Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[Archie]

Now, Kula certainly does say it was poured from the top.

The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in [on] the distributor cone, which allowed for an equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas, the entire central column was extracted and the evaporated [depleted] silica [carrier] removed.

Here is Germar's drawing of this "distributor cone."

I do not see how to reconcile Kula's "distributor cone" with the small container on a wire.

The cone is at the top and sends the pellets off to the sides. The pellets would fall between the gap in the mesh layers. The problem of the getting the pellets into the small inner container has already been raised. But there is another problem: how do you pull the small container out with a wire if the top of the column is blocked by the distributor cone?

[bombsaway]

The distributor cone could have been removable, and I would say it was.

It sounds like the "can" thing was a mistranslation and Tauber consistently referred to it as a box, which would be able to collect the pellets more effectively.

Your criticisms here are therefore solely relegated to 'they described part of the mechanism but not the whole thing'. Given the failure to address the 0 witnesses that describe ANY aspect of the largest population transfer and resettlement in history, this is an unworkable argument for revisionists. I don't even have to tell you why it's weak criticism, you aren't bothered by incompleteness happening at a much much higher scale with your own belief system.

[Archie]

The distributor cone could have been removable, and I would say it was.

It sounds like the "can" thing was a mistranslation and Tauber consistently referred to it as a box, which would be able to collect the pellets more effectively.

Your criticisms here are therefore solely relegated to 'they described part of the mechanism but not the whole thing'. Given the failure to address the 0 witnesses that describe ANY aspect of the largest population transfer and resettlement in history, this is an unworkable argument for revisionists. I don't even have to tell you why it's weak criticism, you aren't bothered by incompleteness happening at a much much higher scale with your own belief system.

Given that Van Pelt badly bungled his drawing of the column, you should consider publishing your version. You are blazing a trail in Holocaust studies here.

Kula describes it all as a single piece. He must have forgot to mention that the top was removable.

The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column of thin galvanized sheet metal
with a square cross-section of about 150 mm, which ended in the upper part with a cone and below with a flat square base. At a distance of some 25 millimeters, thin sheet metal corners were soldered to the corners of this column supported by sheet metal brackets. On these corners was mounted a thin mesh with openings of about one millimeter in square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the cone, and from there, extending the meshwork, ran a sheet-metal casing for the entire height up to the top of the cone. The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in [on] the distributor cone, which allowed for an equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas, the entire central column was extracted and the evaporated [depleted] silica [carrier] removed.

And when he says the pellets were removed by removing "the entire central," in your interpretation, this actually refers to a small container attached to a wire. And I guess the wire would be attached to the underside of the removable cone or there was a hole in the cone for the wire to run through.

[bombsaway]

He's just being imprecise with his language. He calls it the entire column but he also calls it "The third part of this column". This is contradictory, obviously. Anyway I think my interpretation is reasonable.

It would be pointless for me to publish my version because I'm not sure something like it was used. But the general idea, of pellets being impeded from falling into the container, and some mechanism allowing them to when gassing was concluded, is sound. And also trivial to implement. Maybe I didn't do it in the best way.

Btw, I know that you're insulting me and being sarcastic, you're just masking it. If I told you, eh I guess you think the millions of witnesses to resettlement just "forgot" to mention that it happened, would you view such a comment as fair or productive?

[Wahrheitssucher]

He's just being imprecise with his language.
…This is contradictory, obviously.
Anyway I think my interpretation is reasonable.

It would be pointless for me to publish my version
because I'm not sure something like it was used.
…Maybe I didn't do it in the best way.

Btw, …resettlement this… …resettlement that … …resettlement blah, blah, blah…

SUMMARY of BA’s argument
- The holy Hoax IS TRUE history;
- no-one can explain why and how it is TRUE history but that isn’t important to me as I personallybelieve it;
- it DID happen exactly as it has been contradictorily and physically impossibly described;
- we ARE the eternal innocent victims, the poor jooze;
- critical thinking and reason are anti-septic if applied to our poor joo holyH narrative;
- there really WERE columns that there is zero empirical evidence of, attached to non-existent roof holes, for administering and removing the pesticide pellets.
- If you point out the fact that no-one could THEN describe them accurately, nor can NOW, nor can build a functioning replica based on the contradictory descriptions, then I know you are insulting poor me.

