On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses

[TlsMS93]

Seamlessly it fit? But there aren't even any holes in the reinforced concrete ceiling.

[HansHill]

"The Sonderkommandos in the Kremas tell a very different story than the experts later solidify into "the narrative". "

No, actually you're missing the point. Witness testimony IS unreliable. what you described above, about 'narrative' making, happens with all history. When you say "very different story" btw, the differences you are pointing out are things like pellets on the floor (which may have happened if a few got through the holes, the columns were damaged, etc). Your allegations of massive discrepancies are essentially nitpicks. Oh mama mia, Franke-Gricksch said 3 columns not 4? It's all this kind of stuff over and over again.

When we look at the West German trials the defense definitely had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses (they did so extensively in the Majdanek trial). They didn't do that so much for the other trials I believe.

This doesn't mean the witnesses are all category 3. The only thing you can argue is MAYBE.

And as expected, you have nothing to say about the testimonies that are extremely detailed and also fit seamlessly into the mainstream narrative.

Except it's literally not a nitpick though, because this one point has significant impact on other arguments that you need to be airtight, yet begin to look more and more like a house of cards.

Consider:

- The entire contrivance of the Kula Column is to ensure a strictly minimum exposure time between the HCN and masonry. This is not trivial, as it is the central cornerstone for experts such as Dr Green (and in turn Dr Terry) in their explanation for the lack of Prussian Blue Formation.

- Saying they fall out the bottom to be swept up after a gassing undermines this narrative process. The guy who was there says he manually removed the murder weapon from the scene, which in turn impacts our understanding and outcome of the forensic analysis. To step into Nessi's bank robbery analogy - the eyewitnesses are saying the gunman dropped his gun and they took turns picking it up and handing it around to each other and tossed it away, while the detectives all say that DIDNT happen because it has no fingerprints. See the problem you are faced with?

- Additionally this raises further questions as to how come he immediately(ish) didn't die when sweeping up the pellets, or handing the bodies, or as you just introduced and sounds like more contrivances, the "columns were damaged", which raises yet further questions about the jews' ability to damage the infrastructure in such a way as to be rendered inoperable (wooden doors anyone?). This is your literal argument: The jews damaged the Kula Columns so it couldn't function properly.

- I'm dealing specifically with the witnesses inside the gas chamber (and specifically Krema II in Birkenau, specifically to underscore Archie's point when he says:

All failed gas chamber witnesses are contrary witnesses

Chazan, Phlishko and Mueller would be dismissed under the circumstances.

[bombsaway]

- The entire contrivance of the Kula Column is to ensure a strictly minimum exposure time between the HCN and masonry.

lol spit take, how do you know?

- Saying they fall out the bottom to be swept up after a gassing undermines this narrative process. The guy who was there says he manually removed the murder weapon from the scene, which in turn impacts our understanding and outcome of the forensic analysis. To step into Nessi's bank robbery analogy - the eyewitnesses are saying the gunman dropped his gun and they took turns picking it up and handing it around to each other and tossed it away, while the detectives all say that DIDNT happen because it has no fingerprints. See the problem you are faced with?

What would undermine the narrative process was that if they said the pellets were dropped through the roof without the use of columns, or they all landed on the floor and were swept up each time. This kind of discrepancy doesn't exist. When this was brought up earlier my take was that a small amount of pellets were strewn on the floor, not enough to seriously endanger anyone's life or keep HCN levels high. Why couldn't this be possible? Why must the only explanation be liewitnesses?

[HansHill]

lol spit take, how do you know?

This is Green's entire premise, in that minimum exposure time (achieved via immediate removal of pellets) allows for the lowest concentration possible to:

i) allow the Sonderkommandos to walk in and scurry around:

After ten minutes, in the former case, the ambient concentration was about 65 ppmv, and someone who entered the room at that point would receive a mean exposure to HCN, from t=10 minutes to t=25 minutes, of about 17 ppmv. Recall that 20 ppmv is the low end of Du Pont's symptom category: "slight symptoms after several hours."

