10122242Kg/21310m^3 = 475kg/m^3 (kilograms per cubic meter)
≡ 0.475 t/m^3 (metric tons per cubic meter)
Oooh, you can repeat what I wrote. Gosh, I'm impressed.
The picture you provided only supports my assertion. It is possible to verify one worker using a pick to help extract the corpses and two workers are struggling to push a jammed corpse. The cohesion of the corpses offers resistance against physical force. This indicate the crammed corpses formed a net of limbs and torsos altogether with the effects of decomposition.
The "cohesion" comes precisely from the effects of decomposition and being in the ground for prolonged periods. The fact remains that the bodies are essentially glued together, and undoubtedly occupy a smaller space than when first buried. This, in a grave which was nowhere near the same size as a 1,200 cubic metre sized Belzec grave.
From Charles A Bay:
(...) Here we have chosen an adult male. Using this metric, the number of bodies which can be accommodated by a pit will be a conservative estimate because it will omit smaller stature women and the even smaller children that were killed and interred with their parents. (...)
Blah, blah, blah.
Roberto Muehlenkamp start by calculating the average mass of fictional ill-fed people without any regard for the gender:
(...) This relation would mean a weight of 43 ÷ 2.76 = 15.6 kg for ill-fed or starving children in Polish ghettos. Rounding up the latter value, a group of two adults and one child 14 years and younger from a Jewish ghetto in Poland would thus weigh (43+43+16)/3 = 34 kg on average, (...)
If you're claiming that it is fictional that Polish Jews were ill-fed by 1942 then you are a flat-out liar. Roberto's calculation here is based on anthropological data, which can also be backed up by the fact that Jews of above average physique were more likely to be selected for work or to escape.
The hypothesised average weight is confirmed (a) by Provan's experiment producing an average weight of 33.25kg per person and (b) by Gerstein's 1945 interriogations when he estimated 35kg average weight per person. You blithely ignore the fact that the 2+1 makeup was a crude approximation and treat it as a rigid composition.
The actual composition of the Belzec deportees by age, gender, height and weight is going to be closer to Provan's group, with the various provisos:
1) Polish Jews were demonstrably shorter than Germans of the same era, who were shorter than the average person today
2) able-bodied Polish Jews, both men and women, especially in their 20s and 30s, avoided deportation by being selected for labour or escaping, massively skewing the actual composition of the deportation transports; the able-bodied were also able to jump from trains more easily, and were if male more likely to be selected for work as Sonderkommandos.
3) Polish ghetto Jews had been undernourished for prolonged periods lasting at least 9-18 months in the case of eastern Galicia (depending on when they were deported), and potentially a year longer in the case of the larger ghettos of western Galicia. Undernourishment also stunts the growth of children.
All this is perfectly good information, not fiction, based on extensive evidence which Snakey ignores.
Then Roberto Muehlenkamp ignore Charles A Bay "limitations":
(...) The ideal weight of a person 1.73 meters high would be 66 kg for men and 62 kg for women. Taking the lower value, 10.7 human bodies with the measurements and weight of an ideal adult person 1.73 meters high would have a weight of 10.7 x 62 = 663.40 kg (...)
You are beyond tedious. This has already been dealt with. There is a man in the Provan experiment one inch shorter than a 'Vitruvian man' who weighed 62kg, precisely the same value Roberto used. The use of a lower value
reduced the end result, as it was being conservative.
To support the deceitful calculation which ignored the "limitations" of Charles A Bay, Roberto Muehlenkamp proceed using the result with the experiment of Charles D Provan:
Applying Polish ghetto weights to Provan's test-group members (i.e. 43 kg for each of the three adults and 16 kg for each of the five children), the average weight would be [(3x43)+(5x16)]÷8 = 26.13 kg, and the calculated concentration would be 663.40÷26.13 = 25.39 corpses per cubic meter. This means that, if the age and sex distribution of half-starved Polish ghetto Jews deported to Belzec had been like that of Provan's test group, the 21,310 cubic meters of grave space estimated by Kola could have taken in over 540,000 dead bodies
No respect to any "limitation".
There's nothing here worth responding to, because you're being a tedious bore and repeating yourself. Play another record, why don't you.
Calculation of landfill life for non hazardous wastes
An estimation based on dividing the non hazardous void by total non hazardous waste inputs.
Waste density figures used were 1.2 tonnes per cubic metre for non hazardous waste and 1 tonne per cubic metre for inert waste. Engineering and cover was assumed to consume 25 per cent of total voidspace.
1.0000t/m^3 - 1.2000t/m^3
This figures are obviously estimated without any calculation and implicitly consider the garbage was compacted. 1.2000 tonne per cubic meter is above the average density of compacted garbage.
That's why I pointed to other figures which spoke of 0.8 tons/cubic metre.
Solid waste is normally compacted after being placed in the landfill. Normal compaction results in an in-place density of 500 to 1500 lb./cu.yd. An average compaction factor is in the range of 700-900 lb./cu.yd. Most landfills of smaller size (300,000 cu.yd. or smaller) not having a known density or weight of waste received will best be modeled with a conversion of 700 lb./yd. This lower value is due to the smaller size machinery used at these fills which results in a lower level of compaction. (...)