[bombsaway]

The descriptions of the columns are incomplete, not inaccurate in any substantial way. It's completely fair for me to question how such incompleteness can be so problematic when the far greater incompleteness about the things revisionists believe in isn't.

The above post is full of vitriol, departs from the thread topic, puts words in my mouth, and if not overtly insulting is insulting in an underhanded way.

When I say you guys have a pathology this is in part because of the way you treat the other side. There is no respect offered to those coming to talk with you, so why should I extend that respect? BTW I don't engage in mockery much, perhaps a little for fun, but I would say much less than is continuously directed towards me. My claims about you guys having a pathology (similar maybe to how I would feel about Jevoha's witnesses or so on) is not meant to insult, but to provoke a discussion or get you guys to introspect a little. The biggest reason I believe there is a pathology is because of the hypocrisy on display, see above in bold

[Wahrheitssucher]

The above post …departs from the thread topic …puts words in my mouth…

Wrong.
I summarised your argument regarding the “thread topic”.
I did NOT claim those were your words.

I did add two extra “resettlement”’s and “blah, blah, blah” but, I think everyone else is intelligent enough to realise that was merely referencing your avoidance tactic and you didn’t actually write it.

When I say you guys have a pathology this is in part because of the way you treat the other side.

Wrong again.
Everybody besides me treats you with respect and answers your nonsense.
I am alone in showing I have no respect for you.
I genuinely don’t think you deserve any. I do not believe you are genuine nor sincerely want to understand. I suspect you are here to deceive any passing visitors.
Your arguments deny reality! In this case the discrepancies and physical impossibilities of the various descriptions of Kula’s alleged columns.
As your replies are so weak in reason I think they therefore warrant mockery along with the detailed rebuttals others are giving them.

There is no respect offered to those coming to talk with you…

Says the guy who deceitfully and disrespectfully describes people who doubt the holyH mass-gassing narrative as “deniers”.

[bombsaway]

You are in my ignore bucket again.

I would however still like to take this opportunity to point to a witness with a rather interesting description of the gassing procedure at Auschwitz Birkenau.

Tabeau, Jerzy
https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/tabeau-jerzy/875/

Spoiler

Jerzy Tabeau (born Wesołowski, 18 Dec. 1918 – 11 May 2002) was a Polish medical student who joined the Polish underground army in 1939. He was arrested in March 1942 and sent to Auschwitz Main Camp, where he fell ill with pneumonia but was nursed back to health in the inmate infirmary. After that, he became a male nurse, in which role he contracted typhus. Although again seriously sick and unfit for labor, he again got nursed back to health.

http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/_resou ... l00523.pdf

Everythin~t.· was hermeti cal bombs through the ventilation ope~ings. After about 10
minutes the doors were opened and e special squad composed
exclusively of Jews,

This guy was a home army insurgent, a propagandist, and a partisan. He was not killed. He was given health care, repeatedly.

What does he describe? Hydrogen cyanide bombs thrown into the ventilation system.

He doesn't describe a Kula Column, or the pellets on the floor though, so, I guess that doesn't count.

If I recall correctly, the pivot when presented with comments from Muller or other SK about the pellets on the floor is to say 'well, they didn't explicitly say that the contrivance dropped them'...

With Muller, this is especially underhanded as he describes the columns as operating like a seed spreader to distribute the pellets evenly throughout the room, and pellets under bodies at the door necessitating a hose down as soon as ths door opened.

Regarding a witness saying the pellets went from the hatch to the ground without a column, I've got a Greek jew that says potassium cyanide powder was put down and the showers were turned on to activate it. You're probably going to say that doesn't count though.

Maybe a net on the ceiling is varied enough;

https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/marcus-kurt/

None of the shower testimonies are from direct witnesses. The majority of direct witnesses do say there were columns, according to the table you linked to. The minority don't mention it, but their testimonies don't preclude columns. You really don't get it but this is strong evidence for the Holocaust. You don't acknowledge the power of multiple testimonies, which a normal court would definitely recognize in the absence of any evidence of a conspiracy - the witnesses being told what to say.

[Stubble]

Somebody is going to wonder where that came from.

They can't even agree if the murder instrument was thrown into the floor or collected in a contrivance. That's not just some detail, that's a fundamental issue.

Can you do what others have failed to do and produce a testimony which makes clear the pellets were poured through the roof without use of columns?

