Page 5 of 5
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2026 7:20 pm
by bombsaway
HansHill wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 6:57 pm
Quote reply which question of yours I have dodged. If it's your Reddit bait about "why did he lie" then consider my answer to be
refusal (not a dodge) based on it being bait into cat and mouse games which I'm not here to do. I've already told you i'm not here to psychoanalyze why X or Y person was motivated into Z or N action. It feels like you want me to attribute this to ethnic hatred of Germans, revenge fantasy or whatever - but again I'm not here to discuss that.
That's the difference between your camp and mine. There aren't any questions that I flat out refuse to answer. Though of course I'm time bound and things of that nature.
If you think the revenge fantasy narrative might reasonably explain your "invented" 1005 weather reports and Kula columns, you are battier than I would suppose. It's about conspiracy.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2026 7:23 pm
by HansHill
bombsaway wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 6:01 pm
As Van Pelt said, the can would be in the innermost column.
Back to discussing the claims and their contradictions. Upthread you provided the below passage as a demonstration of Van Pelt's acceptance and approval of the pellets-in-can thesis of Tauber. I've gone back and read the whole passage as follows. Top part your original snippet, and below it's continuation:
As we have seen, Tauber had described them as three structures of ever finer mesh. Within the innermost column there was a removable can to pull after the gassing the Zyklon “crystals,” that is the porous silica pellets that had absorbed the hydrocyanide. Kula, who had made these columns, provided some technical specifications.
Among other things the metal workshop made the false showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the wire-mesh columns for the introduction of the contents of the tins with Zyklon into the gas chambers. These columns were around 3 meters high, and they were 70 centimetres square in plan. Such a column consisted of 6 wire screens which were built the one within the other. The inner screen was made from 3 millimeter thick wire, fastened to iron corner posts of 50 by 10 millimeters. Such iron corner posts were on each corner of the column and connected on the top in the same manner. The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner, and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet, and at the bottom with a square base. At a distance of 25 millimetres from the sides of this columns were soldered tin corners supported by tin brackets. On these corners were mounted a thin mesh with openings of about one millimeter square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from here ran in the [Verlaenderung] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column.
The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for a equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column.
After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out. The ventilation system of the gas chamber was installed in the side walls of the gas chambers. The ventilation openings were hidden by zinc covers, provided with round openings.309
https://www.hdot.org/vanpelt/
I have bolded and underlined some key passages. As we can see, after discussing Tauber's purported cans, he defers to Kula who describes the pellets
leaving their tin, and being dispersed
into four quadrants of the central column. After the gassing, the entire central column is removed, with the four quadrants of pellets.
After this passage, Van Pelt moves onto other topics and I cannot see him returning to it again, but perhaps i have missed it.
1) If i have missed it, cite to me where he discards Kula's four quadrant dispersal method in favour of the pellets-within-can method?
2) If he fails to discard one over the other, explain how these contradicting functions and forms are integrated in the BA version of things?
3) Since the Van Pelt replicas clearly favour the Kula version, what does this mean for Tauber's account?
**EDIT**
Reposting the pictures of the Van Pelt replica displaying the Kula-four-quadrant-dispersal method so everybody reading can be crystal clear on what we are looking at:
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2026 7:41 pm
by bombsaway
I refuse to humor you any more about this, based on your refusal to answer to my criticisms and the general challenge of building a positive narrative about how the evidence came about.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2026 7:50 pm
by HansHill
Cool. I appreciate the honesty and we can all save some time.
Let the record stand that the contradictory accounts of Tauber and Kula remain unintegrated, as is the topic of this thread.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2026 8:06 pm
by bombsaway
Yes, and let the record stand that my claim - which is that these witness testimonies are greatly strengthened by their profusion, level of detail, and appearance in documents as well as court testimonies - is also unaddressed, to a far greater extent, since I've answered at least partly to the questions above. Revisionists are myopically focused on examining and nitpicking small details and problems in explanations given by historians and witnesses, instead of building a more holistic narrative about what happened and why.
When it comes to the mass killing program, orthodoxy has accomplished this.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Tue Mar 17, 2026 11:50 pm
by Archie
bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:43 pm
Maybe the pellets were very small so some still got through.
If you believe in the removable can, then the pellets should have stayed in the can. If the pellets were outside the can, then the can would serve no purpose. The whole point of the can is pellet removal. Maybe a few pellets would spill out of the can, but how many pellets do you really think are getting out of the can AND through three layers of wire mesh? Come on. That would be extremely rare. The most natural reading of that statement is that the guy was imagining a column that was totally open at the bottom and was not considering pellet removal at all.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 12:14 am
by bombsaway
Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 11:50 pm
bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:43 pm
Maybe the pellets were very small so some still got through.
If you believe in the removable can, then the pellets should have stayed in the can. If the pellets were outside the can, then the can would serve no purpose. The whole point of the can is pellet removal. Maybe a few pellets would spill out of the can, but how many pellets do you really think are getting out of the can AND through three layers of wire mesh? Come on. That would be extremely rare. The most natural reading of that statement is that the guy was imagining a column that was totally open at the bottom and was not considering pellet removal at all.
