General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[SnakeTongue]

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

Referring to the bold sentences.

Why would bodies with a lower mass result in the same density of bodies per m^3?

Bodies aren't teddybears where you can add or subtract mass in the belly, but where the space the teddybears inhabit remains the same.

Human Bodies which weigh more use more space and thus fewer are able to be in 1 m^3.

In that paradoxical situation, which I do not endorse, “body” is an imaginary unit of measurement with an unknown scale. This allows a “body” with variable mass to share the exact same space in any hypothetical situation. The element “body” in 0.5m^3 becomes exactly equivalent to the element “body” in 2.0m^3.

Of course this is not valid. As you have stated, the volume of a body can change, which means it is variable. Therefore a “body” unit it is not fixed over any common unit. To determine how many bodies a space could hold it is necessary to estimate the volume of the body using a common unit. The volume of each particular body is proportional to mass, height, depth and breadth.

So, the above paradox is what I have been refuting in the Holocaust Controversies calculations:

(...) Alex Bay 106 calculated the space that would be occupied by a human being having the measurements of proportions of Leonardo Da Vinci's "Vetruvian Man", and concluded that 91,000 corpses with the proportions of the "Vetruvian Man" and an assumed height of 68 inches (1.73 meters) could have fit into 8,502 cubic meters of grave space - 10.7 (11) per cubic meter. (...)

(...) 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 (...)

(...) for malnourished Polish ghetto Jews (...), the average would be 663.4 ÷ 34 = 19.51 (20) corpses per cubic meter. 107​

Notice that “body” is only “body” in the first and second calculation. Then, in the third calculation the “body” unit suddenly disappears and it is replaced by mass. Height and volume are left aside. This begs the question: is the result “Ventruvian man” or “Polish ghetto Jew”? How does the density of several “Ventruvian man” suddenly become the density of several “Polish ghetto Jews” without any change in the height, but only in the mass? A 1.73 meter “Ventruvian man” filling a cubic meter is still a 1.73m “Ventruvian man” filling a cubic meter. Moreover, whatever mass is assigned to the “Ventruvian man”, the model will always have the same volume. So, in the first calculation the “body” receives an imaginary mass, but its volume remains the same. In the second calculation the imaginary mass becomes the density of the space occupied by a “body”. Then, in the third and final calculation, the density of the “body” with fixed volume is transformed into a new “body” with different volume. In other words, the volume is fixed and does not change with the mass in one calculation, then mass is fixed and changes the volume in another calculation!

 

[SnakeTongue]

No it doesn't. You only got that result because Wolfram Alpha treats "x" in an input equation as a variable, not a unit. When you use any other unit in place of the "x", you don't get that result.

No it doesn't. Since no units are being "converted" in the equation given.

Or perhaps you can explain the equation with the output in years per cubic meter.

It's sad, is what it is.

Really? How many days a year have? How many months?

I could use a byte instead of a year.

Why?

Because both are established MEASUREMENT UNITS.

Byte is a measurement for digital information and equal to 8 bits.

Year is a measurement for time and equal to 365 days.

"Body" is what and equal to what?

Wait!

This is better:

How many "potato chips per bag" is equivalent to one year per cubic meter?

 

[SnakeTongue]

What are you blind?

(kg/m^3)/(kg/corpse) = corpse/m^3 resolves to corpses per cubic meter.

(kg/m^3)/(kg/bananas) = bananas/m^3 resolves to bananas per cubic meter.

(kg/m^3)/(kg/left handed thribles) = left handed thribles per m^3 resolves to left handed thribles per cubic meter.

It matters not a whit what 'x' may be. The equation resolves to 'x' per cubic meter, for any possible value of 'x'.

You cannot remove the 'x' term on a whim.

For example:
(number of internet morons)/(number of internet addresses)/(number of internet morons)/(internet morons) resolves to internet morons per internet address.

It's algebra. Came from islam it will annoy you to know.

Amazing! How many "bananas per cubic meter" is equivalent to "morons per internet address"?

 

[nomuse]

In that paradoxical situation, which I do not endorse, “body” is an imaginary unit of measurement with an unknown scale. This allows a “body” with variable mass to share the exact same space in any hypothetical situation. The element “body” in 0.5m^3 becomes exactly equivalent to the element “body” in 2.0m^3.

And why not? If you are changing the values attached to "body," then why are you surprised that the results change?

Take two hypothetical high-jumpers. Both are human, both are singular. One is six feet tall, the other a petite four foot four. Now both, in trials, clear eight feet. That means one of them jumped two feet above his own head, but the other jumped almost twice her own height! How can this be? Because in each singular object "high jumper" there are contained variables for the height, weight, hair color, last meal, favorite book, etc.

