Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[bombsaway]

I would agree that the 3 example statements are not strictly contradictory.

He has constructed it in such a way to avoid the aspect that matters most; that is the matter of mutual exclusivity. Running a red light and being on the phone are not mutually exclusive. However lets tweak his example to be more relevant to the mutually exclusive nature of our eyewitnesses.

Eyewitness A: I saw him on his phone while he was driving
Eyewitness B: I saw him put his phone in the dumpster before driving because his phone was having malfunctions

These claims are mutually exclusive, and in the event of a crash, using your phone can be material to the cause of the crash. He cannot possibly have thrown his phone away and used it. Therefore it is material as to which one of these claim is bogus or not.

This is much more relevant to our discussions, as the pellets categorically cannot remain inside the column and leave it simultaneously.

Bombsaway: Clearly he must have had a second phone, ergo no contradiction.

Except HH did not identify or explain any such contradictions in Kula vs Tauber. He just stated it as some sort of given without any qualifaction. Oh look one witness aid there were pellets on the floor and a small space under the column, which makes a lot of sense given the container mechanism, which wouldn't catch pellets perfectly, leading to some gettin in the inner column.

[HansHill]

You're doing it again BA, and I'm not going to let you away with it.

small space

Why are you assuming a small space? If there were a gap under the column which Chazan described, in a chaotic and panicky gassing scenario you can easily imagine them being kicked and strewn around the ENTIRE chamber from a desperate crowd trying to save themselves.

You are intentionally twisting the descriptions and claims to suit your intended interpretation.

**Edit** Its possible I've misinterpreted BA's point here - i read it to be the freefallen pellets would be confined solely to a small space under the columns which I have countered. If that wasn't his point please can he clarify.

[bombsaway]

[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.”

You read this statement as the whole multilayered column was hovering a few inches above the ground without any support whatsoever I guess

[Archie]

[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.”

You read this statement as the whole multilayered column was hovering a few inches above the ground without any support whatsoever I guess

What is your interpretation? I don’t understand what you are getting at.

[bombsaway]

[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.”

You read this statement as the whole multilayered column was hovering a few inches above the ground without any support whatsoever I guess

What is your interpretation? I don’t understand what you are getting at.

You know how I was saying the pellets fall into a basket held in the innermost column? What do you do with the ones that don't land in the basket? You leave a space below that they can fall to and be cleaned up between gassings. If the column extends to the floor on all sides you can't extract them so easily.

[Archie]

[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.”

You read this statement as the whole multilayered column was hovering a few inches above the ground without any support whatsoever I guess

What is your interpretation? I don’t understand what you are getting at.

You know how I was saying the pellets fall into a basket held in the innermost column? What do you do with the ones that don't land in the basket? You leave a space below that they can fall to and be cleaned up between gassings. If the column extends to the floor on all sides you can't extract them so easily.

This sounds like you do believe the column was open at the bottom.

[bombsaway]

the inner column may have been open bottom. if pellets got stuck there it would have been difficult to get them out, given the inner column was 1mm netting.

The feature Chazan described makes perfect sense, since you don't want pellets sitting in there. How do you explain this from a conspiracy POV?

[HansHill]

Perhaps you could show us visually where Van Pelt went wrong, and what parts need to be changed so it will fit according to the eyewitness.



Can you annotate the photo for us and tell us what modifications are needed to make it work? I assume it needs to be unbolted from the floor as a start.

[Archie]

the inner column may have been open bottom. if pellets got stuck there it would have been difficult to get them out, given the inner column was 1mm netting.

The feature Chazan described makes perfect sense, since you don't want pellets sitting in there. How do you explain this from a conspiracy POV?

If the outermost column goes down to the floor, then you can't sweep up the pellets. Everything inside the column would be inaccessible.

[Archie]

Perhaps you could show us visually where Van Pelt went wrong, and what parts need to be changed so it will fit according to the eyewitness.

This is why I told him he should publish his version since it is such a radical departure from Van Pelt, the current standard.

Bombsaway is making a valiant attempt to incorporate all of the totally-not-contradictory elements from all of the "eyewitnesses." He's already got a removable distributor cone with a wire and can attachment, plus an inward sloping inner column with flaps to control pellet flow. And now he's arguing for an open bottom. I can't to see how he works in Mueller's spiral design.

[Stubble]

What, the perforated round sheet metal cladding doesn't merit a mention? That's in multiple 'eyewitness' testimony. Muller is an outlier with the spiral hot wheels ramp on the inside, so that will get dismissed as misremembering, the round perforated sheet metal though, that's 'corroborated'.

