My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Discussions
Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:49 pm

There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller.
So no square holes at least 70cm large as described by Kula and as described by holocaust histography. That´s a big problem.

Smaller? So what are they measurements and where are they, show them.

I comply with Bob's demand by listing the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes...OK, let's make it "all", just for my friend Bob. In addition to the 4 Stalinist crime complexes mentioned in post # 54, we have the following:
This is again untrue, you did not list here "overhelming majority". Is really ridiculous when you claim that you listed all Soviet crimes in just few short posts.

"In addition to the 4 Stalinist crime complexes" - Four + = overhelming majority...hm.

I will deal with you quite simple, tell me how many crimes Soviet comitted to see, that your "four +" examples are majority. Thanks. I did not ask for body count or death toll.
No documents or eyewitnesses told them what is in pit # 4, as far as I know.
Nice, this means that you lied whole the time when you claimed that they knew what is in the pit 4 because of witnesses or documents.

I'm still waiting for Bob's answer to this question..

Again wrong, I answered in previous comment.

Regarding the rest, I see that your inventions have no end, same for your ad hominems, is incredible when you contradict even histography or peoples like Pressac or Pelt and you never even visited Auschwitz archive, no wonder that you invent ridiculous nonsenses contradicting even holocaust histography. No wonder that you invent even own german translations to support your belief, incredible.

Since is strenuous to refute your false claims and nonsenses again and again and I find it repetitive, I would be content only with the holes, lack of holes will be the best way how to deal with your claims.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:13 pm

Bob wrote:
No documents or eyewitnesses told them what is in pit # 4, as far as I know.
Nice, this means that you lied whole the time when you claimed that they knew what is in the pit 4 because of witnesses or documents.
Bob's questions were these, according to a brief check I just did:
Bob wrote:I see excavated pit, but no human remains. So no Jewish law applied for this pit as I see, interesting, or they knew that no human remains will be found in this pit? Hardly.
Bob wrote:You completely missed my point, how they knew what will be in the pit to avoid violation of alleged Jewish law, they knew what is in the pit before excavation, but how.
And as Bob well knows, I never said that the archaeologists knew what was in the pit. I explained that and why they expected no human remains to be in the pit. IoW the issue was not what they expected to be in the pit, but what they expected not to be there.

Even Bob cannot be so stupid as to have misunderstood my argument.

This means he has misrepresented my statements in order to accuse me of lying.

And this, in turn, means that I want to know the lying coward's real and full name.

The rest of Bob's increasingly infantile rubbish I'll comment tomorrow. Now I have better things to do.
Last edited by Roberto Muehlenkamp on Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:18 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
No documents or eyewitnesses told them what is in pit # 4, as far as I know.
Nice, this means that you lied whole the time when you claimed that they knew what is in the pit 4 because of witnesses or documents.
Bob's questions were these:
Bob wrote:I see excavated pit, but no human remains. So no Jewish law applied for this pit as I see, interesting, or they knew that no human remains will be found in this pit? Hardly.
Bob wrote:You completely missed my point, how they knew what will be in the pit to avoid violation of alleged Jewish law, they knew what is in the pit before excavation, but how.
And as Bob well knows, I never said that the archaeologists knew what was in the pit. I explained that and why they expected no human remains to be in the pit. IoW the issue was not what they expected to be in the pit, but what they expected not to be there.

Even Bob cannot be so stupid as to have misunderstood my argument.

This means he has been misrepresenting my statements in order to accuse me of lying.
You quoted me, you see my question and you dodge, so again, how they knew what is in the pit, how they even knew that there is some pit worth of excavating. You said "no witness/documents" so how is possible that they knew that there is some pit and they even knew what is in this pit.

No accusations, I proved your lies here.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:20 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:
No documents or eyewitnesses told them what is in pit # 4, as far as I know.
Nice, this means that you lied whole the time when you claimed that they knew what is in the pit 4 because of witnesses or documents.
Bob's questions were these:
Bob wrote:I see excavated pit, but no human remains. So no Jewish law applied for this pit as I see, interesting, or they knew that no human remains will be found in this pit? Hardly.
Bob wrote:You completely missed my point, how they knew what will be in the pit to avoid violation of alleged Jewish law, they knew what is in the pit before excavation, but how.
And as Bob well knows, I never said that the archaeologists knew what was in the pit. I explained that and why they expected no human remains to be in the pit. IoW the issue was not what they expected to be in the pit, but what they expected not to be there.

Even Bob cannot be so stupid as to have misunderstood my argument.

This means he has been misrepresenting my statements in order to accuse me of lying.
You quoted me, you see my question and you dodge, so again, how they knew what is in the pit, how they even knew that there is some pit worth of excavating. You said "no witness/documents" so how is possible that they knew that there is some pit and they even knew what is in this pit.

No accusations, I proved your lies here.
You name, a s s h o l e?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:23 pm

You name, a s s h o l e?
I didn´t ask for "a-hole", I asked for holes in to roof of gas chamber. Thanks.

User avatar
Blacksamwell
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:21 am
Custom Title: Buckfutter
Location: Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Blacksamwell » Tue Feb 28, 2012 9:33 pm

Bob wrote:[...]I proved your lies here.
No. No you did not.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:07 am

Lennon wrote:Nessie
I totally agree with the idea of a thorough independent scientific investigation. A group of archaeologists with ground radar, bore holes and excavations to thoroughly search and map out what (if anything ) is found.
Hasn't all of this already been done? Why not just publish the results of what has already been done first?

No, amazingly it has not been done except by Soviet
and Polish investigators in 1944 and 1945.

And getting the first reports is very hard.

Because the stories are now embarrassing. For example
the Soviets did not find any bodies at the Treblinka II site.
Instead the claimed that the "cinders" of murder victims were used to pave
roads. Since that does not make sense, it has been filed in the Memory Hole
along with tales of Steam Chambers, and millions of bodies buried.

The 1945 Polish Report admits that they did not find any mass graves
or foundations of the "gas chamber BUT they did take pictures of 3-12
human skulls (the number was never given but some skulls seem to have
made repeat performances or maybe not)

An open, public scientific excavation would solve a lot of questions. It would
not take more that 14 days and would not cost much.
It is obviously the scientific way to solve the issue.
Don't debate-Excavate



Bob wrote:
You admited that you didn´t visit site, didn´t investigate it, din´t contact source, don´t know if report is true, don´t know if somebody saw documentary material, don´t know where is, don´t know person who saw it, don´t know source where could be checked, don´t know if exist, can´t provide anything to back what is in report and didn´t bother to check accuracy of report, ok. You admited that your investigation is constisted from turning on the computer, and quoting already existing report mentioned above.
For what reason then would Shermer endorse Muehlenkamps submittal?
Muehlenkamps is a Believer fanatic who cannot see the
contradictions and faults in his own presentation. In point of fact, I agree
with him that there are probably the remains of more than 19 people
at Chelmno grave #1/34
Professor Shermer needs to stick his neck out a bit and
call for public scientific excavations. Simple.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Wed Feb 29, 2012 6:40 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote: Don’t you just love it when "Revisionist" cretins think they are being smart? I know I do.
Not as much as watching a Believer fanatic squirming to avoid
a simple and obvious question.
1. Why not stick to the topic of your post...whether you have "Proven" that
there are 19 bodies in Chelmno grave #1/34...which you obviously have not.

Then why don't you do something constructive?
Join the Revisionist call for open public scientific excavation of grave # 1/34.



User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:34 am

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
.....

This means he has misrepresented my statements in order to accuse me of lying.

......
A reoccuring theme.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Wed Feb 29, 2012 11:55 am

Bob wrote:
.....

Since is strenuous to refute your false claims and nonsenses again and again and I find it repetitive, I would be content only with the holes, lack of holes will be the best way how to deal with your claims.
Holes in the roof, that should be the best evidence of all, but it is the weakest as there has clearly been tampering with that evidence. The Krema roof has been blown up by the Nazis, it has been in the hands of the Soviets, it has been left to weather, it has had goodness knows how many "investigations" by both sides of the debate where tampering could have happened. Such has been the corruption of that evidence it is impossible to say if what is now described as a hole through the roof was originally there or not.

So if the denier/revisionists are going to revert to the "no holes, no Holocaust" argument, it should be noted that they are using the weakest, most corrupted evidence to make their case.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:23 pm

Bob wrote:There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller.

So no square holes at least 70cm large as described by Kula and as described by holocaust histography. That´s a big problem.
No, that's hardly a problem if you duly apply the Occam's Razor Principle, as I explained:
Actually what the Occam's Razor principle (which my friend unsurprisingly doesn't understand) tells us in the context in which I mentioned it (openings in the ceiling of Krema II LK1 are smaller than the measurements of introduction columns given by Kula) is the following:

The hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions is the one that only the narrower inner column went through the roof and Kula forgot to mention this detail. The hypothesis that the columns described by Kula did not exist, on the other hand, requires a large amount of new assumptions: all inmate witnesses who described homicidal gassings at AB lied, all SS and bystander witnesses who described such gassings were tortured, all documents suggesting homicidal gassings at AB either have an innocuous explanation or were manipulated, examinations of cyanide residues in the homicidal gas chambers by Polish authorities were also manipulated, the hundreds of thousands supposedly gassed at AB were transported to the "Russian East", and there either the bad Russians ate them up or they were abducted by flying saucers or they changed their names and concealed their origins after returning to their countries or emigrating and decided to shut up, and all this was coordinated by an immensely powerful and proficient conspiracy covering the whole world and reaching all governments, historians, criminal investigators etc. over the last seven decades. In other words, the "Revisionist" hypothesis relies on a big bunch of new, very far-fetched assumptions and must ignore or unreasonably dismiss all known evidence, whereas my hypothesis duly takes all known evidence into consideration and requires only one very plausible new assumption, the assumption that Kula's description omitted a certain detail that becomes apparent when matching his testimony with physical evidence.

You should refrain from invoking the Occam's Razor principle, my friend. You know as much about it as a pig does about Sunday.

Bob wrote:Smaller? So what are they measurements and where are they, show them.
Post # 60:
Short Memory Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:Michal Kula

described by several witnesses and in greatest detail by Michal Kula

Pressac made a sketch of the introduction device based on Kula's description.
So through the holes and some columns which were described as 70cm x 70cm and 3m high by its manufacturer Kula, ok. Can you show me square holes in the roof of the alleged gas chamber in Krema II which dimensions are at least 70cm x 70cm and which contained alleged columns as described your own source here?
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... ematic.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.
Emphasis added. I assumed that your highlighted information is correct. Is it not?
Bob wrote:I comply with Bob's demand by listing the overwhelming majority of Stalin's crimes...OK, let's make it "all", just for my friend Bob. In addition to the 4 Stalinist crime complexes mentioned in post # 54, we have the following:

This is again untrue, you did not list here "overhelming majority". Is really ridiculous when you claim that you listed all Soviet crimes in just few short posts.

"In addition to the 4 Stalinist crime complexes" - Four + = overhelming majority...hm.

I will deal with you quite simple, tell me how many crimes Soviet comitted to see, that your "four +" examples are majority. Thanks. I did not ask for body count or death toll.
This is as silly as can be, considering that I listed the six complexes of mass crimes for which Stalin is responsible, each of which is a monumental crime consisting of many smaller crimes. Now it seems that Bob wants those six monumental crimes broken down to every starving village, shooting site, labor camp, deportation transport, outrage against civilians and POW camp. Demanding this level of detail is particularly ridiculous as it comes from who, in an earlier post, blustered away as follows (emphasis added):
Bob wrote:If I am wrong, because I could be wrong in my assumption of course, please, tell why these allegedly existing materials about biggest crime in history of which the Chelmno camp is inseparable part, were not published?
Obviously Bob considers the Nazi genocide of the Jews a single crime, even though it is a crime complex consisting of a multitude of crimes. The same applies to Stalin's forced famine, the "Great Terror" and the Gulag camps.

So Bob's breakdown demand is entirely baseless and just another attempt to dodge my questions about his standards of proof.

I'll reformulate my questions, see what he comes up with to dodge them:

In Post # 80 I listed the following crimes of the Stalinist regime, each a complex consisting of a multitude of comparatively smaller crimes adding up to the mentioned death toll:

1. Famines 1932/33: about 4,500,000
2. Executions, 1930-53: about 800,000
3. Gulag camps about 1,500,000
4. Deportations about 400,000
5. German POWs about 700,000
6. German civilians about 500,000
Sum total: about 8,400,000

Questions to Bob:

1. Do you consider this list of crime complexes complete, or is there any complex of Stalinist crimes you think I omitted and would like to add? In the latter case, which is it, and what is the approximate number of victims of that crime complex you accept as accurate?

2. Do you accept my approximate death toll figures for these crime complexes (for which I have provided sources in each case) to be accurate, or do you think the figures are too low or too high?

3. If you should consider my figures too low or too high, which are the figures you consider accurate, and what are your sources for these figures?

4. How many of the crimes included in each crime complex do you know to have been proven by a crime site investigation according to German Katyn Investigation Standards? By German Katyn Investigation Standards (hereinafter "GKIS") I mean the following requirements listed by you:

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.


Please list all investigations meeting GKIS that you know to have been carried out regarding any camp, execution site or other crime site pertaining to the above-mentioned crime complexes, state the number of victims established by such investigation, and provide a source whereby one can confirm that the investigation complied with GKIS.

5. Insofar as the approximate death toll of one of the above-mentioned crime complexes that you accept as accurate (which may be the figure I mentioned or any duly sourced higher or lower figure) should exceed the sum of victim numbers that have been established by crime site investigations meeting GKIS, what is the evidence that led you to consider your accepted approximate death toll for the respective crime complex as accurate?

I look forward to comprehensive and substantiated answers to each question.

[Skip Bob's lie about my supposed statements regarding pit # 4, already addressed in previous posts.]
Bob wrote:Regarding the rest, I see that your inventions have no end,
Calling my substantiated and usually pertinent assumptions or conjectures "inventions" doesn't change your general lack of arguments against them.
Bob wrote:same for your ad hominems,
Blame your own contemptible for what ad hominems I may have used. I can't help being an outspoken fellow.
Bob wrote:is incredible when you contradict even histography or peoples like Pressac or Pelt
There's nothing unusual about that as all, considering that historiography of AB didn't end with Pressac or Van Pelt - except perhaps in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.
Bob wrote:and you never even visited Auschwitz archive
Auschwitz is not my main interest, and I don't have the time and means to visit archives. Have you visited the Auschwitz archive, by the way?
Bob wrote:no wonder that you invent ridiculous nonsenses contradicting even holocaust histography.
I'm confident that Holocaust historiography would give my arguments and interpretations a fair hearing, even if they are not in line with the conclusions and theories of Pressac and Van Pelt. Like any science, historiography is not stagnant. And unlike the "Revisionist" religion, it has no gurus whose scripture is gospel.
Bob wrote:No wonder that you invent even own german translations to support your belief, incredible.
There's nothing wrong with my translations, which are supported by the [bLeo dictionary[/b]. What is more, I dare say that my German is better than yours, even if your German should be less miserable than your English.
Bob wrote:Since is strenuous to refute your false claims and nonsenses again and again and I find it repetitive,
Read: «Since I have no arguments to counter your arguments and interpretations, except to lamely call them "false claims and nonsense"».
Bob wrote:I would be content only with the holes, lack of holes will be the best way how to deal with your claims.
There's no lack of holes, as demonstrated by this study of the physical remains on site and by the documentary evidence (namely the inventory mentioning 4 Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen and 4 Holzblenden, for which you have no explanation and eyewitness evidence it converges with (even if Michal Kula forgot to mention that only the narrower inner column was three meters high and thus went through the roof).

As concerns the inventory, read this the next time you should consider making a fuss about the numbers being in the LK2 line:
As Pressac points out (pp. 429-30), it is Leichenkeller 1 which contains the wire-mesh introduction devices and the wooden covers, though the numerals "4" for these items are entered on the second line. We know the numbers are switched because all the other evidence converges on Leichenkeller 1 as the gas chamber, and not Leichenkeller 2 (which was the room where the victims undressed). Pressac also points out that there are other figures which are switched between the two lines, referencing this document against drawing 2197 from the October Revolution archives.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:26 pm

Bob wrote:
You name, a s s h o l e?
I didn´t ask for "a-hole", I asked for holes in to roof of gas chamber. Thanks.
You don't have to tell me again that you're a coward who will throw his manure only from safe anonymity. You have amply demonstrated that already.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 29, 2012 1:47 pm

David wrote:Muehlenkamps is a Believer fanatic
A self-projection classic.
David wrote:who cannot see the contradictions and faults in his own presentation.
Such as?
David wrote:In point of fact, I agree with him that there are probably the remains of more than 19 people at Chelmno grave #1/34
That’s not probable but rather certain. However, 19 is all it takes to earn Gerdes’ $1,000.
David wrote:Professor Shermer needs to stick his neck out a bit and
call for public scientific excavations. Simple.
Have you already contacted Shermer and told him so?

If not, what are you waiting for?
David wrote:Not as much as watching a Believer fanatic squirming to avoid
a simple and obvious question.
Like when dodging David/Bob squirm to avoid simple and obvious questions about, say, the basis of their evidence standards?
David wrote:1. Why not stick to the topic of your post...whether you have "Proven" that there are 19 bodies in Chelmno grave #1/34...which you obviously have not.
Question contains two wrong assumptions and can thus not be answered as it is. Take out the quote marks and the period behind the …, and add "at least" before "19". Then the question will be ripe for answering.
David wrote:Then why don't you do something constructive?
That’s what I’m asking dodging David.
David wrote:Join the Revisionist call for open public scientific excavation of grave # 1/34.
The archaeological investigation that has been carried out (including but not limited to probing excavations in Chełmno grave # 1) was scientific, in that it was carried out by archaeologists according to the methods of archaeological science. Its results have also been made public, both in a book and on the Internet. However, any further archaeological investigation is fine with me, and I’ll join a call for it if such call doesn’t contain "Revisionist" rhetoric and other crap, such as claiming that said excavation is necessary to prove that grave # 1 was really a grave.

What about my invitation to a digging expedition to Chełmno, by the way? You know, one where you dig while I watch and take pictures. Did Mr. "Don't Debate. Excavate!" get cold feet?

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 29, 2012 2:32 pm

Show me the square holes and their dimensions, please!
Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.
Emphasis added. I assumed that your highlighted information is correct. Is it not?
Pardon? I am a bit lost now, these square holes 80cm x 50cm in OVEN room of Krema III and Krema II were used to introduce Zyklon B to alleged gas chambers in Leichenkeller 1 :?:
Auschwitz is not my main interest, and I don't have the time and means to visit archives. Have you visited the Auschwitz archive, by the way?
I see that this is not your interest, you proved it with your claims, is obvious why you are not mainly interest in place which still contain material evidence and documents. I did not visited Auschwitz archives to conduct my own research since I am not the one who dispute Pressac or Pelt like you without evidence and with false claims. I am using evidence from revisionists which investigated archives (not only the Auschwitz) to dispute Pressac or Pelt, I present their arguments together with sources to back their arguments, something which you completely lack about Auschwitz or "proof" 1/34 and what you are not able to provide.

I am only curious, did you ever visited archives to study documents and evidence, for example for this piece? Tell me which archives.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... caust.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Pressac also points out that there are other figures which are switched between the two lines
This is simple another lie from Mr. Muehlenkamp and his source, Pressac in fact wrote this:
However, drawing 2197 from the “October Revolution” archives indicates that Leichenkeller 1 had 16 lamps and 3 taps and Leichenkeller 2, 10 lamps and 5 taps. There has been inversion of the lines on the inventory as from the number of lamps.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0430.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Only one figure in line is switched, not the others, Pressac and you only use this one mistake to tell that everything else what match your belief is switched too, thus false nad logical fallacy. As Mr. Romanow told me, some members of HCblog are members of h-h.org., no wonder that you use lies when you quote "own" source.

Now the holes, you cant lie about holes and material evidence, so show them please.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:04 pm

This is as silly as can be, considering that I listed the six complexes of mass crimes for which Stalin is responsible, each of which is a monumental crime consisting of many smaller crimes. Now it seems that Bob wants those six monumental crimes broken down to every starving village, shooting site, labor camp, deportation transport, outrage against civilians and POW camp. Demanding this level of detail is particularly ridiculous as it comes from who, in an earlier post, blustered away as follows (emphasis added):

Obviously Bob considers the Nazi genocide of the Jews a single crime, even though it is a crime complex consisting of a multitude of crimes. The same applies to Stalin's forced famine, the "Great Terror" and the Gulag camps.
I did not ask for complexes, you spoke about crimes, I asked for crimes, not for group of crimes.

You misrepresented my statement again, gassing is that crime, not alleged genocide, another invention. Your questions are thus irrelevant, list there all Soviet crimes which were not properly investigated as Katyn as you claim, show their level of investigation to prove their bad investigation, show complete list of all Soviet crimes to be able to calculate that overhelming majority of them is not properly investigated. My last try.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:32 pm

Bob wrote:Show me the square holes and their dimensions, please!

Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.



Emphasis added. I assumed that your highlighted information is correct. Is it not?

Pardon? I am a bit lost now, these square holes 80cm x 50cm in OVEN room of Krema III and Krema II were used to introduce Zyklon B to alleged gas chambers in Leichenkeller 1 :?:
Oh, they were in OVEN room, the bigmouth yells. Then what was the point of mentioning them?

As to the holes in the LK1 roof(s), chances are that you'll find the measurements in one of the sources linked to here:
There's no lack of holes, as demonstrated by this study of the physical remains on site and by the documentary evidence (namely the inventory mentioning 4 Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen and 4 Holzblenden, for which you have no explanation and eyewitness evidence it converges with (even if Michal Kula forgot to mention that only the narrower inner column was three meters high and thus went through the roof).
You can follow a link, can't you?
Bob wrote:Auschwitz is not my main interest, and I don't have the time and means to visit archives. Have you visited the Auschwitz archive, by the way?