In the case you are struggling with, if "body" is defined as having an average mass of 45 kilograms, any calculation done with them will be different than if they are assumed to have an average mass of 35 kilograms. The same if they are considered to have an average height of 1.4 meters, or 1.6 meters.

This is at the very base of algebra. Newton's law of universal gravitation, for instance, is F = G (m1m2/r^2). In this, G is defined as the gravitational constant, and is invariable; all you need to know is the system of units you will be using (6.674 x 10^-11 Newtons in SI). M1, m3, and r (radius) have to be plugged in to the calculation.

If you were to type "m1m2/r^2" into Wolfram-Alpha without giving it any idea what actual masses or distance you had in mind, it would, at best, solve everything as 1 and return 1 as the answer. This is not good math.

If you have a variable, you MUST plug in the value of the variable in order to complete the calculation!

Of course this is not valid. As you have stated, the volume of a body can change, which means it is variable. Therefore a “body” unit it is not fixed over any common unit.

"Body" is a very distinctive unit. It means "body." You can even have a fractional body (without even invoking averages). But you aren't calculating WITH bodies, you are solving FOR bodies! For that, you need to plug in the appropriate value for whatever variable you are using; weight, say.

Say I have 1 kilgram of "x." If X is coconuts, with an average weight of close to a kilogram, then I have one coconut. If x is Brazil Nuts, then I have a LOT more Brazil Nuts!

To determine how many bodies a space could hold it is necessary to estimate the volume of the body using a common unit. The volume of each particular body is proportional to mass, height, depth and breadth.

Then use an appropriate average for volume.

By the by, you are using "proportional" wrong. Not all humans have the same proportions. You can't simply take one number -- such as height -- and thus generate the appropriate dimensions for all humans of all ages, both genders, and a variety of physical conditions.

But if you are going to use volume, use volume. In the above, does universal gravitation need or care if I include number of fruit? If I calculate F + f = G (m1m2/r^2) + f does this mean anything at all?

Don't worry about the weight if it doesn't figure in the calculation!

 

[A'isha]

Because both are established MEASUREMENT UNITS.

That makes no difference whatsoever to the equation, being both false and irrelevant to the calculation.

Banana Equivalent Dose:

z = 19.512 equivalent radiation doses from eating a banana per cubic meter.

What's the established measurement for the banana equivalent dose, SnakeTongue? How does it scale? Are all bananas the same size and weight, do they all contain the same amount of radioactive isotopes?

Byte is a measurement for digital information and equal to 8 bits.

Year is a measurement for time and equal to 365 days.

And just how do you think that matters? How does 19.512 bytes per cubic meter differ from 19.512 years per cubic meter, and how do either of them differ from 19.512 corpses per cubic meter?

In fact explain how any of those results differ from saying "19.512 somethings per cubic meter"...or, to put it another way, how do any of those results differ from saying "19.512 x per cubic meter"?

Plus, none of your nonsense regarding "established measurement units" has anything to do with your laughable failure at mathematics when it came to your insistence regarding the equation resulting in "reciprocal cubic meters". Seriously, you should demand an apology from your math teachers.

Or maybe they need to demand an apology from you.

 

[SnakeTongue]

However much you kick and scream and talk nonsense, using the same box size for the hypothetical test group that obviously fits into a somewhat smaller box is your cardinal error and leads to obviously mistaken if not ridiculous results when you apply the "method" you're so proud of.

You argued in your blog that bullets shot from a pistol Walther P-38 lost the momentum after 50 meters and were deflected by ordinary cloth. So I think you understanding of certain physical laws is not appropriate to dictate how I use the results of a physical experiment in my formula.

 

[SnakeTongue]

(...) Will you explain which of these statements is an example of your point that the better question is asking why the Jewish community always accuses anyone who disagrees with their interests of being antisemitic?

Leaving aside that your sentence is nearly gibberish and it is a bit trying to decipher precisely what you mean, why have you twice in a row responded to posts of mine on one topic as though they are on another topic? Are you trying to be, to borrow a term, imbecilic?

Can you answer the questions I asked you about the books I listed?

Do you want to try to answer the question I asked Clayton also?

No, I do not.

What is wrong with the "1000s sources"? Astrology, Harry Potter and the Purim myth are not part of the "1000s sources"? Do you have the original source of the quotes which you posted?

 

[TSR]

You argued in your blog that bullets shot from a pistol Walther P-38 lost the momentum after 50 meters and were deflected by ordinary cloth. So I think you understanding of certain physical laws is not appropriate to dictate how I use the results of a physical experiment in my formula.