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/pdfs/landfil3.pdf
That means compacted garbage varies from:
500lb/yd^3 = 0.2966 t/m^3
1500lb/yd^3 = 0.8899 t/m^3
All of which is
comparable to the density of mass graves
even using your own bogus calculation.
The average density in accordance with imaginary mass of 66Kg for the model from Charles A Bay is:
21310m^3/0.09346m^3 = 228012
228012*66Kg = 15048792Kg
15048792Kg/21310m^3 = 0.706t/m^3
Therefore the Belzec mass grave filled with Charles A Bay 66Kg fictional model would have a density of 0.706t/m^3, which is only plausible when compared with the density from compacted garbage.
Average weights are not imaginary, they are determined by widespread measurements of weights coupled with what is regarded as a medically ideal weight. Using an
average weight for a specific height is a perfectly valid way of modelling the situation.
Other than that you are just repeating things I already worked out without all the hatstand ^ nonsense. Are you incapable of writing cubic metre or cubic meter?
Assign mass to a hypothetical model of proportions is completely fictional, as I did above.
You don't seem to understand the difference between hypothetical and fictional. The model - by Bay - is hypothetical, as was Roberto's calculation based on the model. Neither are
fictional. You have advanced no evidence whatsoever to contradict the model. You are simply trying to kick up a fuss about the validity of constructing a hypothetical model at all. That's not going to fly.
That is not a picture of piled skeletons...
It is possible to verify the bones are all well distributed indicating the corpses were laid in a organized manner. Therefore the corpses were not yet skeletons when the grave was filled.
The picture only indicate the inaccuracy of Roberto Muehlenkamp's formula.
Of course the corpse weren't skeletons when the grave was filled. DOH! They were shot into the grave by the frakking Nazis. And you're wrong, the skeletons are piled at the farthest end of the picture.
All this was simply to comment on your calculation of 1.8 million skeletons fitting into the Belzec grave space - a hypothetical calculation. Nobody ended up in such a grave as a skeleton.
*But* the reduction in volume which occurs when remains are skeletonised is more than apparent from the photo from Busk. This gives us one extreme showing what can happen when decomposition occurs. The Busk victims were
buried, not left to skeletonise in the open air. They were exhumed 65 years later - the Belzec victims would not have skeletonised in the space of a year. *But* they would have lost a considerable amount of their volume due to decomposition.
The proportion is 3 adults, 4 children, 1 toddler for 0.44 cubic meters. Respecting such proportion, the Belzec mass grave could be filled with Charles D Provan boxes:
21310m^3/0.44m^3 = 48400
So, there are 48,400 Charles D Provan boxes with:
3*48400 = 145200 adults
4*48400 = 193600 children
1*48400 = 48400 toddler
Total is 387,200 bodies of adults, children and toddler.
LOL, your calculation arrives at 18.2 bodies per cubic metre, just as Roberto said.
Now, let's apply a different calculation using the average (physical) mass to factor the average volume of every adult, children and toddler.
{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
Then:
3*0.0959398 = 0.2878194
4*0.0351504 = 0.1406016
1*0.0115789 = 0.0115789
Total is 0.4399999 cubic meters, which is very near 0.44 cubic meters.
21310m^3/0.4399999m^3 ~ 48439
3*48439 = 145317
4*48439 = 193756
1*48439 = 48439
The total is 387,512 bodies using the proportional average mass. This figure approximate the figure from the first calculation, which indicate that my formula is accurate and respect the proportions of Charles D Provan box. Therefore, "density of 18.2 people/cubic metre" is equivalent to a ratio of 6:8:2 corpse per cubic meter.
LOL, your calculation produced the same result, yet your own original post produced one that was significantly lower, and you have yet to explain why.
Roberto Muehlenkamp calculations lead to a extrapolated result because he is applying unknown values into Charles A Bay and Charles D Provan experiment.
(...) for malnourished Polish ghetto Jews (...), the average would be 663.4 ÷ 34 = 19.51 (20) corpses per cubic meter.
Applying Polish ghetto weights to Provan's test-group members (i.e. 43 kg for each of the three adults and 16 kg for each of the five children), the average weight would be [(3x43)+(5x16)]÷8 = 26.13 kg
So what? The calculation appeared in a footnote and was intended to show that if Provan's experimental group were Polish Jews out of 1942 ghettos, then as should be obvious, they would be smaller, weigh less and thus, applying the exact same division by weight, more bodies would have fitted in to the same grave space.
0.07158 cubic meter is the average volume for Roberto Muehlenkamp ill-fed Polish ghetto Jew body:
(...) This relation would mean a weight of 43 ÷ 2.76 = 15.6 kg for ill-fed or starving children in Polish ghettos. Rounding up the latter value, a group of two adults and one child 14 years and younger from a Jewish ghetto in Poland would thus weigh (43+43+16)/3 = 34 kg on average, (...)
I used the proportions of Charles D Provan to calculate the volume:
(...)
Jesus frakking Christ.