It is thus safe to say that, with these assumptions, the Sonderkommando could enter the gas chamber ten minutes after ventilation began, wearing no gas masks, and experience no significant effects from the HCN.

- Richard Green, Chemistry Is Not the Science

and ii) to prevent the Prussian Blue compounds to form:

....shows that such compounds in the gas chambers were exceedingly unlikely to form. Factors such as the shorter exposure time

- Richard Green, Chemistry Is Not the Science

Jamie McCarthy tells us similar, although he is less thorough than Green and doesn't tell us "why" its important, just that it's important to keep exposure time to a minimum:

After early experiments with this poison, the camp staff had learned that it was important to allow the pellets of Zyklon to be removed after the victims' death, and also to spread them to increase the speed of outgassing.

The solution to these problems was a wire mesh column

Jamie McCarthy - Zyklon Introduction Columns

And again BA, none of this works if the pellets fall through the column and laid strewn between bodies for X-hours while the Sonderkommandos removed the bodies to the elevator shaft one by one and then swept the pellets up. Meaning, none of this is trivial, as it destabilizes every argument that leans on it.

What would undermine the narrative process was that if they said the pellets were dropped through the roof without the use of columns, or they all landed on the floor and were swept up each time. This kind of discrepancy doesn't exist. When this was brought up earlier my take was that a small amount of pellets were strewn on the floor, not enough to seriously endanger anyone's life or keep HCN levels high. Why couldn't this be possible? Why must the only explanation be liewitnesses?

You mean like Shlomo Venezia?

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... ia-shlomo/

Or Yaakov Gabai?

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... ai-yaakov/

Or Salmen Lewental?

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/witne ... al-salmen/

In fact Germar Rudolf gives us a hand dandy matrix of the various introduction methods claimed you can peruse, some of which indeed are Sonderkommandos:

https://holocaustencyclopedia.com/techn ... n-devices/

[bombsaway]

Quote from the actual testimonies instead of just saying they support your view? If a testimony doesn't mention the columns that doesn't mean they don't exist within the universe of that testimony, just that that detail wasn't included. A testimony that would blatantly contradict would be saying that all the pellets poured ended up on the floor and were swept up. Even this wouldn't mean that the witness was lying, though perhaps conflating second hand accounts with their own testimony.

You said that the Kula columns were contrived " to ensure a strictly minimum exposure time between the HCN and masonry". What do you mean by contrived?

[HansHill]

Quote from the actual testimonies instead of just saying they support your view? If a testimony doesn't mention the columns that doesn't mean they don't exist within the universe of that testimony, just that that detail wasn't included.

You said that the Kula columns were contrived " to ensure a strictly minimum exposure time between the HCN and masonry". What do you mean by contrived?

Links to the encyclopedia entries are listed above. I'll allow the mod team to decide if this is sufficient or not.

By contrived I mean that the Kula Columns appear artificially constructed from any angle you so choose. Van Pelt deviates from Kula on many physical properties (form), the sonderkommandos deviate from both Kula and Van Pelt on the intended function, and finally they have never actually been demonstrated to exist (!)

For all of these reasons, I say the Kula Columns are a contrivance.

[bombsaway]

Quote from the actual testimonies instead of just saying they support your view? If a testimony doesn't mention the columns that doesn't mean they don't exist within the universe of that testimony, just that that detail wasn't included.

You said that the Kula columns were contrived " to ensure a strictly minimum exposure time between the HCN and masonry". What do you mean by contrived?

Links to the encyclopedia entries are listed above. I'll allow the mod team to decide if this is sufficient or not.

By contrived I mean that the Kula Columns appear artificially constructed from any angle you so choose. Van Pelt deviates from Kula on many physical properties (form), the sonderkommandos deviate from both Kula and Van Pelt on the intended function, and finally they have never actually been demonstrated to exist (!)

