Moderated: General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[abaddon]

Here's the problem.

Snake made a huge blunder, which leaves him with but two choices:
A. admit the blunder

or

B: try to bluff his way out.

Clearly, Snake has chosen the blunderbus route, and will further sink himself into a morass of denier bovine fecal matter, because he thinks he understands whats going on but does not.

DK in action. He failed to even figure out a simple dimensional problem, even though I, and others pointed out his error.

[OCaptain]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

A better question would be why is the Jewish community is always accusing anyone who disagrees with their interests of being antisemitic.

Which is reason enough to hate them, right Clayton??

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

Then Tomtomkent is warned that a new Teddy bear model is ready for order. The new model is still the same as the old Teddy Bear model, with approximate volume as the old one, except by a significant change in the average mass. Then Tomtomkent is called and required to calculate the new capacity of the usual box based on the average mass of the new model. So, the manager tell Tomtomkent that the new Teddy bear model have two times the mass of the old Teddy bear model. The delivery department must to know how many new Teddy Bears models will fit into the usual box. Tomtomkent already know that 10 old Teddy Bear models fits in the usual box and each one have about 200 grams:

10 Teddy Bear / 1 box

2000 g / 1 box

2000 g / 1 box / 400g / Teddy Bear

5 Teddy Bear / 1 box

When the manager is informed that the usual box can only fit half of the previous quantity, he becomes furious. More boxes are necessary, which means more money! Suddenly, a new employee pops up with the usual box filled with 10 new Teddy Bear models.

Tomtomkent fails when the manager looks at him...

In your scenario, only volume matters; each teddy bear has (presumed) the exact same volume.

The rest of your fantasy mathematics is extraneous, as it has been every time you have pretended to calculate grave capacity.

If you are doing capacity only by volume, then why are you even bothering to mention mass? Why is it included in the calculation? Why are you objecting to the numbers?

Of course, the rest of us are doing a calculation in which mass DOES matter, because volume is not fixed.

Say your imaginary clerk is filling boxes with uncooked rice. If he is asked to put 2x the mass of rice in a box, then he will need 2x the volume of box. He need not consider the volume of the individual grains, but only how efficiently they pack.

In the case under discussion, we are shoving a mulch of decayed organic matter into an open pit. The normal voids of a human body (lungs, sinuses) are mostly collapsed in this scenario. The pointy bits (aka extremities) hardly matter. The Pembrose packing efficiency comes very close to 1.

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

This is a blatant false statement.

The most usual evidence presented here is just books of story-telling...

Your point doesn't have anything to do with the books cited (which, although they overlap, draw on different sources and focus on different elements of the history and are based on 1000s of sources) or with the point being made (that historians do not recycle one another's claims as milkfox asserted, using, milkfox said, only a small number of sources over and over and copying other historians' claims instead of doing research).

So, since milkfox hasn't replied, I am curious, how do you explain his assertion about Holocaust historians in the light of these books and the sources they use? And which of the books have you read?

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

A better question would be why is the Jewish community is always accusing anyone who disagrees with their interests of being antisemitic.

Clayton,

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?

A review of the movie, published in the NSDAP monthly Unser Wille und Weg 10 (1940), was entitled "'The Eternal Jew': The Film of a 2000-Year Rat Migration" and stated

Quote:

The self-portrait Jewry offered the world was disgusting from the beginning. All that is overshadowed by the powerful examples in this new and most valuable film, The Eternal Jew. This film with its persuasive power must be shown everywhere where anti-Semitism is still questioned. No one will fail to shudder at the sneaking servility and dirty bartering of the Jews when they start out, at the perfidy, insidiousness and vulgarity of their methods, at the brutality and all-devouring hatred they exhibit when they reach their goal and control finance. . . .

Goebbels in his diary for 17-18 November 1938

Quote:

described our campaign against the Jews in the press

as an

Quote:

antisemitic crusade.

In January 1939 the Reich Foreign Office noted successes in foreign policy

Quote:

where a significant increase of antisemitism could be noted.

Goebbels held that the NSDAP wartime successes included that

Quote:

our propaganda theses--namely, socialism, anti-Bolshevism, and anti-Semitism--are slowly but surely penetrating the enemy camp.

Werner May, Deutscher National-Katechismus 2nd edition (Breslau: Verlag von Heinrich Handel, 1934), pp. 22-26:

Robert Ley, in 1944:

Quote:

Judah Must Die! 

