Moderated: General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by 000063

From 4chan, in a thread for generating fake rumors and conspiracy theories. Someone says "the Holocaust never happened". This was a response.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.co...587/#p19278375
Scary thing is, that's actually more plausible than some of the things we've seen argued here.

The plot thickens. In the work/alleged death camps Jewish people worked outside the camps and got paid for it and got to send and receive mail while other Jewish people performed the labor associated with the alleged gas chamber exterminations and earned death after 3 or 4 weeks of performing the labor associated with the alleged gas chamber exterminations.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

What a shame......SNIP

So what are you saying, 5,919 square meters was sufficient or not sufficient to inter 600,000 bodies?

[Dcdrac]

CM instead of living on fantasy Island accept the fact that the Mountain of historical evidence is takced against yuour absurd notions

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

So what are you saying, 5,919 square meters was sufficient or not sufficient to inter 600,000 bodies?

I'm saying that, given the depth of the mass graves established by archaeologists, the grave area established by archaeologists at Belzec would have been sufficient to accommodate about 96 % out of 434,508 bodies (the documented number of deportees to Belzec, 600,000 being a postwar Polish estimate proven wrong by the Höfle report) of malnourished people somewhat less tall than the average German at time, one third of them children. That without taking into account decomposition (the bodies were not all buried at the same time but over a period of eight months) and partial burning (presumably for sanitary purposes) as space-enhancing factors. Also without taking into consideration that the proportion of children is likely to have been higher than one third, as children were deemed unable to work and thus the first to be dispatched. I say "would have been" because the mass graves discovered by archaeologists in 1997-1999 were not necessarily the only mass graves at Belzec extermination camp. Air photo analysis by Alex Bay suggests the presence of further mass graves.

[000063]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The plot thickens. In the work/alleged death camps Jewish people worked outside the camps and got paid for it and got to send and receive mail while other Jewish people performed the labor associated with the alleged gas chamber exterminations and earned death after 3 or 4 weeks of performing the labor associated with the alleged gas chamber exterminations.

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to the quote.

[Dcdrac]

the real Clayton Moore played the Lone ranger I wander what he would have made of his namesake

[swright777]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

the real Clayton Moore played the Lone ranger I wander what he would have made of his namesake

A corpse.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

What a shame that Carlo Mattogno didn’t have the assistance of your mathematical genius, because my "bizarre" model and "worst" method are based on the method applied by Mattogno. From the blog "Mattogno, Graf & Kues on the Aktion Reinhard(t) Mass Graves (3)":

Well done! You made an explicit admission of plagiarism, which contradicts your co-writer Dr Nicholas Terry:

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

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.

So Dr Nicholas Terry made a false statement. He explicit admitted that you used multiple methods. You are now revealing you just not did it, you also copied the method.

You are a hack writer.

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

If you have a better method for determining the amount of space occupied by an average member of a not-so-tall and undernourished population with a 2:1 distribution between adults and children, I’ll be glad to learn about that method. Fire away, ST. Let’s see what conclusions your superior method arrives at under the aforementioned assumptions.

I have already presented a “better” method:

{x = a/(a+b+c)*0.44/3, y = b/(a+b+c)*0.44/4, z = c/(a+b+c)*0.44/1}

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

See the above quote for the basis of my estimation. The BMI table you can find with the Wayback machine (I’d like to give you the URL, but according to the rules of this forum "You are only allowed to post URLs (…) to websites after you have made 15 posts or more").

Please tell me in what respect my estimation is supposed to be an "underestimation", and provide a substantiated estimation that you would consider realistic under the applicable circumstances. I would especially like to know what is supposed to be wrong with assuming that malnourished Jews in Polish ghettos were on average underweight and that an underweight adult 1.60 meters tall weighs between 38 and 48 kg, as per the BMI table.

Make that realistic assumptions about the size and weight of Polish ghetto Jews, and we can agree. Wishful thinking one tends to see in the "Revisionist" camp.

In this respect:

Your hypothetical model would not even leave the ghetto or survive the imposed travel. Your underestimation leaves common sense aside. People with underweight mass are very weak and would require constant assistance to move. The lack of nourished muscles would decrease the motor capacity of every underweighted ill-fed person.

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

Make that realistic assumptions about the size and weight of Polish ghetto Jews, and we can agree. Wishful thinking one tends to see in the "Revisionist" camp.

Without any statistical data to estimate how many men, women and children were among the deportees, it is not possible to assume accurate models.