I see that this is not your interest, you proved it with your claims, is obvious why you are not mainly interest in place which still contain material evidence and documents.
It's not because the place contains material evidence and documents. It's because I'm more interested in Nazi crimes other than AB.
Bob wrote: I did not visited Auschwitz archives to conduct my own research since I am not the one who dispute Pressac or Pelt like you without evidence and with false claims.
Bob's "false claims" mumbling seems to be the best he's got to offer against most of my arguments, which he therefore prefers not to address any further. And his "logic" completely escapes me, as usual. One doesn't have to visit archives to use common sense and be aware of historical research postdating and partiallly correcting that of Pressac and Van Pelt.
Bob wrote:I am using evidence from revisionists which investigated archives (not only the Auschwitz) to dispute Pressac or Pelt, I present their arguments together with sources to back their arguments, something which you completely lack about Auschwitz or "proof" 1/34 and what you are not able to provide.
I wouldn't brag about using crap from "Revisionists", if I were you. They may have visited archives, but they are still a bunch of feeble-minded liars. So feeble-minded that even amateurs without access to archives (like me) can kick their Nazi asses. As to your crap regarding Chełmno grave # 1, mind what I told the other clown:
It’s not a matter of authority but of simple logic. Archaeologists are professionals and expert witnesses for whom it would be very counterproductive and damaging (and who would thus be very dumb) to report their finds incorrectly. Thus there is no reason to assume that they so did unless there’s a substantiated challenge to the correctness of an archaeological report, and a substantiated challenge doesn’t consist of yelling "hey, they didn’t show the photos I would like to see". Where reported archaeological finds are in line with the historical context that becomes apparent from other evidence, there’s even less reason to mistrust an archaeological report bar specific indications against its accuracy.
It's not my job to provide an archaeological report's backup documentation in order to demonstrate the report's accuracy, however much you kick and scream. Not unless and until you have provided evidence suggesting that there may be something wrong, which you haven't. Repetitive demands that your opponent back up his evidence with further evidence are not an argument against the evidence provided by your opponent.
Bob wrote:I am only curious, did you ever visited archives to study documents and evidence, for example for this piece? Tell me which archives.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. ... caust.html
No, I haven't yet had that privilege, unlike at least two of my co-authors. But I wouldn't make a fuss about that if I were you, for it only makes your gurus look worse if they get their behinds kicked by amateurs using only publicly available sources.
Bob wrote:Pressac also points out that there are other figures which are switched between the two lines

This is simple another lie from Mr. Muehlenkamp and his source, Pressac in fact wrote this:

However, drawing 2197 from the “October Revolution” archives indicates that Leichenkeller 1 had 16 lamps and 3 taps and Leichenkeller 2, 10 lamps and 5 taps. There has been inversion of the lines on the inventory as from the number of lamps.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 0430.shtml
The "lie" would not be from me but from my source, and I don't quite understand how your Pressac quote disproves their reading.
Bob wrote:Only one figure in line is switched, not the others, Pressac and you only use this one mistake to tell that everything else what match your belief is switched too, thus false nad logical fallacy.
Actually your own Pressac quote suggests that two figures are switched (16 lamps and 3 taps in LK1 vs. 10 lamps and 5 taps in LK2). So the reading made by the author(s) of this article is not incorrect. And the reasoning is not that the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung and Holzblenden figures are switched between the lines because other lines are switched as well. The (main) argument is that "all the other evidence converges on Leichenkeller 1 as the gas chamber, and not Leichenkeller 2 (which was the room where the victims undressed)". Can't you read? The fact that other lines are also switched is further confirmation that this argument is correct. The cherry on the cake, so to say.
Bob wrote:As Mr. Romanow told me, some members of HCblog are members of h-h.org., no wonder that you use lies when you quote "own" source.

Now the holes, you cant lie about holes and material evidence, so show them please.
Holes have been shown by linking to a related study, so cut the crap. And your "lies" baloney is getting somewhat tiresome. So from now on I'll count every time that chickenshit Bob accuses an opponent of lying without showing the elementary courage of revealing the identity of who is making this accusation. Count stands at one.

Until the day you either cut out the "lies" crap or duly identify yourself, this is an appropriate caricature of you, my friend:

Image

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Wed Feb 29, 2012 3:48 pm

Bob wrote:
This is as silly as can be, considering that I listed the six complexes of mass crimes for which Stalin is responsible, each of which is a monumental crime consisting of many smaller crimes. Now it seems that Bob wants those six monumental crimes broken down to every starving village, shooting site, labor camp, deportation transport, outrage against civilians and POW camp. Demanding this level of detail is particularly ridiculous as it comes from who, in an earlier post, blustered away as follows (emphasis added):

Obviously Bob considers the Nazi genocide of the Jews a single crime, even though it is a crime complex consisting of a multitude of crimes. The same applies to Stalin's forced famine, the "Great Terror" and the Gulag camps.
I did not ask for complexes, you spoke about crimes, I asked for crimes, not for group of crimes.
This is not about what you asked for, Bobby. What you asked for you can stick up your ass. This is what you can reasonably ask for. And apart from the fact that a complex of comparatively smaller crimes is nothing other than a comparatively bigger crime, asking for further breakdown of the information I provided is even less reasonable than it was to demand that information in the first place in response to my questions about your standards of evidence. Instead of dreaming up one lame subterfuge after the other for dodging my questions, why don't you try doing something useful for once in your miserable life and simply answer these questions?
Bob wrote:You misrepresented my statement again, gassing is that crime, not alleged genocide, another invention.
Not being a mind-reader, I couldn't possibly have guessed that Bobby considered only the gassing at the extermination camps the "biggest crime in history". Anyway, that doesn't make his argument any less feeble. Whether it’s the whole Holocaust or only the mass murder by gassing at certain camps, my wisecracking friend has signaled that he considers it one big crime consisting of a number of smaller crimes. Once again you're full of {!#%@}, my dear Bobby.
Bob wrote: Your questions are thus irrelevant, list there all Soviet crimes which were not properly investigated as Katyn as you claim, show their level of investigation to prove their bad investigation, show complete list of all Soviet crimes to be able to calculate that overhelming majority of them is not properly investigated. My last try.
Good, then I won't have to read that cowardly evasion any longer. Now answer my questions, will you?

In Post # 80 I listed the following crimes of the Stalinist regime, each a complex consisting of a multitude of comparatively smaller crimes adding up to the mentioned death toll:

1. Famines 1932/33: about 4,500,000
2. Executions, 1930-53: about 800,000
3. Gulag camps about 1,500,000
4. Deportations about 400,000
5. German POWs about 700,000
6. German civilians about 500,000
Sum total: about 8,400,000

Questions to Bob:

1. Do you consider this list of crime complexes complete, or is there any complex of Stalinist crimes you think I omitted and would like to add? In the latter case, which is it, and what is the approximate number of victims of that crime complex you accept as accurate?

2. Do you accept my approximate death toll figures for these crime complexes (for which I have provided sources in each case) to be accurate, or do you think the figures are too low or too high?

3. If you should consider my figures too low or too high, which are the figures you consider accurate, and what are your sources for these figures?

4. How many of the crimes included in each crime complex do you know to have been proven by a crime site investigation according to German Katyn Investigation Standards? By German Katyn Investigation Standards (hereinafter "GKIS") I mean the following requirements listed by you:

-third party observers of non-Soviet/communist origin
-third party observers from international organisation/s
-exhumations and excavations of mass graves
-physicians which performed investigation
-media which documented it
-photos and films of investigation
-documented and investigated human remains
-findings of this investigation were made public together with backu-up materials.


Please list all investigations meeting GKIS that you know to have been carried out regarding any camp, execution site or other crime site pertaining to the above-mentioned crime complexes, state the number of victims established by such investigation, and provide a source whereby one can confirm that the investigation complied with GKIS.

5. Insofar as the approximate death toll of one of the above-mentioned crime complexes that you accept as accurate (which may be the figure I mentioned or any duly sourced higher or lower figure) should exceed the sum of victim numbers that have been established by crime site investigations meeting GKIS, what is the evidence that led you to consider your accepted approximate death toll for the respective crime complex as accurate?


It's not for me to prove that crimes you accept as factual were "badly" investigated. It's for you to prove that crimes you accept as factual were "properly" investigated according to the standards you proclaim as required to prove mass murder. Capice, cretino?

Of course, if you want to tell me that you consider the Katyn and Vinnitsa massacres investigated by your Nazi heroes to be Stalin's only proven crimes, we can forget about this exercise.

It that what you're trying to tell me?

Or are you trying to tell me that it's Katyn and Vinnitsa plus any other Soviet crimes that were investigated according to the same standards?

If that's your position, let's see how many other Soviet crimes investigated according to the same standards as Katyn and Vinnitsa you can point out.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 29, 2012 4:13 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Show me the square holes and their dimensions, please!

Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.



Emphasis added. I assumed that your highlighted information is correct. Is it not?

Pardon? I am a bit lost now, these square holes 80cm x 50cm in OVEN room of Krema III and Krema II were used to introduce Zyklon B to alleged gas chambers in Leichenkeller 1 :?:
Oh, they were in OVEN room, the bigmouth yells. Then what was the point of mentioning them?
Reason is stated in the begining, to show how the square holes in concrete looks in Kremas.

Is clear that you had no clue about it and you considered these holes as holes in gas chambers even when I mentioned that these examples of square holes are from oven room.
[As to the holes in the LK1 roof(s), chances are that you'll find the measurements in one of the sources linked to here:
I know this paper which ignored Kula´s testimony for obvious reason since there are no holes for Kula columns. But where are dimensions which are you talking about? Where is problem to show these holes and their dimensions, show them please.

It's not because the place contains material evidence and documents. It's because I'm more interested in Nazi crimes other than AB.
In the other words, is easier to spread false claims about place where is lack of material and documentary evidence.
I wouldn't brag about using crap from "Revisionists", if I were you. They may have visited archives, but they are still a bunch of feeble-minded liars. So feeble-minded that even amateurs without access to archives (like me) can kick their Nazi asses.
I saw it here, your illusions have no end.
No, I haven't yet had that privilege, unlike at least two of my co-authors. But I wouldn't make a fuss about that if I were you, for it only makes your gurus look worse if they get their behinds kicked by amateurs using only publicly available sources.
Hm, this more and more absurd, ok, thanks for confirmation.

Which archives your two co-authors visited and who are those co-authors, I would like to verify it, thanks.
Actually your own Pressac quote suggests that two figures are switched (16 lamps and 3 taps in LK1 vs. 10 lamps and 5 taps in LK2)
No, you are again wrong, the only switched figure is "Zapfhähne" line, Pressac wrote

"The document should read:
Leichenkeller [1]: 16 lamps. 3 taps.
Leichenkeller [2]: 10 lamps, 5 taps.
"

Here is document which prove it, lamps are correct.
Image

Switching of other "devices/covers" is invention.

I am interested to see the other switched figures, your source listed "devices/covers" then they said "figures", but I see switched only "Zapfhähne", so what else is switched?

"all the other evidence converges" is simple appel with no value and illusion, you did not present it, in fact you presented only contradicting "witness evidence" which prove that your "convergence" is false so you have no argument.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:10 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:.....
My last try, and you ignored it again, you simply can´t back up your claims, now wonder, it was obvious that you can´t back it, so end.
Bob wrote:You misrepresented my statement again, gassing is that crime, not alleged genocide, another invention.
Not being a mind-reader, I couldn't possibly have guessed that Bobby considered only the gassing at the extermination camps the "biggest crime in history".
Thanks for confirmation of misrepresenting of my quote.

More and more ad homines only prove that you failed again.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:41 pm

So much of the official or denier/revisionist argument relies on convincing people that there were or there were not holes to be found in the roof of Krema II. From this

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... mber-2.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:30 pm

Bob wrote:Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:Show me the square holes and their dimensions, please!

Something like these 80cm x 50cm square holes in demolished roof of the former oven room of Krema III here

http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-9.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-10.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.vho.org/GB/c/CM/Photo-11-blowup.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks.
Emphasis added. I assumed that your highlighted information is correct. Is it not?

Pardon? I am a bit lost now, these square holes 80cm x 50cm in OVEN room of Krema III and Krema II were used to introduce Zyklon B to alleged gas chambers in Leichenkeller 1

Oh, they were in OVEN room, the bigmouth yells. Then what was the point of mentioning them?


Reason is stated in the begining, to show how the square holes in concrete looks in Kremas.

Is clear that you had no clue about it and you considered these holes as holes in gas chambers even when I mentioned that these examples of square holes are from oven room.
In fact I haven’t much concerned myself with the holes issue. If that pumps up your depleted ego, be happy.
Bob wrote: [As to the holes in the LK1 roof(s), chances are that you'll find the measurements in one of the sources linked to here:

I know this paper which ignored Kula´s testimony for obvious reason since there are no holes for Kula columns. But where are dimensions which are you talking about?
On what basis do you claim that "there are no holes for Kula’s columns" if you don’t know the dimensions? Your silly argument is that Kula’s columns were too big for the holes.
Bob wrote: Where is problem to show these holes and their dimensions, show them please.
Let's see:
Hole 1 is the opening in the roof near Pillar 1 (Figure 11a). The pillar remains standing and protrudes through the surface of the roof (Figure 10b), which shifted as it collapsed. While it might appear at first glance that the opening could just as easily have been created by the explosion, careful examination proves this was not the case. Portions of straight, flat edges and a 90-degree angle survive intact, though most of the concrete around the edge was damaged by the explosion. The center of this hole is 4.1 m from the southern end of the roof slab, and 0.75 m west of the roof's center. We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square; this places its eastern edge at 0.3 m west of the west edge of the central support beam.

The roof's lower portion was a thick layer of concrete, over which was laid waterproofing tar paper, and which was finally topped with a thin upper layer of sand-concrete. For the middle layer, brushing tar over the tar paper was necessary to ensure waterproofing. Of the original concrete edge of the hole only a few centimeters of the intact lower layer remain, in one corner, but a careful examination of that location reveals two clear drip marks where tar was brushed over the edge (Figure 11b, right). This demonstrates that the hole in the concrete was already there during the waterproofing step, while the roof was still being constructed.

Hole 2 is an opening (Figure 12) that lies in an area of the roof more thoroughly destroyed by the explosion. We suggest that this hole can be identified by several characteristics. These include clean-cut rebar, short but apparently manufactured straight edges of concrete that meet at a 90-degree angle, rebar bent inwards at the edges, and most notably the absence of rebar in its open area (Figures 13 and 14). The center is 11.5 m from the southern end of the roof slab and 0.75 m from the central beam. Its size is again estimated at 0.5 x 0.5 m. The eastern edge of the hole is 3 m from the eastern edge of slab.

Hole 3's projected location is in an area of the roof that is badly damaged and covered with rubble (Figure 15). Preliminary research suggests that the hole itself may have been damaged when the roof collapsed on a portion of its own support structure. This hypothesis, however, requires further investigation. At the time this study was conducted, the researchers did not have permission to conduct the large-scale movement of rubble necessary to identify the third hole, but hope permission may be forthcoming.

Hole 4 can be identified by a pattern in the rebar (Figure 16). Hole 4 is at the very northern end of what remains of the roof. This was not its very northern end in 1943. To understand the location of this hole, one should observe that the northernmost 4 m of the roof have been folded back and under 180 degrees by the explosion and subsequent collapse. That portion of the roof is now lying upside-down beneath the roof slab that was originally to its south (Figures 17 and 18).

There is no question that part of the roof has folded underneath itself: that it is upside-down emerges from four observations. First, the rebar along the roof's north-south axis is still largely intact at the folds, and can be observed running unbroken from the top portion of the roof, 180 degrees around, and through concrete into the bottom portion (i.e., between 3 and 6). Second, when the tar waterproofing was spread atop the concrete slab, it ran over the edge; the drips are visible to this day. On the edge of the lower portion of the roof, the tar can still be seen, flowing, as it were, upward (see also Figure 11b). Third, the upper part of "Section 6" (Figures 17 and 18) is the inner side of the roof, as seen in the imprint of the formwork. And fourth, the process of elimination: nothing resembling the missing northernmost roof slab (about 4 m in length) can be found anywhere else.

Hole 4 can be identified by the unimpeded square opening set in the rebar in 1943. The surrounding edges were shattered by the explosion and the folding of the roof, leaving only the telltale rebar latticework. Its measurements are 0.5 x 0.5 m. It is possible to measure this hole's distance from the east edge of the roof with great precision: a single unbroken strand of rebar can be traced from that edge, through several pieces of concrete, to the hole itself. That distance is 3 m, with an error margin of approximately 1 cm. Like hole 2, the center of hole 4 is located 0.75 m east of the roof's center. Its north-south location is subject to some error due to breaks in the roof slab to its south and an uncertainty concerning the whereabouts of the roof's northern edge (also, now, to the south of the hole). We estimate its location at 25.5 m from the southern edge of the roof slab, with an error margin of perhaps as much as 1 m.
So it looks like holes 2 and 4 measure 0.5m x 0.5m = 0.25 square meters. The outer column described by Kula measures 0.7m x 0.7m = 0.49 square meters and thus couldn't fit in these holes. The likeliest explanation (and the one that fits the Occam's Razor principle) is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide, IIRC) went through the roof. Big problem for a deranged "Revisionist" mind. No big deal for a normal human mind.
Bob wrote:It's not because the place contains material evidence and documents. It's because I'm more interested in Nazi crimes other than AB.

In the other words, is easier to spread false claims about place where is lack of material and documentary evidence.
No, it's because I think too much has been made about AB, to the detriment of other operations that each claimed a higher number of Jewish victims (mobile killing operations and the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps. Not to mention the non-Jewish victims of Nazi crimes, of which only a relatively small part perished at AB.

However, your obviously self-projecting accusation (which again brings forth the quest for your identity) may accurately refer to one of the reasons why "Revisionist" have taken greater interest in the Aktion Reinhard(t) camps over the past decade.

I wouldn't brag about using crap from "Revisionists", if I were you. They may have visited archives, but they are still a bunch of feeble-minded liars. So feeble-minded that even amateurs without access to archives (like me) can kick their Nazi asses.
Bob wrote:I saw it here, your illusions have no end.
You sound like Monty Python's Black Knight, my friend. The comparison is not completely adequate, of course, as you are a whimpering coward who hides behind an alias.
Bob wrote:No, I haven't yet had that privilege, unlike at least two of my co-authors. But I wouldn't make a fuss about that if I were you, for it only makes your gurus look worse if they get their behinds kicked by amateurs using only publicly available sources.

Hm, this more and more absurd, ok, thanks for confirmation.
I'm not surprised at the answer, as I didn't expect any argument.
Bob wrote:Which archives your two co-authors visited and who are those co-authors, I would like to verify it, thanks.
Co-authors are Dr. Nick Terry and Sergey Romanov. As to what archives they've been to, I suggest you ask them.
Bob wrote:Actually your own Pressac quote suggests that two figures are switched (16 lamps and 3 taps in LK1 vs. 10 lamps and 5 taps in LK2)

No, you are again wrong, the only switched figure is "Zapfhähne" line, Pressac wrote

"The document should read:
Leichenkeller [1]: 16 lamps. 3 taps.
Leichenkeller [2]: 10 lamps, 5 taps. "

Here is document which prove it, lamps are correct.

Switching of other "devices/covers" is invention.

I am interested to see the other switched figures, your source listed "devices/covers" then they said "figures", but I see switched only "Zapfhähne", so what else is switched?
Nothing, apparently (except, of course, for the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen and the Holzblenden). This means that the author of this article must have misunderstood Pressac [url=http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0430.shtml]statement that:
However, drawing 2197 from the “October Revolution” archives indicates that Leichenkeller 1 had 16 lamps and 3 taps and Leichenkeller 2, 10 lamps and 5 taps. There has been inversion of the lines on the inventory as from the number of lamps.
As I did when you quoted that statement.
Bob wrote:"all the other evidence converges" is simple appel with no value and illusion, you did not present it, in fact you presented only contradicting "witness evidence" which prove that your "convergence" is false so you have no argument.
Blah, blah, blah. I suggest you try the following:

1. Explain what, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by the witnesses I quoted, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been.
2. Explain what on earth the undressing cellar LK2 would have needed Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen for.
3. Explain the fact that, as becomes apparent from the convergence of Engineer Prüfer's report on 29.01.1943 and Bischoff's letter to Kammler of the same day, the cellar that Bischoff called the Vergasungskeller was the same that Prüfer referred to as the Leichenkeller 1.
4. Explain what, other than a cellar for gassing human beings, the cellar referred to as Vergasungskeller by Bischoff could possibly have been. Feel free to quote Mattogno's explanation, so I can have some more fun with my old friend Charlie.

Ah, and please stop disgracing yourself with the beaten old nonsense about "contradicting" witness evidence. The witnesses don't contradict each other just because they don't describe the wire mesh introduction devices in exactly the same way. On the contrary: as I demonstrated in an earlier post, their descriptions converge to describing something that can be appropriately called a Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung. And the differences in their descriptions only show that no description was influenced by another, which increases their evidentiary value.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Fri Mar 02, 2012 3:49 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:.....
My last try, and you ignored it again, you simply can´t back up your claims, now wonder, it was obvious that you can´t back it, so end.
Your victory dance is as pathetic as your cowardice in running away from my questions. It's not my job to break down the Soviet crime complexes I mentioned to every single massacre, startving village, deportation train and POW or labor camp just because Bob doesn't know what further demands to hide behind. It's Bob's job to demonstrate that his standards of evidence (GKIS = German Katyn Investigation Standards) are in line with which mass crimes he accepts as factual and which he does not. As answering my questions will clearly reveal that this is not the case (unless he wants to tell me that Stalin only killed about as many people as Pinochet and the Argentinian military dicatorship, which would at least make him an even-handed loony), he finds no excuse too silly to keep running away from them. .
Bob wrote:You misrepresented my statement again, gassing is that crime, not alleged genocide, another invention.
Not being a mind-reader, I couldn't possibly have guessed that Bobby considered only the gassing at the extermination camps the "biggest crime in history".
Thanks for confirmation of misrepresenting of my quote.
Why, did you write anywhere during our conversation that your considered only the gassing at the extermination camps and not the entire Holocaust "the biggest crime in history"? If so, please show me where so I can duly apologize for not having read what you wrote with sufficient attention.
Bob wrote:More and more ad homines only prove that you failed again.
Ad hominems instead of arguments (like whey you baselessly call me a liar) may be considered a sign of failure. The ad hominems that occasionally accompany my arguments, on the other hand, are just manifestations of heartfelt contempt.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Fri Mar 02, 2012 9:31 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:On what basis do you claim that "there are no holes for Kula’s columns" if you don’t know the dimensions? Your silly argument is that Kula’s columns were too big for the holes.
Muehlenkamp - "There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller."
We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square
Its size is again estimated at 0.5 x 0.5 m
In the other words, they don´t know, because they did not measure them, and why, is obvious why. Here are photos of how the hole 1 has been altered from 1945:

1945
Image
1992
Image
2000
Image

Carlo Mattogno - On the subject of the size of the opening the authors assert that its area was 0.5 m². In June 1990 that opening had a trapezoidal shape with a long side of 86 cm and a maximum width of 50 cm; the narrowest part was 43 cm.

Hole 2 is absurd, no wonder you did not post photo of this crack which you consider as introduction hole. Simple crack.
Image
Image

Hole 3 is invisible, no wonder you did not show photo.