For all of these reasons, I say the Kula Columns are a contrivance.

What are you talking about?

“The roof of the gas chamber was supported by concrete pillars running down the middle of its length. On either side of these pillars where were four others, two on each side. 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 very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.” Tauber - 1945

Unlike you, I'm actually providing testimony which contradicts the statement about deviating function. I took contrived to mean invented because of the low HCN levels, and you were stating this factually, not even as a possibility. Your links to the encylopedia are just secondary source overviews, very little probative value.

[HansHill]

Quote from the actual testimonies instead of just saying they support your view? If a testimony doesn't mention the columns that doesn't mean they don't exist within the universe of that testimony, just that that detail wasn't included.

You said that the Kula columns were contrived " to ensure a strictly minimum exposure time between the HCN and masonry". What do you mean by contrived?

Links to the encyclopedia entries are listed above. I'll allow the mod team to decide if this is sufficient or not.

By contrived I mean that the Kula Columns appear artificially constructed from any angle you so choose. Van Pelt deviates from Kula on many physical properties (form), the sonderkommandos deviate from both Kula and Van Pelt on the intended function, and finally they have never actually been demonstrated to exist (!)

For all of these reasons, I say the Kula Columns are a contrivance.

What are you talking about?

“The roof of the gas chamber was supported by concrete pillars running down the middle of its length. On either side of these pillars where were four others, two on each side. 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 very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets from which the gas had evaporated.” Tauber - 1945

Unlike you, I'm actually providing testimony which contradicts the statement about deviating function. I took contrived to mean invented because of the low HCN levels, and you were stating this factually, not even as a possibility. Your links to the encylopedia are just secondary source overviews, very little probative value.

Tell me more about Tauber's removable can and how it integrates with Van Pelt's model please?



Where does the can go, exactly?



Remember, according to Van Pelt (and thus Green, Terry, and by proxy, you) the pellets are dumped between the two fine mesh layers as described above.

Where is the can? If there is no can, you've simply introduced yet another deviating witness which proves my point.

[bombsaway]

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt or the people that constructed the models did a shitty job. Who cares.

Van Pelt believed in a removable can:

https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/#

"As we have seen, Tauber had described them as three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon “crystals,” that is the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide. Kula, who had made these columns, provided some technical specifications."

[HansHill]

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt or the people that constructed the models did a shitty job. Who cares.

Van Pelt believed in a removable can:

https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/#

"As we have seen, Tauber had described them as three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon “crystals,” that is the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide. Kula, who had made these columns, provided some technical specifications."

Wait hang on a second

I care. If the pellets remained inside the can, and was removed with a wire, then how did Chazan sweep them up after his gassing? You said earlier maybe the column got damaged, but the jews would have to puncture the aluminium can inside three layer of mesh also?

Here is you upthread:

...which may have happened if a few got through the holes, the columns were damaged, etc...

So they would need to get through the holes and aluminum can. You see why this is a house of cards?

[bombsaway]

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt or the people that constructed the models did a shitty job. Who cares.

Van Pelt believed in a removable can:

https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/#

"As we have seen, Tauber had described them as three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon “crystals,” that is the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide. Kula, who had made these columns, provided some technical specifications."

Wait hang on a second

I care. If the pellets remained inside the can, and was removed with a wire, then how did Chazan sweep them up after his gassing? You said earlier maybe the column got damaged, but the jews would have to puncture the aluminium can inside three layer of mesh also?

Here is you upthread:

...which may have happened if a few got through the holes, the columns were damaged, etc...

So they would need to get through the holes and aluminum can. You see why this is a house of cards?

Maybe the pellets were very small so some still got through. Maybe the columns got kicked in at the bottom. That you jump straight to liewitnesses as a factual reality is a sign of your fanaticism. The truth is that you're working from a predetermined conclusion or set of assumptions that render the whole thing impossible, in your mind. You're not able to judge things independently, which you have to do.