LOL -- so tell us, at what distance *do* the physical forces acting on a 9mm bullet begin to be a factor in its effective range?

Are you arguing that, given a clear path, such a bullet would circle the world maintaining the exact same speed with which it left the muzzle, and continue that path forever?

Or is the idea that it maintains speed until the end of it's range, and then stops dead in the air and drops to the ground?

Do you even know what the range is on the P38? Or what the range means?

 

[Clayton Moore]

If you're debating the capacity for Jewish people who were murdered in alleged gas chambers or alleged gassing vans don't bother. There was plenty of room.
As in there were no Jewish people or anyone else during the "Holocaust" murdered in either unless by some sort of experiment.

An Austrian Engineer's Report on the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Mauthausen
by Walter Lüftl

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html

The gassing procedure according to the Holocaust literature

The one hundred victims would now therefore be dead, if we assume that the hydrocyanic acid did not condense on the cold ambient surfaces inside the room -- perhaps the room was pre-heated to a comfortable temperature.

At this point, the "chief of the gassing operation" looked through a peephole in the door to see whether any of the victims showed signs of life. But just how he could have done that at Mauthausen, looking through a peephole 1.20 meters above the ground in a door that is only 1.68 m high, is a matter that merits further study.

How could he see anything when the victims were "packed together," and therefore could not fall down even in the remotest corners of the room? Nevertheless, after a brief look, the SS executioners turned on the ventilators to air out the gas chamber. And here we hit the first snag. The ventilators must, of course, have been exhausters. For them to work (that is, to exchange the air in the chamber), the gas chambers would have to have been equipped with air intake channels and chimneys equipped with blowers. Nothing of the sort has ever been found in any [alleged homicidal] gas chamber!

The ventilation lasted 30 minutes, and, finally, the door was opened (!) to determine whether the room was gas-free. "The gassing chiefs, wearing gas masks" carefully held up a strip of [chemically sensitized] paper inside [the chamber]. When the room was free of gas, the doors were opened and the blue [skin-colored] corpses were taken by prisoner members of the crematory work team to the morgue, or straight to the crematory. (However, any textbook on toxicology will confirm that the skin color of victims of hydrocyanic acid poisoning is red.) Then the gas chambers -- heavily soiled with blood, excrement, and vomit -- were cleaned.

What is the evidence against such a procedure? Zyklon B!

Holocaust writers have overlooked the fact that, during the ventilation process, Zyklon B would still have retained 92 percent of its hydrocyanic acid content, and would thus continue merrily on its way, releasing hydrocyanic acid gas. At 25 degrees Celsius, it would continue to do so for fully 15 1/2 hours, and even longer yet at lower temperatures.

Of course, one could have sent work team members into the gas chamber wearing gas masks and protective clothing to remove the Zyklon B [carrier material], which would at that point still be only partially gas-free. But just how they could remove this [carrier material] from the midst of the tightly packed piles of corpses covered with excrement, vomit and blood, defies explanation.

The bodies could have been removed, and the gas chamber then cleaned, only by men wearing gas masks and protective clothing. But this would mean a huge pile of excrement, vomit, and similar material, thoroughly contaminated with 184 grams of hydrocyanic acid (which would still continue to evaporate, although slowly). But the remaining 184 grams of hydrocyanic acid would still be enough to kill approximately 3,000 persons (at 0.001 gram per kilogram, assuming an average body weight of 60 kg per person).

 

[TSR]

Do you have the original source of the quotes which you posted?

As a matter of fact, we do have those sources.

You would know this if you weren't so bone ignorant of the historical method.

You see, historians use this thing we big kids call "citation" in which they tell us exactly where the quotes are from so that should we choose to, we can check for ourselves.

This is part of why, for example, I refer to David Irving as a distorian -- he is often deliberately vague about his sources, but in the recent court case he brought to defend his practices it was shown that, in basically every case he actually cited, HE HAD LIED ABOUT THOSE SOURCES SAID. He was simply hoping that no one checked.

So fire away, ST: With which quote do you have an issue, and why? If I cannot supply the exact location of the document in question, I am confident to the point of certainty that Nick or Lemmy or Roberto can recite it off the top of their heads.

 

[LemmyCaution]

No, I do not.

What is wrong with the "1000s sources"? Astrology, Harry Potter and the Purim myth are not part of the "1000s sources"? Do you have the original source of the quotes which you posted?

I have no clue what this means or even refers to:

What is wrong with the "1000s sources"? Astrology, Harry Potter and the Purim myth are not part of the "1000s sources"?

Could you please restate your point?