Hole 4. As can be seen from this photo, is another hole caused by explosion and not introduction hole.
Image

There are other holes ignored by peoples from your source even when they looked all the same, just crude holes in the roof caused by explosion or made for purpose to get access to morgue, that´s the reason why even professor Dawidowski did not mention it during his investigation in 1945-1946. According to Pressac, this arrangement is wrong, he wrote
In Kr II, they were in a row down the east side of the room
As proven by earlier photos, square openings and even the round openings in Kremas are clearly visible, some are damaged, but they have nicely visible shape. These ridiculous chiseled holes are simply nonsense and not alleged introduction holes.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So it looks like holes 2 and 4 measure 0.5m x 0.5m = 0.25 square meters. The outer column described by Kula measures 0.7m x 0.7m = 0.49 square meters and thus couldn't fit in these holes. The likeliest explanation (and the one that fits the Occam's Razor principle) is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide, IIRC) went through the roof. Big problem for a deranged "Revisionist" mind. No big deal for a normal human mind.
Wrong, they did not measure them as proven with your quotes, they even estimated, and why they estimated is obvious. You again use Ocaam´s razor wrongly, you still do not know what is Occam´s razor.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The likeliest explanation (and the one that fits the Occam's Razor principle) is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide, IIRC) went through the roof
Here I see that you don´t understand to Kula device at all. Here is his testimony again.
"This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other. The outside net was made of 3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons measuring 50 mm x 10 mm. These angle irons were found all over the net and the upper and lower parts were linked by an angle iron of the same type. The mesh of the nets was square, measuring 45 mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first at a distance of about 150 mm. The mesh of this net was square and measured about 25 mm. Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar. The third part of the column was movable. It was an empty column made of a thin zinc lamina with a square section of about 150 mm." (Kula´s Testimony)
Kula did not forget, but quite opposite, he described device with all the details even in millimeters, he did not mention inner or outer columns, as can be seen from Pressac sketch and his testimony, because there is no second column, both outer and inner parts are connected together as Kula said and form ONE column which has outer square section of 70cm, and the inner square section of 55cm, he mentions also other column, the movable one inside. Quite clear description, one outside net and one inner net, both made of 3mm wire stretched over iron pieces (marked by Pressac), these pieces were linked by angle iron pieces and connected together also on top and down, both nets have different mesh size, outer net has larger mesh, inner net has smaller mesh, both nets made in the same way as Kula said, no differencies. The second smaller net is inserted inside the first net in distance of 150mm so its square section is logically 55cm! and connected by iron pieces as described by Kula, these both parts formed main column. Then there is movable part and Kula even explicitly said that this part is another column. Whole column as described by Kula measured 3m, no doubt, he did not forget, he described everything.

Here is correct reproduction in accordance with Pressac sketch and Kula´s testimony.
Image
Image

Image

Is clear that Kula with his non-existing device refute your claims and you are forced to falsify his description and invent own design as the others did, because Kula cleary described device which is larger than your holes, there are no holes 70cm, there aren´t even holes 55cm, there are not even square holes which measure 50cm simply because they never existed.

Francizsek Piper wrote...
"Zyklon B was distributed in the gas chamber through four introduction columns custom-made in the metalwork shops of the camp. They were shaped like pillars and made of two wire grids with a movable core. Cross sections of the pillars, 3 m high, formed a square, each measuring 70 cm"
Everything was fine until the day when even exterminationists found that there are no holes 70cm and when K/McC/M began to claim that they found holes, from that time, they began to falsify Kula and make inventions. Now the official holes are 50cm as can be seen above, but Kula spoke about 55cm regarding the inner net, even when Mr. Muehlenkamp and his friends falsified Kula´s testimony, they have still problem, holes must be larger then 55cm, no wonder that Mr. Muehlenkamp is silent about it as he said "is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide". He is of course wrong as proven: 70cm - 15cm = 55cm. I expect another silly excuse - "he is mistaken"

Editing: Is also possible, than Kula could mean that inner net is inserted in distance 15cm from the outer net on all sides, this means in total 30cm, so inner net could be also only 40cm, this means that even when you have falsified Kula´s testimony as others did, there are 50cm holes according to you for 40cm columns, really smart Germans. This is of course irrelevant since column was allegedly 3m and 70cm without a doubt as described by Kula, but I wanted to mention it.

This device is itself absurd and prevent evaporation and unifrom evaporation of gas, and whole device look so ridiculous, that mass of bodies would easily damage it. What the SS did with the still outgassing pellets allegedly withdrew from the chamber is matter of our imagination. How they managed gassing in place where the columns did not even exist and they simply threw pellets one the peoples, again case for imagination or in better words - case for sanity.
Co-authors are Dr. Nick Terry and Sergey Romanov. As to what archives they've been to, I suggest you ask them.
In the other words, you dont know, ok.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:1. Explain what, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by the witnesses I quoted, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been.
2. Explain what on earth the undressing cellar LK2 would have needed Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen for.
3. Explain the fact that, as becomes apparent from the convergence of Engineer Prüfer's report on 29.01.1943 and Bischoff's letter to Kammler of the same day, the cellar that Bischoff called the Vergasungskeller was the same that Prüfer referred to as the Leichenkeller 1.
4. Explain what, other than a cellar for gassing human beings, the cellar referred to as Vergasungskeller by Bischoff could possibly have been. Feel free to quote Mattogno's explanation, so I can have some more fun with my old friend Charlie.
1/2. I adressed this, you did not adress my point so I cant answer. You still ignore that these "devices" are not for introduction.
3. I already accepted it, so dont know what you want to explain from me.
4. I aready gave you link, sorry this part is too long with lot of notes, just donwload pdf, and read it.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The witnesses don't contradict each other just because they don't describe the wire mesh introduction devices in exactly the same way.
Kula - see above.

Henryk Tauber
The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Josef Erber
were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim.
Konrad Morgen
"In this moment, an SS man in a gas suit stepped over the outer air duct
and poured a can with hydrogen cyanide into the room.”


“By ‘Extermination Camp Auschwitz’ I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called ‘Monowitz.’”

“These trucks drove off, but they did not drive to the Concentration Camp Auschwitz, but in another direction to the Extermination Camp Monowitz, which was a few kilometers away.”

“The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.”
Rudolf Vrba
A. I would think so. In other words, a man who would climb on it would have to lift his hands and sort of make an exercise in order to swing himself on top of the bunker. This bunker had air lifts, openings for airing, approximately three or four, along, which were covered by wooden or some lid which was easily removable. (no columns mentioned anywhere even when his source of information was Filip Muller and members of sonderkommando)
Karl Schultze
In der Decke waren vier quadratische Öffnungen 25 x 25 Zentimeter. (No columns, only openings 25cm x 25cm)
Miklos Nyiszli
“The room into which the convoy proceeded was about 200 meters long its walls were whitewashed and it was brightly lit.

"This second room (gas chamber) was the same size as the first (200m!) but neither benches nor pegs were to be seen. In the center of the rooms, at thirty-yard intervals, columns rose from the concrete floor to the ceiling. They were not supporting columns, but square sheetiron pipes, the sides of which contained numerous perforations, like a wire lattice. [...]The Deputy Health Officer held four green sheet-iron canisters. He advanced across the grass, where, every thirty yards,(30m!) short concrete pipes jutted up from the ground. Having donned his gas mask, he lifted the lid of the pipe, which was also made of concrete. He opened one of the cans and poured the contents – a mauve granulated material – into the opening. The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead.”

“The scattered substance is Cyclon or chlorine in granular form, the
gas develops immediately, hardly coming into contact with air!”
Filip Muller
“The Zyklon B gas crystals[36] were thrown through openings in the concrete ceiling, which ended in hollow sheet metal columns in the gas chamber. These were perforated equidistantly, and inside of them a spiral ran from top to bottom, to achieve a distribution of the grainy crystals as equally as possible.”
Paul Bendel
“Made of reinforced concrete, one had the impression when entering that the ceiling would fall on one’s head, so low it was. In the middle of these chambers two pipes surrounded by wire mesh and with an exterior valve served for the emission of gases.”

Q. You have said that the gas chambers were ten meters by four meters by one meter sixty centimeters: is that correct?
A. Yes.”
Yehuda Bacon
“Yes, there were two of these in each gas chamber in crematoria Nos. 1 and 2 [= II and III] – that is to say, there were four; their dimensions were 40×40 centimeters; below were the ventilators and also holes for cleaning with water. Afterwards, when they dismantled the crematoria, we saw the ventilators separately.”

“In crematoria Nos. 1 and 2, there was a very long hall divided in two. I asked them the reason for this and they explained that sometimes there were not enough people and it was a pity to waste the gas, so the people were put into only one half of the hall.”
Shaul Chazan (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
Q: Where you often inside the chamber?
A:Yes, Yes, regularly.
[...]There were several openings. A latticework shaft came down from each opening. The mesh was made of perforated metal, it ran from the window in the celing to the floor. And the gas, in the form of little pellets, was thrown down the hollow shaft. The smell spread. That was the gas.
Q: Did the shaft reach the floor?
A: Almost. A small space was left so that you could clean there. We poured water on the floor and swept up what remained of the pelletes.
[...]All you could notice was the pungent smell of the gas as it spread.
[...]We opened the windows in the ceiling and began to remove bodies.
Leon Cohen (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It was very long. I think it was more than fifty meters long and six meters wide (chamber)
[...] I saw the gas chamber quite often. I entered personally[...]They opened the windows in the ceiling of the room and poured in the gas[...]Tubes led down from the openings into the gas chamber, and I took the opportunity to get a close look at the canisters of gas.
Ya´akov Gabai (speaking about mirrored Krema II/III)
A: There were four openings in the ceiling of each gas chamber. In front of all fixed openings were glass windows protected with iron bars.[...]In the ceiling of the gas chambers there were shower heads - obviously not connected to the water supply - and pipes that were set within a metal grille.
Q: Who exactly opened the pipes and threw in the gas? (interesting, he even didn´t mention that pipes served for introduction, so strange question)
A: An SS man. When he threw the gas down, a blue vapor spread through the chamber. The gas came in the form of blue cubes[...]Then a German guard went upstairs and opened the windows. First they opened the vents in the ceiling and then, ten minutes later, they opened the door.[...]
Q: Did yo usee this with your own eyes?
A: Yes. After all, I was there for ten months.
Josef Sackar (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It (Krema III) was surrounded with a fence of sorts, made from piles of logs, two meters high, so that you wouldn´t notice a thing from the outside.
[...]Over the undressing hall there was no other floor. There were just four openings, through which the SS men threw in the gas in order to kill the people.
[...]Inside the gas chamber there were also four pillars with cages around them, and into them they threw the gas pellets.
Q: Where did these pillars stand?
A: In the middle, between the two parts of the room. In the middle of the room, along it, two in each room.
[...]They were square pillars with mesh around them. Not concrete pillars but mesh ones. They had a lid on the top. The Germans opened the lid and tossed in the gas in the form of pellets, green pellets of gas.
Q: Were the four pillars made of iron?
A: Of iron, of metal, metal mesh.[...]They had holes in them.
Q: How large was the opening through which they threw the gas into the chamber?
A: At least thirty-five square centimeters.
Q: Could the people who entered the gas chamber make out the pillars? Did they notice something suspicious?
A: The didnt know a thing from the very beginning, and they couldnt see a thing because the opening was closed.
[...]There was one room that could be divided into two. When a small transport came[...]they opened only one room by closing the door in the middle of the room that led to a section that made the room longer.
[...]On the floor of the chamber we saw something that looked like little bits of gravel, green, like little cubes - the residue of gas pellets. And lots of bodies, a meter deep, sprawled on top of each other.
That is what i call contradictions, some of them even don´t know how the chamber looked like, some so confused that mistaken Monowitz for Birkenau, some don´t know number of holes, dimensions, they all describe different device, some of them don´t describe it at all, some clearly contradict all others. I see contradictions, I see lies, I see several examples of plagiarism, some lies are really easy to expose, especially "blue vapor" is clear lie since HCN is colorless, or this liar just plagiarized testimony of Richard Bock, or "blue cubes" are ridiculous too. Some of them never saw gas chamber/morgue since they described it completely wrong as 200m long or 1.6m ceiling. I see lot of new inventions, ventilators in gas chamber below openings, glass windows in openings protected by iron bars so no introduction of gas possible by column, columns not attached to floor with small space for cleaning, pellets allegedly thrown using "some" device but falling on the floor anyway and not removed by movable part, divided chamber of Krema III, Krema III surrounded by two meters high wall and etc. and I did not even quote everything. Some claims are really absurd like "pungent smell of the gas" after the pellets had been thrown to gas chamber - this must be some other miracle and he survived gassing or he magically breathed through the door, anyway, HCN has slight odor and only some peoples are able to detect it. Opening of windows from gas chamber is another nonsense even contradicting witness´s alleged devices which prevent opening of "windows" from inside. 35 square centimeters large openings are just real joke but minor mistake for Mr. Muehlenkamp. Some witness even don´t know about ventilation and speak only ventilating by "vents" in the ceiling and by door.

But Mr. Muehlenkamp has no problem to speak about of "convergence", according to him, the differencies are minor, not contradicting, not lies, something is maybe wrong because of translation and similar absurd excues. He for sure ignore all these testimonies which contradict alleged device and his function. Some of them contradict own claims on the same page.

Yes, I believe these liars every single word. (sarkasm off) This is clear illusion, when some exterminationists speaks about convergence of evidence or about minor mistakes = illusion and simple lie, all what is needed to expose it is to spend some time with reading what these liars said.
Last edited by Bob on Fri Mar 02, 2012 11:17 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:10 pm

And the differences in their descriptions only show that no description was influenced by another, which increases their evidentiary value.
As proven above, you are wrong, but I find this statement as another pure nonsense similar to Nessie´s claim about missing physical evidence. According to Mr. Muehlenkamp - differences in testimonies increase credibility of testimonies! no matter that are contradictionary or even against science and physical or documentary evidence.

Bear this in mind folks, if you don´t want to be exposed as liar = you must lie, you must speak about contradictions, because lies and contradictions and differences are sign of credibility of testimony according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.

Hans
Poster
Posts: 324
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:25 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Hans » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:37 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:On what basis do you claim that "there are no holes for Kula’s columns" if you don’t know the dimensions? Your silly argument is that Kula’s columns were too big for the holes.
Muehlenkamp - "There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller."
We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square
Its size is again estimated at 0.5 x 0.5 m
In the other words, they don´t know, because they did not measure them, and why, is obvious why.
The openings for gas introduction have been heavily destroyed as can be seen on the photographs, which is why their actual size back in 1943 - 1944 can only be estimated based on measurements today.
Here are photos of how the hole 1 has been altered from 1945:
Which is irrelevant. The part of the hole which Mazal et al. assign as introduction opening clearly existed already 1945 and the later increase of the opening does not prove nor indicate it was not an gas introduction opening.
Hole 2 is absurd, no wonder you did not post photo of this crack which you consider as introduction hole. Simple crack.
Image
Image
A crack - per definition - means that the opposite parts fit together. You did not show that they do and claim it is a simple crack without evidence whatsoever.

The rebar at the hole has been cut and bent, which is in accordance with the explanation that it was an opening made during the construction of the basement.
Hole 3 is invisible, no wonder you did not show photo.
The location, where opening number 3 - which existence follows from testimonial and aerial photographic evidence as well as from common sense to place the gas introduction openings evenly distributed on the roof - is covered under the rubble, therefore its existence or non-existence cannot be directly accesed by physical evidence.
Hole 4. As can be seen from this photo, is another hole caused by explosion and not introduction hole.
Image
There is nothing in the photo which shows the hole was caused by explosion. In fact, how an explosion aimed to crush the concrete pillars can evaporate and bent inwards the steel rebars in the roof is beyond my understanding.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:52 pm

It looks like you came to solve problem of holes for Mr. Muehlenkamp, without success as I see.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:33 am

Bob wrote:
And the differences in their descriptions only show that no description was influenced by another, which increases their evidentiary value.
As proven above, you are wrong, but I find this statement as another pure nonsense similar to Nessie´s claim about missing physical evidence. According to Mr. Muehlenkamp - differences in testimonies increase credibility of testimonies! no matter that are contradictionary or even against science and physical or documentary evidence.

Bear this in mind folks, if you don´t want to be exposed as liar = you must lie, you must speak about contradictions, because lies and contradictions and differences are sign of credibility of testimony according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Bob, do some research about witnesses and testimony. Simply speaking, if they all say the same thing there is suspicion they have got together and concocted a joint story. If they speak of very similar events, but diverge on details, then that testimony is what you would expect from people telling the truth. If they are wildly different even on the basics, let alone the details, they lose credibility. To prove they are lying you need other evidence separate from what they have siad that shows a lie and not a mistake or misinterpretation.

Where you misunderstand witness evidence is that you leap to calling witnesses liars to soon without sufficient evidence and without seeing if there is a reasonable explanation for contradictions. You do not realise it, but that is a huge fail in your arguments about witnesses to anyone used to the court system and witness testimony.

What claim is it that I have made about missing physical evidence? :roll: I have a feeling this is your made up nonsense that I have been denying from the moment you made up a quote and lied about what I really said.
:roll: :roll:
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:37 am

Hans wrote:
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:On what basis do you claim that "there are no holes for Kula’s columns" if you don’t know the dimensions? Your silly argument is that Kula’s columns were too big for the holes.
Muehlenkamp - "There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller."
We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square
Its size is again estimated at 0.5 x 0.5 m
In the other words, they don´t know, because they did not measure them, and why, is obvious why.
The openings for gas introduction have been heavily destroyed as can be seen on the photographs, which is why their actual size back in 1943 - 1944 can only be estimated based on measurements today.
Here are photos of how the hole 1 has been altered from 1945:
Which is irrelevant. The part of the hole which Mazal et al. assign as introduction opening clearly existed already 1945 and the later increase of the opening does not prove nor indicate it was not an gas introduction opening.
Hole 2 is absurd, no wonder you did not post photo of this crack which you consider as introduction hole. Simple crack.
Image
Image
A crack - per definition - means that the opposite parts fit together. You did not show that they do and claim it is a simple crack without evidence whatsoever.

The rebar at the hole has been cut and bent, which is in accordance with the explanation that it was an opening made during the construction of the basement.
Hole 3 is invisible, no wonder you did not show photo.
The location, where opening number 3 - which existence follows from testimonial and aerial photographic evidence as well as from common sense to place the gas introduction openings evenly distributed on the roof - is covered under the rubble, therefore its existence or non-existence cannot be directly accesed by physical evidence.
Hole 4. As can be seen from this photo, is another hole caused by explosion and not introduction hole.
Image
There is nothing in the photo which shows the hole was caused by explosion. In fact, how an explosion aimed to crush the concrete pillars can evaporate and bent inwards the steel rebars in the roof is beyond my understanding.
Welcome to the forum Hans. I agree with your opening post. How can the revisionsit/deniers rely on evidence that has so clearly been tampered with? No holes, no Holocaust, supposedly. But there are in fact holes, so they need to explain how there are no holes. What caused those holes to appear?
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:36 am

Nessie is blind or out of sane, here are quotes, tell me more about little differencies in detials. I see that Nessie agree with nonsense from Mr. Muehlenkamp - differencies increase credibility - what a ridiculous claim.
Bob, do some research about witnesses and testimony.
No, you should to do some research, you are here for months, with almost 1000 comments but you know almost nothing about this subject and you want to recommend to me to do research, really absurd.

Your every post is more and more absurd, especially your comments about holes or gas chambers.

Hans came here to help Mr. Muehlenkamp because they are fellows from places like RODOH forum, but Hans has the same problems with the holes as Mr. Muehlenkamp.

This is clear as it looks, no holes, no holocaust thanks to material evidence.

User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:46 pm

Bob wrote:Nessie is blind or out of sane, here are quotes, tell me more about little differencies in detials. I see that Nessie agree with nonsense from Mr. Muehlenkamp - differencies increase credibility - what a ridiculous claim.

........
Now re-read what I said, it included "If they are wildly different even on the basics, let alone the details, they lose credibility. To prove they are lying you need other evidence separate from what they have siad that shows a lie and not a mistake or misinterpretation."

The witnesses speak to gassing people in chambers. That does not change from one statement to another. The use of Zyklon B hardly changes. There are multiple referrals to a metal cage to introduce the Zyklon B. There is a lot of consistentcy between witnesses.

You rely totally on no holes in a roof with holes in it, along with significant damage and deterioration. That makes for a weak case.
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:21 pm

Nessie wrote:Now re-read what I said, it included "If they are wildly different even on the basics, let alone the details, they lose credibility. To prove they are lying you need other evidence separate from what they have siad that shows a lie and not a mistake or misinterpretation."
Here are quotes, they prove lies and contradictions.
The witnesses speak to gassing people in chambers. That does not change from one statement to another.
Really fascinating, witness match on essential point that peoples were gassed = gassing happened and witness converge on this point, gas chambers existed and witnesses are correct. You really made my day, something like - witnesses converge in claim about alien abductions = aliens abduction exist, they happened and witnesses are true, how many "events" or things can be proven by this way? Propably everything. Is nice how Nessie ignore convergence in claims about human soap, human flesh soap from prisoners, electric chambers, steam chambers, and other nonsenses which ended in memory hole.
You rely totally on no holes in a roof with holes in it, along with significant damage and deterioration. That makes for a weak case.
This is of course another lie, I do not rely only on holes, there lot of arguments, but the holes are the most crucial point, is logical that if there are no holes, then is useless to discuss other arguments. Do you know what is "time order" or "logical order"? I see that you do not know. Nobody denies that there are holes, but the argument is that there are no holes for introduction of Zyklon B, learn basic information before your ridiculous posting.