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

The members of Provan's test group definitely had different characteristics, as they were normally fed American citizens and not underfed Polish ghetto Jews. With Charles Provan’s test group (Provan, Capacity), the average would be 663.4 ÷ 33.25 = 19.95 (20). Provan's box had a volume of 21 x 21 x 60.5 = 26,680.50 cubic inches or 0.44 cubic meters, and he managed to squeeze 8 people (including the doll representing and baby) into that space - a concentration of 18.2 per cubic meter. These were living people, and they were "able to breathe just fine" according to Provan, meaning that there was still some space left in the box not filled by their bodies. Provan's photos suggest that the box could have taken in one or two more bodies, at least of children, if the bodies had needed no breathing space because they were dead. The difference between the realistic calculated concentration for an adult+adult+child group of ill-fed or starving Polish Jews (19.51 corpses per cubic meter) and the concentration calculated for Provan's test group with the same reference parameter of 663.40 kg, i.e. 19.95 corpses per cubic meter, is not very big because Provan's test group, while consisting mostly of children, was made up of healthy and well-fed (though not overweight) present-day Americans. 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 Bełżec had been like that of Provan's test group, the 21,310 cubic meters of grave space estimated by Prof. Kola could have taken in over 540,000 dead bodies.

You are just repeating note number 107 from your book, where you misinterpreted Charles D Provan experiment with your deceitful method.

Density divided by mass does not result in “corpses per cubic meter”. The result is reciprocal cubic meter, which is a measurement for inverse length, or inverse volume:

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

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

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

I presume you are referring to the following part of the aforementioned blog:

Decomposition in an open grave shouldn’t be so different from decomposition in the open air, and your "1.5 kg pig objection" is pointless unless you can demonstrate that a human body’s decomposition differs materially from that of a piglet crushed by its mother, even though the Australian Museum considered it similar enough to illustrate what happens to the human body after death and expressly stated that

Every grave was closed and sealed approximately each 8 days. This fact renders “open grave shouldn’t be so different from decomposition in the open air” improbable.

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

If you disagree with my reasoning, please explain what’s supposed to be wrong with it and why. And then let’s see your substantiated calculations of human decomposition times under the conditions that were present at Bełżec in the summer and autumn of 1942. Make a model like the one I used, based on the decomposition times you consider realistic. Then we can look at the differences between your assessment and mine.

This forum is a bit too rule-heavy for my taste, by the way. I suggest we continue the discussion in the "Holocaust Denial" section of the Skeptics Society Forum.

I will not follow you there. Either you answer my original post here or your answer it in the CODOH forum.

[Cyrix686]

Well, I see you mouthed off to your Nazi pals at Codoh Snakey, about NT and then used a rude word, to express your frustration.

For the record, Roberto Muehlenkamp does not post at Codoh. Nor will he. He was unjustly banned by Hanover for reasons he can discuss with you if he so desires...

[Dcdrac]

Just taken a look and what a load of tut that was

Classic example of one nail was out of place so it can not have happened

[Cyrix686]

Yeah, he's got the hots for coulda woulda shoulda too.

[nomuse]

A big so what. If those killed were as fat as stereotypical burghers the KNOWN graves would still hold thousands -- and account for over half of those people the rest of the evidence shows ended their lives there.

[nomuse]

Oh, yeah. And posting pictures of severely anorexic people has diddly to do with an estimate of body weight that is only ten kilos less than that of an average man in good health.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

No, I'm responding to somebody who thinks there's a relationship between the holocaust and World War II. Other than happening roughly at the same time and in the same place, there isn't. Jews didn't die in World War II. They died in the holocaust. I know it's a stupid concept but that's the holocaust for you.

The holocaust was a result of the actions taken by the German military during WW2. These actions were taken in response to Hitler wanting a "solution to the Jewish problem".

It is totally beyond my comprehension that anyone can claim that WW2 and the holocaust simply occured at about the same time, but were not related.

[Multivac]

Originally Posted by TSR

And dammititall -- it's a holiday weekend and we're fresh out of Vicks Scoff Medicine...

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Well done! You made an explicit admission of plagiarism, which contradicts your co-writer Dr Nicholas Terry:

A bit hysterical, are we? If I refute Mattogno using his own calculation method, that's not plagiarism where I come from. Maybe you should look up the term.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

So Dr Nicholas Terry made a false statement. He explicit admitted that you used multiple methods. You are now revealing you just not did it, you also copied the method.

Nick was presumably referring to my establishing grave capacity first without taking into consideration the effect of decomposition and then taking into account that effect.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

You are a hack writer.

Calling me names already in your first message? Quite the hysteric, really.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I have already presented a “better” method:

{x = a/(a+b+c)*0.44/3, y = b/(a+b+c)*0.44/4, z = c/(a+b+c)*0.44/1}

Bravo, genius. Now explain the components of your so-much-better formula, tell us what assumptions your figures are based on, and let's see the results of your so-much-better calculation.

But first tell us that "Revisionist" guru Mattogno's method (which I also applied) is the worst possible method. I'd like to read that from you. I shall then send Mattogno an e-mail with your opinion about his method.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

In this respect:

[Image of emaciated person, linke removed because I'm not yet allowed to post links.]

