Address the calculations I made and present the "pseudo" part. Can you do it?
Your calculations were already commented on in several previous posts which you have hitherto ignored.
It was pointed out for starters that you had calculated a specific density of 0.46, lower than that of water. I then commented that garbage dumps operate with a specific density of 0.8 to 1.2 tons per cubic metre. It was also pointed out that conditions in the mass graves would rapidly resemble garbage dumps more than neat burials.
It was also pointed out that your calculations entirely ignored the argument about decomposition affecting burial space, which Roberto immediately went on to discuss in the section of the relevant chapter, and which produced figures significantly in excess of the number of victims.
Your calculations started by pouring scorn on
Roberto Muehlenkamp using a lowballed figure for the weight of an average man, calling this 'deceitful'. In fact the use of a lowballed figure means Roberto was being quite conservative.
It seems you accept
Bay's calculations that 10.7 men of 68 inches height (1.73metres) can fit into a cubic metre. The average weight of a man of 68 inches height is 66 kilograms. Thus, if 10.7 men of 68 inches height are packed into a cubic metre, the specific density of such a packing would be 0.7 - to be precise, 706.2kg/cubic metre.
Roberto used 62kg, the average weight for a woman, but this would also reflect a degree of undernourishment in men and is being conservative. On the basis of a 62kg weight, Roberto calculated that 10 average bodies of 1.73m height would weigh 663.4 kg, and thus a cubic metre of mass burial space would have a specific density of 0.6634 (0.6634 metric tons per cubic metre).
The essential calculation then made is to compare the probable average body weights of the victims, given as 34kg, with the average weight of 10 Vitruvian men. If the average weight was 66kg, then 20.7 undernourished bodies would weigh the same. If the average weight was 62kg, then 19.5 bodies would fit in.
It is indeed an imprecise hypothetical experiment, but that is why one can use other measurements, such as the specific densities of garbage dumps, to check the calculations. If garbage dumps have a specific density of 0.8 to 1.2 tons per cubic metre, then a burial density of 0.66 to 0.7 for 10 "Vitruvian men" is entirely plausible.
Your mistake was in first criticising the calculation based on average weights ("Charles A Bay‘s model was used to determine the volume occupied by an average male body without regard to mass variation")
then using exactly that premise in discussing Provan's experiment.
In Charles D Provan’s experiment the 3 adults had a total mass (a) of 174Kg, 4 children a total mass (b) of 85Kg and 1 toddler a total mass (c) of 7Kg.
The second mistake was in misrepresenting the results of Provan's experiment regarding volume:
The average volume of an (x) adult, a
child or a (z) toddler inside Charles D Provan’s box is formulated by:
{x = a/(a+b+c)*0.44/3, y = b/(a+b+c)*0.44/4, z = c/(a+b+c)*0.44/1}
{x = 174/(174+85+7)*0.44/3, y = 85/(174+85+7)*0.44/4, z = 7/(174+85+7)*0.44/1}
x~0.0959398, y~0.0351504, z~0.0115789
None of this addressed Roberto's calculation that the Provan experiment showed that 8 people, consisting of 3 adults, 4 children and a toddler, could fit into 0.44 cubic metres. That extrapolates quite clearly to 18.2 people in 1 cubic metre.
You used the 0.44 cubic metre value in your calculation, so there is no argument on this; the results are a clear misrepresentation of Charles Provan and of Roberto Muehlenkamp.
