Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[Wahrheitssucher]

Plausibly, who or what orginzations might have come up with the Kula column idea?
Then, what was their strategy in getting witnesses, both German and their former prisoners, to proclaim their existence?

Is there some truth to the Kula columns…?
…I'm asking you to speculate about how these stories came about in the way they did.

So this time-waster has moved the topic yet again.
Now he wants an explanation of how a false narrative was created, by whom, and why others started to repeat it.

SUMMARY:
This is akin to a person being demolished on their belief in fairies and unicorns and demanding an explanation of how the mythology was created, by whom, and why there are so many stories in various cultures including them BEFORE they will accept reality.

To the person with a username that trivialises mass-murder of civilians by calling themself BombsAway:
Listen up, bro:
just as unicorns NEVER existed, so too your kula columns never existed.
Nor did Krema roof holes exist to which the non-existent columns were supposedly attached.

There is no credible, verifiable evidence of mass-gassings!
Not i.) on the scale claimed, at ii.) the sites claimed, nor with iii.) the methods claimed!

Give it up now. Face reality!

This illustration is part of the mythology you NOW want detailed explaining of ‘how’ and by ‘whom’:



You are like a child attached to tales for immature minds stubbornly persisting in belief of unicorns:

[Wetzelrad]

This is your strongest witness that contradicts the narrative majorly? OK. I think that says something.

Lol, the gall of you to even say this. You don't have a single witness who agrees with your conception of the gas chambers but still you try to shift the burden.

If you really want to discuss more witnesses you should post them yourself and show how they agree with you. Failing that, the contradictory witnesses you've already been shown in this thread are well in excess of what is called for.

The pattern which you're not addressing is that the "strong witnesses" (ones that claim firsthand experience, close proximity, repeated exposure) have a different story than the ones who are weaker. This is precisely the discrepancy I've been talking about and which you have not addressed.

We've already gone back and forth on this. Your position is akin to saying that witnesses to UFOs and witches are stronger the more they talk about grey aliens and apparations. There is no rebuttal to this.

Just like I speculated about the Kula columns functions given the incomplete evidence, I'm asking you to speculate about how these stories came about in the way they did.

This could be the subject of a new thread if you're really interested. I don't find any difficulty in speculating, but it won't be productive to the larger debate.

You add "gas bombs" to your list, but that is actually a pretty solid proof of the witnesses not being independent. It would be difficult to confuse throwing a bomb with pouring Zyklon granules out of a can. This false detail could not have been corroborated by many witnesses (some named above) without some form of cross pollination.

You talk about witness independence as if it's something we don't know about or aren't taking into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony Mainstream sources say that this is very common with witness evidence, and a reason why witness evidence is unreliable, less accurate. I would this actually explains a lot of the inaccuracies in testimonies that revisionists like to cherry pick as proof of a conspiracy or liars. If the contention is merely that witness evidence is unreliable, I agree.

Okay, so they weren't independent? You agree that witnesses copied each others' homework with the gas bombs?

And yet the SK, those who worked in the crematoria area, not in separate districts of the camp, were much more consistent on the major details, such as zyklon being poured in through holes and columns. You aren't explaining why.

You haven't demonstrated that consistency in this thread. Again, here is a link to where Germar Rudolf did the work of listing out in a digestible format how the witnesses claimed gas was introduced:
https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/techn ... n-devices/

He even did us the courtesy of listing which were direct witnesses and which were hearsay. If the pattern of consistency is there, it's not a strong or obvious one.

If you feel that the SK were particuarly consistent, despite your not being willing to demonstrate it, fine, but that still would only point back to collaboration or cross pollination. This isn't difficult to wrap your mind around, and I shouldn't have to keep explaining it.

Not even true, this from Aug 1944 according to Mattogno:


“After the examination, the people are led to an underground room – a dressing room resembling one in a public bath. Once undressed, the people go to
the next room – a [shower] bath which has faucets and shower [heads], but
never any water. This room has 4 (four) lattice columns leading to the roof of
the building. After the ‘bath’ has been filled to capacity with people (who
stand very close to each other), the doors are hermetically closed. Through the
apertures on the top of the columns, some powdery substance is poured in, a
substance which emits a toxic gas, so the people begin to asphyxiate. The suffocation process lasts 10-15 minutes.”

