General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[SnakeTongue]

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.

1) The two different results come from two different body distribution ratios. I calculated Roberto Muehlenkamp’s 2:1 ratio and Charles D Provan’s 3:4:1 ratio. Both calculations use a single formula based on Charles D Provan’s experiment and both results are accurate. Your comparison using an inexistent scalar/measurement is clueless. The accusation “flat out lying” is just foolish and you did not provide any arithmetical evidence to support it.

2) The Charles A Bay study only regards the proportions of a male model to estimate the capacity of a hypothetical mass grave. To apply mass to his experiment is irrelevant for the reason that the model volume estimation does not rely on mass variation. The imaginary model was only produced to fit a hypothetical mass grave. The study does not offer reliable data which could be used to safely define the approximate mass of different hypothetical models.

3) That does not validate Roberto Muehlenkamp’s method. It only shows that an imaginary burial pit filled with hypothetical 66Kg male models has similar density as verified in a garbage dump landfill. It does not support Roberto Muehlenkamp’s calculations; neither establishes the body volume of another model.

4) When density is divided by mass it results in reciprocal cubic meter, not in “bodies/cubic metre”:

706Kg/m^3 / 34Kg = 20.76m^-3 (reciprocal cubic meters)

5) Let’s test your recalcitrant application of Roberto Muehlenkamp’s method:

36 bodies (1.20m 35Kg) / 2.0m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

09 bodies (1.20m 15Kg) / 0.5m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

The above situations results in exactly the same number of bodies per cubic meter. However, each situation is represented by bodies with different mass. Thus the hypothetical density for each situation would be:

18 bodies per cubic meter * 35Kg = 630Kg/m^3

18 bodies per cubic meter * 15Kg = 320Kg/m^3

Assuming Roberto Muehlenkamp’s method, one would expect using any given situation to guess the bodies per cubic meter of another situation. In other words, if 18 bodies with 35Kg fit one cubic meter, then how many bodies with 15Kg would fit one cubic meter?

630Kg/m^3 / 15Kg = 42 bodies per cubic meter

So, why the result is 42 bodies per cubic meter? It should be 18 bodies per cubic meter, since one situation demonstrated that:

09 bodies (1.20m 15Kg) / 0.5m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

Let’s use the last situation:

320Kg /m^3 / 35Kg = 9.1 bodies per cubic meter

So, why the result is 9.1 bodies per cubic meter? It should be 18 bodies per cubic meter, since one situation demonstrated that:

36 bodies (1.20m 35Kg) / 2.0m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

Which situation above is true and why?

6) Roberto Muehlenkamp’s calculation does not have any “order of magnitude”.

7) It is just based on a simple calculation of sample mean. Roberto Muehlenkamp underestimated the average mass of a given group of people. The anthropological data is valid and offers consistent data. However, the statistical data from a single witness is not compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that Polish ghetto Jews were extremely underweight. The experiment of Charles D Provan cannot be used to support such hypothesis because the participants were not particularly underweight.

Pictures from Polish people living in ghettos:

http://historyimages.blogspot.com.br/2012/02/poland-under-german-occupation-and.html

8) I did not “ignore” any essential value provided by Roberto Muehlenkamp:

(...) Assuming that the average weight of adult Jews in Polish ghettos at the time was in between the upper and the lower value of what the BMI table considers underweight, it would be (38+48) ÷ 2 = 43 kg. (...) 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, (...)​

The formula can be applied to the Holocaust Controversies estimations of 3 adults with a total mass (a) of 129Kg (3*43Kg), 4 children with a total mass (b) of 64Kg (4*16Kg) and 1 toddler with a total mass (c) of 16Kg (1*16Kg):

{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 = 129/(129+64+16)*0.44/3, y = 64/(129+64+16)*0.44/4, z = 16/(129+64+16)*0.44/1}

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.

9) Not so close...

10) Human bodies have a low decomposition rate after buried. The mass graves were filled and sealed approximately every 8 days. Under such conditions the bodies would not decompose fast enough to free considerable space.

11) I do not ignore such possibilities. If 434,508 deportees were killed, definitely not all bodies were buried in Belzec mass graves as I have demonstrated.

12) Whatever... Native English speakers cannot even properly spell the word “cão” (dog) after a long time of practising. Try it:

“CãoZilla”

(...) But to be honest, I took more than a year to be able to say it like a Brazilian. (...) However, ã is usually followed by an o (ão). Together, these letters make an ah-ooh sound. But say it fast, and you say Ow! like you’ve hurt yourself. Brazilians say the ã like the English ow, only with the nasal sound you just practiced.