Nice picture, now demonstrate that it shows someone in the middle range of "underweight" according to the BMA table. As I can't yet link to that table, I'll copy it below, highlighting the pertinent line:

Quote:

Enterale Ernährung

bullet1 Ernährungszustand
bullet2 Tabellen
bullet3 Gewichtstabelle nach BMI
Körpergröße in Meter Untergewicht
min. kg max Normalgewicht
min. kg max Übergewicht
min. kg max Fettsucht
min. kg max.
1.50 34 - 43 43 - 56 56 - 67 68 - 90
1.51 34 - 43 43 - 57 57 - 68 68 - 91
1.52 35 - 44 44 - 58 58 - 69 69 - 92
1.53 35 - 44 44 - 58 59 - 70 70 - 93
1.54 36 - 45 45 - 59 59 - 71 71 - 95
1.55 36 - 45 46 - 60 60 - 72 72 - 96
1.56 37 - 46 46 - 61 61 - 73 73 - 97
1.57 37 - 47 47 - 61 62 - 74 74 - 98
1.58 37 - 47 47 - 62 62 - 75 75 - 100
1.59 38 - 48 48 - 63 63 - 76 76 - 101
1.60 38 - 48 49 - 64 64 - 77 77 - 102
1.61 39 - 49 49 - 65 65 - 78 78 - 103
1.62 39 - 50 50 - 65 66 - 78 79 - 105
1.63 40 - 50 50 - 66 66 - 79 80 - 106
1.64 40 - 51 51 - 67 67 - 80 81 - 107
1.65 41 - 51 52 - 68 68 - 81 82 - 109
1.66 41 - 52 52 - 69 69 - 82 83 - 110
1.67 42 - 53 53 - 69 70 - 83 84 - 111
1.68 42 - 53 54 - 70 71 - 84 85 - 113
1.69 43 - 54 54 - 71 71 - 85 86 - 114
1.70 43 - 55 55 - 72 72 - 86 87 - 115
1.71 44 - 55 56 - 73 73 - 87 88 - 117
1.72 44 - 56 56 - 74 74 - 88 89 - 118
1.73 45 - 57 57 - 75 75 - 89 90 - 119
1.74 45 - 57 58 - 75 76 - 91 91 - 121
1.75 46 - 58 58 - 76 77 - 92 92 - 122
1.76 46 - 59 59 - 77 77 - 93 93 - 124
1.77 47 - 59 60 - 78 78 - 94 94 - 125
1.78 48 - 60 60 - 79 79 - 95 95 - 126
1.79 48 - 61 61 - 80 80 - 96 96 - 128
1.80 49 - 61 62 - 81 81 - 97 97 - 129
1.81 49 - 62 62 - 82 82 - 98 98 - 131
1.82 50 - 63 63 - 82 83 - 99 99 - 132
1.83 50 - 63 64 - 83 84 - 100 100 - 134
1.84 51 - 64 64 - 84 85 - 101 102 - 135
1.85 51 - 65 65 - 85 86 - 102 103 - 137
1.86 52 - 65 66 - 86 86 - 103 104 - 138
1.87 52 - 66 66 - 87 87 - 105 105 - 140
1.88 53 - 67 67 - 88 88 - 106 106 - 141
1.89 54 - 68 68 - 89 89 - 107 107 - 143
1.90 54 - 68 69 - 90 90 - 108 108 - 144
1.91 55 - 69 69 - 91 91 - 109 109 - 146
1.92 55 - 70 70 - 92 92 - 110 111 - 147
1.93 56 - 70 71 - 93 93 - 111 112 - 149
1.94 56 - 71 72 - 94 94 - 113 113 - 150
1.95 57 - 72 72 - 95 95 - 114 114 - 152
1.96 58 - 73 73 - 96 96 - 115 115 - 153
1.97 58 - 73 74 - 97 97 - 116 116 - 155
1.98 59 - 74 74 - 98 98 - 117 118 - 156
1.99 59 - 75 75 - 99 99 - 118 119 - 158

As you can see, a person 1.60 meters tall is considered to have a normal weight between 49 and 64 kg and to be underweight between 38 and 48 kg.
The middle value between 38 and 48 that I assumed, 43 kg, is just 6 kg below what would still be normal weight. I don't think such a person would look like the skeleton in your picture, which seems to be emaciated rather than just underweight. I'd say that person's weight is below the lowest range of Untergewicht according to the BMI table. But you are free to demonstrate the contrary.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Your hypothetical model would not even leave the ghetto or survive the imposed travel. Your underestimation leaves common sense aside. People with underweight mass are very weak and would require constant assistance to move. The lack of nourished muscles would decrease the motor capacity of every underweighted ill-fed person.

