Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[bombsaway]

Kula's design in no way is mutually exclusive to small legs beneath the columns so stray pellets could get washed out. It's a very minor detail but it does strengthen the testimonies around the columns since it makes sense and would be strange for someone to just make up.

You are the Artful Dodger by the way.

[Archie]

...revisionists asking me dozens of questions about a relatively minor detail in holocaust historiography ...

It is a detail, but I strongly disagree that it's minor in importance. It is in fact absolutely crucial to the Auschwitz story. Whether the pellets were left in the room or were removed would make a major difference in the ventilation time, the amount of time the walls were exposed to HCN, etc. To evaluate the story technically we must first determine what the story is.

What's the point of continuing, given the no doubt endless stream of questions, and the refusal to engage with any of my own?

Nobody has forced you to participate in this thread. You are getting upset that we are asking you questions, but given that you refuse to endorse any published interpretations of the Kula columns (e.g., Van Pelt), we sort of need to know what you are arguing for in order to discuss this with you. We can't read your mind.

[Archie]

Kula's design in no way is mutually exclusive to small legs beneath the columns so stray pellets could get washed out. It's a very minor detail but it does strengthen the testimonies around the columns since it makes sense and would be strange for someone to just make up.

They are contradictory if read without a strong bias toward harmonization. Everyone besides you interprets Kula as saying the columns went to the floor.

You are the Artful Dodger by the way.

And you would presumably be Fagin.

Spoiler

[Wahrheitssucher]

…It's an insane concept I know.

…btw for anyone reading this thread…

Here BA reveals both: i.) his modus operandi AND ii.) his motives.

i.) talking nonsense to buttress belief in the deeply flawed and often physically impossible lie-witness testimony on which the mass-gassing narrative is based,
ii.) to try and convince any passing visitors to the forum that there is a response to the criticisms of holocaust revisionism.

His arguments for the credibility of Kula and his non-existent columns got thoroughly demolished here for over a month and yet he ends with a whine that the rules of debate weren’t fair.

What a pathetic person and sore loser!

[bombsaway]

LOL, the debate isn't unfair for me. Here's what I said

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.

It's all in your head. When you refuse to self critique this is what happens. I can sit here and calmly defend my narrative without pointing any fingers. Most of my time on this forum has been about defending and arguing for the orthodox narrative. The ratio of defense to critique (of revisionism) is probably like 10:1 for me. If I ever meet a revisionist who was able do this with their own narrative, I would shit my pants.

[Wahrheitssucher]

It's all in your head. When you refuse to self critique this is what happens.

…If I ever meet a revisionist who was able do this with their own narrative, I would shit my pants.

As with zionism, every accusation is actually a confession.

I.e. everything this person with the disgustingly unethical username ‘bombs away’ accuses others of actually applies to him himself, NOT the one’s he’s accusing.
It’s called ‘psychological projection’ and is a defence tactic of people in denial.

The reality is that EVERYONE who is here explaining the revisionist viewpoint is someone who has applied critique of their own belief systems. We have all been subjected to a brain-washing, misinformation campaign regarding WW2 and the holocaust mythology since early childhood.
So we all had the honesty, independence-of-mind and critical-thinking skills to navigate our way through the desire to conform, fit-in and be accepted by society that is required to ‘self-critique’ and realise the actual reality.

BOTTOM LINE:
Kula was a liar. He told many lies to support the racist, anti-German, mass-gassing, atrocity-propaganda, holyH narrative.
His lie about making the non-existent columns for administering zyklonB from the non-existent roof holes has been exposed as calculated misinformation.

Anyone reading this thread KNOWS that bombsaway could not substantiate Kula’s, Tauber’s and all the other lie-witness's, self-contradictory and impractical nonsense testimony.

He couldn’t reconcile their blatantly contradictory testimony. So he has ended with a whining, self-pitying excuse for his failure that blamed his failure on the collective mind-set of those who have soundly defeated him with reason, logic and science.
In other words his argument reduces to ‘the holyH narrative is sacred and accurate but I can’t explain why. I can only say you are a bad person if you doubt it’.

[Archie]

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.

Just to be clear: For the real showers and delousing procedures, it seems they did separate men and women. I would think if you were doing fake showers/gas chambers you'd want to do it the same way, but what do I know?

[Stubble]

So, what do you think about this novel column on feet? Figure Muller forgot to mention it while he was cleaning up the pellets around the entry way?

Maybe someone can call Van Pelt and let him know bombs has fixed his columns, and that MM found his holes.

/shrug

Couldn't find the color of smoke for Czechs. I didn't look super hard though.

https://nukebook.org/witness/victim/fri ... rnold/294/

[Archie]

LOL, the debate isn't unfair for me. Here's what I said

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.

