Kula Columns

[Stubble]

Well Mr Hill, you just don't understand how eyewitness testimony works you see.

Nessie was in the Police Service, so, he has the credentials to examine witnesses testimony critically, while you don't, so, he can tell you what to believe, because that's how his credentials work.

Now, if you have credentials or can notice something like the fact that a ventilation system is backwards, that's not worth anything.

That's just the way it is.

Witnesses don't have to agree on what something they saw repeatedly everyday looked like, how it worked or even what it was made of, because they all said it was there, and that everyone was gassed.

That's what's important...

[Nessie]

After that confident assertion there is no evidence....you go on to discuss the evidence....

....All the witnesses agree that there were columns. That they then vary with how they describe the columns, is to be expected.....

Here we have it again, friends: When eyewitness testimony is i) demonstrably contradictory,

What you call demonstrably contradictory, is just to be expected, variances in the details of descriptions. Tauber and Kula are clearly describing a metal column that the gas was poured into. Other witnesses, in testimony I have read, such as Gabbai, do not mention the column, but they also do not describe a gassing process that would mean a column was not used.

ii) operationally unfeasible

In your opinion, and arguing that because you think they are operationally infeasible, therefore they did not exists and all the witnesses lied, is a logically falwed argument.

and iii) unsupported by the material record,

That is not true. There is an inventory for Krema II that includes four wire mesh slide in devices and wooden covers.

.. our exterminationist friends will favour the testimony above all else.

You don't have a murder weapon, and no amount of kvetching will conjour one up.

The witnesses are corroborated and their evidence is not as problematic as you suggest. You dismiss witnesses based on your ignorance of witness behaviour and recall, using a logically flawed argument.

[Nessie]

Well Mr Hill, you just don't understand how eyewitness testimony works you see.

Nessie was in the Police Service, so, he has the credentials to examine witnesses testimony critically, while you don't, so, he can tell you what to believe, because that's how his credentials work.

I bring relevant experience and training, something that no revisionist has. A lack of relevant training and experience does not put revisionists off making definitive assertions, but they should be more self-aware that makes their conclusions inherently unreliable.

Now, if you have credentials or can notice something like the fact that a ventilation system is backwards, that's not worth anything.

The witness descriptions are not backwards. You are misrepresenting all the witnesses, by cherry-picking parts of the testimony and applying you own biased interpretation.

That's just the way it is.

Witnesses don't have to agree on what something they saw repeatedly everyday looked like, how it worked or even what it was made of, because they all said it was there, and that everyone was gassed.

The witnesses are consistent when they describe the process inside the Kremas. They then vary in the details, how they describe things and what they do and do not describe. That is what happens when multiple witnesses describe a major event. There is nothing unusual or unique to the witness testimony. Your zero experience of witnesses has led you to fall for the revisionist hoax.

That's what's important...

Don't believe me. Look up the easy to find studies about witness reliability, memory and recall and learn about corroboration and the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Revisionists do not want to do that, because they know learning more would result in their having to ditch their beloved opinionated, logically flawed assessment of witness evidence, that is designed to result in the conclusion that 100% of them are lying.

[Stubble]

Well Mr Hill, you just don't understand how eyewitness testimony works you see.

Nessie was in the Police Service, so, he has the credentials to examine witnesses testimony critically, while you don't, so, he can tell you what to believe, because that's how his credentials work.

I bring relevant experience and training, something that no revisionist has. A lack of relevant training and experience does not put revisionists off making definitive assertions, but they should be more self-aware that makes their conclusions inherently unreliable.

Now, if you have credentials or can notice something like the fact that a ventilation system is backwards, that's not worth anything.

The witness descriptions are not backwards. You are misrepresenting all the witnesses, by cherry-picking parts of the testimony and applying you own biased interpretation.

That's just the way it is.

Witnesses don't have to agree on what something they saw repeatedly everyday looked like, how it worked or even what it was made of, because they all said it was there, and that everyone was gassed.