I'd say that depends on the definition of "underweight" and on the degree of undernourishment. A person 1.60 meters tall weighing 48 kg (just 1 kg below what would still be normal weight) would hardly require "constant assistance to move". If you think you can demonstrate that a person this tall weighing 5 kg less would require such assistance, fire away. Throwing unsubstantiated generalities around doesn't cut it.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Without any statistical data to estimate how many men, women and children were among the deportees, it is not possible to assume accurate models.

No, but it's possible to assume a "worst case" model from the perspective of the argument I'm trying to make. The "worst case" assumption is that the proportion of children among the deportees was no higher than the proportion of children among the general Jewish population before the war (actually the proportion of children is likely to have been much higher for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post). So I made the assumption least favorable to my case, based on the figures about the adult-to-child ratio in the prewar Polish population that Mattogno provided.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

You are just repeating note number 107 from your book, where you misinterpreted Charles D Provan experiment with your deceitful method.

Now I'm getting curious. How exactly am I supposed to have "misinterpreted" Charles Provan's experiment (whose results I merely compared with the results I had arrived at by a different method, which you call the "worst" method), and how exactly is my method supposed to be "deceitful"? Please be more specific. And bear in mind that what you are accusing me of regarding my method you are also accusing your guru Mattogno of, for my method is no different from his.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Density divided by mass does not result in “corpses per cubic meter”. The result is reciprocal cubic meter, which is a measurement for inverse length, or inverse volume:

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

[Wikipedia link]

Sounds nice, but what's the genius trying to tell us here? Instead of throwing theoretical wisdom around, show us your calculations of the volume of space occupied by three dead people weighing 43, 43 and 16 kg. If you're missing length data for the child, assume those you consider realistic and can substantiate as realistic. "You cannot calculate like this" - nitpicking is not exactly meaningful if you don't provide what you consider to be a correct calculation. And unless that correct calculation turns out results that are materially different from those of the "wrong" calculation, it's not even relevant.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Every grave was closed and sealed approximately each 8 days. This fact renders “open grave shouldn’t be so different from decomposition in the open air” improbable.

Still waiting for your superior decomposition model, my friend. And please show us where you got the idea that every grave was "closed and sealed approxmately each 8 days". I hope for you that you didn't just divide the number of days corresponding to eight months by the number of graves discovered by Prof. Andrzej Kola.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I will not follow you there. Either you answer my [link]original post here [/link] or your answer it in the [link]CODOH forum[/link].

I'd love to have a chat with you on the CODOH forum, but unfortunately the CODOH moderator, Mr. Jonnie "Hannover" Hargis, is so afraid of me that he banned me for good from that lovely place (after deleting many of my posts, last time I was there). When I have accumulated sufficient posts here to post links, I'll show you some interesting information about what "open debate" on the forum of the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust" is all about.

As to your original post:

Quote:

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.

I’ll check the detailed math when I have time. For now I just note that, while you claim that no more than 14 people with an average weight of 34 kilograms could be squeezed into one cubic meter, Provan managed to squeeze 8 people with an average weight of 33.25 kg into 0.44 cubic meters, which is the equivalent of 18 people per cubic meter (and, as I pointed out, there would have been room for more if test subjects had been dead and not needed to breathe). How do you explain so large a difference in concentration (14 vs. 18 per cubic meters) despite a low difference in average weight (34 vs. 33.25 kg)?

By the way, in the context of your accusing people of being "deceitful" when they use the "worst" calculation method of Mr. Mattogno, this remark (emphasis added):

Quote:

Charles A Bay emphasized that his hypothetical “Vetruvian” model was male. Assigning a female average mass to a hypothetical male model to determine proportional volume is deceitful. Charles A Bay‘s model was used to determine the volume occupied by an average male body without regard to mass variation.

was particularly amusing, considering that it refers to this:

Quote:

(...) 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 (...)

If I had taken the higher value, I would have concluded that 10.7 human beings with the measurements and weight of an ideal adult person have a weight of 10.7 x 66 = 706.20 m³. Thus I would have arrived at an average concentration of 706.20 m³ ÷ 34 = 20.77 bodies per cubic meter, instead of the concentration of 663.4 ÷ 34 = 19.51 bodies per cubic meter that I calculated. Am I supposed to have been "deceitful" to the disadvantage of my own argument?

Another thing: If you're also posting your wisdom on CODOH, kindly link the CODOH thread to the discussion here. Thanks.

[Dcdrac]

Originally Posted by Multivac

The holocaust was a result of the actions taken by the German military during WW2. These actions were taken in response to Hitler wanting a "solution to the Jewish problem".

It is totally beyond my comprehension that anyone can claim that WW2 and the holocaust simply occured at about the same time, but were not related.

It is an example of tortured logic at its very best......

