Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[bombsaway]

Bombsaway will now be forced to claim that Ochshorn was either:
- not a direct eyewitness despite repeatedly claiming to be.
- talking about some other gas chamber despite describing Crema II or III.
- "ma[d]e shit up or ha[d] delusions".

If the latter, I'm all for it!

Whatever dude, you have a witness who saw something hundreds of feet away.

(this was the closest building I could find to the destroyed crematoria)

do you have an answer to this simple question?

The question is quantitative too. We have that Mattogno book now that is full of witness testimonies. We can run it through AI. Would you expect that as we find stronger testimonies (with firsthand experience being the main determinant here) they skew closer or further away from orthodoxy?

I would add to firsthand experience_ proximity, repeated exposure, witnesses that claim this are stronger.

[Stubble]

Isaak Ochshorn is corroborated.

Obrycki, Piazza, and Tabeau all say a bomb or cartridge or something of that sort.

Piazza actually goes on to say that since the 'cylinders' thrown into the room wouldn't break reliably, they moved on to cyanide powder on the floor and activated it with the shower.

Tabeau gave his statement to the War Refugee Board.

These were important eyewitnesses. Now we just dismiss them all, because the aren't 'harmonized' like Muller, Tauber, Chazan and Kula for example. Never mind if Tauber et al can't agree on the shape, construction or operation of the murder instrument, they all say 'pillar' so we go with that...

I'm curious to know, out of the 'hundreds' of witnesses on Die Prussian's list that gets trotted around, how many meet the criteria of actually being a witness according to this bar that removes anyone deemed 'inconvenient'? First, Krema II is it even a dozen?

[bombsaway]

Isaak Ochshorn is corroborated.

Obrycki, Piazza, and Tabeau all say a bomb or cartridge or something of that sort.

Piazza actually goes on to say that since the 'cylinders' thrown into the room wouldn't break reliably, they moved on to cyanide powder on the floor and activated it with the shower.

Isaak Ochshorn: saw it from hundreds of feet away

Bruno Piazza: published in some random brochure, claims to have been killed " after ten minutes we were all
dead, asphyxiated" this witness statement is nonsensical.

Obrycki: not eyewitness, this is a hearsay testimony C. MATTOGNO ∙ THE MAKING OF THE AUSCHWITZ MYTH 393

Tabeau: this seems like hearsay 144 C. MATTOGNO ∙ THE MAKING OF THE AUSCHWITZ MY

None of these witnesses are nearly as strong as someone like Tauber. You're just cherry picking and de contextualizing to make your point. I'll ask you the question

The question is quantitative too. We have that Mattogno book now that is full of witness testimonies. We can run it through AI. Would you expect that as we find stronger testimonies (ones that claim firsthand experience, proximity, repeated exposure) they skew closer or further away from orthodoxy?

Who will be the first to answer this question?

I've provided simple criteria of what makes a strong testimony.

[Stubble]

Trust Mattogono, and name drop him, when convenient. When he's talking about Tauber or Muller though, crickets...



I'll let you get back to 'trusting the experts', even if they can't agree on shape, construction or operation of this non existent murder weapon.

You're looking for 'reliable' witnesses, and you don't have any, so you end up using the 'nessie' method of evaluation and saying, see, they corroborate each other!

Going back to your car wreck analogy, this is like having 3 people who describe completely different scenarios (time of day, color, model, number of passengers), but saying, see, they all say there was a wreck over here, then looking, and not finding a wreck.

Like the 13 apostles of Treblinka and their 'huge mass graves'..

[PrudentRegret]

Reminder that this is the first ever direct representation of a "zyklon chimney", with an anonymous Soviet soldier demonstrating the operation of the Zyklon chimney: dispensing of Zyklon B through a chimney roof at Majdanek. This photograph was published in international news in October 1944, months before Auschwitz was even liberated.



Bombsaway, any rational person would see that your desperate attempts to vindicate the "Kula Columns" are a sad attempt to extend the lie that existed well before Auschwitz was even liberated. The lie you see in this picture. Do you seriously not understand how the Kula columns are an extension of the lie portrayed in that photograph? ALL of your Kula Column testimony comes months or even years after this photograph made international headlines. Do you not see the problem?

