On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses

[bombsaway]

This is exactly the problem we are telling you Bombsaway. No matter which threads you pull on, the contradictions expose themselves. You've humourously just shown us now that Tauber contradicts not only Kula, but himself also.

FWIW Pressac is aware of many of Tauber's mistakes and contradictions and he spells them out in "Technique", attributing them to "the political climate" back in 1945. Either take the L that Tauber and Kula's accounts diverge, or get explaining.

Re the 1mm nice try. I gave you the courtesy of asking why you ignored the 1mm to give you a chance to perhaps admit you overlooked it, but it's clear to me now you """omitted""" it because you are in full confirmation bias mode. Of the three grid dimensions given, of course you just so happen to probe Archie with the two most favourable to your argument. Now you attempt a pivot to another "maybe", in that the fine inner mesh "maybe" had gaps.

Again, either take the L or get explaining

I addressed this contradiction on the last page actually "when kula talks about the third part of the column being movable, this is the can."

I quoted the 1 mm gap, never denied that, "It had to get through one layer essentially." (as opposed to the 3 Archie was going off about on the last page). this is weak sauce criticism.

Your confirmation bias hits because you are literally unable to critically examine your narrative of "witnesses lying". I'm here humoring the inanity, the vast majority of my posts are spent addressing criticisms of orthodoxy. You cannot do the same, seeming to short circuit when asked to look into the mirror.

[Archie]

I addressed this contradiction on the last page actually "when kula talks about the third part of the column being movable, this is the can."

Not really.

Van Pelt: "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 with the Zyklon "crystals," that is, the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide." (pg. 206)

Kula:
"The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet, and at the bottom with a square base."

You are trying to say the movable column is the can, but I don't think it is. The can would not be described as an "empty column with a square footprint."

Plus then Kula says: "This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from here ran in the [collection cup] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column." The term in brackets that you left in German when you quoted it Van Pelt renders as "collection cup." That's the closest thing in Kula to the "can" in Tauber's version.

"After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out."

I think that last part settles it. He clearly says the whole big ass column was taken out, not just the can (or collection cup).

Again, the diagram below is Van Pelt's harmonized version, based on BOTH Tauber and Kula. The removable can is the little thing in the middle. That comes from Tauber.



I think we really need to see this process dynamically. Like video simulations.

[HansHill]

According to Tauber, there were three columns and inside all three is where the "can" went.

"Inside this grid. (sic) there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated."

So going by Tauber word for word and beat for beat, we are now talking about three columns + can. For Bombsaway's interpretation to be correct can = another column, this would be four columns which as far as I'm aware, he is alone in this and nobody else is arguing for four columns.

Pressac is happy to join us in reality and acknowledge Tauber is mistaken (one in a series of corrections throughout his work):

Tauber made a very slight mistake in saying that there was a third FIXED cage in the column.

- Technique and Operation, p 484

Strange how online debaters cannot make this same concession! BA in particular is taking this point to the mats and trying to enforce it into strict compliance with Kula where it obviously doesn't work. Maybe instead of challenging me all thread to explain why Tauber makes mistakes, he might take a leaf from Pressac and simply acknowledge his many mistakes were attributable to "the political climate" of 1945

The most transparent and light-of-day interpretation, and my personal interpretation, is that given his position as a stoker in the nearby crematory (not claiming to have partaken in any gassing), the very early advent of his account (predating Kula by 2 years, meaning the Kula column hadn't been conjured into existence yet), and given that Zyklon was stored and transported in cans so would be very natural to see Zyklon cans, he simply stated the can was put inside and lowered, as this might have felt normal to him.

So in conclusion, BA has stepped on quite the rake in introducing Tauber of all people to show us the stories "have always matched".

[Stubble]

Why didn't they use the Natzweiler-Struthof method and just mix hydrogen cyanide gas in a funnel on a garden spigot?

Seems simpler.

It was obviously something Kramer was familiar with since he confessed to doing it.