There is thus in this struggle against Judah only a clear either/or. Any half measure leads to one's own destruction. Judah and its world must die if humanity wants to live; there is no other choice than to fight a pitiless battle against the Jews in every form, and not to give up until the last Jewish thinking has been destroyed everywhere. 

At the conclusion of this chapter, I wish to let the Jew Kurt Münzer speak about his race . . . [i]n his first novel "The Way to Zion," published in 1910. . . . The Jew Münzer was wrong in his superiority complex, since only 30 years later the Jew has been exterminated in Germany and Europe. 

We National Socialists have exterminated the Jewish spirit and the Jews themselves in Germany. We will not cease this struggle until the final judgment has been spoken against the Jews. Judah must die! Anti-Semitism will triumph throughout the world. . . . This war was started by the Jews, and is a Jewish war in its deepest roots. It will be the same as the Jewish reaction to the National Socialist uprising in 1923. The Jews believed then that their hirelings could exterminate the National Socialist movement with blatant force, murder, and prisons. They achieved the opposite. . . .

(Note that Robert Ley for one saw a connection between WWII and the extermination of the European Jews, as expressed in this quotation.)

Hitler, letter to Gemlich, September 16, 1919:

Quote:

The danger posed by Jewry for our people today finds expression in the undeniable aversion of wide sections of our people. The cause of this aversion is not to be found in a clear recognition of the consciously or unconsciously systematic and pernicious effect of the Jews as a totality upon our nation. Rather, it arises mostly from personal contact and from the personal impression which the individual Jew leaves--almost always an unfavorable one. For this reason, antisemitism is too easily characterized as a mere emotional phenomenon. And yet this is incorrect. Antisemitism as a political movement may not and cannot be defined by emotional impulses, but by recognition of the facts. The facts are these: First, Jewry is absolutely a race and not a religious association. Even the Jews never designate themselves as Jewish Germans, Jewish Poles, or Jewish Americans but always as German, Polish, or American Jews. Jews have never yet adopted much more than the language of the foreign nations among whom they live. . . . The deduction from all this is the following: an antisemitism based on purely emotional grounds will find its ultimate expression in the form of the pogrom. An antisemitism based on reason, however, must lead to systematic legal combatting and elimination of the privileges of the Jews, that which distinguishes the Jews from the other aliens who live among us (an Aliens Law). The ultimate objective [of such legislation] must, however, be the irrevocable removal of the Jews in general.

For both these ends a government of national strength, not of national weakness, is necessary.

Himmler, Kharkov, April 1943 (Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 572-574):

Quote:

Antisemitism is exactly the same as delousing. Getting rid of lice is not a question of ideology. It is a matter of cleanliness.

Kurt Hilmar Eitzen, "Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte," Unser Wille und Weg (6) 1936, pp. 309-310:

Quote:

Argument 9: "Anti-Semitism is only something for idiots!" Counterargument: One no longer hears this lie in National Socialist Germany. But one still reads it in the Jewish emigre press abroad, and Jews whisper it here and perhaps some Jewish lackeys still think that. We smile in response, and note that the Jews have never produced a single creative man, but that all great men in every country have been implacable opponents of the Jews. Some "intellectuals" may be distressed when one doubts their understanding, but we will follow the battle cry against Judah that all of the great men of our past have made!


Ernst Hiemer "Wann ist die jüdische Gefahr beseitigt?," Der Stürmer, #19/1942:

Quote:

Anti-Semitism is as old as Jewry itself. The Jew was a liar, a swindler, an exploiter, a troublemaker, a poisoner of the blood and a murderer from the beginning. The non-Jewish peoples thus responded to this people of criminals throughout history with contempt and rejection.
Over the centuries, repeated attempts were made to eliminate the Jewish danger. Under the assumption that the Jewish question was a religious matter, one attempted to render Jews harmless by forcing them to be baptized. It did not take long for people to realize that this was an entirely false solution. The conversion of Jews to Christianity was only on the surface. The Jews became "Christian" only to carry on as Jews.