[Archie]

I had always assumed Krema II was for females and Krema III was for males according to the orthodoxy.

This is not so?

Why does everything always get dumber? Why does the narrative of the event never make more since when you turn over more of it?

Everything always makes less sense, be it that the doors were hollow, or be it that men and women were expected to shower together in the mass gassing scenario.

At least they had an ambulance pulled up to run to drown out the noise of 2,000 screaming people, and an orchestra.

AFAIK the story is coed showers/gassings. Though presumably it would have been a lowish percentage of men, and skewed toward the elderly. The poster mengelemyth was recently trying to argue that there were no men at all, though I don't that works out mathematically (e.g., you can't kill all the Jews in Poland by sparing the men). But realistically I think the gassings would have been by transport which would generally have been mixed sex. If you have a transport coming in, you want to take care of that in a single batch if possible so that the other is free for the next transport. If you've got bodies in both crematoria then you've got both crematoria occupied. Not efficient, especially during peak season.

The usual story is that Mengele (or whoever) would make "selections" by pointing left or right, one being for the gas chamber. I don't think there was any further sex selection for the gas chamber, though you could probably find stories for every possible variation.

I will share one testimony that specifically states coed gassings. Mueller (pg. 110).

The atmosphere in the room was one of immense gravity. Most of the people now began to undress, but some were still hesitating. As soon as the executioners perceived this they pushed and shoved the crowd into the gas chamber, irrespective of whether or not they had taken off their clothes. Anybody offering resistance was mercilessly beaten to a pulp. Husbands, helpless themselves, crowded round their wives and children to protect them from blows and also from the savage teeth of the dogs. There was chaos as in the narrow space people pushed and shoved each other, SS men shouted and used their truncheons, and dogs barked and snapped ferociously.

Suddenly a voice began to sing. Others joined in and the sound swelled into a mighty choir. They sang first the Czechoslovak national anthem and then the Hebrew song ‘Hatikvah’. And all this time the SS men never stopped their brutal beatings. It was as if they regarded the singing as a last kind of protest which they were determined to stifle if they could. To be allowed to die together was the only comfort left to these people. Singing their national anthem they were saying a last farewell to their brief but flourishing past, a past which had enabled them to live for twenty years in a democratic state, a respected minority enjoying equal rights. And when they sang “Hatikvah’, now the national anthem of the state of Israel, they were glancing into the future, but it was a future which they would not be allowed to see.

[Stubble]

What color was the smoke from Czech jews? I forget.

I also overlooked the coed gassings.

I've read eyewitness Auschwitz more times than any human should ever be forced to and have neglected this detail every time.

Thanks.

I've edited my post you quoted for posterity.

[bombsaway]

the inner column may have been open bottom. if pellets got stuck there it would have been difficult to get them out, given the inner column was 1mm netting.

The feature Chazan described makes perfect sense, since you don't want pellets sitting in there. How do you explain this from a conspiracy POV?

If the outermost column goes down to the floor, then you can't sweep up the pellets. Everything inside the column would be inaccessible.

I think Chazan was referring to something like this (the small space underneath)



It's an insane concept I know.

btw for anyone reading this thread, it's about a revisionists asking me dozens of questions about a relatively minor detail in holocaust historiography, one that isn't broadly known in the mainstream and wasn't thoroughly investigated in terms of witnesses being asked about it. So details are murky. As I soon as I answer a question, new questions emerge, about other details I haven't spoken about, other witnesses, sometimes entirely unrelated details used to call the witnesses into question. Meanwhile these people "refuse" to answer any of my questions about the collective strength of the witness testimonies, why perpetrator confessions and sonderkommando testimony both speak to the existence of these columns, why non eyewitness gas chamber testimony mention them much less. What's the point of continuing, given the no doubt endless stream of questions, and the refusal to engage with any of my own?

I can just end the discussion, which has gone on for half a month here, and point out that this (the inability to engage with critique of their own narrative) is a huge reason why people hold non rational beliefs. . Holocaust revisionists have rigged the rules of the debate (in their own minds, it's pretty easy to see through such things) so that they are always on offense. Even if they have a bad team, eventually they'll score some goals, while their opponents - who otherwise might outscore them by a hundred fold - are not allowed a shot on goal.

[HansHill]

Thanks Sideshow Bombsaway, this is very helpful in advancing our understanding of how these weapons operated and functioned. The columns-on-stilts method may prove revolutionary in the field.

I also propose we retitle these weapons to “Chazan Columns”, as they bear a lot less resemblance to Kula’s original design after these re-drafts, especially with the elevation stilts.

Is there somewhere you can submit this to? Yad Veshim for example might be interested in this.