The Kula Columns were an attempt to salvage a lie, Bombsaway is an attempt to salvage a lie about a lie.

[Wetzelrad]

Whatever dude, you have a witness who saw something hundreds of feet away.

(this was the closest building I could find to the destroyed crematoria)

That doesn't look terribly far to me. Regardless, he (Ochshorn) claimed he watched the gassing operation in fine detail and even listened to the speeches of the guards on the platform. But because he deviated too far from the narrative that has since been established, you are forced to assume that he was somehow misrepresenting what he saw. So what does this mean? Do you make him a hearsay witness?

do you have an answer to this simple question?

The question is quantitative too. We have that Mattogno book now that is full of witness testimonies. We can run it through AI. Would you expect that as we find stronger testimonies (with firsthand experience being the main determinant here) they skew closer or further away from orthodoxy?

I would add to firsthand experience_ proximity, repeated exposure, witnesses that claim this are stronger.

None of the questions you've posted in this topic have inspired any thought or interest from me, but sure.

Yes, witnesses who claim to have been directly involved in the process would also be those with more credible things to say and better narrative conformity. For example you would not directly accuse a person of being a witch unless you knew something about their personal life, e.g. they talk to themselves in a mirror, that you could use against them. This should be the general pattern.

If you do decide to try this experiment with AI, bear in mind that Mattogno's work is not an exhaustive list of all witnesses and may exhibit some selection bias.

[Wahrheitssucher]

Reminder that this is the first ever direct representation of a "zyklon chimney", with an anonymous Soviet soldier demonstrating the operation of the Zyklon chimney: dispensing of Zyklon B through a chimney roof at Majdanek. This photograph was published in international news in October 1944, months before Auschwitz was even liberated.



Bombsaway, any rational person would see that your desperate attempts to vindicate the "Kula Columns" are a sad attempt to extend the lie that existed well before Auschwitz was even liberated. The lie you see in this picture. Do you seriously not understand how the Kula columns are an extension of the lie portrayed in that photograph? ALL of your Kula Column testimony comes months or even years after this photograph made international headlines. Do you not see the problem?
The Kula Columns were an attempt to salvage a lie, Bombsaway is an attempt to salvage a lie about a lie.

Excellent!

Well said!



BA is perpetuating a misdirection: endless discussion of minute detail of a blatant lie, of an obvious Allied ‘atrocity-propaganda’ falsehood.

I can understand doing that for a few weeks, just to set the record straight. But… for this long?

BA’s POSITION SUMMARISED: ‘We know there weren’t BUT if there were roof ‘holes’ — and we know there weren’t BUT if there were induction devices in the shape of ‘columns’ for administering then retrieving zyklonb pellets connected to these non-existent roof-holes — then answer me this: why have you concluded the obviously contradictory lie-witnesses are non-credible and unreliable?’

The collective reply after so many rebuttals and demolishings of this idiocy should be ‘get-outa-here, you time-waster’.

He’s effectively been taking the forum for a ride on his unicorn!

[HansHill]

This seems like a good place to close out the thread, well done to all on the Revisionist side, some excellent arguments and input have been forthcoming. Any newcomer will be absolutely puzzled as to Bombsaway (and by extention the mainstream) position on this most central and vital topic. I will draw my personal conclusions from this thread so far:

- No singular description of the physical appearance of the murder weapons exists
- No singular description of the operational functionality of the murder weapons exists
- Viable physical descriptions are synthesized from multiple sources where required
- Viable operational functionality is synthesized from multiple sources where required
- The Sonderkommandos are excused for various reasons where experts depart from their claims
- The experts are excused for various reasons where Sonderkommandos depart from their claims
- Where these reasons are brought to light, they are excused for example based on "the design must have changed since then", ie with the end in mind.
- The multiple sources mentioned above are pre-approved with the conclusion in mind
- The pellets were free to fall through the column to satisfy the claim of cleaning and sweeping, while simultaneously remaining within the columns' retaining structure for retrieval to satisfy the claim of minimum exposure time and leaving no residues.
- Where Krema workers or gassing victims describe different introduction mechanisms (hissing, shower heads) these are excused as required
- No """credible""" witness can afford to be held in a critical light, rendered unreliable, or as Archie calls them "category 3" for the implications this has on why they were permitted to perjure themselves

Well done again to all on the Revisionist side - a gold star thread.