That's a good example counter to my point, but I take from this that this is the only example you can find. Practically every wartime report that I've read, where they made any mention of the method of gassing, described it wrongly as gas from shower heads or air ducts or bombs or other creations. These from 1942 on.

So again I pose the question. Contemporary accounts are usually assigned higher credibility than those made years after the fact. These accounts, even if they are hearsay, could only have originated from eyewitnesses to the gas chambers, i.e. the very SK you champion. If there really was a wireframe gassing device in the two biggest crematoria, why did it take until August 1944 for anyone to say so? What makes the later wireframe gassing theory more credible than the earlier multitude of accounts that gas was emitted through pipes and shower heads?

The above is a common sense approach. I don't expect you to answer.

The FG report is from 1943 and mentions the columns, there's probably other contemporaneous mentions.

I'm surprised you would cite Eric Lipmann's report. It doesn't even have a date, much less one in 1943, and the language it uses is a perfect example of what one would write if one were forging a document to incriminate someone.

[bombsaway]

Let's simplify this. Do you disagree with my expectation?

We have that Mattogno book now that is full of witness testimonies. We can run it through AI. Would you expect that as we find stronger testimonies (with firsthand experience being the main determinant here) they skew closer to orthodoxy?

Should I prove it to you?

I think under your hypothesis, all details related to extermination activities are complete lies, you would expect parity between the firsthand and hearsay testimonies, because firsthand testimonies effectively don't exist (because gassings didn't happen, there was nothing to see).

[Wetzelrad]

Let's simplify this. Are you saying this not true?

We've already been over this.

I think under your hypothesis, all details related to extermination activities are complete lies, you would expect parity between the firsthand and hearsay testimonies, because firsthand testimonies effectively don't exist (because gassings didn't happen, there was nothing to see).

There isn't even parity within firsthand testimonies or within hearsay testimonies, so I don't find the comparison between them impressive at all.

Again, you can look at UFO-logy for a good analog. Here is an extensive chronological list of different types of reported alien encounters and beliefs, which demonstrates how the narratives have evolved over time. Your trick is to take just one of these categories, perhaps the most recent, and then assert that it is the most credible because it partially corroborates itself while partially contradicting earlier reports. But UFOs are a hoax!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_consp ... y_theories

[bombsaway]

The parity that I'm talking about is closeness to a given narrative, especially when it comes to major details.

We wouldn't expect hearsay testimonies to be detailed, but we can expect them to go into major details, like the method of killing. It's patently obvious to me that the firsthand ones are MUCH more similar on this front. When it comes to the SK and the alleged perpetrators, I haven't seen a single one where they describe a totally a different mechanism of killing, like gas being piped in. I'm just repeating myself, but I find it hard to believe you would disagree with this, it's so obvious.

[HansHill]

This must surely be one of the worst debating performances I have ever seen.

Bombsaway claiming that the Sonderkommando descriptions, to which he himself has spent the last ~month making additions, amendments, tweaks and liberties, to both the design and function, somehow lend each other strength by virtue of corroboration (!), despite his retrospective departures from each description, is beyond absurd.

>”See! They all say the same thing!”
>”Just need to change them all, brb”

[bombsaway]

On the major details they do say the same thing, like that gas was dropped in from the roof. On the minor details, which are a problem with witness testimony, they differ. The hearsay testimonies differ on the major details.

You call me a bad debater, I say you are willfully ignoring this because you are pathologically incapable of self reflection on this subject.

[Stubble]

This must surely be one of the worst debating performances I have ever seen.

Bombsaway claiming that the Sonderkommando descriptions, to which he himself has spent the last ~month making additions, amendments, tweaks and liberties, to both the design and function, somehow lend each other strength by virtue of corroboration (!), despite his retrospective departures from each description, is beyond absurd.