Karen Keller, Portugues Phrase for Dummies, pag. 15-16​

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.

Reciprocal length or inverse length is a measurement used in several branches of science and mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_length​

 

[SnakeTongue]

The curtain opens, the act starts:

Stooge1: Me, me, me! What National Socialist racial science is?​

Audience: Yes, please explain.

Stooge2: Racial science a pseudo-science? Only if the years between 1945 and now aren't a figment of the imagination.
​

Stooge3: I recommending them to you to read so you actually have the chance to argue from a position of knowledge and hard evidence rather than your current position of complete ignorance and I have just finished reading this first account of working along side Hitler by Nicholas Von Below Hitler's Luftwaffe adjudant.
​

Audience: Hitler dubbed the Japanese ''honorary Aryans'' when they entered the war...

Stooge2: Oh no! Posting books that support his argument? Surely he must know that you'll never read a whole book? I mean, it's way too much to expect from you.
​

Audience: Even when the books are online. I fondly remember that time he tried to sneer at books because he guessed they weren't easily accessible and several were on Google Books.

Stooge3: It is either a serious question or an indication of serious ignorance... The links I posted to amazon are to books I possess and have actually read. This was a poem recited by Hans Litten in a concentration camp on Hitler’s birthday shortly before he was murdered by the SS.
​

Stooge1: This sounds quite a lot like a condensed version of the experience of another group targeted for genocide, the Jews of eastern Europe...
​

Audience: He gets spanked on something, tries to change the subject without addressing it. Quelle suprise.

Audience: Please do try to these two facts with some of that, you know, evidence thingy.

Stooge3: I love Berlin and would live there if I could leave my current job in London and walk into one there. I am going to brush up my german and start applying again I really like Germany and the Germans.
​

Stooge2: No no no, I know you're not looking for approval. My aim has always been to show other people the vacuous stupidity of your posts and the fact that you know nothing about what you're talking about.
​

The end.

 

[Dcdrac]

Snake tongue another fantaist who knows nothing

 

[SnakeTongue]

1940s- Germans allegedly subject Jewish children and babies to daily brutality and blood curdling atrocities

1940s- Individual Jewish adults didn't get worked up to a murderous rage and randomly attack their captors no matter the likely consequence.

2010s- For some reason Jewish people of today can get worked up into a murderous rage discussing the nearly 70 years past Holocaust. And it seems to be hunky-dory with most here

Evidence:

Revisionist author Professor Robert Faurisson is severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on September 16, 1989. Three assailants sprayed a stinging gas into his face, punched him until he fell to the ground. They proceeded to savagely kick him in the face and chest. Faurisson, who was 60 years old at the time, suffered a broken jaw and severe head injuries. Physicians operated for four and a half hours to repair his jaw and treat a broken rib and badly swollen face.

(...)

A group calling itself, "The Sons of the Memory of the Jews" claimed responsibility for the savage attack. In a statement, the group threatened: "Professor Faurisson is the first, but will not be the last. Let those who deny the Shoah [Holocaust] beware." While French police officially would acknowledge only that "three young Jewish activists from Paris" had carried out the assault, the attackers are strongly suspected to have been with the Tagar/Betar organization.

http://codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909faur.html​

 

[Dcdrac]

Snake this still does not mean that the Holocaust did not happen and has nothing to do with the discussion

 

[Nick Terry]

1) The two different results come from two different body distribution ratios. I calculated Roberto Muehlenkamp’s 2:1 ratio and Charles D Provan’s 3:4:1 ratio. Both calculations use a single formula based on Charles D Provan’s experiment and both results are accurate. Your comparison using an inexistent scalar/measurement is clueless. The accusation “flat out lying” is just foolish and you did not provide any arithmetical evidence to support it.

Unresponsive.

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.

Your posts have produced contradictory figures re: Provan's experiment, Snakey. That's the bottom line. Either withdraw one of your posts or accept the fact that your credibility has just been shot to pieces.

2) The Charles A Bay study only regards the proportions of a male model to estimate the capacity of a hypothetical mass grave. To apply mass to his experiment is irrelevant for the reason that the model volume estimation does not rely on mass variation. The imaginary model was only produced to fit a hypothetical mass grave. The study does not offer reliable data which could be used to safely define the approximate mass of different hypothetical models.

This is babble, since Bay's experiment was used to establish one hypothetical possibility cross-checked with another arrived at by a different route.

Until you get it through your thick skull that Roberto Muehlenkamp used multiple methods to arrive at his estimates, then there is really nothing to discuss here.

