Kula Columns

[Nessie]

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.

You use that contradiction as a reason to dismiss the witnesses as liars. The contradiction means you cannot work out how the columns could have functioned and therefore conclude they did not exist and the witnesses lied. That is the fallacy.

[Nessie]

....

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.

I agree, if someone cannot describe the basics, that is suspect. Every single witness who worked inside a Krema describes exactly the same basic process of mass arrivals, removal of property, people entering chambers where they were gassed and the corpses cremated. There is no variation from that basic process. The witnesses then vary in the details such as how many were gassed, which would have varied over time anyway, and how the gas chambers were ventilated. They also vary in what details they include in their testimony, hence some mention the columns and others do not. They are on camp records as having been there, they sometimes name each other and they are corroborated by other evidence. The documents pertaining to the use of the Kremas, also follow that same basic process.

Anyone who has ever worked on a major investigation, the courts, journalists and historians all know that when the basics are the same, but the details vary, that is a sign of no collusion and people are relating what they saw, or heard about, from their personal perspective and experience.

Revisionists erroneously regard any variance in details as evidence of lying and to help prop that belief up, they misrepresent and exaggerate what the witnesses said. I am forever having to ask revisionists to link to, name and quote the witness they claim has made some sort of wild claim. They have decided that gassing is a lie, so they need a reason to dismiss all of the witnesses as liars.

[Stubble]

....

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.

I agree, if someone cannot describe the basics, that is suspect. Every single witness who worked inside a Krema describes exactly the same basic process of mass arrivals, removal of property, people entering chambers where they were gassed and the corpses cremated. There is no variation from that basic process. The witnesses then vary in the details such as how many were gassed, which would have varied over time anyway, and how the gas chambers were ventilated. They also vary in what details they include in their testimony, hence some mention the columns and others do not. They are on camp records as having been there, they sometimes name each other and they are corroborated by other evidence. The documents pertaining to the use of the Kremas, also follow that same basic process.

Anyone who has ever worked on a major investigation, the courts, journalists and historians all know that when the basics are the same, but the details vary, that is a sign of no collusion and people are relating what they saw, or heard about, from their personal perspective and experience.

Revisionists erroneously regard any variance in details as evidence of lying and to help prop that belief up, they misrepresent and exaggerate what the witnesses said. I am forever having to ask revisionists to link to, name and quote the witness they claim has made some sort of wild claim. They have decided that gassing is a lie, so they need a reason to dismiss all of the witnesses as liars.

Whether or not you have to sweep up hydrogen cyanide pellets isn't a mundane detail, it is a very specific point.

Again, according to the lore, the columns were to do away with this problem.

Also, the descriptions are not only varied, but quite specific. Look at Muller and his description. It is incongruent with the orthodox narrative and he had decades to get it right. He is also oddly specific about the materials and the construction. He is also specific about the operation.

That's not a guess or faulty memory.

It is like Vrba's floor plan. By the way, at the Zundel trial Vrba specifically stated that he drew that floor plan. You had asked me earlier if I could prove that he did, well, no, I didn't watch him do it. He said that he did in response to a direct question on the stand though.

[Stubble]

Whether or not you have to sweep up hydrogen cyanide pellets isn't a mundane detail, it is a very specific point.

Again, according to the lore, the columns were to do away with this problem.

Also, the descriptions are not only varied, but quite specific. Look at Muller and his description. It is incongruent with the orthodox narrative and he had decades to get it right. He is also oddly specific about the materials and the construction. He is also specific about the operation.

That's not a guess or faulty memory.

How do you know that? What study of memory and witness recollection are you basing your claim that his inaccuracies are definitive proof he is lying? Please link to that study.

Muller relates the same basic process that the other witnesses do and the documents record. That means he has passed the corroboration test. He is recorded as being at the camp and he either is named by or he names others who were there. So he passes the identification test. That his details then vary, means he does not do so well at the reliability, accuracy and credibility tests. But, you ignore the tests he passes and exaggerate the issues over details, to make him out to be a liar. Your assessment of his testimony is inaccurate. If Muller was describing something you were prepared to accept, you would not call him a liar. Since he describes gassings, that you have decided did not happen, you need to find excuses to call him a liar. Your assessment is biased.