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

PS:
I did your formula calculations in the meantime. Funny thing I notice is that the bodies of Provan's test group occupy less volume on average than those of the hypothetical test group with 3 adults à 43 kg and 5 children à 16 kg, even though the total and average weights of the latter test group are lower than those of the former:

Item_ Provan's test group_Test group with 3 adults à 43 kg and 5 children à 16 kg
(a) Number of bodies in Provan's test group_8_8
(b) Volume m³ of Provan's box_0.44_0.44
(c) Volume m³ per body = (b) ÷ (a)_0.06_0.06
(d) Concentration of bodies per cubic meter_18.18_18.18
ST's formula:
(e) Total weight of adults kg_174_129
(f) Total weight of children (1) kg_85_64
(g) Total weight of children (2) kg_7_16
(h) Total weight of test group kg_266_209
(i) Average weight of test person kg_33,25_26,13
(j) Volume occupied by adult m³_0,095940_0,090526
(k) Volume occupied by child (1) m³_0,035150_0,033684
(l) Volume occupied by child (2) m³_0,011579_0,033684
(m) Total volume m³ of (j)+(k)+(l)_0,142669_0,157895
(n) Average volume per person = (m) ÷ 3_0,047556_0,052632
(o) Persons per m³ = 1 ÷ (n)_21,03_19,00

How do you explain this?

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Let's have that again uniformly using the Anglo-Saxon decimal separator (dot instead of comma):

Item_Provan's test group_Test group with 3 adults à 43 kg and 5 children à 16 kg
(a) Number of bodies in Provan's test group_8_8
(b) Volume m³ of Provan's box_0.44_0.44
(c) Volume m³ per body = (b) ÷ (a)_0.06_0.06
(d) Concentration of bodies per cubic meter_18.18_18.18
ST's formula:
(e) Total weight of adults kg_174_129
(f) Total weight of children (1) kg_85_64
(g) Total weight of children (2) kg_7_16
(h) Total weight of test group kg_266_209
(i) Average weight of test person kg_33.25_26.13
(j) Volume occupied by adult m³_0.095940_0.090526
(k) Volume occupied by child (1) m³_0.035150_0.033684
(l) Volume occupied by child (2) m³_0.011579_0.033684
(m) Total volume m³ (j)+(k)+(l)_0.142669_0.157895
(n) Average volume per person = (m) ÷ 3_0.047556_0.052632
(o) Persons per m³ = 1 ÷ (n)_21.03_19.00

Now let's look only at the 3*43kg + 5*16 scenario and do the following exercises:
a) cut the weights in half (21.5 kg for adults, 8 kg for children)
b) double the weights (86 kg for adults, 32 kg for children).

The results are quite amazing:

Item_43/16 scenario_21.5/8 scenario_86/32 scenario
(e) Total weight of adults kg_129_65_258
(f) Total weight of children (1) kg_64_32_128
(g) Total weight of children (2) kg_16_8_32
(h) Total weight of test group kg_209_105_418
(i) Average weight of test person kg_26.13_13.06_52.25
(j) Volume occupied by adult m³_0.090526_0.090526_0.090526
(k) Volume occupied by child (1) m³_0.033684_0.033684_0.033684
(l) Volume occupied by child (2) m³_0.033684_0.033684_0.033684
(m) Total volume m³ (j)+(k)+(l)_0.157895_0.157895_0.157895
(n) Average volume per person = (m) ÷ 3_0.052632_0.052632_0.052632
(o) Persons per m³ = 1 ÷ (n)_19.00_19.00_19.00

With ST's formula, it doesn't matter whether you double the weights, cut them in half or multiply them by or divide them through any given factor. As long as you use the same multiplier or divider for both and the relation between adult weight and child weight is not changed, the average volume occupied by one person in the test group will always be 0.052632 m³, and the concentration of bodies per cubic meter will always be 19.

Great formula, ST. You should obtain IPR protection for it.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

Calling me names already in your first message? Quite the hysteric, really.

SnakeTongue apparently really didn't like it when I referred to disgraced historian David Irving as a hack. Since then, he's been trying to call other people hack writers at every opportunity.

[nomuse]

Yes...as far as I can make out, Snake Tongue is using volume exclusively. Any mention of weight is just a distraction (although it does lead to oddities like the lighter-than-lithium Jew when he carries his abstracted numbers too far).

However, I hasten to add, I am not sure what method Snake is using, because his posts are so full of multiple nested quotes of He Said She Said They Said I Said, I have great difficulty sorting out his thinking from the ideas he is rejecting.

[Dogzilla]

Originally Posted by nomuse

Oh, yeah. And posting pictures of severely anorexic people has diddly to do with an estimate of body weight that is only ten kilos less than that of an average man in good health.

