Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[Archie]

Mattogno also said repeatedly there was " concordance of falsehood" between them and Kula and Tauber collabed in some way before changing his mind. There are nearly identical details between them, which would mean that from the perspective of conspiracy, they must depend on one another. Either Kula read Tauber's testimony and tried to copy, or vice versa, or they were directed by some group into describing such columns. Extremely concordant on minor details, but then in your mind, massively divergent in terms of one person saying a basket/can/box was raised whereas the other says the entire 10 foot column was taken out, a major detail. You can't have it both ways my friends, or maybe you can: the conspirators put in such discordance on purpose to make the testimonies seem organic!

Bombs, your Mattogno gambit didn't work. I don't know why you are still pushing that after it was blown out the water.

Remind me. Does Tauber give the exact same dimensions that Kula does? If so, I would agree that would strongly suggest direct borrowing. But the description below seems general enough that I think he would just need to have been familiar with the idea of the wire-mesh columns.

The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid, there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.

It is broadly similar but with a major contradiction, the can on the wire, which you have failed to address. Your first attempt at harmonization was to say that Kula was describing the same thing in different words, but Pressac doesn't agree with that. And Van Pelt wouldn't either if you pressed him on it (he steps over the problem in his book).

Both witnesses were interviewed at around the same time as part of the Jan Sehn investigation. So why do you rule out cross-pollination here?

From Tauber's statement:

I imagine that during the period in which I worked in the Krematorien as a member of the Sonderkommando, a total of about 2 million people were gassed. During my time in Auschwitz, I was able to talk to various prisoners who had worked in the Krematorien and the Bunkers before my arrival. They told me that I was not among the first to do this work, and that before I came another 2 million people had already been gassed in Bunkers 1 and 2 and Krematorium I. Adding up, the total number of people gassed in Auschwitz amounted to about 4 million.

His references to the ridiculous 4 million number comes, whether directly or indirectly, from the May 1945 Soviet investigation. This is evidence of contamination of cross-pollination.

Likewise Kula recounts things he would not have had direct knowledge of.

Then they began to build gigantic crematoria. They were set up so that the victims could not understand where they were taken. Each crematorium had two gas chambers, one for 1,500 and one for 2,000 people. There was a special concrete ski-jump [skocznie, meaning chute] on which the people were thrown from the truck, [whose load bed] tipped automatically, and in this way the people were falling into the gas chambers.

Clearly he's repeating garbled versions of stories he's heard.

[bombsaway]

Remind me. Does Tauber give the exact same dimensions that Kula does? If so, I would agree that would strongly suggest direct borrowing. But the description below seems general enough that I think he would just need to have been familiar with the idea of the wire-mesh columns.

It's not some general thing. He repeats 3 layers of grid, with decreasing sized openings.

This is very specific. Even you I think assumed the openings were the same size.

The major contradiction is between a box/basket/can being raised, and part of column being raised. I don't for a moment consider that Kula was suggesting the entire 10 foot column was extracted every time gassing was completed.

You are nitpicking, and now moving to different arguments because even you see this one is not sufficient.

A can can be rectangular by the way.

[Archie]

Remind me. Does Tauber give the exact same dimensions that Kula does? If so, I would agree that would strongly suggest direct borrowing. But the description below seems general enough that I think he would just need to have been familiar with the idea of the wire-mesh columns.

It's not some general thing. He repeats 3 layers of grid, with decreasing sized openings.

This is very specific. Even you I think assumed the openings were the same size.

The major contradiction is between a box/basket/can being raised, and part of column being raised. I don't for a moment consider that Kula was suggesting the entire 10 foot column was extracted every time gassing was completed.

You are nitpicking, and now moving to different arguments because even you see this one is not sufficient.

A can can be rectangular by the way.

The only way I can see for you to reconcile the contradiction would be to say the the can on the wire was added to the system later and Kula did not know about it because he was only involved in manufacturing the layers of wire mesh. Of course, with the removable can on the wire design, the inner layers of the column would be superfluous. You would just need an outer cage.

[bombsaway]

The only way I can see for you to reconcile the contradiction would be to say the the can on the wire was added to the system later and Kula did not know about it because he was only involved in manufacturing the layers of wire mesh. Of course, with the removable can on the wire design, the inner layers of the column would be superfluous. You would just need an outer cage.

No there are way more possible reasons than that, like the witness had imperfect recall or couldn't properly describe an intricate mechanism. When you say "The only way " this reveals your fundamental unreasonableness. You treat the possibility of Tauber struggling to describe the mechanism and using imprecise language as one so remote it doesn't merit consideration. You really don't know much about people do you, or you don't want to know, because something deep within you is screaming LIAR CONSPIRACY etc . probably.