It is like Vrba's floor plan. By the way, at the Zundel trial Vrba specifically stated that he drew that floor plan. You had asked me earlier if I could prove that he did, well, no, I didn't watch him do it. He said that he did in response to a direct question on the stand.

You keep on missing out the word "rough". It was a "rough ground plan", meaning do not take it literally or as it being accurate.

Nessie, that he describes gassings isn't the problem...

The problem is his description of the kula columns and of uniform distribution of pellets in the corpse cellar. Not gas, pellets.

He made that shit up.

Vrba claims he is the main source of descriptions. From those descriptions we end up with the Auschwitz rollercoaster, 9 furnaces and a partridge in a pear tree...

Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit, this is impossible because he was demonstrably at buna.

Again, he lied.

/shrug

It isn't about his description, it is about demonstrable lies and specific descriptions that are not congruent with the narrative.

[Nessie]

....

I agree, if someone cannot describe the basics, that is suspect. Every single witness who worked inside a Krema describes exactly the same basic process of mass arrivals, removal of property, people entering chambers where they were gassed and the corpses cremated. There is no variation from that basic process. The witnesses then vary in the details such as how many were gassed, which would have varied over time anyway, and how the gas chambers were ventilated. They also vary in what details they include in their testimony, hence some mention the columns and others do not. They are on camp records as having been there, they sometimes name each other and they are corroborated by other evidence. The documents pertaining to the use of the Kremas, also follow that same basic process.

Anyone who has ever worked on a major investigation, the courts, journalists and historians all know that when the basics are the same, but the details vary, that is a sign of no collusion and people are relating what they saw, or heard about, from their personal perspective and experience.

Revisionists erroneously regard any variance in details as evidence of lying and to help prop that belief up, they misrepresent and exaggerate what the witnesses said. I am forever having to ask revisionists to link to, name and quote the witness they claim has made some sort of wild claim. They have decided that gassing is a lie, so they need a reason to dismiss all of the witnesses as liars.

Whether or not you have to sweep up hydrogen cyanide pellets isn't a mundane detail, it is a very specific point.

Again, according to the lore, the columns were to do away with this problem.

Also, the descriptions are not only varied, but quite specific. Look at Muller and his description. It is incongruent with the orthodox narrative and he had decades to get it right. He is also oddly specific about the materials and the construction. He is also specific about the operation.

That's not a guess or faulty memory.

So you keep asserting. You need to show me evidence to prove that those details are sufficient to prove that Muller and all the other witnesses who say there were homicidal gas chambers inside Kremas I to V, were lying and there were no such gas chambers. I go into more detail here;

viewtopic.php?p=3449#p3449

It is like Vrba's floor plan. By the way, at the Zundel trial Vrba specifically stated that he drew that floor plan. You had asked me earlier if I could prove that he did, well, no, I didn't watch him do it. He said that he did in response to a direct question on the stand though.

The "rough ground plan". Not the floor plan.

[Nessie]

....

Nessie, that he describes gassings isn't the problem...

The problem is his description of the kula columns and of uniform distribution of pellets in the corpse cellar. Not gas, pellets.

He made that shit up.

He describes the Kula Columns differently to other witnesses. He is clearly describing the same thing, so he has the basics right, his details vary. That is not proof he lied about the existence of the columns.

Vrba claims he is the main source of descriptions. From those descriptions we end up with the Auschwitz rollercoaster, 9 furnaces and a partridge in a pear tree...

Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit, this is impossible because he was demonstrably at buna.

Again, he lied.

/shrug

It isn't about his description, it is about demonstrable lies and specific descriptions that are not congruent with the narrative.

Can you quote Vrba saying he was inside the Krema? I think from now on, when you are accusing witnesses of lying, you need to link to and quote them.

You take anything that is erroneous in any way and claim it is evidence of a lie. You need to show me evidence, from the study of witnesses, to prove that.