Your original post claimed that
Provan's experiment indicated 297,000 bodies would fit into the Belzec grave space. Yet in two separate calculations above, you now concede that 387,000 bodies would fit in based on the Provan experiment, producing the exact same value calculated by Roberto, 18.2 bodies/cubic metre.
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue
Using the Holocaust Controversies distribution of 2 adults and 1 child the total volume of all bodies is:
V = 0.0905263 + 0.0905263 + 0.0336842
V = 0.2147368m^3
The average body volume of 2 adults and 1 child is 0.07158 cubic meters. Thus a 21,310 cubic meters burial pit would hold up to 297,713 bodies of adults and children with an average weight of 34 kilograms.
Abracadabra, Snakey makes the Jews disappear into a puff of smoke!
Except the problem is, Snakey forgot that Roberto's hypothetical averages are significantly different to the Provan experiment in height and weight to begin with. Roberto proceeded on the basis of an average height of 1.6 metres (5' 3") for the adults and an average weight of 43kg.
Those two bodies were 6" and 7" shorter than two of Provan's subjects, and weighed 19-20kg less.
Roberto's hypothesised child weighed 16kg, which was a number produced by using a source put on the table by a Holocaust denier, Carlo Mattogno, reflecting the difference between adult weights and those of children under 14.
Provan's experiment had a 15kg 2 year old, close enough to the hypothesised 16kg child that we can state fairly clearly that the 2+1 'crude' calculation omits a whole host of body types
Yet somehow when Snakey does his magick maths, bodies which are demonstrably shorter and weigh less, suddenly don't fit into the same space as Provan's experimental subject group.
If the bodies are being measured, then you cannot use it as scalar. The variation of mass and geometric dimension do not offer a precise factor for measurement. A scalar cannot be expressed without accurate measurement. Roberto Muehlenkamp is using a scalar which do not exist, only to "produce" a imprecise variation of volume from a hypothetical model. The "tonnes per cubic metre" is correct. So it is not necessary to call the British Environment Agency.
Go **** yourself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with estimating the average number of bodies per cubic metre. Your babble about 'scalars' and so forth are just gibberish.
"Rounding-up" imply that a toddler have the same average mass as a child, what is not true in Charles D Provan experiment. Therefore the toddler cannot be added to the children average range.
Aaand once again you are too stupid to realise you have shot yourself in the foot again, all because of your beady little eyes spotting an error which actually works
against your incredulity. You yap away about it not being five children, I replace one and use the exact same weight as the Provan experiment toddler, and you whine some more.
So, let's revisit the different models and sum up:
1. You accept Provan's experiment and have conceded you were flat out lying by saying that "Charles D Provan’s experiment demonstrated an average body of 0.07158 cubic meters" because it quite clearly demonstrated 18.2 bodies/cubic metres and not 13.97 bodies/cubic metre
2. You have yet to offer any convincing argument as to why one cannot take average weights and apply them to the hypothetical Bay model.
3. You shot yourself in the foot by fuss-making over Roberto using a lower average weight for 'Vitruvian men' and now repeat my calculation that the density would be 0.7 tons/cubic metre, not 0.66 tons/cubic metre
4. That density, when divided by weight only, produces more than 20 bodies/cubic metre.
5. Roberto's division of his lower density of 0.66 tons/cubic metre by 34kg, produces 19.51 bodies/cubic metre.
6. The difference between 19.51 bodies/cubic metre, as arrived at by Roberto's use of Bay's hypothetical model and Roberto's own hypothetical weight estimates, and the result of Provan's experiment, 18.2 bodies/cubic metre, is insignificant. Provan's experiment thus confirms the order of magnitude of the hypothetical calculation based on Bay and dividing by weight only.
7. The hypothesised average weight of 34kg is not simply based on the extremely crude calculation of two adults plus a child, but was also approximated Gerstein during his 1945 interrogations when he estimated an average weight of 35kg. The average weight of Provan's experimental group was 33.25 kg, confirming Gerstein and supporting the hypothetical average weight.
8. Your hocus-pocus with the average weights ignores the fact that the hypothetical 2 adults + 1 child was a crude approximation; there are many other ways of combining different age groups across both genders to arrive at an extraordinarily low average weight, as demonstrated by Provan's experiment. In essence, your dishonesty is to treat placeholder approximations as fixed elements, rather than recognise that they were actually placeholders for the purpose of doing a simplified calculation.
9. Therefore, the number of bodies that could have fitted into the available grave space was far closer to the total number of victims than you alleged.
10. The difference, acknowledged ever since 2006 by Roberto when he started looking at this issue, is explained by the effects of decomposition and grave-settling, along with the fact that Belzec shut down at the end of December 1942
because the graves were overflowing.
11. Other things you ignore: it is
possible that other graves were not located by Kola, as Bay has argued, but we don't know. It is
certain based on documentary evidence that several thousands of the 434,000 recorded victims never reached the camp at all because they died en route, were offloaded from trains or jumped from trains, and were buried elsewhere. This number will be at least 1% of the victims.
12. Your English sucks.
Remind me to ask somebody who has evolved into a more complex carbon based lifeform to pack my suitcase next time I go on vacation!!