Mr. Muehlenkamp informs us that the Belzec mass graves could hold most of the Jews murdered there because (among other reasons) the emaciated dwarf-like stature of the Ostjuden makes it possible to fit many more of them into the pits than would be possible if you were murdering the big strong Germans next door. Snaketongue mocks Mr. Muehlenkamp's characterization of the Ostjuden as "underweight" with a picture of a severely anorexic model. Then you counter Snaketongue by telling us that a severely anorexic model doesn't accurately represent the appearance of the Ostjuden because Mr. Muehlenkamp's estimate of the average body weight of the "emaciated" Ostjuden is only ten kilos less than that of an average man in good health.

I personally think Snaketongue's anorexic model is a little extreme but do you realize that in your haste to counter ST, you're dismissing part of Mr. Muehlenkamp's argument by saying that the Ostjuden weren't really all that tiny?

If you want to get an idea of what these doomed Belzec victims looked like, try to find some pictures. You can find a Belzec slideshow here that shows us what the Jews of Belzec looked like. There's some other Ostjuden pictures here, here, and here.

[Cyrix686]

Nice to see Dogzilla getting upset and reduced to blatant misrepresentation.

[Cyrix686]

I'm not actually sure what his point is. I saw the first picture of the Belzec Sonderkommando by the sorting barracks on the HEART site and assume that he is making some facile misrepresenting comment about well-fed Jews upon the strength of some photographs. Noting that some of the links lead to fictitious characters created by children's author Roald Dahl, I think I'm bang on the money and Doggy is upset.

Good.

Pictures only tell part of the story...and can never narrate everything. Trying to explain that to deniers got boring three years ago

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Mr. Muehlenkamp informs us that the Belzec mass graves could hold most of the Jews murdered there because (among other reasons) the emaciated dwarf-like stature of the Ostjuden makes it possible to fit many more of them into the pits than would be possible if you were murdering the big strong Germans next door. Snaketongue mocks Mr. Muehlenkamp's characterization of the Ostjuden as "underweight" with a picture of a severely anorexic model. Then you counter Snaketongue by telling us that a severely anorexic model doesn't accurately represent the appearance of the Ostjuden because Mr. Muehlenkamp's estimate of the average body weight of the "emaciated" Ostjuden is only ten kilos less than that of an average man in good health.

I personally think Snaketongue's anorexic model is a little extreme but do you realize that in your haste to counter ST, you're dismissing part of Mr. Muehlenkamp's argument by saying that the Ostjuden weren't really all that tiny?

If you want to get an idea of what these doomed Belzec victims looked like, try to find some pictures. You can find a Belzec slideshow here that shows us what the Jews of Belzec looked like. There's some other Ostjuden pictures here, here, and here.

No...because I READ the figures he was using. They are conservative. The difference in weight is not dwarfism or anorexia. The difference in weight is less than the difference between what I weigh now, and what I weighed twenty years ago. Now, you would not call me fat now. And I really, really doubt you'd call a US Army paratrooper "scrawny."

In fact, as I have stated several times, I find the assumption that the dead were of less than healthy weight unnecessary to achieve the needed capacity of the graves. With every single assumption taken to the most conservative possible -- no weighting of the relative numbers of children, no adjustment for weight of victims, no adjustment for decomposition, etc., you still find mass graves containing thousands of people. And you also find that the known graves are well within the same order of magnitude of the grave space required by the numbers believed to have perished.

This is exactly like some Apollo Deniers who fill sheet after sheet with (poorly-done) computation that proves that the life support capacity of A-11's A7L's was twenty minutes less than the length of the EVA. Your error is larger than your estimate. The number is so close to being consistent with all the other evidence, it is more natural to assume there are factors you haven't calculated or assumptions you have made incorrectly, than it is to assume some great worldwide conspiracy ALMOST got the number right but at the last minute wrote down a "9" instead of a "10."

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Mr. Muehlenkamp informs us that the Belzec mass graves could hold most of the Jews murdered there because (among other reasons) the emaciated dwarf-like stature of the Ostjuden makes it possible to fit many more of them into the pits than would be possible if you were murdering the big strong Germans next door. Snaketongue mocks Mr. Muehlenkamp's characterization of the Ostjuden as "underweight" with a picture of a severely anorexic model. Then you counter Snaketongue by telling us that a severely anorexic model doesn't accurately represent the appearance of the Ostjuden because Mr. Muehlenkamp's estimate of the average body weight of the "emaciated" Ostjuden is only ten kilos less than that of an average man in good health.

I personally think Snaketongue's anorexic model is a little extreme but do you realize that in your haste to counter ST, you're dismissing part of Mr. Muehlenkamp's argument by saying that the Ostjuden weren't really all that tiny?

If you want to get an idea of what these doomed Belzec victims looked like, try to find some pictures. You can find a Belzec slideshow here that shows us what the Jews of Belzec looked like. There's some other Ostjuden pictures here, here, and here.