[HansHill]

.....The contradiction means you cannot work out how the columns could have functioned and therefore conclude they did not exist and the witnesses lied. That is the fallacy......

This is embarrassing for you. It is not my obligation to fix your impossible murder weapon. As an interested third party, my only obligation is to observe, assess, and opine on the claims as presented. In observing we find contradictory claims, and opining on those, and communicating them as such is not a logical fallacy

This is despicable stuff.

[Stubble]

....

Nessie, that he describes gassings isn't the problem...

The problem is his description of the kula columns and of uniform distribution of pellets in the corpse cellar. Not gas, pellets.

He made that shit up.

He describes the Kula Columns differently to other witnesses. He is clearly describing the same thing, so he has the basics right, his details vary. That is not proof he lied about the existence of the columns.

Vrba claims he is the main source of descriptions. From those descriptions we end up with the Auschwitz rollercoaster, 9 furnaces and a partridge in a pear tree...

Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit, this is impossible because he was demonstrably at buna.

Again, he lied.

/shrug

It isn't about his description, it is about demonstrable lies and specific descriptions that are not congruent with the narrative.

Can you quote Vrba saying he was inside the Krema? I think from now on, when you are accusing witnesses of lying, you need to link to and quote them.

You take anything that is erroneous in any way and claim it is evidence of a lie. You need to show me evidence, from the study of witnesses, to prove that.

Round, perforated sheet tin and with a spiral in the center to insure even distribution of the pellets in the room. No, that is not a general description of a kula column. That's a description of a Muller column. And he had decades to make up his mind and get it right. And still, he says, this...

The only thing consistent with the others is 'a' description. Nothing about it is even close to similar.

What? No, Vrba said that Muller was his main source. Vrba was never in the krema to my knowledge.

On the stand at the Zundel trial he said that he drew that floorplan though, you had asked about it previously and I was providing clarity because I have found where he said he penned it on the stand in the witness box.

[Nessie]

.....The contradiction means you cannot work out how the columns could have functioned and therefore conclude they did not exist and the witnesses lied. That is the fallacy......

This is embarrassing for you. It is not my obligation to fix your impossible murder weapon. As an interested third party, my only obligation is to observe, assess, and opine on the claims as presented. In observing we find contradictory claims, and opining on those, and communicating them as such is not a logical fallacy

This is despicable stuff.

Using those contradictions to claim the impossibility of the murder weapon, to conclude that all the witnesses lied and there were no gas chambers with columns inside it to introduce the gas, meets the definition of argument from incredulity.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ncredulity

"Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed."

[Nessie]

....

Nessie, that he describes gassings isn't the problem...

The problem is his description of the kula columns and of uniform distribution of pellets in the corpse cellar. Not gas, pellets.

He made that shit up.

He describes the Kula Columns differently to other witnesses. He is clearly describing the same thing, so he has the basics right, his details vary. That is not proof he lied about the existence of the columns.

Vrba claims he is the main source of descriptions. From those descriptions we end up with the Auschwitz rollercoaster, 9 furnaces and a partridge in a pear tree...

Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit, this is impossible because he was demonstrably at buna.

Again, he lied.

/shrug

It isn't about his description, it is about demonstrable lies and specific descriptions that are not congruent with the narrative.

Can you quote Vrba saying he was inside the Krema? I think from now on, when you are accusing witnesses of lying, you need to link to and quote them.

You take anything that is erroneous in any way and claim it is evidence of a lie. You need to show me evidence, from the study of witnesses, to prove that.

Round, perforated sheet tin and with a spiral in the center to insure even distribution of the pellets in the room. No, that is not a general description of a kula column. That's a description of a Muller column. And he had decades to make up his mind and get it right. And still, he says, this...

The only thing consistent with the others is 'a' description. Nothing about it is even close to similar.

Quote Mueller and Kula and let is compare them.

Then prove that the difference prove that they both lied and there was never an column inside the Kremas and gassings did not take place.

What? No, Vrba said that Muller was his main source. Vrba was never in the krema to my knowledge.

You said "Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit" when you were talking about Vrba.

