Re: Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2026 3:06 pm
Oh, that's already been covered by PoD succinctly in his 'interview/protocols methodology' post.bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 2:59 pmYeah all these questions fall outside the purview of the kula columns topic.HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 2:18 pmI 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.bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 2:13 pm 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.
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.
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
Memories were 'refreshed' about 'key details' by 'reminding' witnesses via 'other testimony'.
Spoiler
pilgrimofdark wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 4:25 pmFrom 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:Archie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2026 1:31 pmIf 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.
This methodology leads directly to confabulation and confirmation bias (whether inadvertent or intentional doesn't matter to the end result).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
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!:
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.)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.
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.