The witnesses are consistent when they describe the process inside the Kremas. They then vary in the details, how they describe things and what they do and do not describe. That is what happens when multiple witnesses describe a major event. There is nothing unusual or unique to the witness testimony. Your zero experience of witnesses has led you to fall for the revisionist hoax.

That's what's important...

Don't believe me. Look up the easy to find studies about witness reliability, memory and recall and learn about corroboration and the logical fallacy of argument from incredulity. Revisionists do not want to do that, because they know learning more would result in their having to ditch their beloved opinionated, logically flawed assessment of witness evidence, that is designed to result in the conclusion that 100% of them are lying.

You don't know shit about ventilation, yet, you feel imminently qualified to disregard my credentials and experience in this regard.

Forgive me if I don't find you excuse about witness testimony here convincing because of your credentials and experience.

I mean, you honestly expect me to believe people who worked around these things can't even properly recall their shape (round or square), their construction (wire mesh or perforated metal), or whether or not the touched the floor?

Blow it out your ass Nessie. I'd have to be an absolute throwback to buy that line of crap.

Hell, at the very least they should agree on whether or not the damn things threw the pellets or collected them...

[Nessie]

....

You don't know shit about ventilation, yet, you feel imminently qualified to disregard my credentials and experience in this regard.

I am not qualified in any way to dismiss your opinion outright. Given the choice between the Topf & Sons ventilation engineer and you, I go with Schultze, because;

1 - he was there, you were not
2 - he is corroborated by evidence independent of him
3 - you are biased and rely on a logically flawed argument to reach your conclusion

Forgive me if I don't find you excuse about witness testimony here convincing because of your credentials and experience.

Then look up articles, experiments and studies on witness reliability, memory and recall.

https://www.psychologistworld.com/memor ... xperiments
https://nobaproject.com/modules/eyewitn ... ory-biases

I mean, you honestly expect me to believe people who worked around these things can't even properly recall their shape (round or square), their construction (wire mesh or perforated metal), or whether or not the touched the floor?

Yes and if you had any experience of taking statements, or hearing people give evidence, you would agree with me.

Blow it out your ass Nessie. I'd have to be an absolute throwback to buy that line of crap.

Hell, at the very least they should agree on whether or not the damn things threw the pellets or collected them...

You have conditioned yourself to find reasons to dismiss all the witnesses, and ignore your bias against them. That you conclude 100% of them are liars, without having read most of them, should be ringing alarm bells that you are not using a reliable, credible method for assessing the witnesses.

[Stubble]

Nessie, you have no idea what I have and haven't read. I have yet to find an honest witness.

I feel like Diogenes at noon with a lantern.

[Nessie]

Nessie, you have no idea what I have and haven't read. I have yet to find an honest witness.

I feel like Diogenes at noon with a lantern.

Of course you are yet to find someone you consider an honest witness, as you have already decided they are all lying and you use a flawed method to assess their truthfulness.

[Stubble]

Dude, that's not how I work things out, at all.

Do you think I just woke up one day, sat up, and said to myself, the holocaust is a lie...

No, no I didn't. I didn't form a conclusion and work backwards.

FFS I started out BELIEVING the holocaust and without any critical examination of the witnesses, the evidence or anything else.

It was a kind of, well, no matter what happens, I've got that whole holocaust thing handled...

I got high marks, I was a good student.

Then, I noticed something, if you make the slightest, and I mean the absolute slightest pull at any single thread of the official narrative, the thing will absolutely unravel in front of you.

The truth doesn't do that. You cannot unravel the truth like that. I know people are trying to with common core and this gender dysphoria crap, but, you just can't hide the truth and it doesn't evaporate under critical evaluation.

[Nessie]

Dude, that's not how I work things out, at all.

Do you think I just woke up one day, sat up, and said to myself, the holocaust is a lie...

No, no I didn't. I didn't form a conclusion and work backwards.

FFS I started out BELIEVING the holocaust and without any critical examination of the witnesses, the evidence or anything else.

At that point, you will have recognised that there is a lot of corroborating evidence to prove the Holocaust.