On the stand at the Zundel trial he said that he drew that floorplan though, you had asked about it previously and I was providing clarity because I have found where he said he penned it on the stand in the witness box.

Links and quotes please, and then show me evidence to prove any inconsistency, or even lie about a detail, is proof that the entirety of the gassing testimonies are all lies.

[HansHill]

Using those contradictions to claim the impossibility of the murder weapon, to conclude that all the witnesses lied and there were no gas chambers with columns inside it to introduce the gas, meets the definition of argument from incredulity.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ncredulity

"Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed."

I'm not using the contradictions in testimony to somersault my way to the columns not existing. You're also saying this in a bait and switch that claims don't need to be assessed.

It seems like you've forgotten that the columns don't actually exist. Their non-existence does much of the heavy lifting for Revisionists here, and the contradictions in testimony is a condemnation on what it is your side i) should be presenting to us as a theoretical murder weapon for us to assess and ii) should actually get busy looking for.

[Nessie]

This is how to assess a witness, using Mueller as an example;

1 - Muller relates the same basic process that the other witnesses do and the documents record. That means he has passed the corroboration test.

2 - He is recorded as being at the camp and he either is named by or he names others who were there. So he passes the identification test.

3 - That his details then vary, means he does not do so well at the reliability, accuracy and credibility tests.

You ignore the tests he passes and exaggerate the issues over details, to make him out to be a liar. Your assessment of his testimony is inaccurate. There is no study of witnesses, that categorically states that if a witness gets details wrong, that therefore means everything they said, is proven to be a lie and what they describe did not happen.

If Muller was describing something you were prepared to accept, you would not call him a liar. Since he describes gassings, that you have decided did not happen, you need to find excuses to call him a liar. Your assessment is biased.

[Stubble]

You said "Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit" when you were talking about Vrba.

I was referring specifically to Muller there. Because he was demonstrably at buna at that time, and thus lied.

I'm obviously still referencing Muller there. I checked the structure and syntax. That should have been clear. The only mention of Vrba was that he said muller was his source...

[Nessie]

Using those contradictions to claim the impossibility of the murder weapon, to conclude that all the witnesses lied and there were no gas chambers with columns inside it to introduce the gas, meets the definition of argument from incredulity.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... ncredulity

"Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed."

I'm not using the contradictions in testimony to somersault my way to the columns not existing.

Yes you are, as you admit here;

You're also saying this in a bait and switch that claims don't need to be assessed.

Of course claims need to be assessed! Your assessment is that the witnesses are lying about columns that never existed.

It seems like you've forgotten that the columns don't actually exist. Their non-existence does much of the heavy lifting for Revisionists here, and the contradictions in testimony is a condemnation on what it is your side i) should be presenting to us as a theoretical murder weapon for us to assess and ii) should actually get busy looking for.

There are no physical remains of the columns now. That does not therefore mean they never existed. There is ample evidence that the Nazis destroyed as much of the evidence of gassings as possible, which explains the non-existence.

There is evidence to prove that the columns existed in 1943-4, due to corroborating witness and documentary evidence. That witness descriptions do not match in their details, is not evidence to prove they lied and the columns did not exist. Witness variation in details, is to be expected when witnesses do not collude and they are describing something months, if not years after they last saw it.

Your claim is the same as claiming that when witnesses describe a mass shooting, but they vary in the type of gun used, that means the witnesses all lied, there was no gun, or mass shooting.

[Nessie]

You said "Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit" when you were talking about Vrba.

I was referring specifically to Muller there. Because he was demonstrably at buna at that time, and thus lied.

I'm obviously still referencing Muller there. I checked the structure and syntax. That should have been clear. The only mention of Vrba was that he said muller was his source...

You said

Vrba claims he is the main source of descriptions. From those descriptions we end up with the Auschwitz rollercoaster, 9 furnaces and a partridge in a pear tree...

Dude said he was in the krema for Himmler's visit, this is impossible because he was demonstrably at buna.

That reads Vrba is the dude. Please start to link to, name and directly quote the witnesses.