3) That does not validate Roberto Muehlenkamp’s method. It only shows that an imaginary burial pit filled with hypothetical 66Kg male models has similar density as verified in a garbage dump landfill. It does not support Roberto Muehlenkamp’s calculations; neither establishes the body volume of another model.

This is also babble, since similar results were reached using another method.

4) When density is divided by mass it results in reciprocal cubic meter, not in “bodies/cubic metre”:

706Kg/m^3 / 34Kg = 20.76m^-3 (reciprocal cubic meters)

Since Bay and Muehlenkamp spoke of bodies per cubic metres, kindly do the same and spare us the circumflex nonsense.

5) Let’s test your recalcitrant application of Roberto Muehlenkamp’s method:

36 bodies (1.20m 35Kg) / 2.0m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

09 bodies (1.20m 15Kg) / 0.5m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

The above situations results in exactly the same number of bodies per cubic meter. However, each situation is represented by bodies with different mass. Thus the hypothetical density for each situation would be:

18 bodies per cubic meter * 35Kg = 630Kg/m^3

18 bodies per cubic meter * 15Kg = 320Kg/m^3

Assuming Roberto Muehlenkamp’s method, one would expect using any given situation to guess the bodies per cubic meter of another situation. In other words, if 18 bodies with 35Kg fit one cubic meter, then how many bodies with 15Kg would fit one cubic meter?

630Kg/m^3 / 15Kg = 42 bodies per cubic meter

So, why the result is 42 bodies per cubic meter? It should be 18 bodies per cubic meter, since one situation demonstrated that:

09 bodies (1.20m 15Kg) / 0.5m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

Let’s use the last situation:

320Kg /m^3 / 35Kg = 9.1 bodies per cubic meter

So, why the result is 9.1 bodies per cubic meter? It should be 18 bodies per cubic meter, since one situation demonstrated that:

36 bodies (1.20m 35Kg) / 2.0m^3 = 18 bodies per cubic meter

Which situation above is true and why?

This is a load of unresponsive gibberish.

6) Roberto Muehlenkamp’s calculation does not have any “order of magnitude”.

Oh pardon me, I forgot, you don't actually understand idiomatic English very well do you?

7) It is just based on a simple calculation of sample mean. Roberto Muehlenkamp underestimated the average mass of a given group of people. The anthropological data is valid and offers consistent data. However, the statistical data from a single witness is not compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that Polish ghetto Jews were extremely underweight. The experiment of Charles D Provan cannot be used to support such hypothesis because the participants were not particularly underweight.

Pictures from Polish people living in ghettos:

http://historyimages.blogspot.com.br/2012/02/poland-under-german-occupation-and.html

Provan's experiment shows that it is perfectly possible to achieve an average weight of less than 34kg per person just by rounding up some Americans in the 1990s. He himself was the first to note the fact that this corroborated Gerstein's testimony.

Roberto Muehlenkamp has taken what you call 'valid' and 'consistent' anthropological data to produce similar results by another means.

One might add that the data from Belsen survivors are significantly worse than the hypothesised figures for adults, as established in the British Medical Journal at the time.

8) I did not “ignore” any essential value provided by Roberto Muehlenkamp:

(...) Assuming that the average weight of adult Jews in Polish ghettos at the time was in between the upper and the lower value of what the BMI table considers underweight, it would be (38+48) ÷ 2 = 43 kg. (...) 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, (...)​

You are still ignoring the fact that Roberto's average based on 2 adults and 1 child is reproduced by Provan's average based on 3 adults and 5 children.

9) Not so close...

Yes close. You've not demonstrated otherwise.

10) Human bodies have a low decomposition rate after buried. The mass graves were filled and sealed approximately every 8 days. Under such conditions the bodies would not decompose fast enough to free considerable space.

Contradicted by known data on decomposition as well as eyewitness accounts from the camps. You still haven't even begun to deal with this part of the argument.

[

B]11)[/B] I do not ignore such possibilities. If 434,508 deportees were killed, definitely not all bodies were buried in Belzec mass graves as I have demonstrated.

Yes, you ignored the possibility that there are more graves on site, and you have ignored the fact that a small number of the deportees turned up dead elsewhere, before even reaching the camp.

So far you've done nothing to show that anyone deported to Belzec actually turned up anywhere else, which is strike 3 after failing to take into account decomposition (strike 2) and after obfuscating the evidence from Provan's experiment (strike 1).

