Bombsaway) pick this baton up and try to run it over to the extreme other side of the dial.

Oh, and I don't give a damn what Van Pelt cobbles together, he wasn't there, Muller, apparently, was, or so I've been told.

[Archie]

It is a fact that their statements are unusually inconsistent,

So you have compared Holocaust statements to statements concerning similar events?

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

This answers the question of what happened with the pellets, so several previous pages of bickering are now moot.

I think it's not clear from this that ALL the pellets escaped, other witnesses say the pellets were raised and removed that way?

The mesh wouldn't necessarily need be completely open at the bottom. The collumns 'legs' could descend to the ground beyond the receptacle.

What are you imagining here? What do you think the purpose of the supposed gap at the bottom was? The straightforward interpretation is that he's saying it was designed to be open and the gap was for cleaning up the pellets. You are saying that they anticipated there might be like five pellets getting through the mesh and that they designed it with a gap at the bottom for this contingency?

[Archie]

I think the issue is the belief among revs that these errors discredit the testimonies. Errors are problematic no doubt and reduce probative value, but it's a binary for you. The testimonies either have probative value or they don't. It's a binary way of thinking which extends to the pellets. The pellets either stayed in the columns or were all dumped on the floor it seems. None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh. Children think like this.

This is classic bombsaway right here.

A normal reply to this would be something like this: "Maybe when they talked about pellets being swept up off the floor they were talking about a few errant pellets that got through the mesh?" This would be an attempt to harmonize the contradiction. If someone wants to make that argument, whatever. But notice how bombs never makes arguments in this straightforward manner. Note that he sneaks his key assumption in without comment, takes it as given, and implies that you are an idiot if you don't agree with him. What we end up with is a vague, implicit argument along with passive-aggressive insults as a means of manipulation. I do not think this is an honest style of argumentation. The reason he does this is obviously because if he were to simply state his assumptions and arguments clearly it would be more obvious how weak they are.

"Maybe when they talked about pellets being swept up off the floor they were talking about a few errant pellets that got through the mesh?"

And I said - "None of the smaller ones could have fallen through the mesh."

I think it's pretty obvious what I meant here. Even your character attacks on me aren't corroborated by the evidence.

The argument was tackling the revisionist framing, which was a false binary : pellets stayed in the columns, or all fell through

?

You are bad at communication.

[bombsaway]

It is a fact that their statements are unusually inconsistent,

So you have compared Holocaust statements to statements concerning similar events?

This answers the question of what happened with the pellets, so several previous pages of bickering are now moot.

I think it's not clear from this that ALL the pellets escaped, other witnesses say the pellets were raised and removed that way?

The mesh wouldn't necessarily need be completely open at the bottom. The collumns 'legs' could descend to the ground beyond the receptacle.

What are you imagining here? What do you think the purpose of the supposed gap at the bottom was? The straightforward interpretation is that he's saying it was designed to be open and the gap was for cleaning up the pellets. You are saying that they anticipated there might be like five pellets getting through the mesh and that they designed it with a gap at the bottom for this contingency?

Imagine the mesh just doesn't go all the way to the bottom, though the metal support beams do. It would not just be about stray pellets but blood vomit etc. If the mesh went all the way down it would be much harder to clean whatever fluids were deposited there, in addition to any pellets.

[HansHill]

Imagine the mesh just doesn't go all the way to the bottom

Robert Jan Van Pelt has entered the chat



https://uwaterloo.ca/architecture/robert-jan-van-pelt

[bombsaway]

So you have compared Holocaust statements to statements concerning similar events?

If you are claiming a reasonable degree of precision cannot be expected from people who actually witnessed specific features, day-in and day-out, often for months at a time, it is you who has the burden of proof (hence, also the burden of research) to support this extraordinary claim.

Easy, because it is not an extraordinary claim, but the mainstream position lol

https://chatgpt.com/share/688e90e6-2c20 ... 10f0b64560

“Remembering is not the re-excitation of innumerable fixed, lifeless… traces. It is an imaginative reconstruction….”
oldmis.kp.ac.rw

“Flashbulb memories are not special in their accuracy… but only in their perceived accuracy.”
PubMed

“There was rapid forgetting of both flashbulb and event memories within the first year….”
memlab.psychol.cam.ac.uk

“Though emotion conveys memory benefits, it does not enhance memory equally for all aspects of an experience….”
PMC

“The results reveal a powerful illusion of memory: People remember events that never happened.”
WashU Research Profiles

“False memories are contagious; one person’s memory can be infected by another person’s errors.”
ResearchGate

“False memories are often created by combining actual memories with suggestions received from others.”
ResearchGate

“Boundary extension… [people] remember seeing a more wide-angle image of a scene than was actually viewed.”
PubMed

“Substantial telescoping can begin as soon as 8 weeks after an event occurs.”

[bombsaway]

Imagine the mesh just doesn't go all the way to the bottom

Robert Jan Van Pelt has entered the chat



https://uwaterloo.ca/architecture/robert-jan-van-pelt

Did Van Pelt claim it looked exactly like this? I don't see how, without a time machine.

[HansHill]

Imagine the mesh just doesn't go all the way to the bottom

Robert Jan Van Pelt has entered the chat



https://uwaterloo.ca/architecture/robert-jan-van-pelt

Did Van Pelt claim it looked exactly like this? I don't see how, without a time machine.

Are you arguing Van Pelt should have consulted you instead of Michal Kula for an accurate model?

[HansHill]

Also another penny in the "Bombsaway is not White jar"

I'm sure I'm not the only one who picked up on that

[bombsaway]

Also another penny in the "Bombsaway is not White jar"

I'm sure I'm not the only one who picked up on that

why lol

Are you arguing Van Pelt should have consulted you instead of Michal Kula for an accurate model?

this is Kula's testimony

“Among other things made in the locksmith's workshop were the fake showers intended for
the gas chambers, as well as the columns of wire netting for introducing the contents of cans

of Zyklon into the gas chambers. This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-
section of (width) about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the

other. The outside net was made of 3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons measuring 50
mm x 10 mm. These angle irons were found all over the net and the upper and lower parts
were linked by an angle iron of the same type. The mesh of the nets was square, measuring
45 mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior
of the first at a distance of about 150 mm. The mesh of this net was square and measured
about 25 mm. Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar. The third part of the
column was movable. It was an empty column made of a thin zinc lamina with a square
section of about 150 mm. At the top it terminated in a cone and below in a flat square base.
Angle irons of sheet metal were welded onto a thin bar of sheet metal at a distance of about
25 mm from the edge of this column. On these angle irons a thin net was stretched with
square mesh of about 1 mm. This net ended at the base of the cone and from there toward
the upper extension of the net ran a framework of sheet metal along the full height to the
vertex of the cone. A can of Zyklon was poured from above into the distribution cone and
thus a uniform distribution of the Zyklon on all four sides of the column was obtained. After
evaporation of the gas the entire central column was withdrawn and the evaporated silica
removed.”

That detail is not specified, Van Pelt clearly took liberties with his reconstruction, it doesn't have the cone either.

The "empty" "movable" column could mean a lot of things.