Kula vs Tauber on "Kula columns"

[Archie]

Now, Kula certainly does say it was poured from the top.

The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in [on] 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 [depleted] silica [carrier] removed.

Here is Germar's drawing of this "distributor cone."

I do not see how to reconcile Kula's "distributor cone" with the small container on a wire.

The cone is at the top and sends the pellets off to the sides. The pellets would fall between the gap in the mesh layers. The problem of the getting the pellets into the small inner container has already been raised. But there is another problem: how do you pull the small container out with a wire if the top of the column is blocked by the distributor cone?

[bombsaway]

The distributor cone could have been removable, and I would say it was.

It sounds like the "can" thing was a mistranslation and Tauber consistently referred to it as a box, which would be able to collect the pellets more effectively.

Your criticisms here are therefore solely relegated to 'they described part of the mechanism but not the whole thing'. Given the failure to address the 0 witnesses that describe ANY aspect of the largest population transfer and resettlement in history, this is an unworkable argument for revisionists. I don't even have to tell you why it's weak criticism, you aren't bothered by incompleteness happening at a much much higher scale with your own belief system.

[Archie]

The distributor cone could have been removable, and I would say it was.

It sounds like the "can" thing was a mistranslation and Tauber consistently referred to it as a box, which would be able to collect the pellets more effectively.

Your criticisms here are therefore solely relegated to 'they described part of the mechanism but not the whole thing'. Given the failure to address the 0 witnesses that describe ANY aspect of the largest population transfer and resettlement in history, this is an unworkable argument for revisionists. I don't even have to tell you why it's weak criticism, you aren't bothered by incompleteness happening at a much much higher scale with your own belief system.

Given that Van Pelt badly bungled his drawing of the column, you should consider publishing your version. You are blazing a trail in Holocaust studies here.

Kula describes it all as a single piece. He must have forgot to mention that the top was removable.

The third part of this column could be moved. It was an empty column of thin galvanized sheet metal
with a square cross-section of about 150 mm, which ended in the upper part with a cone and below with a flat square base. At a distance of some 25 millimeters, thin sheet metal corners were soldered to the corners of this column supported by sheet metal brackets. On these corners was mounted a thin mesh with openings of about one millimeter in square. This mesh ended at the bottom of the cone, and from there, extending the meshwork, ran a sheet-metal casing for the entire height up to the top of the cone. The content of a Zyklon can was poured from above in [on] 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 [depleted] silica [carrier] removed.

And when he says the pellets were removed by removing "the entire central," in your interpretation, this actually refers to a small container attached to a wire. And I guess the wire would be attached to the underside of the removable cone or there was a hole in the cone for the wire to run through.

[bombsaway]

He's just being imprecise with his language. He calls it the entire column but he also calls it "The third part of this column". This is contradictory, obviously. Anyway I think my interpretation is reasonable.

It would be pointless for me to publish my version because I'm not sure something like it was used. But the general idea, of pellets being impeded from falling into the container, and some mechanism allowing them to when gassing was concluded, is sound. And also trivial to implement. Maybe I didn't do it in the best way.

Btw, I know that you're insulting me and being sarcastic, you're just masking it. If I told you, eh I guess you think the millions of witnesses to resettlement just "forgot" to mention that it happened, would you view such a comment as fair or productive?

[Wahrheitssucher]

He's just being imprecise with his language.
…This is contradictory, obviously.
Anyway I think my interpretation is reasonable.

It would be pointless for me to publish my version
because I'm not sure something like it was used.
…Maybe I didn't do it in the best way.

Btw, …resettlement this… …resettlement that … …resettlement blah, blah, blah…

SUMMARY of BA’s argument
- The holy Hoax IS TRUE history;
- no-one can explain why and how it is TRUE history but that isn’t important to me as I personallybelieve it;
- it DID happen exactly as it has been contradictorily and physically impossibly described;
- we ARE the eternal innocent victims, the poor jooze;
- critical thinking and reason are anti-septic if applied to our poor joo holyH narrative;
- there really WERE columns that there is zero empirical evidence of, attached to non-existent roof holes, for administering and removing the pesticide pellets.
- If you point out the fact that no-one could THEN describe them accurately, nor can NOW, nor can build a functioning replica based on the contradictory descriptions, then I know you are insulting poor me.

[bombsaway]

The descriptions of the columns are incomplete, not inaccurate in any substantial way. It's completely fair for me to question how such incompleteness can be so problematic when the far greater incompleteness about the things revisionists believe in isn't.

The above post is full of vitriol, departs from the thread topic, puts words in my mouth, and if not overtly insulting is insulting in an underhanded way.

When I say you guys have a pathology this is in part because of the way you treat the other side. There is no respect offered to those coming to talk with you, so why should I extend that respect? BTW I don't engage in mockery much, perhaps a little for fun, but I would say much less than is continuously directed towards me. My claims about you guys having a pathology (similar maybe to how I would feel about Jevoha's witnesses or so on) is not meant to insult, but to provoke a discussion or get you guys to introspect a little. The biggest reason I believe there is a pathology is because of the hypocrisy on display, see above in bold