On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses

[Archie]

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.

The West German trials were in the 1960s and the whole point of them was to propagandize the German masses who were deemed to be insufficiently cognizant of their eternal bloodguilt.

viewtopic.php?t=278

At the start of the Frankfurt trial, they had historians from the Institut für Zietgeschichte lay out the background history before all the proceedings. The larger history was never open to debate at the trial.

And in the 1990s this was legally formalized. In Germany today it is illegal to challenge the historicity of the Holocaust in court. You are not allowed to argue truth as a defense. They will literally arrest the defense lawyer for even attempting this.

[bombsaway]

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

This comparison is insane. What is the proper response historians should have to the profusion of testimonies / evidence about wire columns. More fair to read this as evidence of conspiracy ?

[Archie]

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

This comparison is insane. What is the proper response historians should have to the profusion of testimonies / evidence about wire columns. More fair to read this as evidence of conspiracy ?

The columns are not mentioned in older books at all. And that's because most sources don't mention them. If there were really a "profusion" of testimonies, it would have been part of the story from the beginning.

It seems they started emphasizing these columns (of very uncertain design) to deal with the problems with ventilation and to reduce exposure time.

[Archie]

... the Kula Columns just so happen to resolve many procedural and technical problems for Orthodoxy simultaneously...

In a way, yes, and that is clearly why they suddenly started emphasizing the columns in the 1980s. But it's worth noting that it's a quite stupid, Rube Goldberg-like solution to the problem. It would have been simple to design a competent system that would have released and circulated all of the gas immediately without continuing to release gas after the execution was over (as was done in the American gas chambers).

[bombsaway]

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

This comparison is insane. What is the proper response historians should have to the profusion of testimonies / evidence about wire columns. More fair to read this as evidence of conspiracy ?

I think the reason why it wasn't mentioned is that it's just an obscure detail about people were killed.

The columns are not mentioned in older books at all. And that's because most sources don't mention them. If there were really a "profusion" of testimonies, it would have been part of the story from the beginning.

It seems they started emphasizing these columns (of very uncertain design) to deal with the problems with ventilation and to reduce exposure time.

There is a profusion of testimonies, that's a fact, I think there's like 20 that mention it, and it's even in documents (FG report, the “wire-mesh insertion device” document).

Historians should just ignore, is the answer I seem to be getting from this

[Archie]

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.

That encyclopedia entry "Zyklon B introduction devices" has a very useful table summarizing the primary source testimonies. That is actually more useful than looking at a single testimony without understanding the fuller picture.

Regarding the removable can, the problem I see with that scenario is that if the pellets are clumped together in the can, that would be the exact opposite of standard procedure with Zyklon B which was to distribute the pellets uniformly throughout the room. If the pellets are in a can, the gas would evaporate much more slowly and not evenly. This would be true in a column as well, but it would be even worse in a can. And it would be a tremendous waste of Zyklon.

[Archie]

This comparison is insane. What is the proper response historians should have to the profusion of testimonies / evidence about wire columns. More fair to read this as evidence of conspiracy ?

I think the reason why it wasn't mentioned is that it's just an obscure detail about people were killed.

The columns are not mentioned in older books at all. And that's because most sources don't mention them. If there were really a "profusion" of testimonies, it would have been part of the story from the beginning.

It seems they started emphasizing these columns (of very uncertain design) to deal with the problems with ventilation and to reduce exposure time.

There is a profusion of testimonies, that's a fact, I think there's like 20 that mention it, and it's even in documents (FG report, the “wire-mesh insertion device” document).

Historians should just ignore, is the answer I seem to be getting from this

I'm saying the historians did ignore them. Because you are grossly overstating the profuseness.

There's also the little issue that you are pretending like any sort of column counts as a match when in reality the descriptions are not very similar.

Filip Mueller: "The Zyclon B gas crystals were inserted through openings into hollow pillars made of sheet metal. They were perforated at regular intervals and inside them a spiral ran from top to bottom in order to ensure as even a distribution of the granular crystals as possible."

Help me out here, bombs. How does Mueller's spiral design with "as even a distribution as possible" square with Tauber's removable can thing?

[Stubble]

Filip Mueller also in 'eyewitness Auschwitz' later says they used water to neutralize the zyclon crystals because they were strewn about the room.

We had orders that immediately after the opening of the gas chamber we were to take away first the corpses that had tumbled out, followed by those lying behind the door, so as to clear a path. This was done by putting the loop of a leather strap round the wrist ofa corpse and then dragging the body to the lift by the strap and thence conveying it upstairs to the crematorium. When some room had been made behind the door, the corpses were hosed down. This served to neutralize any gas crystals still lying about, but mainly it was intended to clean the dead bodies. For almost all of them were wet with sweat and urine, filthy with blood and excrement, while the legs of many women were streaked with menstrual blood.

p117-Eyewitness Auschwitz

The zyclon b was all the way up to, the door...

This is the exact opposite of what we are told Kula's Columns were...

[bombsaway]

"I'm saying the historians did ignore them. Because you are grossly overstating the profuseness."