It's all in your head. When you refuse to self critique this is what happens. I can sit here and calmly defend my narrative without pointing any fingers. Most of my time on this forum has been about defending and arguing for the orthodox narrative. The ratio of defense to critique (of revisionism) is probably like 10:1 for me. If I ever meet a revisionist who was able do this with their own narrative, I would shit my pants.

Can you remind me what the questions were (pertaining to the topic of this thread) that you felt like we were dodging? Maybe start with the most important one.

Your questions tend to be vague and open-ended. Not very concrete. And they're often loaded with embedded assumptions and claims.

"Well, if the columns are a myth, how can you explain why there are so many testimonies?"

This sort of question assumes there are lots of (good quality?) Kula column testimonies but that is a claim that should be demonstrated. This is a very different sort of question from something like, "uh, how did the column supposedly work?"

Multiple testimonies are not per se impressive because of the possibility of dependence.

[bombsaway]

Can you remind me what the questions were (pertaining to the topic of this thread) that you felt like we were dodging? Maybe start with the most important one.

The last thing I asked about was how do you explain the discrepancy between the groups of witnesses - the eyewitnesses almost all report columns, those who aren't clear eyewitnesses or are getting it second hand - don't and furthermore blatantly contradict the narrative with statements like the gas came out of showerheads.

Just like I explained how the column *could have* plausibly worked, you're going to have to do that with the conspiracy you believe in . You avoid this subject like the plague. Always have, always will I say.

[bombsaway]

So, what do you think about this novel column on feet?

I find it comical that people here find this feature so unbelievable, given conditions in a gas chamber like the one described.

https://chatgpt.com/share/69ccbe4f-c344 ... fe1e962f92

[Wahrheitssucher]

I find it comical that people here find this feature so unbelievable, given conditions in a gas chamber like the one described.

Duh! What a deceiving dimwit you are.

The feature isn’t “unbelievable”.

That “feature” just isn’t: a.) what was described in b.) the morgues (NOT “gas chamber”) by c.) the lie-witnesses whom the holyH mass-gassing mythology depends upon.

You presumably know this. Which is why YOU are forced (8 decades later) to INVENT “features” to try and reconcile the contradictions and impossibilities/ impracticalities of their lying testimony.

[HansHill]

Schroedinger Columns probably is the best name in retrospect.

To think, our friend Sideshow Bombsaway could have avoided all this negative attention and / or rakes if he simply designated Chazan as a category 3 witness all those pages ago.

Sad!

[Archie]

Can you remind me what the questions were (pertaining to the topic of this thread) that you felt like we were dodging? Maybe start with the most important one.

The last thing I asked about was how do you explain the discrepancy between the groups of witnesses - the eyewitnesses almost all report columns, those who aren't clear eyewitnesses or are getting it second hand - don't and furthermore blatantly contradict the narrative with statements like the gas came out of showerheads.

Just like I explained how the column *could have* plausibly worked, you're going to have to do that with the conspiracy you believe in . You avoid this subject like the plague. Always have, always will I say.

Here's the problem I have with this,

"the eyewitnesses almost all report columns,"

This is a claim. As a lawyer would say, you are "assuming facts not in evidence." Where did you even try to establish this?

"those who aren't clear eyewitnesses or are getting it second hand - don't and furthermore blatantly contradict the narrative"

Or this?

It seems you want to steer the discussion away from the specifics (e.g., Kula) in favor of wild goose chases. I think you do this because you know you will lose on the specifics and want to pivot to vague propositions. To open the door for perpetual talmudry.

Creating a comprehensive/definitive database of Kula column testimonies and comparing this to all the testimonies more broadly is not the sort of project someone is going to take on just for sake of a forum reply. Germar's summary in the encyclopedia is probably the best thing that's been published (and the HH volumes on the Sonderkommandos are the best thing on that topic more generally). You are being unreasonable in demanding this in a thread which is specifically dedicated to discussing "Kula vs Tauber." Especially when you have made zero effort to contribute to such a project yourself. If you want to make that argument, you should try to put in the work. Or at least get it started.

My impression is that Sonderkommando testimonies generally contain more interior details than random stories, but you would expect that under both the Holocaust and Holohoax scenarios.

[Stubble]

HH:36 would be best for this, wouldn't it?

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/aus ... nfessions/

[...]30 of the best-known or most-important witnesses about Auschwitz, including putative former inmates Elie Wiesel, Rudolf Vrba, Filip Müller, Charles S. Bendel, Miklós Nyiszli and Olga Lengyel, as well as former members of the SS camp staff Rudolf Höss, Pery Broad, Johann Paul Kremer, Hans Aumeier, Maximilian Grabner and Richard Böck.[...]

If one were so inclined.

Another option might be to look at Graf's analysis.