[Archie]

The only way I can see for you to reconcile the contradiction would be to say the the can on the wire was added to the system later and Kula did not know about it because he was only involved in manufacturing the layers of wire mesh. Of course, with the removable can on the wire design, the inner layers of the column would be superfluous. You would just need an outer cage.

No there are way more possible reasons than that, like the witness had imperfect recall or couldn't properly describe an intricate mechanism. When you say "The only way " this reveals your fundamental unreasonableness. You treat the possibility of Tauber struggling to describe the mechanism and using imprecise language as one so remote it doesn't merit consideration. You really don't know much about people do you, or you don't want to know, because something deep within you is screaming LIAR CONSPIRACY etc . probably.

If you have a better explanation than mine, why don't you just explain what it is rather than resorting to empty insults? This is pure evasion on your part. It seems you resort to this behavior when you're doing poorly.

"imperfect recall" - is that your best explanation? If these two witnesses had only glanced at the columns, or seen them from afar, or heard about them secondhand, then I might be willing to buy that. But if Kula manufactured these things personally and gives us extremely detailed measurements and specs, "imperfect recall" isn't a very compelling excuse. If he doesn't remember, why does he say it was exactly 70 cm etc? Makes no sense if he "doesn't remember." And Tauber would have seen numerous gassings, so he should be very familiar with how it was done.

You can't use "imperfect recall" as a get out of jail free car. It doesn't work like that. You can't gloss over every contradiction the way. You should think about whether that explanation makes sense in a particular instance. It doesn't make sense in cases where the witness is claiming highly detailed technical knowledge and/or worked with the columns for an extended period. Incidentally, Nessie seems more inclined to my explanation over yours, i.e., he thinks they changed the design; that Nessie of all people isn't even willing to attribute this contradiction to "imperfect recall" when he uses that excuse all the time should be a hint to you that you've lost the plot. Assuming that even is your theory? How would I know when you refuse to explain explain yourself? You seem to make your posts deliberately vague and unclear so that you can't be held to any particular position.

"You treat the possibility of Tauber struggling to describe the mechanism and using imprecise language as one so remote it doesn't merit consideration."

I will hear you out on that if that's what you think (is it?), but you need to make the argument. Look at Van Pelt's drawing which I have posted for you multiple times now and which you have ignored. Van Pelt accepts Tauber's description as basically accurate and shows a removable can on a wire. He doesn't think Tauber's language was imprecise. Do you disagree with Van Pelt? If you have a different view, you need to tell us what it is. We can't read your mind. Stop beating around the bush.

[HansHill]

Your buddie Nessie in the slop forum has already acknowledged they are describing different mechanisms, he has noted one is pre-modification and one is post-modification, with the post-modification variant the one agreed upon by historians as the one used for murder. It's rare for me to say this but you are probably better of taking Nessie's lead on this.

This divergence is not insignificant, firstly because it aligns directly with Revisionist critiques (the original point under discussion) that there is divergence between the gold standard* first hand accounts.

And secondly, because Kula's account is considered so important because he was the guy """who constructed them""" he is considered the gold standard. If his version of the columns wasn't even the alleged methods used for gassings, then he is categorically NOT describing the murder weapon as the actual gassings used a modification and different mechanism for introduction and retrieval.

You stepped on a huge rake with this one dude, and continue stepping on rakes all over the place, casting doubt over Kula's central column and your pivot to Mattogno. Take the L - their accounts diverge to the extent they are describing different mechanisms and methods.

*Both Kula and Tauber are considered your gold standard, first because Kula is the "creator" of the column, and commentators and historians alike (such as Pressac) are so blown away by Tauber's ability to recall the building layout with precision lacking by basically everyone else, they break their arms patting each other on the back

[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.

[Archie]

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

That's on you since you refuse to explain your position. I can't even tell if you agree with Van Pelt or if you favor your own boutique theory.

You believe these columns actually existed in physical reality. So what were they like and how did they work? Or is it impossible to know? From what I can tell, your position is that you are not quite sure and you don't care. We can be confident there were columns of some sort because the witnesses "agree." It doesn't matter if it's wire mesh or perforated sheet metal. It doesn't matter how many layers there might have been. It doesn't matter if there was a removable central column or if there was a can with a wire or if it was a spiral design. It doesn't matter if the column was 70 cm or 24 cm. It doesn't matter if the column was open at the bottom. And if someone doesn't mention columns at all, that's fine too. None of this should in any way cause us to wonder if perhaps these witnesses are not describing something they actually saw IRL. To think that would be a sign of severe mental illness.

I disagree with you that these are minor issues. These columns have never been produced, nor have plans for them ever been produced. We must rely entirely on these contradictory testimonies along with a single ambiguous reference on an inventory document that could refer to almost anything. There are important technical implications, depending on which version of the story is assumed.

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.

You still haven't explained what you think the "correct" version is or how you know.