My questions were simple. It is odd that you refuse to answer them, after inserting yourself into the discussion.

You dodge even the simple question whether you have read the books I listed in my post (to show how historians work with source materials and the kinds of source material and volume of sources on which they base their work) - yet you commented on the list in my post, raising a legitimate question about your knowledge of the works listed.

(Your question asking if I "have the original source" for the quotations in speeches, diaries, publications from the Third Reich touting antisemitism is an odd one. I, of course, included references for many, but not all, of the quotations in my post. I can give more references - not sure if I have all of them handy, as I am traveling, but I am pretty sure I can give you all but one or two right now - I'm not as well organized as TSR gives me credit for - but I don't know if that is what you are asking for when you request "the original source." What do you mean by asking if I have the original source - a citation like so "Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 572-574"? And - are you doubting that the National Socialists advocated antisemitism?)

 

[TSR]

An Austrian Engineer's Report on the 'Gas Chambers' of Auschwitz and Mauthausen
by Walter Lüftl

Another report that deserves mention is the Lüftl Report even though it is not strictly speaking a forensic report. The author of the report, a real engineer, Walter Lüftl, makes arguments concerning the supposed physical impossibility of using Zyklon B to murder. He conducts a largely irrelevant simulation concerning the ability of humans to heat a gas chamber and attempts to deceive the reader with the claim that the figure of six million Jews murdered should be lowered to 3.5 million with the recognition that 4 million were not murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

The gassing procedure according to the Holocaust literature

As if you had read anything which wasn't spoon fed you by other, more clever deniers...

 

[nomuse]

You argued in your blog that bullets shot from a pistol Walther P-38 lost the momentum after 50 meters and were deflected by ordinary cloth. So I think you understanding of certain physical laws is not appropriate to dictate how I use the results of a physical experiment in my formula.

Might have something to do with the 9mm parabellum round originally designed to be lethal out to 50 meters.

Like most pistols, the P38 is not considered effective outside 50 meters -- although skilled shooters can engage at upwards of 200 meters, and the bullet retains sufficient velocity to be lethal beyond 50 meters. He was probably thinking of that.

Or that, at MOST ranges, pistol rounds can and are deflected by sufficiently thick clothing. Note "deflected" is not the same as "stopped." It just means the path is changed by a measurable amount.

 

[SnakeTongue]

And why not? If you are changing the values attached to "body," then why are you surprised that the results change?

A distinction should be made between units and standards. A unit is fixed by its definition, and is independent of physical conditions such as temperature. By contrast, a standard is a physical realization of a unit, and realizes that unit only under certain physical conditions. For example, the metre is a unit, while a metal bar is a standard. One metre is the same length regardless of temperature, but a metal bar will be one metre long only at a certain temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement​

Take two hypothetical high-jumpers. Both are human, both are singular. One is six feet tall, the other a petite four foot four. Now both, in trials, clear eight feet. That means one of them jumped two feet above his own head, but the other jumped almost twice her own height! How can this be? Because in each singular object "high jumper" there are contained variables for the height, weight, hair color, last meal, favorite book, etc.

In the case you are struggling with, if "body" is defined as having an average mass of 45 kilograms, any calculation done with them will be different than if they are assumed to have an average mass of 35 kilograms. The same if they are considered to have an average height of 1.4 meters, or 1.6 meters.

More amazing examples: "body jump per feet". I am wondering how this have anything to do with a calculation to determine the capacity of a burial pit...

This is at the very base of algebra. Newton's law of universal gravitation, for instance, is F = G (m1m2/r^2). In this, G is defined as the gravitational constant, and is invariable; all you need to know is the system of units you will be using (6.674 x 10^-11 Newtons in SI). M1, m3, and r (radius) have to be plugged in to the calculation.

If you were to type "m1m2/r^2" into Wolfram-Alpha without giving it any idea what actual masses or distance you had in mind, it would, at best, solve everything as 1 and return 1 as the answer. This is not good math.

If you have a variable, you MUST plug in the value of the variable in order to complete the calculation!

It is not "good" for who do not know how to use Wolframalpha:

Newton's law of universal gravitation

"Body" is a very distinctive unit. It means "body." You can even have a fractional body (without even invoking averages). But you aren't calculating WITH bodies, you are solving FOR bodies! For that, you need to plug in the appropriate value for whatever variable you are using; weight, say.

Say I have 1 kilgram of "x." If X is coconuts, with an average weight of close to a kilogram, then I have one coconut. If x is Brazil Nuts, then I have a LOT more Brazil Nuts!

Now "body" is not part of the calculation? I thought the calculation was for volume, not for "body". So, in your own words, you are not calculating with "coconuts", your are solving for "coconuts".