So it seems you believe quite a few countries in the world are inhabited by dwarves - China, Chile, India, Mexico, Indonesia, Iraq, Malawi, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam all have measured average heights for men and women which would together average at 160cm or only a little greater. And you can easily find female average heights of 160cm or below in many more countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height

Historically, Italian soldiers were supposedly a mere 1cm taller in the mid-19th Century as Roberto's average height. Spanish and Dutch soldiers not much taller, and the Dutch were legendary for being short, yet are now one of the tallest nations in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_h...f_human_height

Your Belzec photo was interestingly chosen. One thing to note is that the pics are actually from the 1940 labour camp phase. The other is that the very next slide shows a row of men with wildly varying heights. As does the slide after that. And quite a few are indeed very short.

The taller men were much more likely to be spared for labour or become fugitives, and not even reach Belzec in the death camp phase.

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Nick Terry

Your Belzec photo was interestingly chosen. One thing to note is that the pics are actually from the 1940 labour camp phase. The other is that the very next slide shows a row of men with wildly varying heights. As does the slide after that. And quite a few are indeed very short.

Nick,

You seem to have missed the most important and intelligent part of Dogzilla's post -

Quote:

If you want to get an idea of what these doomed Belzec victims looked like, try to find some pictures. You can find a Belzec slideshow here that shows us what the Jews of Belzec looked like. There's some other Ostjuden pictures here, here, and here.

Surely, here, here, and here are the most insightful and serious comments he's made on the topic of this thread.

What's conflating some dates, presenting some photos of one thing as evidence for another thing, and screwing up the arithmetic when he has snaps of cartoon characters to share?

LC

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Mr. Muehlenkamp informs us that the Belzec mass graves could hold most of the Jews murdered there because (among other reasons) the emaciated dwarf-like stature of the Ostjuden makes it possible to fit many more of them into the pits than would be possible if you were murdering the big strong Germans next door.

Straw-man. Average adult height of 1.60 meters is not "dwarflike" and certainly wasn't in the 1940s. It wasn't all that much below the height of the average German (or the average Scotsman, for that matter) at the time.

I also didn't say the ghetto Jews were all emaciated. I considered their weight to have been in between the lowest and highest values of what is underweight for a person 1.60 meters tall, according to the BMI table.

Also, the comparatively smaller size and underweight state of the victims was not the factor but one of the factors that would have made it possible to bury all Belzec victims in the graves discovered by archaeologists, assuming there were no further graves (contrary to what is suggested by Alex Bay's air photo analysis). Other factors were decomposition and top-down partial burning as reported by Pfannenstiel.

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Snaketongue mocks Mr. Muehlenkamp's characterization of the Ostjuden as "underweight" with a picture of a severely anorexic model.

Oh, so he was just "mocking" me. And I thought he was trying to make a point ...

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

Then you counter Snaketongue by telling us that a severely anorexic model doesn't accurately represent the appearance of the Ostjuden because Mr. Muehlenkamp's estimate of the average body weight of the "emaciated" Ostjuden is only ten kilos less than that of an average man in good health.

Actually it's only six kilos below the lowest threshold of what would be considered normal weight for a person 1.60 meters tall according to the BMI table.

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

I personally think Snaketongue's anorexic model is a little extreme but do you realize that in your haste to counter ST, you're dismissing part of Mr. Muehlenkamp's argument by saying that the Ostjuden weren't really all that tiny?

I'd say he's just backing my point, which is that underweight doesn't necessarily mean emaciated.

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

If you want to get an idea of what these doomed Belzec victims looked like, try to find some pictures. You can find a Belzec slideshow here that shows us what the Jews of Belzec looked like.

Actually it shows inmates of the Belzec labor camps in 1940, presumably chosen because they were in better-than-average conditions, i.e. the kind of people from among the affected ghetto populations who stood the best chance of not being deported to Belzec extermination camp in 1942 because they could perform hard labor. And even these don't exactly look well-fed.

Originally Posted by Dogzilla

There's some other Ostjuden pictures here, here and here.

Someone thinks he's being funny.

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

Someone thinks he's being funny.

He was sort of right, too, in that his remarks were comically wrong headed and that it has been funny to watch you guys expose his misunderstandings and smug self-certainty.

[Clayton Moore]

Oh wait. Why would the bodies be emaciated? Didn't they just arrive by train and were never even registered into the camp(s)? Then gassed?

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Oh wait. Why would the bodies be emaciated? Didn't they just arrive by train and were never even registered into the camp(s)? Then gassed?

Psst! Clayton!

Look:

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

I also didn't say the ghetto Jews were all emaciated. I considered their weight to have been in between the lowest and highest values of what is underweight for a person 1.60 meters tall, according to the BMI table.