>”See! They all say the same thing!”
>”Just need to change them all, brb”

You effectively ended this thread yesterday and your synopsis was on point Sir. I don't think I have ever seen it put so succinctly as when you highlighted and outlined the various problems in your bullet point.

Well done Sir.

I think we can stick a fork in this one.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…I say you …are pathologically incapable of self reflection on this subject.

(Oh boy!)

Please can we end this now?

Let’s end it with BA resorting to psychological projection and ‘ad hominem’.

That seems an appropriate end-point.

[HansHill]

Josef Erber (formerly Josef Houstek) joins Tauber in describing the tin-inside-column delivery method.

In each of these gassing areas [of the crematoria [II and III] in Birkenau] were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim. Attached to this tin was a wire by which it could be pulled up to the roof. When the lids were lifted, one could pull up the tin canister and shake the gas crystals into it. Then the canister was lowered, and the lid closed.

Fleming, Gerald, Hitler and the Final Solution, 1984, p. 188.

Jamie MacCarthy offers us this line of commentary:

The "four iron pipes" are presumably the four corners around which the outside mesh was wrapped. The tin canister lowered by a wire may be an earlier, or later, version of the inside "wire basket" described by Kula.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... o-columns/

Since MacCarthy notices this, and opines that the delivery mechasism is a modification of Kula's description, he (she?) understands the issue we are pointing to here. MacCarthy is smart to offer us this interpretation, despite it being complete conjecture. The wrong move is what we have seen all thread by Bombsaway who attempts (and fails) to synthesize both delivery mechanisms.

[bombsaway]

You guys aren't reading my posts properly. I never said I knew the reason for the discrepancy within Tauber's testimonies.

He described it as a basket and a can. Nessie could be right that the method changed, but in that case why would he describe it correctly (basket) in one testimony and not in the other?

More likely he had imperfect recall or just didn't describe it properly. If you ask Nessie will he say this is impossible?

There's no argument to be made really. People imperfectly convey reality with language, this is a well known thing. Map is not the territory. You're treating a possible mix up between calling something a can and a basket, as if it as unlikely as confusing an elephant and a basket. Your posts are littered with insults towards me so it's fair for me to psychoanalyze a bit and call you nitpickers to a pathological degree.

And cowards. Probably this is also pathological. You have not addressed the profusion of evidence about the columns, you don't want to look at yourselves in the mirror and examine the conspiracy you actually believe in.

I said above the method may have changed. Btw Tauber never said they were lowered in a can:

"The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in 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
silica [carrier] removed.

my last sentence is still true by the way -- no one has addressed the profusion of evidence, other then to say - well obviously they were forced to say these things. There is no evidence at all of this. It's 100% speculation. Meanwhile what we know about the Kula columns come from testimony, and though every aspect hasn't been fully clarified, most of them have been, so at least orthodoxy is going on something.

[Archie]

I said above the method may have changed.

You never committed to that. The idea that there was an undocumented change in the design was Nessie's suggestion. Nessie, to his credit, recognized that the descriptions were obviously contradictory and that was his way of dealing with it. You, by and large, were making a different argument. You were stubbornly insistent that the descriptions were not contradictory and your impulse was to argue for a version that incorporated the elements of both stories into a single combined version.

Btw Tauber never said they were lowered in a can:

He describes no mechanism for getting the pellets into the can (nor does anyone else), so the implication is that the pellets simply stayed in the can, and that's how basically everyone interprets it (including Van Pelt, judging from his diagram). Your proposal introduces numerous novel features that no witness ever mentioned. And it would not work in any case.

the profusion of evidence

There's no proof these columns ever existed, and no one can explain how they worked.

[bombsaway]

"the profusion of evidence"

There's no proof these columns ever existed, and no one can explain how they worked.

When I ask about your far less evidenced and more speculative theory, you can only point to gaps in the record that make things uncertain.

Unlike you, I did offer a full technical explanation, which has not rebutted.