HansHill wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 7:04 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2025 3:41 pm
...other evidence for the columns....
What utter drivel am I reading now? There is no evidence for the Kula columns whatsoever.
Material - they do not exist, nor have they ever been demonstrated to exist. It has never been shown how, where, or when they were supposedly affixed to the adjoining infrastructure, nor has the extant infrastructure been shown to contain any support mechanisms for these columns.
After that confident assertion there is no evidence....you go on to discuss the evidence.... It is quite comical how revisionists like to assert there is no evidence, as they discuss that very evidence. I think you do it, to distract yourself from what there really is no evidence for, such as people showering, or clothes being deloused, or corpses being stored, inside the Kremas 1943-4.
Eyewitnesses disagree fundamentally on the i) appearance, ii) operational design iii) functionality and iv) purpose of the columns. Additionally, they are an extremely poor attempt at a Deus Ex Machina solution for getting the pellets into the room and back out again, as the columns only serve to raise more questions than they answer.
Van Pelt, who's IQ is seemingly somewhere north of 100, realised all of the above and did his darnedest to make them work, but he really had an uphill battle on his hands, so it fell apart.
All the witnesses agree that there were columns. That they then vary with how they describe the columns, is to be expected. Witness memory and recall is not where near as good in the details, in reality, as to what revisionists think it should be. If you asked a dozen people, a year or so after they had visited the display of a replica column, to describe it, they would vary as to their dimensions & how they were made. Sorry, but you are just displaying your ignorance of witness behaviour and evidence.
Your opinion, on the functionality of the columns, has no evidential value. Just because you think they were a poor attempt, does not therefore mean they did not exist. You are trying to construct an argument from incredulity, which is a logically flawed argument. You do that, because you have no evidence.