You then embarked on a deeply flawed "critical examination" of that evidence.

It was a kind of, well, no matter what happens, I've got that whole holocaust thing handled...

I got high marks, I was a good student.

Then, I noticed something, if you make the slightest, and I mean the absolute slightest pull at any single thread of the official narrative, the thing will absolutely unravel in front of you.

The truth doesn't do that. You cannot unravel the truth like that. I know people are trying to with common core and this gender dysphoria crap, but, you just can't hide the truth and it doesn't evaporate under critical evaluation.

That was you falling for the revisionist hoax, as you thought the evidence was unravelling, based on their deeply flawed methodology.

[Stubble]

Dude, I don't even use a lot of revisionist sources. I read the primary stuff...

You have a radical misconception of my journey.

[Nessie]

Dude, I don't even use a lot of revisionist sources. I read the primary stuff...

You have a radical misconception of my journey.

Then you hoaxed yourself, thinking you could assess witnesses and other evidence better than the experts.

[Stubble]

Whatever. I didn't hoax myself, I read testimony and statements. Then I read early 'supporting evidence'.

I also looked at required reading that contradicted the official narrative.

Then I looked at camp demographics and statistics for the Auschwitz Complexes.

Somewhere in there, I investigated claims about homicidal gassings with zyclon b.

You, unironically, sit here and tell me that people who worked in a building who can't describe a feature of that building coherently all worked in that building and that that feature was present.

That's not how reality works.

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

[Nessie]

Whatever. I didn't hoax myself, I read testimony and statements. Then I read early 'supporting evidence'.

I also looked at required reading that contradicted the official narrative.

Then I looked at camp demographics and statistics for the Auschwitz Complexes.

Somewhere in there, I investigated claims about homicidal gassings with zyclon b.

You, unironically, sit here and tell me that people who worked in a building who can't describe a feature of that building coherently all worked in that building and that that feature was present.

That's not how reality works.

How do you know that? You have zero experience of and done no research into witness evidence. Your argument is akin to claiming that unless someone can provide an error free, detailed description of the car they claim to own, and how it works, they are lying and they have never owned that car.

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

Yes, you have fallen for the argument from incredulity and erroneously think that if you believe something is ridiculous, therefore it did not happen.

[HansHill]

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

Yes, you have fallen for the argument from incredulity and erroneously think that if you believe something is ridiculous, therefore it did not happen.

This is not an argument from incredulity, i see you still seem to be struggling with this concept.

Rather this is observing two mutually exclusive contradictory proposed operational features of the murder weapon.

>Pellets stay inside the column
>Pellets fall out the bottom of the column

For obvious reasons, these are mutually exclusive and therefore contradictory.

Not a logical fallacy.

[Stubble]

Whatever. I didn't hoax myself, I read testimony and statements. Then I read early 'supporting evidence'.

I also looked at required reading that contradicted the official narrative.

Then I looked at camp demographics and statistics for the Auschwitz Complexes.

Somewhere in there, I investigated claims about homicidal gassings with zyclon b.

You, unironically, sit here and tell me that people who worked in a building who can't describe a feature of that building coherently all worked in that building and that that feature was present.

That's not how reality works.

How do you know that? You have zero experience of and done no research into witness evidence. Your argument is akin to claiming that unless someone can provide an error free, detailed description of the car they claim to own, and how it works, they are lying and they have never owned that car.

FFS, they can't even determine in they had to clean the pellets up off the floor because it distributed them, or if there was a system for retracting them.

This is beyond ridiculous. But, since I don't believe it, I hoaxed myself...

Yes, you have fallen for the argument from incredulity and erroneously think that if you believe something is ridiculous, therefore it did not happen.

If someone can't tell me if the car ran on gasoline or diesel, there is a problem.

Another one would be if they were unable to describe to me how to turn the car on, you know, how the ignition worked, or if the car had lap belts or shoulder restraint belts.

Those would be clues shaggy. They would raise doubts to me that they indeed owned their Corvette or Ferrari 512 or whatever.