I remember there was a google drive sheet with all the testimonies that mentioned the columns. I remember there was 10-20. No such described mechanism exists anywhere else. If historians didn't mention the columns prior to the 80s I would be surprised but there also aren't many published books by historians about Auschwitz up to this date. Can you name one? Quick search found nothing. Probably we would have to look through scholarly papers, but what difference would this make for you anyway?

Anyway, tell me about why so many people (and documents) mention the columns. Why did Kula describe them at length?

The obvious answer, from you guys, is the conspirators told them to. They gave Kula a detailed spec sheet to go over in his interrogation, they gave the translator Eric Lipman notes to mention it in his phony Franke Gricksch report, as well as all the other SK. They made up a word ("wire-mesh insertion device") to describe them in a construction document. Am I getting this right?

[HansHill]

"I'm saying the historians did ignore them. Because you are grossly overstating the profuseness."

I remember there was a google drive sheet with all the testimonies that mentioned the columns. I remember there was 10-20. No such described mechanism exists anywhere else. If historians didn't mention the columns prior to the 80s I would be surprised but there also aren't many published books by historians about Auschwitz up to this date. Can you name one? Quick search found nothing. Probably we would have to look through scholarly papers, but what difference would this make for you anyway?

Anyway, tell me about why so many people (and documents) mention the columns. Why did Kula describe them at length?

The obvious answer, from you guys, is the conspirators told them to. They gave Kula a detailed spec sheet to go over in his interrogation, they gave the translator Eric Lipman notes to mention it in his phony Franke Gricksch report, as well as all the other SK. They made up a word ("wire-mesh insertion device") to describe them in a construction document. Am I getting this right?

Nice try there BA. Nice appeal to psychology. Nobody here is obliged to indulge in this cat and mouse game of why X-witness made Y-claim. It could be for any reason. It could be to impress chicks for all you know. What we are here to do, is to assess and critically analyse their claims and stress test them against reality and each other. Take your arm chair psychology back to Reddit.

They made up a word ("wire-mesh insertion device")

This is silly. Drahtnetzeinschiebevorrichtungen is a compound word and its components exist independently of the Holocaust - German being a compounding language, and each root word exists in heir own context. See thread below for the root words of each compound and their contexts:

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.ph ... esh#p16693

[bombsaway]

Take your arm chair psychology back to Reddit.

There were no requests of this nature in my post. If the conspirators are indeed behind this profusion of evidence, it is legitimate to ask why they did it. Certainly you guys aren't hesitating with motivations when you say things like 'they only started talking about the Kula columns because they needed to explain the low HCN levels'.

The truth is - I contend! - you don't have an answer to that question, which is why you make jokes about it.

Here actually is an argument for why the witness evidence is strong, there are specific details that are corroborated across a large swath of evidence, both testimony and documentary. A similar thing you see with the so called "weather reports"

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 05_11.html

H. Sohns, organizer of SK 1005a and SK 1005b, BArch B162/3543, Bl. 68, 05.06.62, testified that the number of corpses was coded as cloud height [Wolkenhöhe], op.cit., 3546, Bl. 140, 10.10.66, testified that the reports about exhumations were coded as weather reports [Wettermeldungen], the coding idea stemmed from himself; K. Nicolaus, SK 1005 under KdS Warschau Dr. Hahn, op.cit., Bl. 115, 12.11.63, "the corpses were described as precipitations [Niederschläge]", had to be reported to Dr. Hahn each 10-14 days, telex was then sent to RSHA where "the number of the eliminated corpses was given as an amount of precipitation [Niederschlagsmenge]"; M. Hanisch, SK 1005a, op.cit., 3537, Bl. 65, 13.10.64, reports that in the weather reports [Wetterberichte] the number of incinerated corpses was coded as the cloud height [Wolkenhöhe]; W. Meyer, radio center head at SK7b, cited in Jens Hoffmann, "Das kann man nicht erzählen". "Aktion 1005" - Wie die Nazis die Spuren ihrer Massenmorde in Osteuropa beseitigten, 2008, S. 158, 24.09.67, told how he began getting coded messages with the subject "Re: weather report, cloud height" ["Betr. Wettermeldung, Wolkenhöhe"] with numbers and text, and he was angry about these seemingly useless messages because of the already existing work overload until the actual meaning of the messages (elimination of mass graves) was explained to him.

Normal people are going to see this, and your explanations for this (oh who cares, they could have been impressing chicks), and be like you guys are insane.

[HansHill]

Take your arm chair psychology back to Reddit.

There were no requests of this nature in my post. If the conspirators are indeed behind this profusion of evidence, it is legitimate to ask why they did it. Certainly you guys aren't hesitating with motivations when you say things like 'they only started talking about the Kula columns because they needed to explain the low HCN levels'.

The truth is - I contend! - you don't have an answer to that question, which is why you make jokes about it.