Kula:
"The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner, and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. "
It had to get through one layer essentially. btw when kula talks about the third part of the column being movable, this is the can.
"the whole middle column was taken out"
essentially the witness was unclear about this aspect in his description and you are jumping to the worst possible interpretation - that he was describing an impossible mechanism. I won't speculate further about the mechanism, there's just a question mark.
Will you also refuse to answer how the profusion of evidence about this specific largely unimportant detail plausibly could have come to exist, and why?
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 4:49 am
by Archie
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 12:14 am
Archie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 17, 2026 11:50 pm
bombsaway wrote: ↑Mon Mar 16, 2026 9:43 pm
Maybe the pellets were very small so some still got through.
If you believe in the removable can, then the pellets should have stayed in the can. If the pellets were outside the can, then the can would serve no purpose. The whole point of the can is pellet removal. Maybe a few pellets would spill out of the can, but how many pellets do you really think are getting out of the can AND through three layers of wire mesh? Come on. That would be extremely rare. The most natural reading of that statement is that the guy was imagining a column that was totally open at the bottom and was not considering pellet removal at all.
Kula:
"The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner, and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. "
It had to get through one layer essentially. btw when kula talks about the third part of the column being movable, this is the can.
"the whole middle column was taken out"
essentially the witness was unclear about this aspect in his description and you are jumping to the worst possible interpretation - that he was describing an impossible mechanism. I won't speculate further about the mechanism, there's just a question mark.
Will you also refuse to answer how the profusion of evidence about this specific largely unimportant detail plausibly could have come to exist, and why?
Here is Van Pelt's diagram in his book. This is his attempt to harmonize the accounts of Tauber and Kula. He doesn't even try to harmonize it with the other witnesses.
"C" is the can.
If the pellets are in that can, there aren't going to be any pellets getting outside the columns. The pellet would have to get out of the can, move laterally some distance. and get through at least two layers of mesh. You are arguing for this little-pellet-that-could scenario because you can't admit that Chazan is a class 3 witness.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:13 am
by bombsaway
Here is Kula's statement:
Among other things the metal workshop made the false showers intended for the gas chambers, as well as the wire-mesh columns for the introduction of the contents of the tins with Zyklon into the gas chambers. These columns were around 3 meters high, and they were 70 centimetres square in plan. Such a column consisted of 6 wire screens which were built the one within the other. The inner screen was made from 3 millimeter thick wire, fastened to iron corner posts of 50 by 10 millimeters. Such iron corner posts were on each corner of the column and connected on the top in the same manner. The openings of the wire mesh were 45 millimeters square. The second screen was made in the same manner, and constructed within the column at 150 millimeters distance from the first. The openings of the second were around 25 millimeters square. In the corners these screens were connected to each other by iron posts. The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column with a square footprint of around 150 millimeters made of sheet zinc. At the top it was closed by a metal sheet, and at the bottom with a square base. At a distance of 25 millimetres from the sides of this columns were soldered tin corners supported by tin brackets. On these corners were mounted a thin mesh with openings of about one millimeter square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from here ran in the [Verlaenderung] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column. The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for a equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out. The ventilation system of the gas chamber was installed in the side walls of the gas chambers. The ventilation openings were hidden by zinc covers, provided with round openings.309
"The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for a equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. " There was no lowering in a can.
Please tell me the difficulty for a zyklon b pebble to escape out of wire openings 25 mm and 45 mm (in bold). I quoted these for you before btw.
I find your complaints to be highly illogical, I expect you didn't read the testimony with any level of care since your points are directly addressed (pebbles travelled on the sides and were thrown in not lowered). Based on the testimony you would have a far better argument against orthodoxy if the claim was no pebbles escaped.
Can I also get a verbal confirmation from you that you are dodging my challenge to explain the profusion - ahem "refusing". Part of what allows your religion to perpetuate itself is a refusal to self evaluate (only to critique 'the other'), and you are proving that here.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:26 am
by HansHill
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:13 am
"The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for a equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. " There was no lowering in a can.
Then they are describing different devices and processes.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:36 am
by bombsaway
HansHill wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:26 am
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:13 am
"The contents of a Zyklon tin were thrown from the top on the distributor, which allowed for a equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. " There was no lowering in a can.
Then they are describing different devices and processes.
Who or what are you talking about?
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 11:41 am
by HansHill
Sure. To summarize the discrepancies:
"Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the pellets"
- Tauber, via Pressac and repeated by Van Pelt
"The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in the distributor cone, which allowed for an equal distribution of the Zyklon to all four sides of the column. After the evaporation of the gas, the entire central column was extracted and the evaporated
silica [carrier] removed.
- Kula, deposition to Hoss trial
Per Tauber, the can resides inside the innermost column to be removed.
Per Kula, the contents leave the can via pouring and enter the column directly.
Re: On challenges to produce contrary ("revisionist") witnesses
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2026 12:00 pm
by HansHill
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:13 am
Please tell me the difficulty for a zyklon b pebble to escape out of wire openings 25 mm and 45 mm (in bold). I quoted these for you before btw.
Why are we ignoring the 1mm mesh?
From your own post:
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 6:13 am
thin mesh with openings of about one millimeter square.