Prediction: There will soon be another Prussian Blue thread, Bombsaway will forget all of this and confidently assert the treatment of the pellets, exposure time, and retrieval mechanism are thoroughly known quantities to argue the point of Prussian Blue formation.

[bombsaway]

Whatever dude, you have a witness who saw something hundreds of feet away.

(this was the closest building I could find to the destroyed crematoria)

That doesn't look terribly far to me. Regardless, he (Ochshorn) claimed he watched the gassing operation in fine detail and even listened to the speeches of the guards on the platform. But because he deviated too far from the narrative that has since been established, you are forced to assume that he was somehow misrepresenting what he saw. So what does this mean? Do you make him a hearsay witness?

do you have an answer to this simple question?

The question is quantitative too. We have that Mattogno book now that is full of witness testimonies. We can run it through AI. Would you expect that as we find stronger testimonies (with firsthand experience being the main determinant here) they skew closer or further away from orthodoxy?

I would add to firsthand experience_ proximity, repeated exposure, witnesses that claim this are stronger.

None of the questions you've posted in this topic have inspired any thought or interest from me, but sure.

Yes, witnesses who claim to have been directly involved in the process would also be those with more credible things to say and better narrative conformity. For example you would not directly accuse a person of being a witch unless you knew something about their personal life, e.g. they talk to themselves in a mirror, that you could use against them. This should be the general pattern.

If you do decide to try this experiment with AI, bear in mind that Mattogno's work is not an exhaustive list of all witnesses and may exhibit some selection bias.

Look at the bottom right you'll see the scale, it's at least 350 feet, the length of an American football field. Its just a fact you're not going to be able see clearly over that distance. On this count - seeing clearly - the witness is mistaken. The testimony is not strong.

Congrats on being the only poster here who has answered my question thus far

You say

Yes, witnesses who claim to have been directly involved in the process would also be those with more credible things to say and better narrative conformity

But this is precisely the point. It makes total sense for me that stronger witnesses would have testimonies closer to the truth. This is true for witnesses testifying to ANY event. However in the revisionist narrative, there is no such thing as credibility or truth. The columns are as much poppycock as gas showerheads, it's all nonsense, every witness was either lying or delusional, usually the former. In this sea of assumed nonsense though there is a strong pattern of witnesses who are stronger ( ones that claim firsthand experience, close proximity, repeated exposure) aligning with a specific story. This is probably beyond dispute, no poster here has contested it, so I won't bother to demonstrate it with analysis of the witnesses. The question is why this pattern exists within your narrative of its all nonsense from top to bottom- gas bombs, gas showers, introduction columns. Do you have an answer?

[bombsaway]

Reminder that this is the first ever direct representation of a "zyklon chimney", with an anonymous Soviet soldier demonstrating the operation of the Zyklon chimney: dispensing of Zyklon B through a chimney roof at Majdanek. This photograph was published in international news in October 1944, months before Auschwitz was even liberated.



Bombsaway, any rational person would see that your desperate attempts to vindicate the "Kula Columns" are a sad attempt to extend the lie that existed well before Auschwitz was even liberated. The lie you see in this picture. Do you seriously not understand how the Kula columns are an extension of the lie portrayed in that photograph? ALL of your Kula Column testimony comes months or even years after this photograph made international headlines. Do you not see the problem?

The Kula Columns were an attempt to salvage a lie, Bombsaway is an attempt to salvage a lie about a lie.

Paint the picture for me of how Kula is an extension of that. THere's no indication ih the photo that beneath the chimney were zyklon introduction columns.

[PrudentRegret]

Paint the picture for me of how Kula is an extension of that. THere's no indication ih the photo that beneath the chimney were zyklon introduction columns.

No there weren't, at Majdanek the story was they were just dumped onto the floor like Krema I. Of course the chimney depicted in that picture is not a Zyklon Chimney, Mattogno IIRC identified it as the roof to a drying facility for laundry. Funnily enough this picture stood out to me before I was really even a Revisionist - "that's weird there are false claims about a Zyklon Chimney where Zyklon crystals were poured at Majdanek like 8 months before they found the 'real' Zyklon chimneys at Auschwitz."