[bombsaway]

Why is it that only the witnesses that weren't eyewitness spoke of gas coming out of the shower heads? I think this is where you can see that a conspiracy around the witness statements doesn't make much sense. The eyewitnesses are MUCH MUCH better than the ones reporting hearsay. If the entire event was faked, you would expect parity between these groups.

[Archie]

Why is it that only the witnesses that weren't eyewitness spoke of gas coming out of the shower heads? I think this is where you can see that a conspiracy around the witness statements doesn't make much sense. The eyewitnesses are MUCH MUCH better than the ones reporting hearsay. If the entire event was faked, you would expect parity between these groups.

Would you mind expanding upon this assertion?

Are you claiming this with respect to the columns, or are you arguing this more generally?

I do not think the witnesses split as cleanly as you suggest into "eyewitness" and "hearsay" categories. Not do I think the quality is so starkly different. Most statements contain a mix of both firsthand and secondhand knowledge, and it isn't always clear what things they claim to have directly observed (which is why it would have been good to cross-examine all these supposed eyewitnesses).

[bombsaway]

Why is it that only the witnesses that weren't eyewitness spoke of gas coming out of the shower heads? I think this is where you can see that a conspiracy around the witness statements doesn't make much sense. The eyewitnesses are MUCH MUCH better than the ones reporting hearsay. If the entire event was faked, you would expect parity between these groups.

Would you mind expanding upon this assertion?

Are you claiming this with respect to the columns, or are you arguing this more generally?

I do not think the witnesses split as cleanly as you suggest into "eyewitness" and "hearsay" categories. Not do I think the quality is so starkly different. Most statements contain a mix of both firsthand and secondhand knowledge, and it isn't always clear what things they claim to have directly observed (which is why it would have been good to cross-examine all these supposed eyewitnesses).

If an eyewitness claims to have seen the device firsthand or worked on it, like Kula, they are eyewitness. If they claim to have been in the gas chamber after gassings (which would be most SK there I believe) they are also eyewitnesses. I have not seen any testimony from any of these people that contradict orthodoxy in a significant way. Incomplete description of the gas chamber and mechanism is not contradiction. It is only testimonies that rely on hearsay that contradict. This is a mark against your notion of conspiracy or polluted testimonies.

[Archie]

Why is it that only the witnesses that weren't eyewitness spoke of gas coming out of the shower heads? I think this is where you can see that a conspiracy around the witness statements doesn't make much sense. The eyewitnesses are MUCH MUCH better than the ones reporting hearsay. If the entire event was faked, you would expect parity between these groups.

Would you mind expanding upon this assertion?

Are you claiming this with respect to the columns, or are you arguing this more generally?

I do not think the witnesses split as cleanly as you suggest into "eyewitness" and "hearsay" categories. Not do I think the quality is so starkly different. Most statements contain a mix of both firsthand and secondhand knowledge, and it isn't always clear what things they claim to have directly observed (which is why it would have been good to cross-examine all these supposed eyewitnesses).

If an eyewitness claims to have seen the device firsthand or worked on it, like Kula, they are eyewitness. If they claim to have been in the gas chamber after gassings (which would be most SK there I believe) they are also eyewitnesses. I have not seen any testimony from any of these people that contradict orthodoxy in a significant way. Incomplete description of the gas chamber and mechanism is not contradiction. It is only testimonies that rely on hearsay that contradict. This is a mark against your notion of conspiracy or polluted testimonies.

You say there are no "significant" contradictions, yet you have struggled to harmonize Kula and Tauber into something coherent.

Orthodoxy has traditionally ignored the details of the gas chambers as technical considerations have been thought to be unimportant (under the assumption that we already the know the Holocaust is true). Pressac and Van Pelt are the two who made some attempt to investigate the columns. To the extent the mainstream has a position on this, it's Van Pelt. But you have implicitly rejected Van Pelt's interpretation. You wouldn't have felt the need to do that if the testimonies were actually consistent and made sense.

[Archie]

We have mostly been talking about Kula vs Tauber in this thread and have mostly focused on Kula first statement. However it is worth noting that there's also the problem of reconciling Kula's own statements. In court he changed the dimensions of the columns rather dramatically. In particular, the column width was changed from 70 cm to only 24 cm. And the height was reduced from the original 3 meters. It seems the second statement is simply ignored for the most part.

[bombsaway]

Can you quote Kula's other testimony? One has been quoted in full. I suspect revisionists have manipulated the data, taken things out of context, to try to make this disrpecency harder to explain, if it even exists.