And now you pile on more insults, completely unprovoked, to evade discussion of these points. You say we are dodging "the profusion of evidence" when we are in fact attempting to discuss the most important two witnesses and you are the one dragging your feet, trying to gloss over everything, and saying nothing matters. It's not like this is going to go better for you when we extend this exercise to further witnesses!

[bombsaway]

I'm not even insulting you, to say that you have a pathology is descriptive for me.

I don't know what the exact mechanism was, what the dimensions were, etc. We only have descriptions to go by. Map is not the territory. I will give you a definitive 'no' to a 10 foot column being extracted every time gassing was concluded.

I think the pellets were distributed to the sides of the wire mesh collumn, then through some mechanism (which I don't think any witness described) after gassing was concluded, slots were opened and the pellets were allowed to fall into the basket. Maybe the basket gets lowered opening flaps automatically once it is in place and the pellets fall in.

Note that what I've done here probably exceeds everything you've written about one of the largest conspiracies in history, necessarily involving hundreds of witnesses and alleged perpetrators, Holocaust museum and site administrators/leadership, and more. There was also a resettlement operation, which according to Korherr would have involved 1 million plus people you've never said anything about. You ask or demand me to explain the columns to you and have absolutely nothing to say about how resettlement of a small country's worth of people in the greatest warzone in history would have worked. This is why I call you pathological. You still label me as dodging when you have done so on a far greater level. The self denial of your own hypocrisy here is stunning.

[Archie]

I'm not even insulting you, to say that you have a pathology is descriptive for me.

You know what an insult is. Dial it back with all the insults if you want to remain on the forum. This rule is in everyone's interest. Insults from one side lead to insults from the other, and this quickly leads to a general deterioration in the discussion.

I don't know what the exact mechanism was, what the dimensions were, etc. We only have descriptions to go by. Map is not the territory. I will give you a definitive 'no' to a 10 foot column being extracted every time gassing was concluded.

I think the pellets were distributed to the sides of the wire mesh collumn, then through some mechanism (which I don't think any witness described) after gassing was concluded, slots were opened and the pellets were allowed to fall into the basket. Maybe the basket gets lowered opening flaps automatically once it is in place and the pellets fall in.

Okay, so you are making up your own thing. It would have been nice if you had told us this on page one instead of making us guess and then complaining about us "not understanding" your posts. Good to know you are imagining some completely novel mechanism hitherto unknown in the Holocaust literature.

Note that what I've done here probably exceeds everything you've written about one of the largest conspiracies in history, necessarily involving hundreds of witnesses and alleged perpetrators, Holocaust museum and site administrators/leadership, and more. There was also a resettlement operation, which according to Korherr would have involved 1 million plus people you've never said anything about. You ask or demand me to explain the columns to you and have absolutely nothing to say about how resettlement of a small country's worth of people in the greatest warzone in history would have worked. This is why I call you pathological. You still label me as dodging when you have done so on a far greater level. The self denial of your own hypocrisy here is stunning.

If you want to discuss resettlement, take it to one of the resettlement threads. If you don't want to discuss the Kula columns (you obviously don't) then you should bow out of this discussion. If you're going to jump into a thread and make a bunch of posts and act all cocky, I think it's more than fair to ask you to clarify what your position is. In the resettlement threads, I think I have pretty upfront about my thoughts on the topic. I don't think it's a conclusive point, so I prefer to focus on the stuff that I can actually check and that's more directly relevant to the question at hand.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…You ask or demand me to explain the [alleged] Kula columns to you
and have absolutely nothing to say about how
resettlement …would have worked…

Your logical fallacy is called “moving the goalposts”.

It’s also called HolyH whack-a-mole:

Can’t defend your position on the Kula columns discrepancies
or any other holyH sacrosanct belief?
No problem!
Whenever your point is conclusively struck down
have hours of fun by just immediately moving your argument
to some other bogus but sacrosanct holyH topic.
Repeat the tactic indefinitely!

[HansHill]

I don't know what the exact mechanism was, what the dimensions were, etc. We only have descriptions to go by. Map is not the territory. I will give you a definitive 'no' to a 10 foot column being extracted every time gassing was concluded.

I think the pellets were distributed to the sides of the wire mesh collumn, then through some mechanism (which I don't think any witness described) after gassing was concluded, slots were opened and the pellets were allowed to fall into the basket. Maybe the basket gets lowered opening flaps automatically once it is in place and the pellets fall in.

Finally we are getting somewhere - I appreciate the clarity although you could have said this ~4-5 pages ago and I could have saved all the time probing the ACTUAL eyewitness descriptions as given.

So to be clear, the murder weapon in the most iconic and voluminous murder site in the most documented genocide in history operated via some mechanisms which are not described.

I guess the next logical question is to ask you: "why do you deviate from the eyewitnesses and experts?"