Also, the comparatively smaller size and underweight state of the victims was not the factor but one of the factors that would have made it possible to bury all Belzec victims in the graves discovered by archaeologists, assuming there were no further graves (contrary to what is suggested by Alex Bay's air photo analysis). Other factors were decomposition and top-down partial burning as reported by Pfannenstiel.

[...]

Actually it's only six kilos below the lowest threshold of what would be considered normal weight for a person 1.60 meters tall according to the BMI table.


I'd say he's just backing my point, which is that underweight doesn't necessarily mean emaciated.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by 000063

From 4chan, in a thread for generating fake rumors and conspiracy theories. Someone says "the Holocaust never happened". This was a response.

http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.co...587/#p19278375
Scary thing is, that's actually more plausible than some of the things we've seen argued here.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

The plot thickens. In the work/alleged death camps Jewish people worked outside the camps and got paid for it and got to send and receive mail while other Jewish people performed the labor associated with the alleged gas chamber exterminations and earned death after 3 or 4 weeks of performing the labor associated with the alleged gas chamber exterminations.

Originally Posted by 000063

I have no idea what you are talking about or how it relates to the quote.

I added the truth. Disturbing wasn't it. I notice that mums the word on it, other than your discharge. Can you believe the heinous Germans were paying wages to the intended victims of an alleged Final Solution? Letting them send and receive mail?

Those crafty Germans. I guess those privileges were to get the Jewish people to not feel too badly about the alleged atrocities against their children and babies and themselves. Another day another mark or two.

Kinda kicks to the curb the slave labor and work them till they drop nonsense.

[Nick Terry]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Oh wait. Why would the bodies be emaciated? Didn't they just arrive by train and were never even registered into the camp(s)? Then gassed?

evidently, Clayton has never heard of ghettos.

[Dcdrac]

Well we know Clayton knows nothering about the subject whatsoever

Still has not answered whether they have ever visited Deautschland

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I added the truth.

Ummmm. No

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Disturbing wasn't it.

Ummmm. No

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

I notice that mums the word on it, other than your discharge. Can you believe the heinous Germans were paying wages to the intended victims of an alleged Final Solution?

No, their wages usually went to the Commandant of the camp at which they were interned.

And BTW, I note you are still ducking the question of why they were in those camps in the first place?

I mean, they often had had jobs (which they were then legally prevented from doing) -- why weren't each one individually allowed to pursue those careers?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Letting them send and receive mail?

You misspelled "forced them to sign postcards lying about the conditions of where they had been confined."

And why were they confined in those camps to begin with? Shall we choose some individuals to discuss?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Those crafty Germans. I guess those privileges were to get the Jewish people to not feel too badly about the alleged atrocities against their children and babies and themselves. Another day another mark or two.

No, in those rare cases in which the inmates (why were they individually imprisoned again?) were "allowed" "wages" it was in the form of chits which could only be spent in the camp, making it harder for them to survive should they escape.

And why would they need to "escape" anyway, when the Nazis were treating them so well?

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Kinda kicks to the curb the slave labor and work them till they drop nonsense.

Only if one forgets that whole, you know, historical fact thing and its inconvenient to your need to justify your hate consequences...

And what crime *did* the young man in my avatar do to deserve being shipped to the camps?

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

Oh wait. Why would the bodies be emaciated? Didn't they just arrive by train and were never even registered into the camp(s)? Then gassed?

Clayton, how do you spell ghetto? LC

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

Clayton, how do you spell ghetto? LC

BS?

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

BS?

Wait, did you just deny there were Jewish Ghettos in WWII occupied Europe?

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

BS?

No wonder you don't know what went on in these places.

[Clayton Moore]

Originally Posted by TSR

Ummmm. No

Ummmm. No

No, their wages usually went to the Commandant of the camp at which they were interned.

And BTW, I note you are still ducking the question of why they were in those camps in the first place?

I mean, they often had had jobs (which they were then legally prevented from doing) -- why weren't each one individually allowed to pursue those careers?

You misspelled "forced them to sign postcards lying about the conditions of where they had been confined."

And why were they confined in those camps to begin with? Shall we choose some individuals to discuss?

No, in those rare cases in which the inmates (why were they individually imprisoned again?) were "allowed" "wages" it was in the form of chits which could only be spent in the camp, making it harder for them to survive should they escape.

And why would they need to "escape" anyway, when the Nazis were treating them so well?

Only if one forgets that whole, you know, historical fact thing and its inconvenient to your need to justify your hate consequences...

And what crime *did* the young man in my avatar do to deserve being shipped to the camps?

So who do I hate?

The Jewish people of the day who I say would have surely reacted with rage or eventual rage if they witnessed or knew of atrocities against their children?


Seems you people hold them in disdain by saying they wouldn't.

Since the beginning of time the most hated people in the world have been people who harm children.