Another way to solve the Jewish question was for the numerically superior non-Jewish population to absorb the Jewish minority. People believed that close contact between the Jews and the host peoples would, through equality, intermarriage and the mixing of blood, gradually "water down" the Jewish race and lead to its disappearance. The results of this mistake were catastrophic. The Jewish race was not "watered down"and rendered harmless, but rather the opposite: the blood of the non-Jewish peoples was poisoned in a grave way.

Experience showed non-Jewish peoples that incorporating the foreign Jewish element into their community not only did no good, but caused positive harm. Gradually people realized that there was only one effective method of dealing with Jewry: consistent separation from their own racial body.
Even during the Middle Ages numerous governments required Jews to distinguish themselves from their non-Jewish host peoples by wearing special clothing such as pointed Jewish hats, yellow symbols, rings, etc. As well-intentioned as these measures were, they had only limited success. Sometimes the Jews wore these symbols with pride. They were pleased that the "stupid Goy" themselves saw to it that only the "chosen people" wore such outward symbols. But other Jews whose business interests were not advanced by making the fact that they were Jews plain continued to go about the country as "non-Jews."

Another way of separating the Jews from the non-Jewish peoples was to force them to live in certain areas. The Jewish quarter became known as the "ghetto."

But this method also failed to achieve its goal. Some Jews welcomed the creation of the ghetto. Once again they had their "community abroad!" In the ghetto, Jewry's secret plans were forged! In the ghetto the Jews had their "staff." Those Jews who carried on their mischief among the non-Jews received their commands from the ghetto. The Jewish danger was greater than ever before.

Realizing that separating the Jews into their own quarter was not sufficient led various peoples to go still further. They expelled the Jews from their countries. This for the first time aroused the Jews. Now they saw a real danger! Now they had to act before it was too late!

Jewry is thousands of years old. Thanks to its devilish cleverness, it has often found a way out of nearly hopeless situations. Here too! The Jews let themselves be expelled without much fuss. They gathered on the other side of the border and waited and waited and waited. They waited for years and decades. They waited for the moment in which the knowledge of the Jewish danger gradually disappeared from people's minds. Then the Jews came back. Then they laid waste to the land more terribly than before.

Today Europe is ready to solve the Jewish question once and for all. It is thus good to learn from past mistakes and remember what history teaches.

And what does history teach us? It teaches:

The Jewish question is not only a German matter!

It is also not only a European problem! The Jewish question is a world question! Just as Germany is not safe from the Jews as long as even one Jew remains in Europe, so Europe cannot solve the Jewish question as long as Jews live in the rest of the world.

Jewry is organized world criminality. The Jewish danger will be eliminated only when Jewry throughout the world has ceased to exist.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

It can be found in the exact same place you found the "scale" of the box unit measurement and the teddy bear measurement you used in your calculations in the post right above this one.

I know. That's why you need to calculate it yourself, rather than simply read it off the chip bags' labels.

So how would you calculate average number of individual chips per bag, and what units would you use?

Originally Posted by abaddon

Here's the problem.

Snake made a huge blunder, which leaves him with but two choices:
A. admit the blunder

or

B: try to bluff his way out.

Clearly, Snake has chosen the blunderbus route, and will further sink himself into a morass of denier bovine fecal matter, because he thinks he understands whats going on but does not.

DK in action. He failed to even figure out a simple dimensional problem, even though I, and others pointed out his error.

Originally Posted by nomuse

In your scenario, only volume matters; each teddy bear has (presumed) the exact same volume.

The rest of your fantasy mathematics is extraneous, as it has been every time you have pretended to calculate grave capacity.

If you are doing capacity only by volume, then why are you even bothering to mention mass? Why is it included in the calculation? Why are you objecting to the numbers?

Of course, the rest of us are doing a calculation in which mass DOES matter, because volume is not fixed.

Say your imaginary clerk is filling boxes with uncooked rice. If he is asked to put 2x the mass of rice in a box, then he will need 2x the volume of box. He need not consider the volume of the individual grains, but only how efficiently they pack.

In the case under discussion, we are shoving a mulch of decayed organic matter into an open pit. The normal voids of a human body (lungs, sinuses) are mostly collapsed in this scenario. The pointy bits (aka extremities) hardly matter. The Pembrose packing efficiency comes very close to 1.

I do not think "potato chips per bags", "waste produced by person", "bodies/corpse", and “kg/corpse", “teddy bear/box”, “uncooked rice”, - including the imbecile attempt to explain why Wolframalpha is not producing imaginary results for density divided by mass - indicates anything wrong with my proposed arguments. Even the evidence offered from Wikibooks turned out to show my argument is supported by basic scientific principles.