Brilliant!

Then use an appropriate average for volume.

By the by, you are using "proportional" wrong. Not all humans have the same proportions. You can't simply take one number -- such as height -- and thus generate the appropriate dimensions for all humans of all ages, both genders, and a variety of physical conditions.

But if you are going to use volume, use volume. In the above, does universal gravitation need or care if I include number of fruit? If I calculate F + f = G (m1m2/r^2) + f does this mean anything at all?

Don't worry about the weight if it doesn't figure in the calculation!

Above you admitted that "if you have a variable, you MUST plug in the value of the variable in order to complete the calculation!", but now you are suggesting to not "worry about the weight if it doesn't figure in the calculation!"?

Your "weight" is not a variable?

 

[nomuse]

Above you admitted that "if you have a variable, you MUST plug in the value of the variable in order to complete the calculation!", but now you are suggesting to not "worry about the weight if it doesn't figure in the calculation!"?

Your "weight" is not a variable?

Of course weight is a variable -- for the version of the calculation WE are using. You are using a calculation that starts with a stated volume per body and works outwards from there. You can no more cram "weight" into that than you can cram "number of fruit" into Universal Gravitation.

Again I suggest -- stop wasting your time trying to prove everyone else is a mathematical illiterate, and concentrate on making your OWN point clearly. The endless "He said she said he said they said" is nothing but annoying.

 

[Border Reiver]

Or that, as a serious military weapon, most soldiers will tell you that the maximum effective range of ANY pistol is as far as you can throw the bloody thing.

 

[nomuse]

It is not "good" for who do not know how to use Wolframalpha:

Newton's law of universal gravitation

Huh?

I have no idea what you are even saying here.

Yes -- Wolfram-Alpha is smart enough to recognize standard invariable constants such as "Big G" or Avagadro's Number. And use them correctly as well. You still have to plug in the variables; two masses and a radius. It is even smart enough to fill in the variables for you with some example value -- but that should not mislead you into thinking those are the only true values that can ever be used!

 

[nomuse]

Or that, as a serious military weapon, most soldiers will tell you that the maximum effective range of ANY pistol is as far as you can throw the bloody thing.

I do have to say I preferred my '60 (which I only carried in peacetime) for the following reasons in no particular order;

1) With the T&E I could put a round on target at up to 2 km.
2) Sensitive enough you could eke out a conservative 3-round burst instead of blowing through all your carried ammo in one blort.
3) The stopping power of that 7.62 NATO.
4) That the rest of your squad carried your ammo for you.
5) That you looked cool as hell toting it over your shoulder.
6) That you could put it down during a halt, when the poor guys with 16's had to hang on to them.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post

Do you have the original source of the quotes which you posted?

The source is people who hope not to get caught in a lie. When one of them gets caught in a lie, no matter how BIG, the others put one foot, toes pointed down, behind the other and do an about face. Then continue on with their Holocaust tales of facts interspersed with lies. You'll never hear these people discuss or admonish liars like Elie Wiesel or Steven Spielberg. Ask them about Elie's book of dark lies, "Night" or his non-existent tattoo that he said he had.

As a matter of fact, we do have those sources.

You would know this if you weren't so bone ignorant of the historical method.

You see, historians use this thing we big kids call "citation" in which they tell us exactly where the quotes are from so that should we choose to, we can check for ourselves.

This is part of why, for example, I refer to David Irving as a distorian -- he is often deliberately vague about his sources, but in the recent court case he brought to defend his practices it was shown that, in basically every case he actually cited, HE HAD LIED ABOUT THOSE SOURCES SAID. He was simply hoping that no one checked.

So fire away, ST: With which quote do you have an issue, and why? If I cannot supply the exact location of the document in question, I am confident to the point of certainty that Nick or Lemmy or Roberto can recite it off the top of their heads.

 

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post


The source is people who hope not to get caught in a lie. When one of them gets caught in a lie, no matter how BIG, the others put one foot, toes pointed down, behind the other and do an about face. Then continue on with their Holocaust tales of facts interspersed with lies. You'll never hear these people discuss or admonish liars like Elie Wiesel or Steven Spielberg. Ask them about Elie's book of dark lies, "Night" or his non-existent tattoo that he said he had.

What?!?!?! The sources of the quotations were mostly listed in my post. What are you on about? Well, yes, Der Sturmer was published by lying scum, ad Goebbels diary was written by a lying pig . . . and so on. But . . . Are you denying that leading Nazis, Third Reich publishers, and the others cited made these statements and advocated that antisemitism was a positive value? Seriously?