Sergey from HolocaustControversies dismissed my concern about the simple logic that if a claim is made in place/time A and it's a lie, and the identical claim is made 8 months later by the same people at place B, it's probably a lie at Place B also. Sergey's response was ""Not being a real Zyklon B chimney doesn't make it a fake Zyklon B chimney." So his rebuttal was that this was not a fake Zyklon chimney, it was just not a real Zyklon Chimney despite being presented as one to international news.

How is it related to the Kula Columns? Because the claim Zyklon B was dumped through roof chimneys came first at Majdanek, and it was a lie. And then the claim is made later at Auschwitz. And THEN we get the Kula Columns to conveniently provide a more practical theory for how this was all supposed to have worked, even though it's self-contradictory and cross-contradictory with other witnesses.

The point is, the allegation of this operation of murder came first and then the Kula Columns came later as an attempt to explain how it worked, rather than the Kula Columns forming the basis of the conclusion itself that mass murder was accomplished through dumping Zyklon through Chimneys exactly like the Soviet army man is showing everybody at Majdanek (of course they have never been found so they never could have been used as the basis for the claim anyway).

[bombsaway]

"And THEN we get the Kula Columns to conveniently provide a more practical theory for how this was all supposed to have worked"

Plausibly, who or what orginzations might have come up with the Kula column idea? Then, what was their strategy in getting witnesses, both German and their former prisoners, to proclaim their existence?

[Wetzelrad]

Look at the bottom right you'll see the scale, it's at least 350 feet, the length of an American football field. Its just a fact you're not going to be able see clearly over that distance.

Someone should inform the football fans.

And perhaps you're ignoring that he watched this happen repeatedly. He didn't say the number of times, that I can see, but it would have to have been more than ten times based on other testimony. Did he miscount the number of gas bombs and bee hives every time? How long would you have to stare at a line of bee hives from 350 feet before you realized that there were actually four of them, not one?

Ochschorn may have to go into the same category as Eichmann and Gerstein as eyewitnesses that anti-revisionists selectively deny were eyewitnesses because they contradict the narrative in inconvenient ways.

It makes total sense for me that stronger witnesses would have testimonies closer to the truth. This is true for witnesses testifying to ANY event.

Real and true.

However in the revisionist narrative, there is no such thing as credibility or truth.

Weird thing to say. No revisionist would ever agree with this.

The columns are as much poppycock as gas showerheads, it's all nonsense, every witness was either lying or delusional, usually the former.

I suppose your point is that if revisionists contest that gassings occurred, they must believe that the claimed witnesses lied about everything, but that's not the case. For example I presume that at least some of the Sonderkommando did actually work in or visit the crematoria at one time or another, and they gathered real information from those experiences.

In this sea of assumed nonsense though there is a strong pattern of witnesses who are stronger ( ones that claim firsthand experience, close proximity, repeated exposure) aligning with a specific story.

Kula columns are not assumed nonsense, they're demonstrably nonsense. See: the last twelve pages of this thread.

The trouble with defining a witness's strength by their level of alignment with a story itself based on the same witness's testimony is that it is, quite obviously, circular logic.

Perhaps aliens are also real because so many stories of alien encounters involve flying saucers, abductions, grey aliens, medical instruments, cattle mutilation, and crop circles. All these witnesses converge on the same story. That would make them "strong" witnesses in your view, whereas I would say they're "lying and delusional".

The question is why this pattern exists within your narrative of its all nonsense from top to bottom- gas bombs, gas showers, introduction columns. Do you have an answer?

It's difficult to understand why you think that for revisionists to be right there should be no pattern. Can you think of any modern or historical hoax where there was no witness convergence? For example, why do alien abductees copy each others' story details instead of making up wholly unique stories?

You also describe the pattern of alignment itself as being "strong", and I find that questionable based on the examples given so far, but, even if it is strong, it's unimpressive. We're talking about a group of people who were not only in camp together but also worked together. They also had the benefit of state support in the postwar legal proceedings. They have had every opportunity to align their stories with one another and with the facts that are available. You have no reason to assume that these witnesses were independent.