How many a “body” per cubic meter is equivalent to a kilogram per cubic meter?

What is the scale for conversion of a "body" unit to another SI unit?

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?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2161

Anytime we have to do a calculation, it is important to include the units along with the actual numbers. (...) The g/L unit allows you to know it needs to be "grams divided by liters".

(...) Just as with numbers, units can be divided out when that specific unit appears in the numerator as well as the denominator.

(...) You can't subtract meters from kilometers without first converting the measurements into common units. Always check a measurement’s units to make sure that they are appropriate for a given calculation.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_Sc...roblem_Solving

[FluffyPersian]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

(...) You can't subtract meters from kilometers without first converting the measurements into common units. Always check a measurement’s units to make sure that they are appropriate for a given calculation.[/i]

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_Sc...roblem_Solving[/indent]

Yes, it's too bad the calculation in question involves DIVISION of two units of measurement. DIVIDING A by B, as you remember form arithmetic, is equivalent to multiplying A by the reciprocal of B. Or does that not apply to the Holocaust either?

And what do you know? There's a whole section of that very wiki site that focuses on how to MULTIPLY different types of units.

Are you purposely trying to advance arguments that sound completely "imbecilic", to use your own term from the post above?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

You are doing contradictory statements, as I had highlighted above.

You're trying to argue that "persons" a unit of measurement in (1)mass of waste generated per person but not in (2) body mass per person?, and I asked you why that is. Of course the two statements are contrdictory, genius. That's my point.

[quote=SnakeTongue;8371019]So, what the quantity of waste produced by each person have anything to do with the calculation to determine the capacity of a burial pit?[/QUOTE

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

What "energy density" and "per capita income" have anything to do with body volume?

And I've already given you the explanation for the both in the post you quoted. At this point, you're getting really desperate. (I'm going to sign up for the MDC with this prediction: Now that I've used the word "desperate" about SnakeTongue's argument, he will try to use it about me and possibly other debunkers in an upcoming post. For an extra $100K, I'll predict that he will use the term "hack writer" again.)

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

Robert Ley, in 1944:

Quote:

Many of you are familiar with the Purim story told as part of Aish Hatorah's Discovery Seminars.

But I bet you didn't know…

…the truth behind the myth.

(...)

After the first day of fighting, the king asks Esther what else she wants him to grant her. Esther asks the king to hang the 10 sons of Haman. But, the 10 sons have already been killed!

(...)

Then, Aish tells you that, as 10 Nazi war criminals were hung at Nuremberg, all together as one, just as with Haman's sons, one of the Nazis, Julius Streicher, called out "Purim Fest 1946!"

(...)

Streicher and the Nazis were close students of Jewish culture. They timed deportations and mass killings to coincide with Jewish holidays. They built anti-Jewish propaganda based on Jewish customs and observances – and one of their favorite holidays for this purpose was Purim.

Here's how Menachem Mendel tells the story:

I am reading Saul Friedländer’s Nazi Germany and the Jews: Volume I, The Years of Persecution (also see this post), and in his discussion of the infamous anti-Semetic newspaper Der Stürmer, I happen to come across this timely mention of Purim (emphasis added).

(...)

Purim was a holiday which was important to the Nazis because it showed how bloodthirsty Jews really are.

The numerous confessions made by the Jews show that the execution of ritual murders is a law to the Talmud Jew. The former chief rabbi, and later monk, Teofite, declared that the ritual murders take place especially on the Jewish Purim in memory of the Persian murders, and Passover in memory of the murder of Christ. (Der Stürmer, no. 14)
In the Book of Esther, we read that in one bloody night the Jews slaughtered and destroyed 75,000 Persians. Even today, the Jew celebrates Purim to commemorate his great triumph. (Robert Ley, Pesthauch der Welt)

Purim was featured in the Nazi propoganda film The Eternal Jew and the Nazis saw Purim as part of a pattern of Jewish responsibility for tragic events in human history.

http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/fai...fest-1946.html

Robert Ley, in 1944: (Note that Robert Ley for one saw a connection between WWII and the extermination of the European Jews, as expressed in this quotation.)