Damage is correct, because these holes are not introduction holes, but caused by explosion or chiseled by peoples, in the case of introduction holes, the shape, dimensions, this all would be visible as this is visible on other dynamited places in Kremas where the shape of true genuine square or round holes remained intact or easily visible and recognizible after damage they suffered, such a shape just cannot vanish in to the air. You also ignore that even exterminationists accepted that there are no 70cm holes, so end of holocaust. These holes change during time as proven, because somebody altered them, but why to alter or cheat truth? This does not make any sense, only lies need alteration and cheats.
That makes for a weak case.
I really enjoy how you are systematically changing your position, you did it again, before "revisionists made a strong/good case that nobody was propably gassed in Krema II" but now - That makes for a weak case.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:42 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:On what basis do you claim that "there are no holes for Kula’s columns" if you don’t know the dimensions? Your silly argument is that Kula’s columns were too big for the holes.
Muehlenkamp - "There are no square holes 70cm x 70cm in the roof, as far as I know. The holes are smaller."
We estimate its size at approximately 0.5 m square
Its size is again estimated at 0.5 x 0.5 m
In the other words, they don´t know, because they did not measure them, and why, is obvious why. Here are photos of how the hole 1 has been altered from 1945:
See Hans' comment
Bob wrote:1945
Image
1992
Image
2000
Image

Carlo Mattogno - On the subject of the size of the opening the authors assert that its area was 0.5 m². In June 1990 that opening had a trapezoidal shape with a long side of 86 cm and a maximum width of 50 cm; the narrowest part was 43 cm.
See Hans' comment.
Bob wrote:Hole 2 is absurd, no wonder you did not post photo of this crack which you consider as introduction hole. Simple crack.
Image
Image
See Hans' comment.
Bob wrote:Hole 3 is invisible, no wonder you did not show photo.
See Hans' comment.
Bob wrote:Hole 4. As can be seen from this photo, is another hole caused by explosion and not introduction hole.
Image
See Hans' comment.
Bob wrote:There are other holes ignored by peoples from your source even when they looked all the same, just crude holes in the roof caused by explosion or made for purpose to get access to morgue, that´s the reason why even professor Dawidowski did not mention it during his investigation in 1945-1946. According to Pressac, this arrangement is wrong, he wrote
In Kr II, they were in a row down the east side of the room
As proven by earlier photos, square openings and even the round openings in Kremas are clearly visible, some are damaged, but they have nicely visible shape.
All very interesting if accurate, but how is that supposed to affect the accuracy of Keren et al's finds?
Bob wrote:These ridiculous chiseled holes are simply nonsense and not alleged introduction holes.
I've come to know you as a hysterical person, but do you think furious foot-stomping is an argument?
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:So it looks like holes 2 and 4 measure 0.5m x 0.5m = 0.25 square meters. The outer column described by Kula measures 0.7m x 0.7m = 0.49 square meters and thus couldn't fit in these holes. The likeliest explanation (and the one that fits the Occam's Razor principle) is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide, IIRC) went through the roof. Big problem for a deranged "Revisionist" mind. No big deal for a normal human mind.
Wrong, they did not measure them as proven with your quotes, they even estimated, and why they estimated is obvious.
Yep, it was the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances, as pointed out by Hans.
Bob wrote:You again use Ocaam´s razor wrongly, you still do not know what is Occam´s razor.
Why, does your theory take all known evidence into consideration and require no or the fewest additional assumptions? I remember having demonstrated quite the opposite. So I understand your rant as an attempt to get even for my having pointed out that you have no idea of how this principle works.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The likeliest explanation (and the one that fits the Occam's Razor principle) is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide, IIRC) went through the roof
Here I see that you don´t understand to Kula device at all. Here is his testimony again.
"This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other. The outside net was made of 3 mm iron wire stretched over angle irons measuring 50 mm x 10 mm. These angle irons were found all over the net and the upper and lower parts were linked by an angle iron of the same type. The mesh of the nets was square, measuring 45 mm. The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first at a distance of about 150 mm. The mesh of this net was square and measured about 25 mm. Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar. The third part of the column was movable. It was an empty column made of a thin zinc lamina with a square section of about 150 mm." (Kula´s Testimony)
Kula did not forget, but quite opposite, he described device with all the details even in millimeters, he did not mention inner or outer columns, as can be seen from Pressac sketch and his testimony, because there is no second column, both outer and inner parts are connected together as Kula said and form ONE column which has outer square section of 70cm, and the inner square section of 55cm, he mentions also other column, the movable one inside. Quite clear description, one outside net and one inner net, both made of 3mm wire stretched over iron pieces (marked by Pressac), these pieces were linked by angle iron pieces and connected together also on top and down, both nets have different mesh size, outer net has larger mesh, inner net has smaller mesh, both nets made in the same way as Kula said, no differencies. The second smaller net is inserted inside the first net in distance of 150mm so its square section is logically 55cm! and connected by iron pieces as described by Kula, these both parts formed main column. Then there is movable part and Kula even explicitly said that this part is another column. Whole column as described by Kula measured 3m, no doubt, he did not forget, he described everything.

Here is correct reproduction in accordance with Pressac sketch and Kula´s testimony.
Image
Image

Image

Is clear that Kula with his non-existing device refute your claims and you are forced to falsify his description and invent own design as the others did, because Kula cleary described device which is larger than your holes, there are no holes 70cm, there aren´t even holes 55cm, there are not even square holes which measure 50cm simply because they never existed.
Much huffing and puffing but little argument, as usual. If Kula described the inner column as measuring 0.55m x 0.55m = 0.30 square meters, there's a very good chance that he descibed something that fit into holes estimated to have measured 0.5 m x 0.5 m = 0.25 square meters during camp times. Estimated means that the holes could have been a little larger than 0.25 square meters. On the other hand, Kula didn't say the distance between the outer and the inner colum was precisely 150 mm = 15 centimeters. He said "about" 150 mm, maybe more, maybe less. Let's assume (though it's unlikely) that he meant the sum of distances on either side, 7.5 cm on each side. Let's assume that the actual distance (Kula said "about") was more like 10 cm on either side (20 cm in total, leaving 70-20 = 50 for the inner colum) and/or that the holes estimated to have measured 0.5 m x 0.5 m actually measured 0.55 x 0.55 m. Either explanation is possible, either is in line with other evidence, either requires no imbecilic conspiracy theories about evidence manipulation on a massive scale, and either means that the inner columns fit into the holes. A tight fit, but that may have been the idea.
Bob wrote:Francizsek Piper wrote...
"Zyklon B was distributed in the gas chamber through four introduction columns custom-made in the metalwork shops of the camp. They were shaped like pillars and made of two wire grids with a movable core. Cross sections of the pillars, 3 m high, formed a square, each measuring 70 cm"
Everything was fine until the day when even exterminationists found that there are no holes 70cm and when K/McC/M began to claim that they found holes, from that time, they began to falsify Kula and make inventions.
Who falsified Kula and made inventions, outside Bobby's loony-land?
Bob wrote:Now the official holes are 50cm as can be seen above, but Kula spoke about 55cm regarding the inner net, even when Mr. Muehlenkamp and his friends falsified Kula´s testimony, they have still problem, holes must be larger then 55cm, no wonder that Mr. Muehlenkamp is silent about it as he said "is that not the outer column but only the narrower inner column (whose measurements Kula didn't provide". He is of course wrong as proven: 70cm - 15cm = 55cm. I expect another silly excuse - "he is mistaken"
So now I'm supposed to have "falsified" Kula's description as opposed to not having understood it, which was the previous accusations. In other words, Bobby is so out of his mind that he can't even keep his ravings coherent anymore.

Excuses I don't need, of course. I work with plausible explanations that are matched by other known evidence and don't require baseless claims of evidence manipulaton.
Bob wrote:Editing: Is also possible, than Kula could mean that inner net is inserted in distance 15cm from the outer net on all sides, this means in total 30cm, so inner net could be also only 40cm, this means that even when you have falsified Kula´s testimony as others did, there are 50cm holes according to you for 40cm columns, really smart Germans.
Maybe not so so tight a fit, but things don't always come out perfect when you improvise, and the holes thing seems to have been an improvisation (even those smart Germans improvised and even messed up sometimes, go figure). Now let's assume (Kula said "about") that the distance on either side was just 12.5 cm, 25 cm in total, 45 cm left for the inner column. 0.20 square meters into 0.25 square meters of hole, a reasonably tight fit (the column had to be a little narrower than the hole, otherwise it couldn't have been pushed or pulled through the hole). In your scenario, a column with 0.16 square meters (0.40 x 0.40) would have gone through a 0.25 square meter hole. Would that be so bad? Maybe your heroes didn't mess up but where just careful when establishing the width of the inner column, making it narrow enough to comfortably fit in the hole.
Bob wrote:This is of course irrelevant since column was allegedly 3m and 70cm without a doubt as described by Kula, but I wanted to mention it.
Nonsense:

When Kula said that
This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm.
he obviously meant the entire stucture of wire-mesh columns inserted inside each other, and not just the outer column. This follows from the next sentence of his description, which reads as follows:
Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other
The "column" being the set of three columns inserted inside each other, it may well have been 3 meters high at its highest (but not at its widest) and had an area of 70 cm x 70 cm at its widest (but not at its highest).
Bob wrote:This device is itself absurd and prevent evaporation and unifrom evaporation of gas,
How so?
Bob wrote: and whole device look so ridiculous, that mass of bodies would easily damage it.
Except that there would be no mass of bodies around the columns, as the panicking victims would instinctively try to get away as far as possible from the columns (as corresponds to human nature). And that's assuming that the columns were really as fragile as you want them to be.
Bob wrote:What the SS did with the still outgassing pellets allegedly withdrew from the chamber is matter of our imagination.
They let it outgas in the open, big deal.
Bob wrote:How they managed gassing in place where the columns did not even exist and they simply threw pellets one the peoples, again case for imagination
Those places were above ground and could be easily ventilated into the open air, big deal.
Bob wrote:or in better words - case for sanity.
Illogical loonies like Bobby (or like my friend Charlie) tend to think that they are the only sane beings and everyone around them is insane.

The rest of Bobby's lengthy rambling (I must have rattled the poor fellow's cage) I'll get to some time this afternoon.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:53 pm

Bob wrote:
Co-authors are Dr. Nick Terry and Sergey Romanov. As to what archives they've been to, I suggest you ask them.
In the other words, you dont know, ok.
Or that I don't consider Bob worth the effort.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:1. Explain what, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by the witnesses I quoted, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been.
2. Explain what on earth the undressing cellar LK2 would have needed Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen for.
3. Explain the fact that, as becomes apparent from the convergence of Engineer Prüfer's report on 29.01.1943 and Bischoff's letter to Kammler of the same day, the cellar that Bischoff called the Vergasungskeller was the same that Prüfer referred to as the Leichenkeller 1.
4. Explain what, other than a cellar for gassing human beings, the cellar referred to as Vergasungskeller by Bischoff could possibly have been. Feel free to quote Mattogno's explanation, so I can have some more fun with my old friend Charlie.
1/2. I adressed this, you did not adress my point so I cant answer.
Where exactly did you address "this"? I must have missed something.

And what "point" of yours (assuming you ever make points) am I supposed to not have addressed?

Show me.
Bob wrote:You still ignore that these "devices" are not for introduction.
The most you can say is that the term Drahtnexteinschiebvorrichtung does not refer to what the device is used for but to how it is constructed (a device made of various wire mesh components introduced into each other). And I'm still wating for an explanation what, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by the witnesses I quoted, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been
Bob wrote:3. I already accepted it, so dont know what you want to explain from me.
If "Leichenkeller" 1 was the Vergasungskeller and the other "Leichenkeller" was not, which of the two is likelier to have required Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen, considering that the closest match to this expression can be found in eyewitness descriptions of a contraption consisting of wire mesh elements slid or shoved (eingeschoben) into each other that were used for introducing Zyklon B into underground gas chambers?
Bob wrote:4. I aready gave you link, sorry this part is too long with lot of notes, just donwload pdf, and read it.
When I have time and feel like laughing a bit, I shall do so. Meanwhile, I note the the apparent length of Charlie's mental gymnastics as he tries to give an inconvenient document another content than the one it obviously has.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:The witnesses don't contradict each other just because they don't describe the wire mesh introduction devices in exactly the same way.
Kula - see above.

Henryk Tauber
The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Some details match, others don't, as one would expect in eyewitness testimonies independent of each other. I fact, the only thing that doesn't match is the "can". Apparently Tauber didn't realize that the "can" and the third column were the same object.
Bob wrote:Josef Erber
were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim.
Differs a little more from Kula, but mentions a wire mesh encasement and a device (tin canister) obviously used to introduce and/or withdraw something through the "pipes". The latter observation is either inaccurate or refers to a device used earlier than the one described by Kula.
Bob wrote:Konrad Morgen
"In this moment, an SS man in a gas suit stepped over the outer air duct
and poured a can with hydrogen cyanide into the room.”


“By ‘Extermination Camp Auschwitz’ I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called ‘Monowitz.’”

“These trucks drove off, but they did not drive to the Concentration Camp Auschwitz, but in another direction to the Extermination Camp Monowitz, which was a few kilometers away.”

“The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.”
Obviously saw the process only from the outside and said nothing about the columns, thus irrelevant to my argument. Mixed up Birkenau with Monowith, but that doesn't mean he didn't observe the introduction process described.
Bob wrote:Rudolf Vrba
A. I would think so. In other words, a man who would climb on it would have to lift his hands and sort of make an exercise in order to swing himself on top of the bunker. This bunker had air lifts, openings for airing, approximately three or four, along, which were covered by wooden or some lid which was easily removable. (no columns mentioned anywhere even when his source of information was Filip Muller and members of sonderkommando)
So this second-hand witness didn't go into a much detail as Bob would expect him to have based on his source? How frightfully shocking! Anyway, his having said nothing either way) about the columns makes him irrelevant for comparison.
Bob wrote:Karl Schultze
In der Decke waren vier quadratische Öffnungen 25 x 25 Zentimeter. (No columns, only openings 25cm x 25cm)
This witness doesn't seem to have seen too much of the process (or then didn't want to talk much), and his figures suggest that he was not too good at estimating measurements. Anyway, he said nothing about the columns either way (not that they existed and not that they did not) and is therefore irrelevant for comparison.
Bob wrote:Miklos Nyiszli
“The room into which the convoy proceeded was about 200 meters long its walls were whitewashed and it was brightly lit.

"This second room (gas chamber) was the same size as the first (200m!) but neither benches nor pegs were to be seen. In the center of the rooms, at thirty-yard intervals, columns rose from the concrete floor to the ceiling. They were not supporting columns, but square sheetiron pipes, the sides of which contained numerous perforations, like a wire lattice. [...]The Deputy Health Officer held four green sheet-iron canisters. He advanced across the grass, where, every thirty yards,(30m!) short concrete pipes jutted up from the ground. Having donned his gas mask, he lifted the lid of the pipe, which was also made of concrete. He opened one of the cans and poured the contents – a mauve granulated material – into the opening. The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead.”

“The scattered substance is Cyclon or chlorine in granular form, the
gas develops immediately, hardly coming into contact with air!”
Nyiszli (don't know if he was a first-hand witness as concerns this description) wasn't too good at estimating measurements, and he didn't completely understand how the introduction process functioned. However, he understood that there were columns made of metal with many holes in them, through which the gas entered the room. These columns may have been predecessors of the wire mesh columns, or then the witness failed to understand that they were made of wire mesh and not of perforated metal - even though his mention of "wire lattice" suggests that his perception was not that far away from the description provided by manufacturer Kula.
Bob wrote:Filip Muller
“The Zyklon B gas crystals[36] were thrown through openings in the concrete ceiling, which ended in hollow sheet metal columns in the gas chamber. These were perforated equidistantly, and inside of them a spiral ran from top to bottom, to achieve a distribution of the grainy crystals as equally as possible.”
Same misunderstanding as Nyisli (perforated metal columns as opposed to wire mesh columns), suggesting that both witnesses observed a predecessor of the wire mesh introduction device or that Müller, not a very accurate observer in this respect, was Nyiszli's information source. The "spiral" seems to have been a conjecture from the witness as he tried to explain to himself how the distribution mechanism worked.
Bob wrote:Paul Bendel
“Made of reinforced concrete, one had the impression when entering that the ceiling would fall on one’s head, so low it was. In the middle of these chambers two pipes surrounded by wire mesh and with an exterior valve served for the emission of gases.”

Q. You have said that the gas chambers were ten meters by four meters by one meter sixty centimeters: is that correct?
A. Yes.”
Another witness not too good at estimating measurements, and the "exterior valve" comes comes across as a conjecture. The "pipes" suggest the same perception error as Erber's , and like that witness Bendel correctly mentions wire mesh. The mention of only two "pipes" suggests that Bendel's observation was made after the gas chamber had been split in two.
Bob wrote:Yehuda Bacon
“Yes, there were two of these in each gas chamber in crematoria Nos. 1 and 2 [= II and III] – that is to say, there were four; their dimensions were 40×40 centimeters; below were the ventilators and also holes for cleaning with water. Afterwards, when they dismantled the crematoria, we saw the ventilators separately.”

“In crematoria Nos. 1 and 2, there was a very long hall divided in two. I asked them the reason for this and they explained that sometimes there were not enough people and it was a pity to waste the gas, so the people were put into only one half of the hall.”
Somewhat confused description, but mentions four columns and the division of the chamber mentioned in te previous comment.
Bob wrote:Shaul Chazan (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
Q: Where you often inside the chamber?
A:Yes, Yes, regularly.
[...]There were several openings. A latticework shaft came down from each opening. The mesh was made of perforated metal, it ran from the window in the celing to the floor. And the gas, in the form of little pellets, was thrown down the hollow shaft. The smell spread. That was the gas.
Q: Did the shaft reach the floor?
A: Almost. A small space was left so that you could clean there. We poured water on the floor and swept up what remained of the pelletes.
[...]All you could notice was the pungent smell of the gas as it spread.
[...]We opened the windows in the ceiling and began to remove bodies.
Witness correctly described the shaft/column in a manner suggesting a wire mesh makeup, though his mention of a "window" and a space below the bottom of the column "so that you could clean there" suggests that he mixed up recollections from one of the underground chambers with such from one of the above-ground chambers, where pellets were introduced through a window and had to be swept up. IIRC this witness was interviewed only in 1997 or so by an Israeli historian, so it's no surprise that certain details got mixed up in his memory over time.
Bob wrote:Leon Cohen (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It was very long. I think it was more than fifty meters long and six meters wide (chamber)
[...] I saw the gas chamber quite often. I entered personally[...]They opened the windows in the ceiling of the room and poured in the gas[...]Tubes led down from the openings into the gas chamber, and I took the opportunity to get a close look at the canisters of gas.
Witness must also have mixed up procedures in underground and above-ground chambers, hardly a surprise as he was also interviewed only in 1997 IIRC.
Bob wrote:Ya´akov Gabai (speaking about mirrored Krema II/III)
A: There were four openings in the ceiling of each gas chamber. In front of all fixed openings were glass windows protected with iron bars.[...]In the ceiling of the gas chambers there were shower heads - obviously not connected to the water supply - and pipes that were set within a metal grille.
Q: Who exactly opened the pipes and threw in the gas? (interesting, he even didn´t mention that pipes served for introduction, so strange question)
A: An SS man. When he threw the gas down, a blue vapor spread through the chamber. The gas came in the form of blue cubes[...]Then a German guard went upstairs and opened the windows. First they opened the vents in the ceiling and then, ten minutes later, they opened the door.[...]
Q: Did yo usee this with your own eyes?
A: Yes. After all, I was there for ten months.
Yet another case of procedures at different facilities being mixed up, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness (another of those interviewed in 1997) more or less correctly recalled "pipes that were set within a metal grille".
Bob wrote:Josef Sackar (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It (Krema III) was surrounded with a fence of sorts, made from piles of logs, two meters high, so that you wouldn´t notice a thing from the outside.
[...]Over the undressing hall there was no other floor. There were just four openings, through which the SS men threw in the gas in order to kill the people.
[...]Inside the gas chamber there were also four pillars with cages around them, and into them they threw the gas pellets.
Q: Where did these pillars stand?
A: In the middle, between the two parts of the room. In the middle of the room, along it, two in each room.
[...]They were square pillars with mesh around them. Not concrete pillars but mesh ones. They had a lid on the top. The Germans opened the lid and tossed in the gas in the form of pellets, green pellets of gas.
Q: Were the four pillars made of iron?
A: Of iron, of metal, metal mesh.[...]They had holes in them.
Q: How large was the opening through which they threw the gas into the chamber?
A: At least thirty-five square centimeters.
Q: Could the people who entered the gas chamber make out the pillars? Did they notice something suspicious?
A: The didnt know a thing from the very beginning, and they couldnt see a thing because the opening was closed.
[...]There was one room that could be divided into two. When a small transport came[...]they opened only one room by closing the door in the middle of the room that led to a section that made the room longer.
[...]On the floor of the chamber we saw something that looked like little bits of gravel, green, like little cubes - the residue of gas pellets. And lots of bodies, a meter deep, sprawled on top of each other.
The description of pellets on the floor rather suggests one of the above-ground chambers, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness describes introduction holes and pillars made of metal mesh with a lid on top, much in line with the descriptions of Kula and Tauber.
Bob wrote:That is what i call contradictions, some of them even don´t know how the chamber looked like, some so confused that mistaken Monowitz for Birkenau, some don´t know number of holes, dimensions, they all describe different device, some of them don´t describe it at all, some clearly contradict all others.
Actually, while some witnesses were better observers than others (one should remember that they were witnessing traumatically violent events and were not necessarily interested in the devices and mechanics of the killing) and/or had a better memory, no witness excluded the presence of wire mesh introduction columns in the underground chambers, and those who described the columns described them in essentially the same manner, with some differences that can be attributed to either personal perception or to memory confusions that are bound to occur a long time after the events (especially with the witnesses interviewed in 1997). Differences in dimensions? Big deal, few people are good at estimating dimensions. Differences as concerns the number of holes? Easily explained by the partition of the chamber, expressly mentioned by some witnesses. Some don't describe the columns? They didn't see then and/or didn't consider them a detail worth mentioning in their deposition or in a report like that of Vrba and Wetzler. Morgen mixed up Monowitz with Birkenau, but that doesn't exclude his observing the introduction process from the outside (from where he would not see the columns, of course). In other words, nothing to write home about. Bob's fussing about "contradictions" is much ado about nothing. Send 40 witnesses into a building and ask them to describe it when they come out, and you'll come out with 40 descriptions that are all somewhat different from each other. Have 40 witnesses describe a certain process, and you'll get 40 different descriptions. Differences in detail, that is, not in essence. You'll always be able to identify the building or process described from the witnesses' accounts, even if not all details match. Like you're always able to identify the wire mesh introduction columns in the accounts of the witnesses who mentioned them
Bob wrote: I see contradictions, I see lies,