The Kula columns are actually the kind of detail that strengthen the Holocaust case because they feature in such a wide variety of testimony, eg the FG report, from an early date. Their "invention" predates the 'low HCN readings' problem by 40 years.

[HansHill]

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt or the people that constructed the models did a shitty job. Who cares.

Van Pelt believed in a removable can:

https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/#

"As we have seen, Tauber had described them as three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon “crystals,” that is the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide. Kula, who had made these columns, provided some technical specifications."

Wait hang on a second

I care. If the pellets remained inside the can, and was removed with a wire, then how did Chazan sweep them up after his gassing? You said earlier maybe the column got damaged, but the jews would have to puncture the aluminium can inside three layer of mesh also?

Here is you upthread:

...which may have happened if a few got through the holes, the columns were damaged, etc...

So they would need to get through the holes and aluminum can. You see why this is a house of cards?

Maybe the pellets were very small so some still got through. Maybe the columns got kicked in at the bottom. That you jump straight to liewitnesses as a factual reality is a sign of your fanaticism. The truth is that you're working from a predetermined conclusion or set of assumptions that render the whole thing impossible, in your mind. You're not able to judge things independently, which you have to do.

The Kula columns are actually the kind of detail that strengthen the Holocaust case because they feature in such a wide variety of testimony, eg the FG report, from an early date. Their "invention" predates the 'low HCN readings' problem by 40 years.

There we have it folks. Van Pelt is right, the Sonderkommandos are right, Kula is right, Green is right, McCarthy is right.

- Where there are discrepancies between their stories; resolved by "maybes".
- Where models conflict (such as the Auschwitz museum's Kula Column replica); resolved by they simply got it wrong, no biggie.

But "who cares" to quote BA, everybody that matters is right, even when they are wrong, so f**k it, who cares?

The irony of this garbage being coughed up in a thread about the veracity and integrity of eyewitnesses and their overall probative value, is astonishing. BTW i don't know why you keep saying "liewitnesses" to me, I don't speak like that.

[bombsaway]

[Greif] Did the grid column through which the gas was dropped reach all the way down to the floor?

[Chazan] Nearly to the floor. One had left a space which made it possible to clean there. One poured water out and brushed up the remaining pebbles.”

G. Greif, Wir weinten tränenlos… Augenzeugenberichte der jüdischen “Sonderkommandos” in Auschwitz, Böhlau Verlag, Cologne/Weimar/Vienna 1985, p. 237.

This is testimony which talks about them being swept up (which also evidences the columns, thus antithetical to pebbles just being dumped in wholesale). You believe it is impossible for "remaining pebbles" to have escaped, therefore liewitness - oh excuse me dear sir, I mean the witness was lying. Sorry for misconstruing your words to such a large degree.

There are numerous somewhat contradictory definitions of the rather complex mechanism. Therefore witnesses are lying.

OK gotcha.

[HansHill]

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt

Explain it to me. I've got time.

[HansHill]

I took contrived to mean invented because of the low HCN levels, and you were stating this factually, not even as a possibility.

I used "contrived" because the Kula Columns just so happen to resolve many procedural and technical problems for Orthodoxy simultaneously, including both the Sonderkommandos entering the building immediately, creating a low concentration of HCN for the feeble ventilation system to extract, and the minimum exposure time with the masonry. Its the Orthodox Swiss Army Knife if you want a good analogy.

To further explain what I mean by "contrivance", allow me to get creative. Let's suppose a long lost Hitler diary was found, and it contains a reference to something like "the silver net of German ingenuity will solve the Jewish Question". In my made up scenario, the passage can be stretched to be a "Hitler Order" of sorts because he can be contrived as describing the Kula Column.

In short, it can be whatever it needs to be by whoever is making X or Y argument, reality be damned. Sucks it has never been shown to exist