Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[Stubble]

I can't speak to the clumping issue because I this would depend on particular formation of the pellets and we don't have them. The slots could be very large, almost the width of the inner column.

By the way only the inner column was supposed to be that fine. Outer columns had larger openings. If some pellets got through well hey attested to in the witness record.

I understand that, however the clumping issue determines the rate of offgassing and thus execution time. And in turn a gazillion other things like expected PB formation, and throughput for the furnaces etc. I get that you personally may not be interested in this variable, but as an enthusiast community, we are.

And as an enthusiast community, when critically assessing this, we have very little to go on, except for what a very small number of people (eg Kula, Tauber, Khazan etc) said, so we must be precise and critical with them to ascertain this and other variables. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

Yeah all these questions fall outside the purview of the kula columns topic.

Imo the only thing left to discuss is the conspiracy to get witnesses to talk about the columns, you guys don't want to do this,.I get that

Oh, that's already been covered by PoD succinctly in his 'interview/protocols methodology' post.

Memories were 'refreshed' about 'key details' by 'reminding' witnesses via 'other testimony'.

Spoiler

If the testimonies could be shown to be independent, then perhaps we could argue the multiple independent accounts were corroborative. But independence has not been demonstrated. It is nothing more than an assumption, and the evidence suggests major cross-pollination in these stories.

From a "Notes on Methodology" section of the Central Jewish Historical Commission's (CZKH) attempt to standardize the methodology of collecting eyewitness testimonies. Joseph Kermish wrote it in 1945 in Lodz:

Thus, the data collector should remind the witness of facts not only by asking him relevant questions, but also by recounting well-known events from the subject under discussion (association method). A witness’s memory is often jogged upon hearing the testimony of another witness who lived through similar experiences.

- Document 14 in Khurbn-Forshung. PDF

This methodology leads directly to confabulation and confirmation bias (whether inadvertent or intentional doesn't matter to the end result).

Reading an interviewee another person's testimony in order to jog their memory of a third person, place, or event could introduce all sorts of contamination camouflaged as corroboration.

A similar CZKH methodological document is also quoted in Laura Jockusch's Collect and Record!:

The zamler will do well not just to help the witness with questions but also to provide him with facts that he [the interviewer] already knows from other sources (that is, an associative method), [or by] reading aloud the testimony of another witness on a similar or the same topic.

- p. 98, quoting Metodologische onvayzungen.

These are different versions of the same document. The first was written in Polish, the second Yiddish. (Apparently, a few similar methodological documents were collected, translated into Yiddish, and published.)

This is the methodology interviewers in Poland had relevant training and expertise carrying out. Assuming independence of the testimonies they gathered requires assuming they willingly violated the methodology they were trained on.

Spoiler

Interviewer: What do you remember about Bary the dog?
Witness: I don't remember anything.
Interviewer: Let me *checks methodological guide* remind you and jog your memory about a well-known event. It was a huge dog that bit Jews in the genitals.
Witness: Yes, I remember. It was a German dog that bit me in the genitals at the synthetic jam factory in Lublin.
Interviewer: Treblinka.
Witness: Treblinka. I can show you my scar.
[end of interview]

---

Interviewer: How many corpses do you remember seeing?
Witness: I don't know. Some. Hard to give an exact number.
Interviewer: Let me *checks methodological guide* read aloud the testimony of another witness: "there were approximately 3.5 million corpses."
Witness: By "some," I mean 3 million or so.

[Wahrheitssucher]

…as an enthusiast community, when critically assessing this, we have very little to go on, except for what a very small number of people (eg Kula, Tauber, Khazan etc) said, so we must be precise and critical with them to ascertain this and other variables. Otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

[1.] Yeah all these questions fall outside the purview of the kula columns topic.

[2.] Imo the only thing left to discuss is the conspiracy to get witnesses to talk about the columns, you guys don't want to do this. I get that.

1. How does discussing the testimony of former Polish Auschwitz inmate Michat Kula and comparing it with similar or contradictory testimony of others “fall outside the purview of the kula columns topic”???

2. Fifteen pages of discussion over five months, and yet you are still falsely claiming people don’t want to discuss certain things with you?
Why are you replying with these obviously-false claims?
Why are you replying with these nonsense, ad hominem, psychological-projection replies?

The conspiracy of lie-witnesses claiming self-contradictory and practically impossible and/or non-credible testimony has been addressed here numerous times. Why are you lying about that?
As — in reality — it isn’t revisionists who can’t and won’t discuss that, it is you believers.
E.g. I recently narrated a failed attempt on the ‘skeptics’ forum to get die-hard, holyH believers to address that exact point. (here viewtopic.php?p=25481#p25481)

[Archie]

Upon reviewing the diagram,



I maintain all of these criticisms.

1) Your hypothesis includes many novel elements which have no basis in any of the testimonies. It does not fit the plain reading of the statements, and you are in disagreement with Van Pelt and Pressac.

2) Your baseless design additions are major enough that a) they should have been mentioned by Kula since he was personally involved in the manufacture and his description is very detailed, b) these are not things that could have been casually added. For example, adding slots and a mechanism to open and close them would have required additional work in the machine shop.