Where?
Bob wrote: I see several examples of plagiarism,
Who is supposed to have plagiarized whom, and what's the evidence?
Bob wrote:some lies are really easy to expose, especially "blue vapor" is clear lie since HCN is colorless, or this liar just plagiarized testimony of Richard Bock, or "blue cubes" are ridiculous too.
"Ridiculous" doesn't mean that the witness gave information against better knowledge, sorry. Observation amd memory are tricky., especially when it comes to traumabtic events. And it takes some fantasy to assume that any of the witnesses interviewed in 1997 knew or cared about the testimony of SS-witness Richard Bock, who, when he watched a gassing on a winter night in one of the "bunkers" (in a state of great shock, especially as this was his first time) got the impression that the vapor coming out of the room (caused by the difference in temperature between the inside heated up by the body heat of many people packed into it and the cold outside) had a bluish coloration (probably due to the effect of the lights used to illuminate the scene, as this was a nighttime gassing) and mistook this vapor for gas.
Bob wrote:Some of them never saw gas chamber/morgue since they described it completely wrong as 200m long or 1.6m ceiling.
No, it's just that witnesses are not necessarily good at estimating measurements. Are you, Bobby? Even more ridiculous, though for the same reason, is the fuss you make below about a certain witness's estimate of the opening's area.
Bob wrote: I see lot of new inventions, ventilators in gas chamber below openings, glass windows in openings protected by iron bars so no introduction of gas possible by column, columns not attached to floor with small space for cleaning, pellets allegedly thrown using "some" device but falling on the floor anyway and not removed by movable part, divided chamber of Krema III, Krema III surrounded by two meters high wall and etc. and I did not even quote everything. Some claims are really absurd like "pungent smell of the gas" after the pellets had been thrown to gas chamber - this must be some other miracle and he survived gassing or he magically breathed through the door, anyway, HCN has slight odor and only some peoples are able to detect it. Opening of windows from gas chamber is another nonsense even contradicting witness´s alleged devices which prevent opening of "windows" from inside. 35 square centimeters large openings are just real joke but minor mistake for Mr. Muehlenkamp. Some witness even don´t know about ventilation and speak only ventilating by "vents" in the ceiling and by door.
Again we have a lot of huffing and puffing but little argument here. Human observation and memory (especially as concerns traumatically violent events and procedures) are not necessarily reliable, as I said, which is why making a fuss about this and that difference or "contradiction", especially when it comes to witnesses interviewed decades after the events they witnessed, is an exercise for brainless chimpanzees.
Bob wrote:But Mr. Muehlenkamp has no problem to speak about of "convergence", according to him, the differencies are minor, not contradicting, not lies, something is maybe wrong because of translation and similar absurd excues. He for sure ignore all these testimonies which contradict alleged device and his function. Some of them contradict own claims on the same page.
Bob's hysterical hollering doesn't change the fact that all witnesses who described the columns did so in essentially the same manner despite some differences in detail, and that the descriptions provided by two witnesses interrogated shortly after the event (one the manufacturer of the columns, the other an observer with a rare eye for detail) are almost identical.
Bob wrote:Yes, I believe these liars every single word. (sarkasm off) This is clear illusion, when some exterminationists speaks about convergence of evidence or about minor mistakes = illusion and simple lie, all what is needed to expose it is to spend some time with reading what these liars said.
Bob can continue furiously stomping his feet and spouting rhetorical BS all day long, but this won't get him over the inconvenient fact that several witnesses independently of each other (as we know from the differences in detail - if witness accounts had been influenced by each other they would be identical in every detail).described the wire mesh columns used for introducing the Zyklon B pellets into the underground chambers in essentially the same manner. The differences in detail mean that only one or two witnesses, or maybe no witness at all, provided a wholly accurate description of these contraptions. The essential similarities, on the other hand, means that it takes an utter lack of logic and reason to argue that the devices described didn't exist. He who argues thusly might as well argue that US president Kennedy was never shot because there are many differing accounts as to where the lethal shots came from.
Bob wrote:
And the differences in their descriptions only show that no description was influenced by another, which increases their evidentiary value.
As proven above, you are wrong,
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and it's clearly the kind of thinking that hollering Bob excels in.
Bob wrote: but I find this statement as another pure nonsense similar to Nessie´s claim about missing physical evidence. According to Mr. Muehlenkamp - differences in testimonies increase credibility of testimonies! no matter that are contradictionary or even against science and physical or documentary evidence.
Here lying Bob is putting words into my mouth. My argument was that testimonies converging in essence but diverging in detail have more credibility than testimonies converging in all detail, because the former at least stand a much bigger chance or reflecting independent observation by each witness not contaminated by something that witness learned from someone else. I didn't say that testimonies are more credible when they contradict each other in essential aspects, and neither of the testimonies I quoted contradict each other in essential aspects. I also said nothing about accounts that are physically impossible or contradicted by physical or documentary evidence, as lying Bob would have me say. To the extent that accounts are physically impossible or contradicted by physical or documentary evidence, they are of course not reliable, but that's another issue. I was merely comparing testimonies matching in essence but differing in detail with testimonies matching in essence and in detail, nothing more and nothing less.
Bob wrote: Bear this in mind folks, if you don´t want to be exposed as liar = you must lie, you must speak about contradictions, because lies and contradictions and differences are sign of credibility of testimony according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Not "lies and contradictions and differences", my friend. Convergence in essential aspects with differences in detail. This means that either the "lying" witnesses were so spectacularly clever and skillful in coordinating their accounts as to agree on minor differences anticipating every possible questioning scenario ("if the judge asks question a, you say this and I say that so our accounts are sufficiently similar but not so similar that the judge suspects we talked to each other"). Or, quite simply, that either of them described his own perception and recollection without knowing or caring what another witness had said or would say. The former may happen all the time in the fanciful minds of conspiracy theorists like Bob, but in the real world, where the latter is the rule, it is something that happens rarely if ever.

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Mon Mar 05, 2012 10:00 pm

Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:See Hans' comment
Hm, I see...nothing.
All very interesting if accurate, but how is that supposed to affect the accuracy of Keren et al's finds?
If accurate - in other words you have no counter arguments, because we have photos. This affect findings because they "estimated" hole in 1998 and later.
Yep, it was the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances, as pointed out by Hans.
It was reasonable to not measure these holes to prove that are introduction holes, not much reasonable statement.
Why, does your theory take all known evidence into consideration and require no or the fewest additional assumptions? I remember having demonstrated quite the opposite. So I understand your rant as an attempt to get even for my having pointed out that you have no idea of how this principle works.
Yes, all known evidence. Feel free to show everything about it, you failed so far with your evidence.
If Kula described the inner column...
I see you ignored whole comment and you still don´t have clue about Kula´s description, is obvious why you ignore it.
Who falsified Kula and made inventions
You, Pelt, Mazal et al....
So now I'm supposed to have "falsified" Kula's description as opposed to not having understood it, which was the previous accusations.
These two accusations are correct, see previous comments, that´s all.
Excuses I don't need, of course. I work with plausible explanations that are matched by other known evidence and don't require baseless claims of evidence manipulaton.
Yes, you demonstrated it here with your own Kula description.
Maybe not so so tight a fit, but things don't always come out perfect when you improvise, and the holes thing seems to have been an improvisation
They allegedy gassed in Krema I more than one year with using alleged openings in the roof, but according to Mr. Muehlenkamp, they only improvised again, nonsense.
Now let's assume (Kula said "about") that the distance on either side was just 12.5 cm, 25 cm in total, 45 cm left for the inner column. 0.20 square meters into 0.25 square meters of hole, a reasonably tight fit (the column had to be a little narrower than the hole, otherwise it couldn't have been pushed or pulled through the hole). In your scenario, a column with 0.16 square meters (0.40 x 0.40) would have gone through a 0.25 square meter hole. Would that be so bad? Maybe your heroes didn't mess up but where just careful when establishing the width of the inner column, making it narrow enough to comfortably fit in the hole.


You just ignore, that he described two nets manufactured in the same way connected together and forming column with square base of 70x70cm. Your inventions and "assumptions" have no end. You of course ignore every testimonies which contradict your claims.
he obviously meant the entire stucture of wire-mesh columns inserted inside each other, and not just the outer column.

The "column" being the set of three columns inserted inside each other, it may well have been 3 meters high at its highest (but not at its widest) and had an area of 70 cm x 70 cm at its widest (but not at its highest).
I never said that he speaks only about outer column, where do you see it? Of course he speaks about whole column with nothing like second column or one smaller and one bigger column and other inventions from you.
How so?
Pellets must be spreaded out on the surface and not accumulated on such small space like 15cm movable column, do basic research. Also according to Kula, inner net of the column had smaller mesh, thus "opened" area of the column is reduced and gas can evaporate only through mesh holes, this again reduce mobility of gas. According to testimonies, the victims urinated during their agony, of course is real problem to spread urine on Zyklon pellets in perforated column.
Except that there would be no mass of bodies around the columns, as the panicking victims would instinctively try to get away as far as possible from the columns (as corresponds to human nature). And that's assuming that the columns were really as fragile as you want them to be.
Mr. Muehlenkamp again ignore contradicting testimonies as usual.
Shaul Chazan

Q: Could people move around freely in the gas chamber?
A: Absolutely not! It wasn´t possible, and no one could get out. There wasn´t enough room. The people were packed up against each other like sardines.

We Wept Without Tears, p. 271
The only panicking could be the heavy mass of bodies around these alleged ridiculous columns.
They let it outgas in the open, big deal.
But witnesses somehow forget to mention it I guess. Here is evident how ridiculous your claims are, according to you, they just let them outgas somewhere to poison some place.

I am really curious about nonsense which you are going to tell me on my question how they recollected still outgassing pellets from chambers, where the alleged columns were not used for some strange reason and they dropped Zyklon B on the heads/floor.
Those places were above ground and could be easily ventilated into the open air, big deal.
Easily ventilated, how? Tell me something about it, how they easily ventilated alleged Bunkers?
Where exactly did you address "this"? I must have missed something.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p273030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The most you can say is that the term Drahtnexteinschiebvorrichtung does not refer to what the device is used for but to how it is constructed (a device made of various wire mesh components introduced into each other). And I'm still wating for an explanation what, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by the witnesses I quoted, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been

If "Leichenkeller" 1 was the Vergasungskeller and the other "Leichenkeller" was not, which of the two is likelier to have required Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen, considering that the closest match to this expression can be found in eyewitness descriptions of a contraption consisting of wire mesh elements slid or shoved (eingeschoben) into each other that were used for introducing Zyklon B into underground gas chambers?
I will not accept your logical fallacy, these devices are not introduction as proven even by the translation. About explanation see above previous points.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:The witnesses don't contradict each other just because they don't describe the wire mesh introduction devices in exactly the same way.
Kula - see above.

Henryk Tauber
The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Some details match, others don't, as one would expect in eyewitness testimonies independent of each other. I fact, the only thing that doesn't match is the "can". Apparently Tauber didn't realize that the "can" and the third column were the same object.
Bob wrote:Josef Erber
were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim.
Differs a little more from Kula, but mentions a wire mesh encasement and a device (tin canister) obviously used to introduce and/or withdraw something through the "pipes". The latter observation is either inaccurate or refers to a device used earlier than the one described by Kula.
Bob wrote:Konrad Morgen
"In this moment, an SS man in a gas suit stepped over the outer air duct
and poured a can with hydrogen cyanide into the room.”


“By ‘Extermination Camp Auschwitz’ I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called ‘Monowitz.’”

“These trucks drove off, but they did not drive to the Concentration Camp Auschwitz, but in another direction to the Extermination Camp Monowitz, which was a few kilometers away.”

“The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.”
Obviously saw the process only from the outside and said nothing about the columns, thus irrelevant to my argument. Mixed up Birkenau with Monowith, but that doesn't mean he didn't observe the introduction process described.
Bob wrote:Rudolf Vrba
A. I would think so. In other words, a man who would climb on it would have to lift his hands and sort of make an exercise in order to swing himself on top of the bunker. This bunker had air lifts, openings for airing, approximately three or four, along, which were covered by wooden or some lid which was easily removable. (no columns mentioned anywhere even when his source of information was Filip Muller and members of sonderkommando)
So this second-hand witness didn't go into a much detail as Bob would expect him to have based on his source? How frightfully shocking! Anyway, his having said nothing either way) about the columns makes him irrelevant for comparison.
Bob wrote:Karl Schultze
In der Decke waren vier quadratische Öffnungen 25 x 25 Zentimeter. (No columns, only openings 25cm x 25cm)
This witness doesn't seem to have seen too much of the process (or then didn't want to talk much), and his figures suggest that he was not too good at estimating measurements. Anyway, he said nothing about the columns either way (not that they existed and not that they did not) and is therefore irrelevant for comparison.
Bob wrote:Miklos Nyiszli
“The room into which the convoy proceeded was about 200 meters long its walls were whitewashed and it was brightly lit.

"This second room (gas chamber) was the same size as the first (200m!) but neither benches nor pegs were to be seen. In the center of the rooms, at thirty-yard intervals, columns rose from the concrete floor to the ceiling. They were not supporting columns, but square sheetiron pipes, the sides of which contained numerous perforations, like a wire lattice. [...]The Deputy Health Officer held four green sheet-iron canisters. He advanced across the grass, where, every thirty yards,(30m!) short concrete pipes jutted up from the ground. Having donned his gas mask, he lifted the lid of the pipe, which was also made of concrete. He opened one of the cans and poured the contents – a mauve granulated material – into the opening. The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead.”

“The scattered substance is Cyclon or chlorine in granular form, the
gas develops immediately, hardly coming into contact with air!”
Nyiszli (don't know if he was a first-hand witness as concerns this description) wasn't too good at estimating measurements, and he didn't completely understand how the introduction process functioned. However, he understood that there were columns made of metal with many holes in them, through which the gas entered the room. These columns may have been predecessors of the wire mesh columns, or then the witness failed to understand that they were made of wire mesh and not of perforated metal - even though his mention of "wire lattice" suggests that his perception was not that far away from the description provided by manufacturer Kula.
Bob wrote:Filip Muller
“The Zyklon B gas crystals[36] were thrown through openings in the concrete ceiling, which ended in hollow sheet metal columns in the gas chamber. These were perforated equidistantly, and inside of them a spiral ran from top to bottom, to achieve a distribution of the grainy crystals as equally as possible.”
Same misunderstanding as Nyisli (perforated metal columns as opposed to wire mesh columns), suggesting that both witnesses observed a predecessor of the wire mesh introduction device or that Müller, not a very accurate observer in this respect, was Nyiszli's information source. The "spiral" seems to have been a conjecture from the witness as he tried to explain to himself how the distribution mechanism worked.
Bob wrote:Paul Bendel
“Made of reinforced concrete, one had the impression when entering that the ceiling would fall on one’s head, so low it was. In the middle of these chambers two pipes surrounded by wire mesh and with an exterior valve served for the emission of gases.”

Q. You have said that the gas chambers were ten meters by four meters by one meter sixty centimeters: is that correct?
A. Yes.”
Another witness not too good at estimating measurements, and the "exterior valve" comes comes across as a conjecture. The "pipes" suggest the same perception error as Erber's , and like that witness Bendel correctly mentions wire mesh. The mention of only two "pipes" suggests that Bendel's observation was made after the gas chamber had been split in two.
Bob wrote:Yehuda Bacon
“Yes, there were two of these in each gas chamber in crematoria Nos. 1 and 2 [= II and III] – that is to say, there were four; their dimensions were 40×40 centimeters; below were the ventilators and also holes for cleaning with water. Afterwards, when they dismantled the crematoria, we saw the ventilators separately.”

“In crematoria Nos. 1 and 2, there was a very long hall divided in two. I asked them the reason for this and they explained that sometimes there were not enough people and it was a pity to waste the gas, so the people were put into only one half of the hall.”
Somewhat confused description, but mentions four columns and the division of the chamber mentioned in te previous comment.
Bob wrote:Shaul Chazan (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
Q: Where you often inside the chamber?
A:Yes, Yes, regularly.
[...]There were several openings. A latticework shaft came down from each opening. The mesh was made of perforated metal, it ran from the window in the celing to the floor. And the gas, in the form of little pellets, was thrown down the hollow shaft. The smell spread. That was the gas.
Q: Did the shaft reach the floor?
A: Almost. A small space was left so that you could clean there. We poured water on the floor and swept up what remained of the pelletes.
[...]All you could notice was the pungent smell of the gas as it spread.
[...]We opened the windows in the ceiling and began to remove bodies.
Witness correctly described the shaft/column in a manner suggesting a wire mesh makeup, though his mention of a "window" and a space below the bottom of the column "so that you could clean there" suggests that he mixed up recollections from one of the underground chambers with such from one of the above-ground chambers, where pellets were introduced through a window and had to be swept up. IIRC this witness was interviewed only in 1997 or so by an Israeli historian, so it's no surprise that certain details got mixed up in his memory over time.
Bob wrote:Leon Cohen (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It was very long. I think it was more than fifty meters long and six meters wide (chamber)
[...] I saw the gas chamber quite often. I entered personally[...]They opened the windows in the ceiling of the room and poured in the gas[...]Tubes led down from the openings into the gas chamber, and I took the opportunity to get a close look at the canisters of gas.
Witness must also have mixed up procedures in underground and above-ground chambers, hardly a surprise as he was also interviewed only in 1997 IIRC.
Bob wrote:Ya´akov Gabai (speaking about mirrored Krema II/III)
A: There were four openings in the ceiling of each gas chamber. In front of all fixed openings were glass windows protected with iron bars.[...]In the ceiling of the gas chambers there were shower heads - obviously not connected to the water supply - and pipes that were set within a metal grille.
Q: Who exactly opened the pipes and threw in the gas? (interesting, he even didn´t mention that pipes served for introduction, so strange question)
A: An SS man. When he threw the gas down, a blue vapor spread through the chamber. The gas came in the form of blue cubes[...]Then a German guard went upstairs and opened the windows. First they opened the vents in the ceiling and then, ten minutes later, they opened the door.[...]
Q: Did yo usee this with your own eyes?
A: Yes. After all, I was there for ten months.
Yet another case of procedures at different facilities being mixed up, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness (another of those interviewed in 1997) more or less correctly recalled "pipes that were set within a metal grille".
Bob wrote:Josef Sackar (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It (Krema III) was surrounded with a fence of sorts, made from piles of logs, two meters high, so that you wouldn´t notice a thing from the outside.
[...]Over the undressing hall there was no other floor. There were just four openings, through which the SS men threw in the gas in order to kill the people.
[...]Inside the gas chamber there were also four pillars with cages around them, and into them they threw the gas pellets.
Q: Where did these pillars stand?
A: In the middle, between the two parts of the room. In the middle of the room, along it, two in each room.
[...]They were square pillars with mesh around them. Not concrete pillars but mesh ones. They had a lid on the top. The Germans opened the lid and tossed in the gas in the form of pellets, green pellets of gas.
Q: Were the four pillars made of iron?
A: Of iron, of metal, metal mesh.[...]They had holes in them.
Q: How large was the opening through which they threw the gas into the chamber?
A: At least thirty-five square centimeters.
Q: Could the people who entered the gas chamber make out the pillars? Did they notice something suspicious?
A: The didnt know a thing from the very beginning, and they couldnt see a thing because the opening was closed.
[...]There was one room that could be divided into two. When a small transport came[...]they opened only one room by closing the door in the middle of the room that led to a section that made the room longer.
[...]On the floor of the chamber we saw something that looked like little bits of gravel, green, like little cubes - the residue of gas pellets. And lots of bodies, a meter deep, sprawled on top of each other.
The description of pellets on the floor rather suggests one of the above-ground chambers, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness describes introduction holes and pillars made of metal mesh with a lid on top, much in line with the descriptions of Kula and Tauber.
Bob wrote:That is what i call contradictions, some of them even don´t know how the chamber looked like, some so confused that mistaken Monowitz for Birkenau, some don´t know number of holes, dimensions, they all describe different device, some of them don´t describe it at all, some clearly contradict all others.
Actually, while some witnesses were better observers than others (one should remember that they were witnessing traumatically violent events and were not necessarily interested in the devices and mechanics of the killing) and/or had a better memory, no witness excluded the presence of wire mesh introduction columns in the underground chambers, and those who described the columns described them in essentially the same manner, with some differences that can be attributed to either personal perception or to memory confusions that are bound to occur a long time after the events (especially with the witnesses interviewed in 1997). Differences in dimensions? Big deal, few people are good at estimating dimensions. Differences as concerns the number of holes? Easily explained by the partition of the chamber, expressly mentioned by some witnesses. Some don't describe the columns? They didn't see then and/or didn't consider them a detail worth mentioning in their deposition or in a report like that of Vrba and Wetzler. Morgen mixed up Monowitz with Birkenau, but that doesn't exclude his observing the introduction process from the outside (from where he would not see the columns, of course). In other words, nothing to write home about. Bob's fussing about "contradictions" is much ado about nothing. Send 40 witnesses into a building and ask them to describe it when they come out, and you'll come out with 40 descriptions that are all somewhat different from each other. Have 40 witnesses describe a certain process, and you'll get 40 different descriptions. Differences in detail, that is, not in essence. You'll always be able to identify the building or process described from the witnesses' accounts, even if not all details match. Like you're always able to identify the wire mesh introduction columns in the accounts of the witnesses who mentioned them
Bob wrote: I see contradictions, I see lies,


Where?
Bob wrote: I see several examples of plagiarism,
Who is supposed to have plagiarized whom, and what's the evidence?
Bob wrote:some lies are really easy to expose, especially "blue vapor" is clear lie since HCN is colorless, or this liar just plagiarized testimony of Richard Bock, or "blue cubes" are ridiculous too.
"Ridiculous" doesn't mean that the witness gave information against better knowledge, sorry. Observation amd memory are tricky., especially when it comes to traumabtic events. And it takes some fantasy to assume that any of the witnesses interviewed in 1997 knew or cared about the testimony of SS-witness Richard Bock, who, when he watched a gassing on a winter night in one of the "bunkers" (in a state of great shock, especially as this was his first time) got the impression that the vapor coming out of the room (caused by the difference in temperature between the inside heated up by the body heat of many people packed into it and the cold outside) had a bluish coloration (probably due to the effect of the lights used to illuminate the scene, as this was a nighttime gassing) and mistook this vapor for gas.
Bob wrote:Some of them never saw gas chamber/morgue since they described it completely wrong as 200m long or 1.6m ceiling.
No, it's just that witnesses are not necessarily good at estimating measurements. Are you, Bobby? Even more ridiculous, though for the same reason, is the fuss you make below about a certain witness's estimate of the opening's area.
Bob wrote: I see lot of new inventions, ventilators in gas chamber below openings, glass windows in openings protected by iron bars so no introduction of gas possible by column, columns not attached to floor with small space for cleaning, pellets allegedly thrown using "some" device but falling on the floor anyway and not removed by movable part, divided chamber of Krema III, Krema III surrounded by two meters high wall and etc. and I did not even quote everything. Some claims are really absurd like "pungent smell of the gas" after the pellets had been thrown to gas chamber - this must be some other miracle and he survived gassing or he magically breathed through the door, anyway, HCN has slight odor and only some peoples are able to detect it. Opening of windows from gas chamber is another nonsense even contradicting witness´s alleged devices which prevent opening of "windows" from inside. 35 square centimeters large openings are just real joke but minor mistake for Mr. Muehlenkamp. Some witness even don´t know about ventilation and speak only ventilating by "vents" in the ceiling and by door.
Again we have a lot of huffing and puffing but little argument here. Human observation and memory (especially as concerns traumatically violent events and procedures) are not necessarily reliable, as I said, which is why making a fuss about this and that difference or "contradiction", especially when it comes to witnesses interviewed decades after the events they witnessed, is an exercise for brainless chimpanzees.
Bob wrote:But Mr. Muehlenkamp has no problem to speak about of "convergence", according to him, the differencies are minor, not contradicting, not lies, something is maybe wrong because of translation and similar absurd excues. He for sure ignore all these testimonies which contradict alleged device and his function. Some of them contradict own claims on the same page.
Bob's hysterical hollering doesn't change the fact that all witnesses who described the columns did so in essentially the same manner despite some differences in detail, and that the descriptions provided by two witnesses interrogated shortly after the event (one the manufacturer of the columns, the other an observer with a rare eye for detail) are almost identical.
Bob wrote:Yes, I believe these liars every single word. (sarkasm off) This is clear illusion, when some exterminationists speaks about convergence of evidence or about minor mistakes = illusion and simple lie, all what is needed to expose it is to spend some time with reading what these liars said.
Bob can continue furiously stomping his feet and spouting rhetorical BS all day long, but this won't get him over the inconvenient fact that several witnesses independently of each other (as we know from the differences in detail - if witness accounts had been influenced by each other they would be identical in every detail).described the wire mesh columns used for introducing the Zyklon B pellets into the underground chambers in essentially the same manner. The differences in detail mean that only one or two witnesses, or maybe no witness at all, provided a wholly accurate description of these contraptions. The essential similarities, on the other hand, means that it takes an utter lack of logic and reason to argue that the devices described didn't exist. He who argues thusly might as well argue that US president Kennedy was never shot because there are many differing accounts as to where the lethal shots came from.
Bob wrote:
And the differences in their descriptions only show that no description was influenced by another, which increases their evidentiary value.
As proven above, you are wrong,
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and it's clearly the kind of thinking that hollering Bob excels in.
Bob wrote: but I find this statement as another pure nonsense similar to Nessie´s claim about missing physical evidence. According to Mr. Muehlenkamp - differences in testimonies increase credibility of testimonies! no matter that are contradictionary or even against science and physical or documentary evidence.
Here lying Bob is putting words into my mouth. My argument was that testimonies converging in essence but diverging in detail have more credibility than testimonies converging in all detail, because the former at least stand a much bigger chance or reflecting independent observation by each witness not contaminated by something that witness learned from someone else. I didn't say that testimonies are more credible when they contradict each other in essential aspects, and neither of the testimonies I quoted contradict each other in essential aspects. I also said nothing about accounts that are physically impossible or contradicted by physical or documentary evidence, as lying Bob would have me say. To the extent that accounts are physically impossible or contradicted by physical or documentary evidence, they are of course not reliable, but that's another issue. I was merely comparing testimonies matching in essence but differing in detail with testimonies matching in essence and in detail, nothing more and nothing less.
Bob wrote: Bear this in mind folks, if you don´t want to be exposed as liar = you must lie, you must speak about contradictions, because lies and contradictions and differences are sign of credibility of testimony according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Not "lies and contradictions and differences", my friend. Convergence in essential aspects with differences in detail. This means that either the "lying" witnesses were so spectacularly clever and skillful in coordinating their accounts as to agree on minor differences anticipating every possible questioning scenario ("if the judge asks question a, you say this and I say that so our accounts are sufficiently similar but not so similar that the judge suspects we talked to each other"). Or, quite simply, that either of them described his own perception and recollection without knowing or caring what another witness had said or would say. The former may happen all the time in the fanciful minds of conspiracy theorists like Bob, but in the real world, where the latter is the rule, it is something that happens rarely if ever.
I think that there is no need to adress this piece as whole, let the readers judge themselves this extraordinary nonsense.

