bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 7:36 pm
Ridiculous. He says they are in agreement repeatedly aside from the example I mentioned
"it remains to explain the concordance between the testimonies of Kula and Tauber."
"It is finally necessary to establish if the testimonies of Kula and Tauber on
this matter are independent of each other. Seeing that the descriptions of the
columns given by these two witnesses coincide and that these columns were
never constructed, it is clear that we are dealing with a concordance of falsehood"
This is a big part of his argument, that Tauber and Kula knew each other so the testimonies aren't independent. A gross discrepancy like the one you want to believe exists, would compromise the argument. Mattogno didn't see anything amiss, which at least suggests that your statement that my reading is unreasonable doesn't hold water. It is shared by the king of revisionism.
This whole matter I think speaks to a general inanity within revisionism, which is that you guys will believe whatever you want to believe. There's grey area in history, but you're drawn to the binaries, so even within the movement you can come to opposite conclusions.
Graf (HH36, pg 174): "Thus, while Tauber claimed that a can on a string was lowered into the inner column and then pulled out, Kula’s rendition was that Zyklon B had been poured into the inner column itself, which could be removed in its entirety at the end of the gassing."
I interpret the descriptions the same way Graf does. I would have to review Mattogno, but I suspect he's talking more generally. Mattogno is right that the statements are similar enough that we should suspect some dependence.
the senseless and unbelievable detail would be lifting a 10 foot column out of the gas chamber when something like a box attached to a wire could be used to remove the pellets.
On the other hand, the description of the device for introducing Zyklon B
that was supplied by Henryk Tauber in his deposition of May 24, 1945, agrees
with that of Kula, as can be seen from the following translation made from the
original text:
“The vault of the gas chamber rested on concrete pillars along the center
of its length. On the left and on the right of these pillars there were four
columns. The outside part of these columns was made of grills of thick steel
wire that went up to the ceiling and into the exterior. Inside[108]
this part was a second net with smaller mesh and holes, and in its interior a third
[net] was planted. In this third net a box was moved by means of which, using a
steel wire, the powder – from which the gas had by now evaporated – was withdrawn.”
319
it remains to explain the concordance between the testimonies of Kula and Tauber.
327
It is finally necessary to establish if the testimonies of Kula and Tauber on
this matter are independent of each other. Seeing that the descriptions of the
columns given by these two witnesses coincide and that these columns were
never constructed, it is clear that we are dealing with a concordance of falsehood
bombsaway wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 8:28 pm
the senseless and unbelievable detail would be lifting a 10 foot column out of the gas chamber when a box attached to a wire could be used to remove the pellets.
On the other hand, the description of the device for introducing Zyklon B
that was supplied by Henryk Tauber in his deposition of May 24, 1945, agrees
with that of Kula, as can be seen from the following translation made from the
original text:
“The vault of the gas chamber rested on concrete pillars along the center
of its length. On the left and on the right of these pillars there were four
columns. The outside part of these columns was made of grills of thick steel
wire that went up to the ceiling and into the exterior. Inside[108]
this part was a second net with smaller mesh and holes, and in its interior a third
[net] was planted. In this third net a box was moved by means of which, using a
steel wire, the powder – from which the gas had by now evaporated – was withdrawn.”
319
it remains to explain the concordance between the testimonies of Kula and Tauber.
327
It is finally necessary to establish if the testimonies of Kula and Tauber on
this matter are independent of each other. Seeing that the descriptions of the
columns given by these two witnesses coincide and that these columns were
never constructed, it is clear that we are dealing with a concordance of falsehood
328
You are misreading that. That's from HH18 (Auschwitz Lies). The paper you are quoting from, The Elusive Holes of Death, is primarily a response to Provan and Keren on the holes in the roof. It's NOT focused on the details of columns. When he says Tauber and Kula "agree," he's speaking very generally in the context of a discussion about the holes. He's not saying they agree perfectly.
I don't know why you went to HH18 instead of the more obvious place, HH22, The Real Case for Auschwitz, Mattogno's lengthy response to Van Pelt. This would have confirmed that you were misreading the comments in HH18.
The drawing furthermore presents an inner device (for the Zyklon B) which ran down almost to the floor and was controlled by a rope. This description corresponds to Tauber’s statement, but not to Kula’s, according to whom the inside was an empty column made of galvanized steel which had an opening like a funnel and which was placed into the upper part of the column, as Pressac shows in his drawing (1989, p. 487). A comparison of this drawing and of that presented by van Pelt shows better than anything else the divergence of the two statements; for his part, van Pelt ignores it and creates a new entirely fictitious “convergence.” (pg. 90)
Archie, what are your thoughts on the situation with Kramer. Am I being 'insane and pedantic' about the conflict between his earlier denial and then his impossible testimony? Or is it indeed curiously vexing?
One would wonder how someone could be made to makes such a confession, no? And how something so incongruous with reality could be 'established legal fact' after his confession?
If I were to guess why no t4 personnel were chosen to perform gassing that had experience with gassing, it would be because THERE WERE NONE.
And then this is Van Pelt's (whose drawing is said to be based on "Tauber and Kula" but which is really mostly Tauber).
As Mattogno says: "A comparison of this drawing {Pressac's Kula drawing] and of that presented by van Pelt shows better than anything else the divergence of the two statements"
Archie wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 3:05 pm
...
Kula:
"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."
You are trying to say the movable column is the can, but I don't think it is. The can would not be described as an "empty column with a square footprint."
Plus then Kula says: "This mesh ended at the bottom of the column and from here ran in the [collection cup] of the screen a tin frame until the top of the column." The term in brackets that you left in German when you quoted it Van Pelt renders as "collection cup." That's the closest thing in Kula to the "can" in Tauber's version.
"After the evaporation of the gas the whole middle column was taken out."
I think that last part settles it. He clearly says the whole big ass column was taken out, not just the can (or collection cup).
I will amend the above interpretation of Kula somewhat in light of reviewing Pressac's drawing. He has the removable column as being pretty short, not going all the way to the floor. But either way Kula sure as hell isn't talking about a removable can on a wire.
Stubble wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2026 9:21 pm
Archie, what are your thoughts on the situation with Kramer. Am I being 'insane and pedantic' about the conflict between his earlier denial and then his impossible testimony? Or is it indeed curiously vexing?
One would wonder how someone could be made to makes such a confession, no? And how something so incongruous with reality could be 'established legal fact' after his confession?
Pressac discards Kramer as a witness even though he believes in Natzweiler gassings. So I would say no. If they accuse your sanity for questioning Kramer's story, they would also have to question Pressac's.