12) Whatever... Native English speakers cannot even properly spell the word “cão” (dog) after a long time of practising. Try it:

“CãoZilla”

(...) But to be honest, I took more than a year to be able to say it like a Brazilian. (...) However, ã is usually followed by an o (ão). Together, these letters make an ah-ooh sound. But say it fast, and you say Ow! like you’ve hurt yourself. Brazilians say the ã like the English ow, only with the nasal sound you just practiced.

Karen Keller, Portugues Phrase for Dummies, pag. 15-16​

Your English still sucks. Frankly, your grasp of English idiom is so poor that you communicate in a manner that antagonises native speakers as well as non-native speakers fluent in English.

Reciprocal length or inverse length is a measurement used in several branches of science and mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_length​

Babble. All the participants in this discussion have been using bodies per cubic metre, the only reason you're not is because you intend to obfuscate the findings and blind people with pseudoscientific bullshaite.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Snake tongue another fantaist who knows nothing

What's a fantaist?

 

[tsig]

Evidence:

Revisionist author Professor Robert Faurisson is severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on September 16, 1989. Three assailants sprayed a stinging gas into his face, punched him until he fell to the ground. They proceeded to savagely kick him in the face and chest. Faurisson, who was 60 years old at the time, suffered a broken jaw and severe head injuries. Physicians operated for four and a half hours to repair his jaw and treat a broken rib and badly swollen face.

(...)

A group calling itself, "The Sons of the Memory of the Jews" claimed responsibility for the savage attack. In a statement, the group threatened: "Professor Faurisson is the first, but will not be the last. Let those who deny the Shoah [Holocaust] beware." While French police officially would acknowledge only that "three young Jewish activists from Paris" had carried out the assault, the attackers are strongly suspected to have been with the Tagar/Betar organization.

http://codoh.com/thoughtcrimes/8909faur.html​

You believe in retrocausuality?

 

[tsig]

What's a fantaist?

One who believes in Fanta.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanta

 

[Dcdrac]

fantasist [ˈfæntəsɪst]
n
1. a person who indulges in fantasies

Which covers CM, Snake and Dogzilla

 

[Clayton Moore]

You believe in retrocausuality?

What's retrocausuality?

 

[Cyrix686]

What's retrocausuality?

What's Google?

 

[Dcdrac]

maybe a more useful questin CM could be asking is whats reality

 

[Clayton Moore]

What's Google?

retrocausuality isn't a word. Neither is fantaist.

 

[Nick Terry]

retrocausuality isn't a word.

then how come it has its own Wikipedia entry and why are there 27,000 google hits for it?

 

[332nd]

retrocausuality isn't a word. Neither is fantaist.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&....2941.2-2j0j1j2j1.6.0...0.0.xZJ3un0pFh8&mvs=0

 

[TSR]

retrocausuality isn't a word. Neither is fantaist.

For the first.

The second was a missed letter, and everyone else here understood what was being written. Which was corrected nearly an hour before your obvious and impotent attempt to distract from your inability to substantively respond.

How about answering some to the question directed at you the last two days -- it's not like anyone was asking you to document a single lie on the THHP site or produce the actual report from Krege or something...

 

[Moss]

Is it too early to call "Grammar Nazi"?
Some people might be able to infer which word is meant and not strut around because someone made a typo. Though that might require a basic vocabulary.

 

[TSR]

Is it too early to call "Grammar Nazi"?
Some people might be able to infer which word is meant and not strut around because someone made a typo. Though that might require a basic vocabulary.

Haven't you heard? CM posted the results of a random vocab test he took on the Internet, and is showed him to be far more intelligent that anyone else here

 

[Dogzilla]

No my answer went as follows:



The figures used by myself, LemmyCaution and others with knowledge of the actual history, i.e. 5.1 to 5.3 million, don't include Jewish war dead, losses from collateral damage (eg in the 1939 Polish campaign), deaths at the hands of other countries (eg Hungarian Labour Service men dying in Soviet captivity), or deaths from natural causes outside of confinement. They are composed exclusively of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis and their fascist allies in state crimes and war crimes.

I gave an example of how this breaks down, for Austria, but you have apparently handwaved that away.

That was presumably because you didn't like the answer, which highlighted all of 9 judicial executions of Jews in Austria during the Third Reich, versus 48,767 Holocaust victims.

Maybe you can show us that those 9 Austrian Jews were executed for murder or another genuine capital offence that would have warranted the death penalty in the typical western state of the 1930s and 1940s, but given the Nazi track record with biased justice towards Jews the odds aren't great.

OK. Then there were non-holocaust related deaths of Jews. How many?