Only a few gems.
So this second-hand witness didn't go into a much detail
Here Mr. Muehlenkkamp ignore this witness. Rudolf Vrba is "first hand" witness who allegedly repeatedly observed gassings and vicinity of Krema II from January 1943 until April 7, 1944 and author of famous Vrba-Wetzler report. Also his source for his report was Filip Muller and members of sonderkommando.
"I saw the crematoria, and within the vicinity of the crematoria from January 1943 until April 7, 1944"

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/vrba2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here are "not much" details from Vrba who saw gas chamber which never existed and was propably only "mistaken" as usual or he used his legendary "poetic license"
A. I came from the night shift where several transports during the night arrived, but I was exchanged on the night shift approximately at five o'clock in the morning and broke into my barracks for sleep. Instead of sleeping, I get out from the barrack and walk over to Block 27 to the mortuary to talk to my friend, Wetzler. This mortuary had a window on this side.

Q. Indicating on the side closest to the crematoria?

A. On the side closest to the crematoria. (...) While I was drinking my coffee I could see that the people from the night which I had seen arrive, most of them were not seen but there were several hundred, first on this yard which was enclosed with electric fences, and with tower guards, and they went into this building which is known to us as Krematorium No. II. This Krematorium No. II had, apart from buildings, long bunkers which were approximately the height of two such tables. Say the bunker was about this height, above a head of a human being.

Q. All right. You are indicating about six and a half, seven feet?

A. I would think so. In other words, a man who would climb on it would have to lift his hands and sort of make an exercise in order to swing himself on top of the bunker. This bunker had air lifts, openings for airing, approximately three or four, along, which were covered by wooden or some lid which was easily removable.

[...]

[The Sanitäts Dienst Gefreiter] came having about four or five of those Zyklon tubes which I knew very well from loading into the Red Cross van. And he came to the bunker and he put them down, and then he started to put those lids, those tins on top of the bunker until he had them all on. And then he climbed on the bunker by holding on his hands and in a sporty way swinging himself over, which attracted my attention because it was not usually the demeanour of S.S. men to make sport. He then, on top of this bunker, took out a gas mask which he had hang over and put on the gas mask, and with something which, from a distance of about fifty yards, opened the lid of the Zyklon-B tubes, which was well-known to me from distance, and then he went to one of the vents in a leisurely step, opened the vent and shoved in the content of the tin in the vent in a leisurely way, and when he was finished he a couple of times has hit the ---

Q. Indicating tapped the tin.

A. Tapped on that opening. Then he closed the opening, opens the tin, again in a rather leisurely way, having the gas mask on, and went to the next vent where the procedure was repeated until he dropped into each vent one or two of those tins -- sometimes one, sometimes two. And when he cleared it he took the empty vents to the edge of the bunker, climbed down from the bunker, took the empty tins again down from the bunker, put down his gas mask, put the gas mask back into his holder, and with the tins under the hands walked away, disappearing inside the crematorium.

Q. Just the part about getting up to the bunker. Just describe that. Let me say to you that you said he put one can up on top ....

A. Yes. He first put the cans down because he brought them not with the carriage; he brought them under his arms, and there might have been five or six.

Q. Five or six cans.

A. Yes.

Q. And he picked one up and put it on top?

A. First one down and he started to put them up on top, and he crept up on it like a monkey, which surprised me.

Q. You say he hooked his arms over the edge and pulled himself up?

A. Yes. He sort of climbed up like a monkey.

Q. He had to reach up to the edge of the bunker?

A. Yes. Or, you know, to get a hold with his hand.

Q. Yeah.

A. And then he was climbing over the cement, which is rather smooth, but he managed to get up.

Q. Well, the last time you said he was rather sporty in the way he pulled himself up, yesterday.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, how high was it that he had to reach up?

A. I would say it was high enough that he couldn't walk up, but he could make an exercise.

(...)

THE WITNESS: He had to make an effort. He couldn't walk up or jump up. It was higher than that.

A: (...) I could see perfectly what was happening on this road and what's happening here, from the crematoria.

Q. You described barbed wire. Was there any kind of fence around those buildings that are crematoria that would prevent you from seeing what was happening there?

A. Not at the start. At the start I could see perfectly well from here, in January 1943, February 1943, perfectly well what is happening here. The distance is not more than fifty, sixty yards. I mean, the distance apart from the barbed wires would be like over this room, quite close. So that I could see perfectly well what was happening in this area.

I saw the crematoria, and within the vicinity of the crematoria from January 1943 until April 7, 1944, as the time went, this was the first crematorium and this is where I was witnessing the gassings of the first in the crematorium. Soon after the crematorium, three were opened.

Witness Rudolf Vrba: (...) This is Bauabschnitt I, yes. That is, the first crematorium which I saw in operation, and victims taken into [die Opfer ins Krematorium hereinzuführen] that was in Bauabschnitt Ib. (...) I could see the whole thing very well. And behind this Block was a mortuary, which is not drawn in [on the map]. (...) When during the night I came back from the Aufräumungskommando, that means, in the morning, I did not go to my Block but instead to the mortuary. At that time Wetzler, with whom I escaped from the camp, was the mortuary's secretary. And I spent most of my spare time in his company, since we were close friends. Now, from this small chamber behind Block 27 I could readily observe what was going on at the crematorium. At the time the crematorium was completed there were no trees as drawn here [on the map]. There was nothing. There was only the electric fence. Inmates were of course not allowed there. The gassings were usually carried out in the early morning before the roll call. (...) [At the mortuary] when I was back from the ramp, I often saw the same people [that had earlier deboarded trains at the ramp] who often had very characteristic looks. For example the Dutch looked very different from Poles or Jugoslavs even at a distance. I could see from there the people marching inside this building [Also da konnte ich die Leute hereinmarschieren sehen hier in dieses Gebüude]. And then I saw for the first time that on top of a bunker... I mean, it was like a place made of concrete [so wie ein Betonplatz]. Then suddenly... I was sitting in the mortuary, eating and drinking coffee. And then I saw how a man in SS uniform heaved himself up [heraufkriecht] on top of this bunker, with a gas mask, and [he] had a large can in his hand and opened the can and poured something through an opening [eine Öffnung] on the...

Judge: Block of concrete [Betonklotz].



Witness Rudolf Vrba: On the block of concrete, yes. [He] had opened something and poured it inside. And with me then was the Kapo of the mortuary, who was a Czech physician by the name of Lubomir Bastar. And I said to him: "Lubomir, look what he's doing. What is he doing?" And then he, Bastar, explained to me: "That is the transport you unloaded tonight, and now they're pouring in the gas. But don't tell anyone, or it will cost our lives." And since that occasion I could observe this a number of times or rather often [mehrere Male oder ganz oft].
Nyiszli (don't know if he was a first-hand witness as concerns this description) wasn't too good at estimating measurements
One can only wonder how is possible to by mistaken about 200m when in fact the room is 30m and he described "columns" in 30m intervals.
Another witness not too good at estimating measurements...No, it's just that witnesses are not necessarily good at estimating measurements. Are you, Bobby?
One can only wonder how is possible to mistake 2,4m ceiling for 1.6m. But for Mr. Muehlenakmp, no problem, because this "eyewitness" mentioned somethig "similar" to what match his belief. I know my height so is impossible for me to be mistaken about heigh of something what is lower than my own height. But for Mr. Muehlenkamp? No problem, he is just "mistaken"
Somewhat confused description, but mentions four columns and the division of the chamber mentioned in te previous comment.
Here Mr. Muehlenkamp prove again his ignorance and lack of knowledge, Yehuda Bacon speaks about dividing of Krema II and III, but Tauber speaks only about Krema II and Bendel who never saw what he claims speaks too about Krema II. Confused and false testimony is not problem again for Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Yet another case of procedures at different facilities being mixed up, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness (another of those interviewed in 1997) more or less correctly recalled "pipes that were set within a metal grille".
Yet another case of this ridiculous excuse which is the most favorite "mistaken" "mixed" and similar untenable nonsenses everytime when some exterminationist must deal with false testimony. Ya´akov Gabai disagree with the claims of Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Q:Ya´akov, how can you remember all the deatils, including all exact dates? That´s amazing!
A: I kept diary. I began it on my first day with the Sonderkommando and kept it until January 18, 1945, when I was liberated. (SS allegedly blowed last Krema on 26 January, he contradict himself on the next page when he said that he was moved to Mauthausen from Birkenau during so-called "death march", so not liberated on Jan 18) I kept records every day. Almost five hundred pages. Everyday iwrote down the most ordinary events, like "Today such and such ahppened...or Today we did such and such work....Every day I wrote down what I did i nthe Sonderkommando.
...But even though the diary was lost, I remember lots and lots of dates and I will never forget them. I have a good memory for exact dates, they never slip my mind
Only peoples like Mr. Muehlenkamp uses their untenable excuses everytime when their only evidence, the "testimonies" are false, so they deal with this problem in usual way, witnesses are mistaken or mixed and etc.

This is simple untenable, case for sanity and his ad hominems prove lack of arguments. No holes, no holocaust, simple, proven by material evidence.

David
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5006
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:04 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by David » Tue Mar 06, 2012 4:52 pm

Nessie wrote: Welcome to the forum Hans. I agree with your opening post. How can the revisionsit/deniers rely on evidence that has so clearly been tampered with? No holes, no Holocaust, supposedly. But there are in fact holes, so they need to explain how there are no holes. What caused those holes to appear?

First, let's compare the "zyklon vent" holes in the roof of Leichenkeller 1 Krema II with
real vent holes made by the Germans as part of the construction of Krema III.
You can look at the pictures of the "Zyklon Vent Holes" above.

Please look at pictures of two different vents built by the Germans as part of their construction Document 21 and 22

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0366.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To answer Nessie's question-
It is also important to know that the ceiling of Leichenkeller 1 had fallen into the
roof when the Germans blasted the central beam.
The fallen ceiling BLOCKED the doorway.

There was no way for Soviet investigators to enter the "gas chamber."

The only way to investigate the "gas chamber" was to chip a hole through the roof.
The Soviets chipped an entrace hole on the south west corner of the roof.
That is where the re-bar has been cut away. This hole is the only way to enter into
the "gas chamber."

There are useful pictures of the Leichenkeller ceiling taken by Pressac
at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0353.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There is also a smaller hole chipped in with cut and bent re-bar to the North.


User avatar
Nessie
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:41 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Nessie » Tue Mar 06, 2012 5:46 pm

David, the holes you show images of at Krema III are described as "The five rectangular openings served to evacuate the heat generated by the 5 three-muffle furnaces, one opening per furnace." So they are for a different purpose that was thought of during the construction phase of that Krema. That Krema II does not have holes as clear as at Krema III gives us various alternatives.

1 - it was built with no holes and holes were chipped/cut through it afterwards

2 - it was built with holes that have been later tampered with by explosives/chipping/cutting

But is this not better discussed in the relevant thread here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=17816" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Audiophile, motorbiker and sceptic.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Thu Mar 08, 2012 1:50 pm

Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:See Hans' comment
Hm, I see...nothing.
Just follow the link.
Bob wrote:
All very interesting if accurate, but how is that supposed to affect the accuracy of Keren et al's finds?
If accurate - in other words you have no counter arguments, because we have photos.
I like the "we". Who does Bob think he's speaking for?
Bob wrote:This affect findings because they "estimated" hole in 1998 and later.
And so?
Bob wrote:
Yep, it was the reasonable thing to do under the circumstances, as pointed out by Hans.
It was reasonable to not measure these holes to prove that are introduction holes, not much reasonable statement.
As present-day measurements wouldn't tell much about the holes' size when in operation, the unreasonable statement is my friend Bob's, as usual.
Bob wrote:
Why, does your theory take all known evidence into consideration and require no or the fewest additional assumptions? I remember having demonstrated quite the opposite. So I understand your rant as an attempt to get even for my having pointed out that you have no idea of how this principle works.
Yes, all known evidence.
Bluntly dismissing all known evidence as manipulated by some sinister conspiracy because of some supposed "incoherency" or "contradiction" is the exact opposite of duly taking all known evidence into consideration. And as I mentioned before, Bob's scenario requires a multitude of additional assumptions - assumptions that are not only additional but baseless and nonsensical.
Bob wrote:Feel free to show everything about it,
Show everything about what?
Bob wrote:you failed so far with your evidence.
How so, and by whose standards? By the standards of Hitler-kissing Bob, who no evidence incriminating his beloved Führer will satisfy and who likes to use the "you failed" rhetoric when he has no better arguments?
Bob wrote:
If Kula described the inner column...
I see you ignored whole comment and you still don´t have clue about Kula´s description, is obvious why you ignore it.
I can understand poor Bob being carpet-biting mad, but he should substantiate his accusations, at least for the benefit of our readers who may not understand what he's talking about.
Bob wrote:
Who falsified Kula and made inventions
You, Pelt, Mazal et al....
I can understand poor Bob being carpet-biting mad, but how exactly is any of his black beasts supposed to have falsified anything, and what "inventions" is he talking about ("inventions" seems to be a term that Bobby likes to use for reasonable assumptions matched by evidence, by the way - at least when they don't fit his ideological bubble).
Bob wrote:
So now I'm supposed to have "falsified" Kula's description as opposed to not having understood it, which was the previous accusations.
These two accusations are correct, see previous comments, that´s all.
That might be all if previous comments contained substantiation of accusations, but I didn't see any such substantiation. What exactly am I supposed to have missed?
Bob wrote:
Excuses I don't need, of course. I work with plausible explanations that are matched by other known evidence and don't require baseless claims of evidence manipulaton.
Yes, you demonstrated it here with your own Kula description.
Thanks for acknowledging my "Kula description" as a plausible explanation matched by other known evidence and not requiring baseless claims of evidence manipulation. Was that a flicker of common sense?
Bob wrote:
Maybe not so so tight a fit, but things don't always come out perfect when you improvise, and the holes thing seems to have been an improvisation
They allegedy gassed in Krema I more than one year with using alleged openings in the roof, but according to Mr. Muehlenkamp, they only improvised again, nonsense.
Why so? If I understood correctly the LK1 rooms were originally meant to be genuine morgues to store the folks killed at the bunkers and other mortality while they awaited cremation. Then someone had the brilliant idea to use the morgues as gas chambers, but this happened at an advanced stage of construction and thus the introduction procedure had to be somewhat improvised. Bob's SS heroes improvised more than once, however "un-German" Bob may consider improvisation to be.
Bob wrote:
Now let's assume (Kula said "about") that the distance on either side was just 12.5 cm, 25 cm in total, 45 cm left for the inner column. 0.20 square meters into 0.25 square meters of hole, a reasonably tight fit (the column had to be a little narrower than the hole, otherwise it couldn't have been pushed or pulled through the hole). In your scenario, a column with 0.16 square meters (0.40 x 0.40) would have gone through a 0.25 square meter hole. Would that be so bad? Maybe your heroes didn't mess up but where just careful when establishing the width of the inner column, making it narrow enough to comfortably fit in the hole.


You just ignore, that he described two nets manufactured in the same way connected together and forming column with square base of 70x70cm.
No, the overall size of the contraption doesn't affect my scenario in any way.
Bob wrote:Your inventions and "assumptions" have no end.
Assumptions are few and usually reasonable, inventions there are none (except in Bob's peculiar definition of the term, see above), and Bob's indignant footstomping is as phony as it is increasingly ridiculous.
Bob wrote:You of course ignore every testimonies which contradict your claims.
Coming from who ignores or unreasonably dismisses every testimony that doesn't fit his Hitler-kissing world-view, that's an interesting accusation indeed. What testimonies contradicting my above-quoted assumptions am I supposed to have ignored? Please quote them and explain how exactly they contradict my assumptions.
Bob wrote:
he obviously meant the entire stucture of wire-mesh columns inserted inside each other, and not just the outer column.

The "column" being the set of three columns inserted inside each other, it may well have been 3 meters high at its highest (but not at its widest) and had an area of 70 cm x 70 cm at its widest (but not at its highest).
I never said that he speaks only about outer column, where do you see it?
Here:
Bob wrote:This is of course irrelevant since column was allegedly 3m and 70cm without a doubt as described by Kula, but I wanted to mention it.
Short memory, Bobby? Or did I misunderstand you because you can't express yourself properly in English?
Bob wrote:Of course he speaks about whole column with nothing like second column or one smaller and one bigger column and other inventions from you.
Come on, Bobby, this is very clear:
Kula wrote:This column had a height of 3 meters with a square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm. Such a column was constituted of three nets, one inside the other.
Is he saying that the column has a "square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm" at its widest? Yes.

Is he saying that the column "had a height of 3 meters" at its highest? Yes.

Is he saying that the outer column (or the outer part of the column, if you prefer) had a height of 3 meters? No.
Bob wrote:
How so?
Pellets must be spreaded out on the surface and not accumulated on such small space like 15cm movable column, do basic research.
No, the claim is yours. Show me the "basic research".
Bob wrote:Also according to Kula, inner net of the column had smaller mesh, thus "opened" area of the column is reduced and gas can evaporate only through mesh holes, this again reduce mobility of gas.
But assuring that it spread evenly in every direction from the columns, and that the pellets could be withdrawn before they had fully outgassed, thus making it possible to start ventilation and corpse removal earlier. That advantage may have been considered to make up for an eventual loss of "mobility".
Bob wrote:According to testimonies, the victims urinated during their agony, of course is real problem to spread urine on Zyklon pellets in perforated column.
Yeah, I'm sure that in their death panic the victims would run towards the columns and pee on them, instead of trying to get away from them as far away as possible as mandated by their elementary survival instinct.
Bob wrote:
Except that there would be no mass of bodies around the columns, as the panicking victims would instinctively try to get away as far as possible from the columns (as corresponds to human nature). And that's assuming that the columns were really as fragile as you want them to be.
Mr. Muehlenkamp again ignore contradicting testimonies as usual.
Careful with such remarks, Bobby. Readers might get the impression that you consider accurate the testimonies I supposedly "ignore". And your beloved Führer wouldn't want that, would he?
Bob wrote:
Shaul Chazan

Q: Could people move around freely in the gas chamber?
A: Absolutely not! It wasn´t possible, and no one could get out. There wasn´t enough room. The people were packed up against each other like sardines.

We Wept Without Tears, p. 271
The only panicking could be the heavy mass of bodies around these alleged ridiculous columns.
Not it you consider Tauber's description, which Bob conveniently ignores (emphases added):
We found heaps of naked bodies, doubled up. They were pinkish, and in places red. Some were covered with greenish marks and saliva ran from their mouths. Others were bleeding from the nose. There was excrement on many of them. I remember that a great number had their eyes open and were hanging on to one another. The bodies were most crushed together round the door. By contrast, there were less around the wire mesh columns. The location of the bodies indicated that the people had tried to get away front the columns and get to the door. It was very hot in the gas chamber and so suffocating as to be unbearable.
Saul Chazan (another of those witnesses interviewed decades after the event, perhaps for the first time) either described an occasion when the gas chamber was fuller than usual, or then the "sardines" thing is a bit of hyperbole. I prefer Tauber's account, provided shortly after the events by someone who, unlike most other witnesses, managed to keep cool enough to make accurate observations about technical features.
Bob wrote:
They let it outgas in the open, big deal.
But witnesses somehow forget to mention it I guess.
Any particular reason why they should have mentioned it?
Bob wrote:Here is evident how ridiculous your claims are, according to you, they just let them outgas somewhere to poison some place.
Any particular place that could have been poisoned by letting the pellets outgas in the open air?
Bob wrote:I am really curious about nonsense which you are going to tell me on my question how they recollected still outgassing pellets from chambers, where the alleged columns were not used for some strange reason and they dropped Zyklon B on the heads/floor.
In those rooms they had to wait until the outgassing was complete as simple as that.
Bob wrote:
Those places were above ground and could be easily ventilated into the open air, big deal.
Easily ventilated, how? Tell me something about it, how they easily ventilated alleged Bunkers?
By opening it on two or more sides and letting a draught pass through
Bob wrote:
Where exactly did you address "this"? I must have missed something.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p273030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Great, now you just have to quote your wise words in that post that are supposed to address "this".
Bob wrote:
The most you can say is that the term Drahtnexteinschiebvorrichtung does not refer to what the device is used for but to how it is constructed (a device made of various wire mesh components introduced into each other). And I'm still wating for an explanation what, other than the Zyklon B introduction devices described by the witnesses I quoted, the Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen could possibly have been

If "Leichenkeller" 1 was the Vergasungskeller and the other "Leichenkeller" was not, which of the two is likelier to have required Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtungen, considering that the closest match to this expression can be found in eyewitness descriptions of a contraption consisting of wire mesh elements slid or shoved (eingeschoben) into each other that were used for introducing Zyklon B into underground gas chambers?
I will not accept your logical fallacy, these devices are not introduction as proven even by the translation.
Einschieben (sliding or shoving inside) is a form of einführen (introducing). Apparently your German is no better than your English. The Vorrichtung (device) consisted of wire mesh columns introduced or slid or shoved (eingeführt, eingeschoben) into each other. Thus the term Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung was a proper German composed word to describe the device.
Bob wrote:About explanation see above previous points.
I've seen and commented those "points", thanks.
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:The witnesses don't contradict each other just because they don't describe the wire mesh introduction devices in exactly the same way.
Kula - see above.