You add "gas bombs" to your list, but that is actually a pretty solid proof of the witnesses not being independent. It would be difficult to confuse throwing a bomb with pouring Zyklon granules out of a can. This false detail could not have been corroborated by many witnesses (some named above) without some form of cross pollination.

You may also be overlooking what this witness pattern says about the chronology of gassing stories. Many of the indirect witnesses (Rudolf Vrba and Olga Lengyel as two examples) claimed explicitly that their hearsay knowledge of the gas chambers came from people who worked in the crematories, i.e. the "strong" witnesses. This means they received their understanding of gassings from the same source but acquired it pre-liberation. Isn't it troubling that out of all these pre-liberation stories as well as the resistance stories and contemporary news reports, none of them knew about the Kula columns? Doesn't that rather suggest the Kula columns were invented in the postwar period? Maybe as a result of someone learning about the evaporation characteristics of Zyklon?

[bombsaway]

Look at the bottom right you'll see the scale, it's at least 350 feet, the length of an American football field. Its just a fact you're not going to be able see clearly over that distance.

Someone should inform the football fans.

And perhaps you're ignoring that he watched this happen repeatedly. He didn't say the number of times, that I can see, but it would have to have been more than ten times based on other testimony. Did he miscount the number of gas bombs and bee hives every time? How long would you have to stare at a line of bee hives from 350 feet before you realized that there were actually four of them, not one?

"he threw the lethal Gas bomb through a hole in the roof of the gas chamber, which looked from a distance like a bee-hive"

He was far away and couldn't see clearly. He is hundreds of feet away. This is your strongest witness that contradicts the narrative majorly? OK. I think that says something.

I suppose your point is that if revisionists contest that gassings occurred, they must believe that the claimed witnesses lied about everything, but that's not the case.

Is there some truth to the Kula columns and reason why so many Sonderkommando reported on them?

You also describe the pattern of alignment itself as being "strong", and I find that questionable based on the examples given so far, but, even if it is strong, it's unimpressive. We're talking about a group of people who were not only in camp together but also worked together. They also had the benefit of state support in the postwar legal proceedings. They have had every opportunity to align their stories with one another and with the facts that are available. You have no reason to assume that these witnesses were independent.

The pattern which you're not addressing is that the "strong witnesses" (ones that claim firsthand experience, close proximity, repeated exposure) have a different story than the ones who are weaker. This is precisely the discrepancy I've been talking about and which you have not addressed.

Just like I speculated about the Kula columns functions given the incomplete evidence, I'm asking you to speculate about how these stories came about in the way they did.

You add "gas bombs" to your list, but that is actually a pretty solid proof of the witnesses not being independent. It would be difficult to confuse throwing a bomb with pouring Zyklon granules out of a can. This false detail could not have been corroborated by many witnesses (some named above) without some form of cross pollination.

You talk about witness independence as if it's something we don't know about or aren't taking into account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony Mainstream sources say that this is very common with witness evidence, and a reason why witness evidence is unreliable, less accurate. I would this actually explains a lot of the inaccuracies in testimonies that revisionists like to cherry pick as proof of a conspiracy or liars. If the contention is merely that witness evidence is unreliable, I agree.

And yet the SK, those who worked in the crematoria area, not in separate districts of the camp, were much more consistent on the major details, such as zyklon being poured in through holes and columns. You aren't explaining why.

[bombsaway]

Isn't it troubling that out of all these pre-liberation stories as well as the resistance stories and contemporary news reports, none of them knew about the Kula columns? Doesn't that rather suggest the Kula columns were invented in the postwar period? Maybe as a result of someone learning about the evaporation characteristics of Zyklon?

Not even true, this from Aug 1944 according to Mattogno:


“After the examination, the people are led to an underground room – a dressing room resembling one in a public bath. Once undressed, the people go to
the next room – a [shower] bath which has faucets and shower [heads], but
never any water. This room has 4 (four) lattice columns leading to the roof of
the building. After the ‘bath’ has been filled to capacity with people (who
stand very close to each other), the doors are hermetically closed. Through the
apertures on the top of the columns, some powdery substance is poured in, a
substance which emits a toxic gas, so the people begin to asphyxiate. The suffocation process lasts 10-15 minutes.”

The FG report is from 1943 and mentions the columns, there's probably other contemporaneous mentions.