3) No Sonderkommando or SS man or anyone else mentions anything in the procedure about opening and closing slots or anything like that.

4) The distributor cone and the can on a wire are more naturally explained as simply being contradictions. You cannot accept this possibility and so you are bending over backwards to find a single design that combines both elements. You have to assume (without support) a removable cone and all the modifications to get the pellets into the can at the end, even though no sane person would design the column to work like this and if they did the witnesses would not be describing something different.

I would mostly maintain #5 though this comment was made without the benefit of a picture.

Spoiler

5) Your solution, besides deviating wildly from the testimonies, is amateurish and would not work. If the pellets are initially released into the gap between mesh layers, depending on the exact clearance and pellet size, they would either fall straight to the bottom or they would get caught in the mesh somewhere on the way down. The presence of moisture would also likely result in the pellets getting stuck in the mesh.

Germar Rudolf explains (HH2, pg. 153-154)

Kula initially stated that the Zyklon B gypsum granules were poured
into the narrow space of 2.5 cm between the inner column’s sheet metal core
and its outer screen. Already pouring the pellets into that narrow space could
have led to clogging anywhere along the height of the column. Even if that did
not happen, it is safe to say that the gypsum pellets would have gotten very
wet. There are two reasons for this.

First because the room it was inserted into is said to have been filled with
people. They would have produced an atmosphere saturated with water. This
humidity would have condensed on anything colder than the air those people
exhaled. In addition to this, in the case under investigation here, hydrogen
cyanide would have evaporated vigorously from the carrier, withdrawing con
siderable amounts of energy from it, hence cooling it down. This would have
led to the condensation of large quantities of air humidity onto the pellets.

Wet gypsum tends to stick and clump together. Getting this wet gypsum,
which would have stuck to the screen while still releasing poisonous hydrogen
cyanide, out of the inner column would have been rather difficult. Pounding
the screen to get the pellets out would quickly have ruined that flimsy inner
column. In brief, it would have been a mess.

Kula describes concentric, rectangular columns, and everyone except you reads it that way. It is not entirely clear what you are imagining but you seem to think the inner layer is sloped to funnel the pellets into the can (I base this on your sarcastic reply below)

Lol are you arguing that the Germans couldn't figure out how to get tiny pellets to fall into a container? the container would be lower than where the pellets fell, and would fall further when slots were opened, relying on the mysterious force known as GRAVITY. the third column would just have to have sloped sides.

The better arguments I think you have against this is other witness specifying different collection mechanism (which has not been produced), or no witness specifying such a mechanism. Quite obviously this latter argument is weak: just because witnesses or documents don't describe something doesn't mean it couldn't have happened right? Like (cough cough) resettlement of a small country's worth of Jews in the USSR?

The difference between orthodoxy and revisionism is the gaps are in comparison microscopic for orthodoxy - eg a mechanism used for killing is not described in full, whereas your side offers no evidence of any aspect of a mass event, probably the largest population transfer in history. The insanity, as I see it, is not the skepticism you have, rather these extreme double standards.

Again, this is confused because it ignores the slim clearance between layers, and the clumping/stickiness of the pellets in the presence of moisture. And the fact the fact that Kula does not describe a sloped inner column.

It seems BA envisions a fairly large clearance between layers such that the pellets immediately fall and collect down by the slopes/slots. But in that case, the pellets are mostly bunched up together, so what exactly is the purpose of all this? This is barely better than leaving them in the can. But my main reaction to the drawing is to note that it bears little relation to the testimonial descriptions.

[Archie]

...
**well, we know they weren't poured or lowered at all because this is all a house of cards.

It does get confusing debating hypothetical/fictional scenarios. It's like arguing over Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, etc.

My approach is to take whatever they say is true and assume it's true for the sake of argument. Then I follow it through and see where it leads. If it leads to absurdity and contradictions, this suggests what they say isn't true.

[bombsaway]

I hardly believe my design is actually what existed in reality - it's pure speculation, so if you want to attack it on those grounds that's legit. But I've said this many times before. It's possible the methods changed, it's possible the testimonies were confused to some degree leading to improper interpretations, it's possible mechanisms were left out. I would never offer my diagram up as serious history. It was an exercise in showing general feasibility.

I would mostly maintain #5 though this comment was made without the benefit of a picture.

It seems BA envisions a fairly large clearance between layers such that the pellets immediately fall and collect down by the slopes/slots. But in that case, the pellets are mostly bunched up together, so what exactly is the purpose of all this?

this is a fundamental issue, not only with my speculative interpretation but every orthodox hypothesis about how the columns worked. i think it's obvious that pellets in a can of some sort are going to off- gas worse than pellets that are in held by wire mesh of some sort. why because there are clear gaps in wire mesh that wouldn't exist in the sides of a can.

[HansHill]

Then you agree with the thesis of this thread, and with revisionist posters here.

1) no singular working description of the weapons exist
2) since the variations are enough to be possible modifications, then that means they are different enough that they cannot be synthesized into one
3) the experts deviate from eyewitness accounts to generate a viable working model