Henryk Tauber
The sides of these pillars, which went up through the roof, were of heavy wire mesh. Inside this grid. there was another of finer mesh and inside that a third of very fine mesh. Inside this last mesh cage there was a removable can that was pulled out with a wire to recover the [inert] pellets from which the gas had evaporated.
Some details match, others don't, as one would expect in eyewitness testimonies independent of each other. I fact, the only thing that doesn't match is the "can". Apparently Tauber didn't realize that the "can" and the third column were the same object.
Bob wrote:Josef Erber
were two ducts: in each duct, four iron pipes ran from the floor to the roof. These were encased with steel mesh wire and inside there was a tin canister with a low rim.
Differs a little more from Kula, but mentions a wire mesh encasement and a device (tin canister) obviously used to introduce and/or withdraw something through the "pipes". The latter observation is either inaccurate or refers to a device used earlier than the one described by Kula.
Bob wrote:Konrad Morgen
"In this moment, an SS man in a gas suit stepped over the outer air duct
and poured a can with hydrogen cyanide into the room.”


“By ‘Extermination Camp Auschwitz’ I did not mean the concentration camp. It did not exist there. I meant a separate extermination camp near Auschwitz, called ‘Monowitz.’”

“These trucks drove off, but they did not drive to the Concentration Camp Auschwitz, but in another direction to the Extermination Camp Monowitz, which was a few kilometers away.”

“The Extermination Camp Monowitz lay far away from the concentration camp. It was situated on an extensive industrial site and was not recognizable as such and everywhere on the horizon there were smoking chimneys.”
Obviously saw the process only from the outside and said nothing about the columns, thus irrelevant to my argument. Mixed up Birkenau with Monowith, but that doesn't mean he didn't observe the introduction process described.
Bob wrote:Rudolf Vrba
A. I would think so. In other words, a man who would climb on it would have to lift his hands and sort of make an exercise in order to swing himself on top of the bunker. This bunker had air lifts, openings for airing, approximately three or four, along, which were covered by wooden or some lid which was easily removable. (no columns mentioned anywhere even when his source of information was Filip Muller and members of sonderkommando)
So this second-hand witness didn't go into a much detail as Bob would expect him to have based on his source? How frightfully shocking! Anyway, his having said nothing either way) about the columns makes him irrelevant for comparison.
Bob wrote:Karl Schultze
In der Decke waren vier quadratische Öffnungen 25 x 25 Zentimeter. (No columns, only openings 25cm x 25cm)
This witness doesn't seem to have seen too much of the process (or then didn't want to talk much), and his figures suggest that he was not too good at estimating measurements. Anyway, he said nothing about the columns either way (not that they existed and not that they did not) and is therefore irrelevant for comparison.
Bob wrote:Miklos Nyiszli
“The room into which the convoy proceeded was about 200 meters long its walls were whitewashed and it was brightly lit.

"This second room (gas chamber) was the same size as the first (200m!) but neither benches nor pegs were to be seen. In the center of the rooms, at thirty-yard intervals, columns rose from the concrete floor to the ceiling. They were not supporting columns, but square sheetiron pipes, the sides of which contained numerous perforations, like a wire lattice. [...]The Deputy Health Officer held four green sheet-iron canisters. He advanced across the grass, where, every thirty yards,(30m!) short concrete pipes jutted up from the ground. Having donned his gas mask, he lifted the lid of the pipe, which was also made of concrete. He opened one of the cans and poured the contents – a mauve granulated material – into the opening. The granulated substance fell in a lump to the bottom. The gas it produced escaped through the perforations, and within a few seconds filled the room in which the deportees were stacked. Within five minutes everybody was dead.”

“The scattered substance is Cyclon or chlorine in granular form, the
gas develops immediately, hardly coming into contact with air!”
Nyiszli (don't know if he was a first-hand witness as concerns this description) wasn't too good at estimating measurements, and he didn't completely understand how the introduction process functioned. However, he understood that there were columns made of metal with many holes in them, through which the gas entered the room. These columns may have been predecessors of the wire mesh columns, or then the witness failed to understand that they were made of wire mesh and not of perforated metal - even though his mention of "wire lattice" suggests that his perception was not that far away from the description provided by manufacturer Kula.
Bob wrote:Filip Muller
“The Zyklon B gas crystals[36] were thrown through openings in the concrete ceiling, which ended in hollow sheet metal columns in the gas chamber. These were perforated equidistantly, and inside of them a spiral ran from top to bottom, to achieve a distribution of the grainy crystals as equally as possible.”
Same misunderstanding as Nyisli (perforated metal columns as opposed to wire mesh columns), suggesting that both witnesses observed a predecessor of the wire mesh introduction device or that Müller, not a very accurate observer in this respect, was Nyiszli's information source. The "spiral" seems to have been a conjecture from the witness as he tried to explain to himself how the distribution mechanism worked.
Bob wrote:Paul Bendel
“Made of reinforced concrete, one had the impression when entering that the ceiling would fall on one’s head, so low it was. In the middle of these chambers two pipes surrounded by wire mesh and with an exterior valve served for the emission of gases.”

Q. You have said that the gas chambers were ten meters by four meters by one meter sixty centimeters: is that correct?
A. Yes.”
Another witness not too good at estimating measurements, and the "exterior valve" comes comes across as a conjecture. The "pipes" suggest the same perception error as Erber's , and like that witness Bendel correctly mentions wire mesh. The mention of only two "pipes" suggests that Bendel's observation was made after the gas chamber had been split in two.
Bob wrote:Yehuda Bacon
“Yes, there were two of these in each gas chamber in crematoria Nos. 1 and 2 [= II and III] – that is to say, there were four; their dimensions were 40×40 centimeters; below were the ventilators and also holes for cleaning with water. Afterwards, when they dismantled the crematoria, we saw the ventilators separately.”

“In crematoria Nos. 1 and 2, there was a very long hall divided in two. I asked them the reason for this and they explained that sometimes there were not enough people and it was a pity to waste the gas, so the people were put into only one half of the hall.”
Somewhat confused description, but mentions four columns and the division of the chamber mentioned in te previous comment.
Bob wrote:Shaul Chazan (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
Q: Where you often inside the chamber?
A:Yes, Yes, regularly.
[...]There were several openings. A latticework shaft came down from each opening. The mesh was made of perforated metal, it ran from the window in the celing to the floor. And the gas, in the form of little pellets, was thrown down the hollow shaft. The smell spread. That was the gas.
Q: Did the shaft reach the floor?
A: Almost. A small space was left so that you could clean there. We poured water on the floor and swept up what remained of the pelletes.
[...]All you could notice was the pungent smell of the gas as it spread.
[...]We opened the windows in the ceiling and began to remove bodies.
Witness correctly described the shaft/column in a manner suggesting a wire mesh makeup, though his mention of a "window" and a space below the bottom of the column "so that you could clean there" suggests that he mixed up recollections from one of the underground chambers with such from one of the above-ground chambers, where pellets were introduced through a window and had to be swept up. IIRC this witness was interviewed only in 1997 or so by an Israeli historian, so it's no surprise that certain details got mixed up in his memory over time.
Bob wrote:Leon Cohen (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It was very long. I think it was more than fifty meters long and six meters wide (chamber)
[...] I saw the gas chamber quite often. I entered personally[...]They opened the windows in the ceiling of the room and poured in the gas[...]Tubes led down from the openings into the gas chamber, and I took the opportunity to get a close look at the canisters of gas.
Witness must also have mixed up procedures in underground and above-ground chambers, hardly a surprise as he was also interviewed only in 1997 IIRC.
Bob wrote:Ya´akov Gabai (speaking about mirrored Krema II/III)
A: There were four openings in the ceiling of each gas chamber. In front of all fixed openings were glass windows protected with iron bars.[...]In the ceiling of the gas chambers there were shower heads - obviously not connected to the water supply - and pipes that were set within a metal grille.
Q: Who exactly opened the pipes and threw in the gas? (interesting, he even didn´t mention that pipes served for introduction, so strange question)
A: An SS man. When he threw the gas down, a blue vapor spread through the chamber. The gas came in the form of blue cubes[...]Then a German guard went upstairs and opened the windows. First they opened the vents in the ceiling and then, ten minutes later, they opened the door.[...]
Q: Did yo usee this with your own eyes?
A: Yes. After all, I was there for ten months.
Yet another case of procedures at different facilities being mixed up, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness (another of those interviewed in 1997) more or less correctly recalled "pipes that were set within a metal grille".
Bob wrote:Josef Sackar (speaking about mirrored Krema III)
A: It (Krema III) was surrounded with a fence of sorts, made from piles of logs, two meters high, so that you wouldn´t notice a thing from the outside.
[...]Over the undressing hall there was no other floor. There were just four openings, through which the SS men threw in the gas in order to kill the people.
[...]Inside the gas chamber there were also four pillars with cages around them, and into them they threw the gas pellets.
Q: Where did these pillars stand?
A: In the middle, between the two parts of the room. In the middle of the room, along it, two in each room.
[...]They were square pillars with mesh around them. Not concrete pillars but mesh ones. They had a lid on the top. The Germans opened the lid and tossed in the gas in the form of pellets, green pellets of gas.
Q: Were the four pillars made of iron?
A: Of iron, of metal, metal mesh.[...]They had holes in them.
Q: How large was the opening through which they threw the gas into the chamber?
A: At least thirty-five square centimeters.
Q: Could the people who entered the gas chamber make out the pillars? Did they notice something suspicious?
A: The didnt know a thing from the very beginning, and they couldnt see a thing because the opening was closed.
[...]There was one room that could be divided into two. When a small transport came[...]they opened only one room by closing the door in the middle of the room that led to a section that made the room longer.
[...]On the floor of the chamber we saw something that looked like little bits of gravel, green, like little cubes - the residue of gas pellets. And lots of bodies, a meter deep, sprawled on top of each other.
The description of pellets on the floor rather suggests one of the above-ground chambers, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness describes introduction holes and pillars made of metal mesh with a lid on top, much in line with the descriptions of Kula and Tauber.
Bob wrote:That is what i call contradictions, some of them even don´t know how the chamber looked like, some so confused that mistaken Monowitz for Birkenau, some don´t know number of holes, dimensions, they all describe different device, some of them don´t describe it at all, some clearly contradict all others.
Actually, while some witnesses were better observers than others (one should remember that they were witnessing traumatically violent events and were not necessarily interested in the devices and mechanics of the killing) and/or had a better memory, no witness excluded the presence of wire mesh introduction columns in the underground chambers, and those who described the columns described them in essentially the same manner, with some differences that can be attributed to either personal perception or to memory confusions that are bound to occur a long time after the events (especially with the witnesses interviewed in 1997). Differences in dimensions? Big deal, few people are good at estimating dimensions. Differences as concerns the number of holes? Easily explained by the partition of the chamber, expressly mentioned by some witnesses. Some don't describe the columns? They didn't see then and/or didn't consider them a detail worth mentioning in their deposition or in a report like that of Vrba and Wetzler. Morgen mixed up Monowitz with Birkenau, but that doesn't exclude his observing the introduction process from the outside (from where he would not see the columns, of course). In other words, nothing to write home about. Bob's fussing about "contradictions" is much ado about nothing. Send 40 witnesses into a building and ask them to describe it when they come out, and you'll come out with 40 descriptions that are all somewhat different from each other. Have 40 witnesses describe a certain process, and you'll get 40 different descriptions. Differences in detail, that is, not in essence. You'll always be able to identify the building or process described from the witnesses' accounts, even if not all details match. Like you're always able to identify the wire mesh introduction columns in the accounts of the witnesses who mentioned them
Bob wrote: I see contradictions, I see lies,


Where?
Bob wrote: I see several examples of plagiarism,
Who is supposed to have plagiarized whom, and what's the evidence?
Bob wrote:some lies are really easy to expose, especially "blue vapor" is clear lie since HCN is colorless, or this liar just plagiarized testimony of Richard Bock, or "blue cubes" are ridiculous too.
"Ridiculous" doesn't mean that the witness gave information against better knowledge, sorry. Observation amd memory are tricky., especially when it comes to traumabtic events. And it takes some fantasy to assume that any of the witnesses interviewed in 1997 knew or cared about the testimony of SS-witness Richard Bock, who, when he watched a gassing on a winter night in one of the "bunkers" (in a state of great shock, especially as this was his first time) got the impression that the vapor coming out of the room (caused by the difference in temperature between the inside heated up by the body heat of many people packed into it and the cold outside) had a bluish coloration (probably due to the effect of the lights used to illuminate the scene, as this was a nighttime gassing) and mistook this vapor for gas.
Bob wrote:Some of them never saw gas chamber/morgue since they described it completely wrong as 200m long or 1.6m ceiling.
No, it's just that witnesses are not necessarily good at estimating measurements. Are you, Bobby? Even more ridiculous, though for the same reason, is the fuss you make below about a certain witness's estimate of the opening's area.
Bob wrote: I see lot of new inventions, ventilators in gas chamber below openings, glass windows in openings protected by iron bars so no introduction of gas possible by column, columns not attached to floor with small space for cleaning, pellets allegedly thrown using "some" device but falling on the floor anyway and not removed by movable part, divided chamber of Krema III, Krema III surrounded by two meters high wall and etc. and I did not even quote everything. Some claims are really absurd like "pungent smell of the gas" after the pellets had been thrown to gas chamber - this must be some other miracle and he survived gassing or he magically breathed through the door, anyway, HCN has slight odor and only some peoples are able to detect it. Opening of windows from gas chamber is another nonsense even contradicting witness´s alleged devices which prevent opening of "windows" from inside. 35 square centimeters large openings are just real joke but minor mistake for Mr. Muehlenkamp. Some witness even don´t know about ventilation and speak only ventilating by "vents" in the ceiling and by door.
Again we have a lot of huffing and puffing but little argument here. Human observation and memory (especially as concerns traumatically violent events and procedures) are not necessarily reliable, as I said, which is why making a fuss about this and that difference or "contradiction", especially when it comes to witnesses interviewed decades after the events they witnessed, is an exercise for brainless chimpanzees.
Bob wrote:But Mr. Muehlenkamp has no problem to speak about of "convergence", according to him, the differencies are minor, not contradicting, not lies, something is maybe wrong because of translation and similar absurd excues. He for sure ignore all these testimonies which contradict alleged device and his function. Some of them contradict own claims on the same page.
Bob's hysterical hollering doesn't change the fact that all witnesses who described the columns did so in essentially the same manner despite some differences in detail, and that the descriptions provided by two witnesses interrogated shortly after the event (one the manufacturer of the columns, the other an observer with a rare eye for detail) are almost identical.
Bob wrote:Yes, I believe these liars every single word. (sarkasm off) This is clear illusion, when some exterminationists speaks about convergence of evidence or about minor mistakes = illusion and simple lie, all what is needed to expose it is to spend some time with reading what these liars said.
Bob can continue furiously stomping his feet and spouting rhetorical BS all day long, but this won't get him over the inconvenient fact that several witnesses independently of each other (as we know from the differences in detail - if witness accounts had been influenced by each other they would be identical in every detail).described the wire mesh columns used for introducing the Zyklon B pellets into the underground chambers in essentially the same manner. The differences in detail mean that only one or two witnesses, or maybe no witness at all, provided a wholly accurate description of these contraptions. The essential similarities, on the other hand, means that it takes an utter lack of logic and reason to argue that the devices described didn't exist. He who argues thusly might as well argue that US president Kennedy was never shot because there are many differing accounts as to where the lethal shots came from.
Bob wrote:
And the differences in their descriptions only show that no description was influenced by another, which increases their evidentiary value.
As proven above, you are wrong,
Wishful thinking is also thinking, and it's clearly the kind of thinking that hollering Bob excels in.
Bob wrote: but I find this statement as another pure nonsense similar to Nessie´s claim about missing physical evidence. According to Mr. Muehlenkamp - differences in testimonies increase credibility of testimonies! no matter that are contradictionary or even against science and physical or documentary evidence.
Here lying Bob is putting words into my mouth. My argument was that testimonies converging in essence but diverging in detail have more credibility than testimonies converging in all detail, because the former at least stand a much bigger chance or reflecting independent observation by each witness not contaminated by something that witness learned from someone else. I didn't say that testimonies are more credible when they contradict each other in essential aspects, and neither of the testimonies I quoted contradict each other in essential aspects. I also said nothing about accounts that are physically impossible or contradicted by physical or documentary evidence, as lying Bob would have me say. To the extent that accounts are physically impossible or contradicted by physical or documentary evidence, they are of course not reliable, but that's another issue. I was merely comparing testimonies matching in essence but differing in detail with testimonies matching in essence and in detail, nothing more and nothing less.
Bob wrote: Bear this in mind folks, if you don´t want to be exposed as liar = you must lie, you must speak about contradictions, because lies and contradictions and differences are sign of credibility of testimony according to Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Not "lies and contradictions and differences", my friend. Convergence in essential aspects with differences in detail. This means that either the "lying" witnesses were so spectacularly clever and skillful in coordinating their accounts as to agree on minor differences anticipating every possible questioning scenario ("if the judge asks question a, you say this and I say that so our accounts are sufficiently similar but not so similar that the judge suspects we talked to each other"). Or, quite simply, that either of them described his own perception and recollection without knowing or caring what another witness had said or would say. The former may happen all the time in the fanciful minds of conspiracy theorists like Bob, but in the real world, where the latter is the rule, it is something that happens rarely if ever.
Bob wrote:I think that there is no need to adress this piece as whole, let the readers judge themselves this extraordinary nonsense.
What, are Bob's argumentative capacities reduced to yelling "extraordinary nonsense"?

We'll see after lunch.

Roberto Muehlenkamp
Poster
Posts: 232
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 3:26 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Roberto Muehlenkamp » Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:49 pm

Continuation ...
Bob wrote:Only a few gems.
So this second-hand witness didn't go into a much detail
Here Mr. Muehlenkkamp ignore this witness. Rudolf Vrba is "first hand" witness who allegedly repeatedly observed gassings and vicinity of Krema II from January 1943 until April 7, 1944 and author of famous Vrba-Wetzler report. Also his source for his report was Filip Muller and members of sonderkommando.
"I saw the crematoria, and within the vicinity of the crematoria from January 1943 until April 7, 1944"

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/vrba2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I thought we were talking about the gas introduction procedure in the underground gas chambers and the wire mesh columns in particular. Does having seen the crematoria and their surrounding make Vrba a first-hand witness to that, or what is Bob trying to tell us?
Bob wrote:Here are "not much" details from Vrba
I said not as much detail as Bob would expect him to have. If you quote me, please quote correctly.
Bob wrote:who saw gas chamber which never existed and was propably only "mistaken" as usual or he used his legendary "poetic license"
Blah, blah, blah, and please tell us more about that "poetic license" herring. Did Vrba claim to have used "poetic license" in the Vrba-Wetzler report, or did he claim to have used "poetic license" in a historical novel he later wrote based on his experiences at AB? There is a difference, as you may understand.
Bob wrote:
A. I came from the night shift where several transports during the night arrived, but I was exchanged on the night shift approximately at five o'clock in the morning and broke into my barracks for sleep. Instead of sleeping, I get out from the barrack and walk over to Block 27 to the mortuary to talk to my friend, Wetzler. This mortuary had a window on this side.

Q. Indicating on the side closest to the crematoria?

A. On the side closest to the crematoria. (...) While I was drinking my coffee I could see that the people from the night which I had seen arrive, most of them were not seen but there were several hundred, first on this yard which was enclosed with electric fences, and with tower guards, and they went into this building which is known to us as Krematorium No. II. This Krematorium No. II had, apart from buildings, long bunkers which were approximately the height of two such tables. Say the bunker was about this height, above a head of a human being.

Q. All right. You are indicating about six and a half, seven feet?

A. I would think so. In other words, a man who would climb on it would have to lift his hands and sort of make an exercise in order to swing himself on top of the bunker. This bunker had air lifts, openings for airing, approximately three or four, along, which were covered by wooden or some lid which was easily removable.

[...]

[The Sanitäts Dienst Gefreiter] came having about four or five of those Zyklon tubes which I knew very well from loading into the Red Cross van. And he came to the bunker and he put them down, and then he started to put those lids, those tins on top of the bunker until he had them all on. And then he climbed on the bunker by holding on his hands and in a sporty way swinging himself over, which attracted my attention because it was not usually the demeanour of S.S. men to make sport. He then, on top of this bunker, took out a gas mask which he had hang over and put on the gas mask, and with something which, from a distance of about fifty yards, opened the lid of the Zyklon-B tubes, which was well-known to me from distance, and then he went to one of the vents in a leisurely step, opened the vent and shoved in the content of the tin in the vent in a leisurely way, and when he was finished he a couple of times has hit the ---

Q. Indicating tapped the tin.

A. Tapped on that opening. Then he closed the opening, opens the tin, again in a rather leisurely way, having the gas mask on, and went to the next vent where the procedure was repeated until he dropped into each vent one or two of those tins -- sometimes one, sometimes two. And when he cleared it he took the empty vents to the edge of the bunker, climbed down from the bunker, took the empty tins again down from the bunker, put down his gas mask, put the gas mask back into his holder, and with the tins under the hands walked away, disappearing inside the crematorium.

Q. Just the part about getting up to the bunker. Just describe that. Let me say to you that you said he put one can up on top ....

A. Yes. He first put the cans down because he brought them not with the carriage; he brought them under his arms, and there might have been five or six.

Q. Five or six cans.

A. Yes.

Q. And he picked one up and put it on top?

A. First one down and he started to put them up on top, and he crept up on it like a monkey, which surprised me.

Q. You say he hooked his arms over the edge and pulled himself up?

A. Yes. He sort of climbed up like a monkey.

Q. He had to reach up to the edge of the bunker?

A. Yes. Or, you know, to get a hold with his hand.

Q. Yeah.

A. And then he was climbing over the cement, which is rather smooth, but he managed to get up.

Q. Well, the last time you said he was rather sporty in the way he pulled himself up, yesterday.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, how high was it that he had to reach up?

A. I would say it was high enough that he couldn't walk up, but he could make an exercise.

(...)

THE WITNESS: He had to make an effort. He couldn't walk up or jump up. It was higher than that.

A: (...) I could see perfectly what was happening on this road and what's happening here, from the crematoria.

Q. You described barbed wire. Was there any kind of fence around those buildings that are crematoria that would prevent you from seeing what was happening there?

A. Not at the start. At the start I could see perfectly well from here, in January 1943, February 1943, perfectly well what is happening here. The distance is not more than fifty, sixty yards. I mean, the distance apart from the barbed wires would be like over this room, quite close. So that I could see perfectly well what was happening in this area.

I saw the crematoria, and within the vicinity of the crematoria from January 1943 until April 7, 1944, as the time went, this was the first crematorium and this is where I was witnessing the gassings of the first in the crematorium. Soon after the crematorium, three were opened.