Here actually is an argument for why the witness evidence is strong, there are specific details that are corroborated across a large swath of evidence, both testimony and documentary. A similar thing you see with the so called "weather reports"

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... 05_11.html

H. Sohns, organizer of SK 1005a and SK 1005b, BArch B162/3543, Bl. 68, 05.06.62, testified that the number of corpses was coded as cloud height [Wolkenhöhe], op.cit., 3546, Bl. 140, 10.10.66, testified that the reports about exhumations were coded as weather reports [Wettermeldungen], the coding idea stemmed from himself; K. Nicolaus, SK 1005 under KdS Warschau Dr. Hahn, op.cit., Bl. 115, 12.11.63, "the corpses were described as precipitations [Niederschläge]", had to be reported to Dr. Hahn each 10-14 days, telex was then sent to RSHA where "the number of the eliminated corpses was given as an amount of precipitation [Niederschlagsmenge]"; M. Hanisch, SK 1005a, op.cit., 3537, Bl. 65, 13.10.64, reports that in the weather reports [Wetterberichte] the number of incinerated corpses was coded as the cloud height [Wolkenhöhe]; W. Meyer, radio center head at SK7b, cited in Jens Hoffmann, "Das kann man nicht erzählen". "Aktion 1005" - Wie die Nazis die Spuren ihrer Massenmorde in Osteuropa beseitigten, 2008, S. 158, 24.09.67, told how he began getting coded messages with the subject "Re: weather report, cloud height" ["Betr. Wettermeldung, Wolkenhöhe"] with numbers and text, and he was angry about these seemingly useless messages because of the already existing work overload until the actual meaning of the messages (elimination of mass graves) was explained to him.

Normal people are going to see this, and your explanations for this (oh who cares, they could have been impressing chicks), and be like you guys are insane.

>Refuses to take your Reddit bait
>You're insane!

Why don't you focus on explaining my misunderstanding on Van Pelt that you dodged yesterday?

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt

Explain it to me. I've got time.

[HansHill]

Cross-posting this here from the slop forum so it doesn't die in obscurity

https://www.codohforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=23185#p23185

Spoiler

- Have they been demonstrated to exist?
- No. We are off to a very bad start and are dealing with an intangible representation of a wholly hypothetical instrument.

Strike 1.

- Is there a uniform, consistent description of the device that meets all major operational criteria (dispersal of pellets, retention of pellets, retrieval of pellets)?
- No. Our bad start continues to deteriorate, as key functions of the hypothetical instrument are sabotaged by conflicting depictions, rendering its core hypothetical function as practically inoperable.

Strike 2.

- Are there any fingerprints left by the device's absence?
- No. It has never been demonstrated where the fixtures and fittings to secure the device to its surrounding infrastructure is / was.

Strike 3.

- Does a critical assessment of the column's performance demonstrate competence and reliability?
- No. In clumping up the gypsum pellets into a fine mesh, the humid and moist pellets would quickly clump and become a gooey paste, retarding its own offgas and requiring physical removal from the mesh prior to any subsequent gassings, making this job more labour intensive and messy, not less.

Strike 4

- Are there any viable alternatives to disperse gas throughout the room in a more efficient manner?
- Yes. A simple and more efficient alternative would be to insert the pellets into the extant air intake duct, to allow for a smooth, safe, efficient, uniform, controllable, and consistent stream of HCN into the intended room without any of the problems associated with Kula's fake columns.

Strike 5

- Aside from it's obvious non-existence, non-efficiency, lack of consistent form & function, can the Orthodox position allow for and define falsifiability tests for the existence and operation of the Kula column?
- No. Despite all obvious and critical problems, Orthodoxy does not define any falsifiability tests for the existence and operation of the Kula columns and regards their existence with a religious fervour that sabotages any and all attempts at rationality and reason.

Strike 6,000,000

[bombsaway]

Why don't you focus on explaining my misunderstanding on Van Pelt that you dodged yesterday?

You're probably misunderstanding Van Pelt

Explain it to me. I've got time.

You are dodging my much more general (and thematic to the thread) concerns about revisionist treatment of witness testimony. I've spent time addressing your concerns, you can't do that with my concerns. That's fine, but you are dodging, unless your answer is they were trying to impress chicks.

As Van Pelt said, the can would be in the innermost column.

[HansHill]

Why don't you focus on explaining my misunderstanding on Van Pelt that you dodged yesterday?

Explain it to me. I've got time.

You are dodging my much more general (and thematic to the thread) concerns about revisionist treatment of witness testimony. I've spent time addressing your concerns, you can't do that with my concerns. That's fine, but you are dodging, unless your answer is they were trying to impress chicks.

As Van Pelt said, the can would be in the innermost column.

Quote reply which question of yours I have dodged. If it's your Reddit bait about "why did he lie" then consider my answer to be refusal (not a dodge) based on it being bait into cat and mouse games which I'm not here to do. I've already told you i'm not here to psychoanalyze why X or Y person was motivated into Z or N action. It feels like you want me to attribute this to ethnic hatred of Germans, revenge fantasy or whatever - but again I'm not here to discuss that.

We are here to discuss why eyewitness Orthodox sources are functionally contrary gas chamber witnesses. The normal yet attentive person reading this will indeed walk away with that understanding.