Witness Rudolf Vrba: (...) This is Bauabschnitt I, yes. That is, the first crematorium which I saw in operation, and victims taken into [die Opfer ins Krematorium hereinzuführen] that was in Bauabschnitt Ib. (...) I could see the whole thing very well. And behind this Block was a mortuary, which is not drawn in [on the map]. (...) When during the night I came back from the Aufräumungskommando, that means, in the morning, I did not go to my Block but instead to the mortuary. At that time Wetzler, with whom I escaped from the camp, was the mortuary's secretary. And I spent most of my spare time in his company, since we were close friends. Now, from this small chamber behind Block 27 I could readily observe what was going on at the crematorium. At the time the crematorium was completed there were no trees as drawn here [on the map]. There was nothing. There was only the electric fence. Inmates were of course not allowed there. The gassings were usually carried out in the early morning before the roll call. (...) [At the mortuary] when I was back from the ramp, I often saw the same people [that had earlier deboarded trains at the ramp] who often had very characteristic looks. For example the Dutch looked very different from Poles or Jugoslavs even at a distance. I could see from there the people marching inside this building [Also da konnte ich die Leute hereinmarschieren sehen hier in dieses Gebüude]. And then I saw for the first time that on top of a bunker... I mean, it was like a place made of concrete [so wie ein Betonplatz]. Then suddenly... I was sitting in the mortuary, eating and drinking coffee. And then I saw how a man in SS uniform heaved himself up [heraufkriecht] on top of this bunker, with a gas mask, and [he] had a large can in his hand and opened the can and poured something through an opening [eine Öffnung] on the...

Judge: Block of concrete [Betonklotz].

Witness Rudolf Vrba: On the block of concrete, yes. [He] had opened something and poured it inside. And with me then was the Kapo of the mortuary, who was a Czech physician by the name of Lubomir Bastar. And I said to him: "Lubomir, look what he's doing. What is he doing?" And then he, Bastar, explained to me: "That is the transport you unloaded tonight, and now they're pouring in the gas. But don't tell anyone, or it will cost our lives." And since that occasion I could observe this a number of times or rather often [mehrere Male oder ganz oft].
All very interesting, but I didn't find the part where Vrba mentioned having seen a gas chamber from the inside and especially the wise mesh columns. Did I miss something?
Bob wrote:
Nyiszli (don't know if he was a first-hand witness as concerns this description) wasn't too good at estimating measurements
One can only wonder how is possible to by mistaken about 200m when in fact the room is 30m and he described "columns" in 30m intervals.
Eyewitnesses make such mistakes, especially eyewitnesses to traumatic events. But let's assume that Nyiszli embellished this detail. Would this make his entire testimony worthless, even where it is corroborated by other testimonies independent of his and/or by evidence other than testimonies? Not in historiography and not in criminal justice, about whose approach to a witness who lies about one or the other detail Bob can inform himself here.
Bob wrote:
Another witness not too good at estimating measurements...No, it's just that witnesses are not necessarily good at estimating measurements. Are you, Bobby?
One can only wonder how is possible to mistake 2,4m ceiling for 1.6m.
One can only wonder how someone can make such a fuss about that, considering the finds of forensic psychology as rendered by Bender & Nack (my translation):
The reliability of recollection also depends on the kind of object that the informing person is to remember.

The sequence (with increasingly weaker recollection) is the following:

(1) Persons and their actions, especially towards and with the informing person

(2) The (mere) presence of objects, especially such that play a central part in the course of the action

(3) The number of persons participating, if it is smaller than 7

(4) The spatial conditions, especially insofar as they are important for the fitting-together of the actions

(5) The state of objects, especially insofar as important for the fitting-together of the actions

(6) The sequence of events

(7) Colors

(8) Magnitudes and quantities

(9) Sounds

(10) Duration

[From item 6 onward the reliability of recollection is especially diminished.]
I'd say that measurements go under "magnitudes and quantities", rank 8 on the scale of recollection reliability.
Bob wrote: But for Mr. Muehlenakmp, no problem, because this "eyewitness" mentioned somethig "similar" to what match his belief.
Not my belief but other evidence. Unlike ideologically motivated true believers like Bob, I don't have to believe in anything. I can reach conclusions based on evidence and common sense.
Bob wrote: I know my height so is impossible for me to be mistaken about heigh of something what is lower than my own height.
So you may say when you have been confronted with an object like LK1, which may have seemed lower than it was to a shocked witness due to an optical illusion. Until then, cut the crap.
Bob wrote:But for Mr. Muehlenkamp? No problem, he is just "mistaken"
Very probably so, but again, let's assume that the 1.60 meters was a deliberate (and quite pointless) embellishment (a invention in the proper sense of the term, if you prefer). Would this mean that everything this witness said must be thrown in the rubbish bin, as Bob would like to have it? Not according to German jurists Bender and Nack:
”Him who lies once you don’t believe, even if he speaks the truth“

This saying must – contrary to its customary use – be understood “quite literally”, i.e. as follows:

“It is a (common) erroneous notion to assume that someone who lies about a secondary issue also tells untruths about the main issue."

[Example:]

The deposition at a murder trial of a main incriminating witness from the homeless milieu, who had been subject to several criminal procedures for false accusations and who had in these procedures been considered incapable of responsibility because of lacking control over her actions, proved to be credible. The witness described original conversations with the perpetrator before and after the deed and provided many details, for instance how the perpetrator had previously “trained” on her the victim’s strangulation with the murder weapon, a brown leather belt.

Explanation: Some people, who are actually in the possession of truth, but fear that they will not believed, feel entitled (even almost “obliged”) to lie regarding one or the other secondary fact, so that they are believed (example see marginal note 239).

As you know from the doctrine of error (marginal note 18), errors tend to occur especially in regard to circumstances in which the informing person had no interest. In order to avoid jumping to conclusions the interrogator should, through skillful questioning of the informing person, certify himself of what was subjectively important for the informing person. Only when sources of error can be identified there as well a conclusion regarding the unreliability of the entire deposition is justified.

Motivations for lies by innocents (frequently, but not always, concerning secondary issues)

(1) In order to cover up their own weaknesses, keep their good reputation,

(2) In order to avoid uncovering secrets they wish to keep from close relatives or from the public,

(3) In order to protect a person close to them,

(4) In order not to reveal sexual relationships,

(5) In order to keep a business secret,

(6) Because they believe that a truthful statement may – even if only in exterior appearance – be used against them,

(7) In order to convey complicated circumstances more easily and thus also more plausibly,

(8) Out of concern that the truth is so improbable that everyone would believe it is a lie.[…]
Bob wrote:
Somewhat confused description, but mentions four columns and the division of the chamber mentioned in te previous comment.
Here Mr. Muehlenkamp prove again his ignorance and lack of knowledge, Yehuda Bacon speaks about dividing of Krema II and III, but Tauber speaks only about Krema II and Bendel who never saw what he claims speaks too about Krema II.
What's the deal supposed to be? If Bob's heroes split up the LK1 of Krema II to better handle smaller contingents, why shouldn't they also have split up the LK1 of Krema III?
Bob wrote:Confused and false testimony is not problem again for Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Unlike Bob, I don't hold the idiotic belief - contrary to life and forensic experience - that a witness who is confused or mistaken or lying about certain details is necessarily confused or mistaken or lying from start to finish. If a witness is found to be confused or mistaken or lying about certain details, this doesn't mean he must be dismissed as completely unreliable and no part of his testimony can be used. It only means that his testimony should be used only insofar as it is corroborated by evidence independent of the witness.
Bob wrote:
Yet another case of procedures at different facilities being mixed up, but as concerns the underground chambers the witness (another of those interviewed in 1997) more or less correctly recalled "pipes that were set within a metal grille".


Yet another case of this ridiculous excuse which is the most favorite "mistaken" "mixed" and similar untenable nonsenses everytime when some exterminationist must deal with false testimony. Ya´akov Gabai disagree with the claims of Mr. Muehlenkamp.
Q:Ya´akov, how can you remember all the deatils, including all exact dates? That´s amazing!
A: I kept diary. I began it on my first day with the Sonderkommando and kept it until January 18, 1945, when I was liberated. (SS allegedly blowed last Krema on 26 January, he contradict himself on the next page when he said that he was moved to Mauthausen from Birkenau during so-called "death march", so not liberated on Jan 18) I kept records every day. Almost five hundred pages. Everyday iwrote down the most ordinary events, like "Today such and such ahppened...or Today we did such and such work....Every day I wrote down what I did i nthe Sonderkommando.
...But even though the diary was lost, I remember lots and lots of dates and I will never forget them. I have a good memory for exact dates, they never slip my mind
A good memory for dates doesn't necessarily mean a good memory for other details, nor does it rule out the witness's mixing up features of the above-ground gas chambers with features from the below-ground gas chambers if he worked in both, as it also doesn't rule out the witness's mixing up what he saw himself with what others described to him, especially decades after the event. And again, if we assume that the witness embellished this or that detail, this doesn't make his account wholly unrealiable, except in "Revisionist" cloud-cuckoo-land.
Bob wrote:Only peoples like Mr. Muehlenkamp uses their untenable excuses everytime when their only evidence, the "testimonies" are false, so they deal with this problem in usual way, witnesses are mistaken or mixed and etc.
As I said before, witnesses can even have embellished one or the other detail without that getting Bobby a banana. And even he should know better than to still peddle the beaten old "witnesses are the only evidence" baloney.
Bob wrote:This is simple untenable, case for sanity and his ad hominems prove lack of arguments.
Like when Bob calls me a liar or insinuates that I'm insane, right? In my case, however, the ad hominems that occasionally accompany my arguments only prove the contempt I feel for the likes of Bob.
Bob wrote:No holes, no holocaust, simple, proven by material evidence.
A stupid slogan that stands out for its stupidity even in an environment not exactly noted for intelligent thinking. First of all, in order to yell "no holes" Bob and his coreligionists would have to positively prove that there were never any holes in the roof of the LK1 cellars of Kremas II and III, instead of just nitpicking about the converging eyewitness, documentary and physical evidence whereby these holes did exist.. Second, "ho holes" would at best mean that homicidal gassing did not take place in those underground cellars but only in the above-ground facilities of Birkenau. Unless, of course, "Revisionists" can also a) prove that all evidence to homicidal gassings at these facilities was manipulated by the conspiracy of their fantasies, and b) plausibly account for the hundreds of thousands of deportees known to have reached AB without ever having been taken into the camp as inmates.

So I wouldn't repeat old Fauri's senile old ravings if I where you, my friend.

Talk about Fauri, there's a blog that much concerns itself with the old fart. Enjoy!

RICH-ENGLAND
Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:20 pm

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by RICH-ENGLAND » Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:09 pm

i suggest bob watches the bbc tv programmes called eyewitness as he very clearly doesn't understand eyewitness experience and testimony...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s6qdj/episodes/guide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

thanks

rich

Bob
Regular Poster
Posts: 666
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:41 am

Re: My Chełmno Grave # 1 / 34 Proofs

Post by Bob » Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:19 pm

Just follow the link.
I followed links, but see no answers.
I like the "we". Who does Bob think he's speaking for?
We all, we all can see photos and have them, simple. I like how you adress unimportant issues not connected with the subject.
And so?
And holes before 1998 was different, smaller than in 1998, so their findings are flawed.
As present-day measurements wouldn't tell much about the holes' size when in operation, the unreasonable statement is my friend Bob's, as usual.
I only wonder how is possible to determine size during alleged operation when your source even didn´t bother to measure them now to arrive some conclusion, no surprise why they didn´t measured it.
Bluntly dismissing all known evidence
Untrue, evidence is dimissed by arguments, physical findings, documents, photos...
Show everything about what?
About these holes, you said this "Why, does your theory take all known evidence", so show everything, show this "all" evidence, or you are finished?

Now follows usual ad homines, I skipped them.
Thanks for acknowledging my "Kula description" as a plausible explanation matched by other known evidence and not requiring baseless claims of evidence manipulation. Was that a flicker of common sense?
You clearly have no clue about what sarkasm is.
Why so? If I understood correctly the LK1 rooms were originally meant to be genuine morgues to store the folks killed at the bunkers and other mortality while they awaited cremation.
Your "understanding" is based on what? Where did you see it?
Then someone had the brilliant idea to use the morgues as gas chambers, but this happened at an advanced stage of construction and thus the introduction procedure had to be somewhat improvised. Bob's SS heroes improvised more than once, however "un-German" Bob may consider improvisation to be.
Briliant idea to use morgues as gas chambers :lol: I would like to see your clarification, when they arrived to this "brilliant" idea, tell me date please, month and year will be enough.
No, the overall size of the contraption doesn't affect my scenario in any way.
I don´t see any scenrio from you, only your own false description of Kula column and you ignore true description from the manufacturer himself.
Assumptions are few and usually reasonable
Yes, I see. (sarkasm)
What testimonies contradicting my above-quoted assumptions am I supposed to have ignored?
First, the most important, Michal Kula himslef, explained many times, see above.
Bob wrote:
Roberto Muehlenkamp wrote:
Bob wrote:I never said that he speaks only about outer column, where do you see it?
Here:
This is of course irrelevant since column was allegedly 3m and 70cm without a doubt as described by Kula, but I wanted to mention it.
Again, where do you see that i stated that Kula speaks only about outer column? Where do you see it?
Is he saying that the column has a "square cross-section (width) of about 70 cm" at its widest? Yes.

Is he saying that the column "had a height of 3 meters" at its highest? Yes.

Is he saying that the outer column (or the outer part of the column, if you prefer) had a height of 3 meters? No.
Wide of column - Yes
Height of column - Yes
Yes - The second net was constructed in the same way and was inserted into the interior of the first at a distance of about 150 mm....Both nets on angle irons were connected by an iron bar.

He did not forget to say anything.
No, the claim is yours. Show me the "basic research".
Read Rudolf Report including studies and description of using Zyklon B in literature provided by Germar Rudolf.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact, only basic intelligence is needed to understand that Zyklon B pellets accumulated in "pile" gives of HCN in worse way then pellets spreaded and distrubuted on the entire surface of the room and that evaporation and gassing of room is slowed down.
But assuring that it spread evenly in every direction from the columns, and that the pellets could be withdrawn before they had fully outgassed, thus making it possible to start ventilation and corpse removal earlier. That advantage may have been considered to make up for an eventual loss of "mobility".
You failed to adress this issue as i see. Only one note - HCN is slightly lighter than air, so the main direction of evaporating is above - i. e. to place where nobody stood, to volume of column. That´s the reason why the pellets are of course spreaded on the floor during delousing process and not poured to piles.

You like Tauber´s testimony, ok, here is his description of ventilation.

“After the people had been pushed into the gas chamber and were shut in there and before the ‘Cyklon’ was poured in, the air from the chamber was removed; in fact, the ventilation of the chamber could be used for that purpose.”

"Once the people were in the gas chamber, the door was closed and the air was pumped out. The gas chamber ventilation could work in this way, thanks to a system that could both extract and blow."

First this is wrong as Mattogno pointed out:

This is another ludicrous assertion: the ventilation system of the alleged gas chamber was based on the principle of aeration–de-aeration: an extractor fan removed the used air from the room, while a blower of equal performance brought in fresh air from the outside.

Pressac added

Henryk Tauber is mistaken here. and contradicts himself
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschw ... 0489.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tuaber also ruled out possibility of using of heat of bodies for warming the air to accelerate evaporation, because according to him, the air previously warmed by bodies was pumped out.

Finally according to him the ventilation was switched after the door had been opened. "Good" testimony, i expect usual excuses about how mistaken and etc.he was.
Yeah, I'm sure that in their death panic the victims would run towards the columns and pee on them, instead of trying to get away from them as far away as possible as mandated by their elementary survival instinct.
You still ignore testimonies, ok.
Not it you consider Tauber's description, which Bob conveniently ignores (emphases added):
No, Mr. Muehlenkamp, I only waited and wanted to see it quoted from you. Here is Tauber again.
“Up to March 15, 1943, we heated the ovens, or rather, we dried them out. From March 15, 1943, onward transports of persons began to appear – whole convoys – [and the Germans] started to take most of them to the crematorium to gas and cremate them. The first transport to come to the crematorium amounted to 4,000 persons, sent from the ghetto of the city of Cracow. They were all gassed at the same time and cremated.”
4000:210m2= 19 peoples on one square meter "moving" from the columns according to you and Tauber, simply not possible.

You also demonstrated contradicting testimonies as I wanted, here again:
Shaul Chazan

Q: Could people move around freely in the gas chamber?
A: Absolutely not! It wasn´t possible, and no one could get out. There wasn´t enough room. The people were packed up against each other like sardines.
Can you provide me with number of gassed bodies in connection with Tuaber´s testimony and where he stated it to see how many peoples were there?
Saul Chazan (another of those witnesses interviewed decades after the event, perhaps for the first time) either described an occasion when the gas chamber was fuller than usual, or then the "sardines" thing is a bit of hyperbole. I prefer Tauber's account, provided shortly after the events by someone who, unlike most other witnesses, managed to keep cool enough to make accurate observations about technical features.
You simply ignore him, because does not fit your claims, you ignore everything what does not fit them. But is really great to see that you accept Tuaber´s testimony and his "accurate" technical observation mentioned above.
Any particular reason why they should have mentioned it?
Becuase this important acivity could be hardly missed by witnesses and they proved that they remember even little unimportant details?
Any particular place that could have been poisoned by letting the pellets outgas in the open air?
Yes, show this place which they poisoned without risk of poisoning peoples and don´t forget your source. Also are you able to locate these little Zyklon B pellets in "your" location or they were precisely removed by SS after they outgassed?
In those rooms they had to wait until the outgassing was complete as simple as that.
I see you ignore testimony. See Germar Rudolf about how long does it take to HCN to evaporate from Zyklon B carrier, than read your testimony and come again, for example Richard Bock.
"I simply cannot describe how these people screamed. That went on for 8–10 minutes and then everything was quiet. A little later, the gate was opened (so no ventilation) by detainees and one could still see a bluish mist floating above a pile of corpses. The corpses were so strongly interlaced that it was impossible to say to whom the individual limbs and body parts belonged. This allows one to understand how indescribably horrible the agony of these persons must have been. I was surprised, though, to see that the detainees who had to move the corpses out entered the room without gas masks even though this blue mist, which I thought to be gas, floated above the corpses."
You tried to explain his "blue mist" and oyu failed with your absurd explanation, I am curious what will be next. Are you able to provide me with just one single testimony which is in accordance with the amount of time needed to have the Zyklon B pellets outgassed? Feel free to show it with some margin of error, for example + - 30m, is this enough? I hope so.
By opening it on two or more sides and letting a draught pass through
Interesting, tell me how they did this for example in Krema I gas chamber located on the plan below.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/410ca3178755692" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Great, now you just have to quote your wise words in that post that are supposed to address "this".
I repeatedly said that translation is not "introduction" as proven so I can´t answer your logical fallacy questions about for what purpose the "drah..." possibly served in LK2, simple.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.p ... 40#p273030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Einschieben (sliding or shoving inside) is a form of einführen (introducing). The Vorrichtung (device) consisted of wire mesh columns introduced or slid or shoved (eingeführt, eingeschoben) into each other. Thus the term Drahtnetzeinschiebvorrichtung was a proper German composed word to describe the device.
Now you are claiming that this is only "form of introdcution", interesting. So this column was not for introduction of Zyklon B according to your explanation, but for introduction of other column/s and that is the correct name, good. (sarkasm)
Did Vrba claim to have used "poetic license" in the Vrba-Wetzler report, or did he claim to have used "poetic license" in a historical novel he later wrote based on his experiences at AB?
I thought we were talking about the gas introduction procedure in the underground gas chambers and the wire mesh columns in particular. Does having seen the crematoria and their surrounding make Vrba a first-hand witness to that, or what is Bob trying to tell us?
I see you ignore his testimony, ok.

Vrba´s claims no matter if they are from book or from report are one big poetic license. Can you provide me with his description of Krematoria please to see how poetic license (i.e. lies) influenced his "report"? Please.
All very interesting, but I didn't find the part where Vrba mentioned having seen a gas chamber from the inside and especially the wise mesh columns. Did I miss something?
Yep, you missed, that no SS moved out alleged third movable column as claimed and he never described something about this. Despite his contacts with Filip Muller and members of sonderkommandos as he claimed, he never heard about columns since he never mentioned them.
Eyewitnesses make such mistakes, especially eyewitnesses to traumatic events. But let's assume that Nyiszli embellished this detail.
Again your nonsense about mistakes. Not embellished, he described something what he couldn´t see, simply false witness as the other examples. Rest o your comment is thus irrelevant and wrong.
One can only wonder how someone can make such a fuss about that, considering the finds of forensic psychology as rendered by Bender & Nack (my translation): I'd say that measurements go under "magnitudes and quantities", rank 8 on the scale of recollection reliability.
One can only still wonder what Mr. Muehlenkamp wanted to say, propably that is ok and normal for average human to be mistaken about ceiling 1.6m which is in fact 2.4m.
Not my belief but other evidence.
What other evidence, where?
So you may say when you have been confronted with an object like LK1, which may have seemed lower than it was to a shocked witness due to an optical illusion. Until then, cut the crap.
"optical illusion" :lol:
Would this mean that everything this witness said must be thrown in the rubbish bin
Of course, this prove that he never saw this room, so everything what depend on this fact is worthless. But feel free to show his other parts of testimony which are ok, what you are waiting for? Here is another part:
“Q. You have said that the gas chambers were ten metres by four
metres by one metre sixty centimetres: is correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it right that are 64 cubic metres?
A. I am not very certain. This is not my strong side. (no problem, that math is not his strong side, 64 is correct)
Q. How is possible to get a thousand people into a room of 64
cubic metres?
A. This one must ask oneself. It can only be done by the German
technique.”
I expect usual untenable "argument" "he is mistaken again, not very good in counting"
plit up the LK1 of Krema II to better handle smaller contingents, why shouldn't they also have split up the LK1 of Krema III?
Is there some chamber not splitted up? :roll: Why they splitted up chambers in both Krema when the chambers in Krema IV and V were already smaller to allegedly gas smaller transports?
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/camps/aus ... eprint.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your nonsenses are untenable, Bacon inspired by previous claims from other inmates invented own false claim, simple.
that a witness who is confused or mistaken or lying about certain details is necessarily confused or mistaken or lying from start to finish.
Wrong, they are off not in detials, but in the most important parts, don´t lie, quotes are here.

Everything what you proved with your quotes so far is the fact that there are no holes for Kula column and that witnesses, your only evidence is "mistaken" "mixed" "with not good memory" and this is your "evidence". There are also no holes for every of your invented claims, so no gassing possible, material evidence is clear.

You should start to make some arguments, otherwise this discussion is more and more wasting of time and you still did not to show any nazi chamber capable of gassings as alleged by holocaust narrative.

My last try - are you able to show at least one single testimony in connection with the subject which is free of mistakes, confusions, false claims, mixed claims even in basic points?