Hitler, letter to Gemlich, September 16, 1919:

Quote:

Rabbi Marvin Hier of the L.A.-based Simon Wiesenthal Center paid $150,000 to a private dealer last month to obtain the 1919 writing, known as the Gemlich letter. It originally was found by American soldier William F. Ziegler in a Nazi archive near Nuremberg, Germany, in the final months of World War II.

(...)

Hier said the letter was typed by Hitler on a German army typewriter and that it “set the gold standard about man’s inhumanity to man.” At the time it was written, Hitler was serving in the army, and had taken to riling up the troops with his anti-Semitic rants. A superior officer urged Hitler to put his ideas on paper.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/...early-as-1919/

Himmler, Kharkov, April 1943 (Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1946, Vol. IV, p. 572-574):

Quote:

Himmler was a seventh ray occultist. He had a great interest in astrology, reincarnation, herbalism, and in magic, ceremonial rites, rituals and mystical orders. (...)

Himmler’s Sun Sign was Libra. His decision (“Let choice be made”) determined life or death (mostly death) for millions. The seventh ray combining with Libra made him interested in the “perfect form” and, indeed, those considered racially pure or qualified were selected according to many superficial, external criteria (seventh ray)—blond hair, blue eyes, and the shape and proportion of head, body and limbs. (...)

We have - I would say, as very consistent National Socialists, taken the question of blood as our starting point. We were the first really to solve the problem of blood by action, and in this connection, by problem of blood, we of course do not mean antisemitism. Antisemitism is exactly the same as delousing. Getting rid of lice is not a question of ideology. It is a matter of cleanliness.

http://www.makara.us/04mdr/01writing...os/Himmler.htm

Kurt Hilmar Eitzen, "Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte," Unser Wille und Weg (6) 1936, pp. 309-310:

Quote:

While watching Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the viewer is, on the surface, surely taken by the wand waving, potion drinking, lovable wizardry on screen. But if one needs to look only a little closer to see the demonstration of black propaganda and the strong parallels to Nazi propaganda during WWII. At the core Voldemort (and his army) sought to unite society, or at least the majority of society against the weaker. (...)

The strategies of the Third Reich and the Ministry of Magic are very similar; they both used posters, pamphlets, and radio to spread the news quickly and efficiently to the German citizens and the wizarding worlds. Punishment in both cases were also similar. Being Jewish or a muggle, or even helping a Jew or a muggle could result in loss of one’s job, status, and home or imprisonment. Under Hitler’s regime this meant being shipped to Auschwitz or other concentration camps; in Harry Potter it meant life in Azkaban.

(...) This film just shows how relevant propaganda still is.

Kurt Hilmar Eitzen, “Zehn Knüppel wider die Judenknechte,” Unser Wille und Weg (6) 1936, pp. 309-310.

http://keithharing.edublogs.org/2011...er-propaganda/

Ernst Hiemer "Wann ist die jüdische Gefahr beseitigt?," Der Stürmer, #19/1942:

Quote:

These World War II era cartoons are from Lustige Blätter, a weekly German humor magazine. The magazine did not carry caricatures, even, friendly ones, of Hitler or other German leaders. There were many caricatures of Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin. These issues, all published during World War II, contain a mixture of overt satirizing enemy countries as well as relatively apolitical jokes and cartoons. There is also a lot of anti-Jewish material.

(...)

Jewry is organized world criminality. The Jewish danger will be eliminated only when Jewry thoughout the world has ceased to exist.

(...)

The only remaining alternative is Americanism. As strange as it may sound, it is the only serious competition to National Socialism's racial worldview in the struggle for the youth, in the struggle for the future of humanity. In the end, however, it is only a forerunner of Bolshevism.

http://www.radioislam.org/cartoons/g...w2/satiric.htm

Quote:

satire

noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire:
a stinging satire on American politics
a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.
(in Latin literature) a literary miscellany, especially a poem ridiculing prevalent vices or follies.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...on=us&q=satire

There is the "focus on different elements of the history" which are "based on 1000s of sources"!

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

Your point doesn't have anything to do with the books cited (which, although they overlap, draw on different sources and focus on different elements of the history and are based on 1000s of sources) or with the point being made (that historians do not recycle one another's claims as milkfox asserted, using, milkfox said, only a small number of sources over and over and copying other historians' claims instead of doing research).

So, since milkfox hasn't replied, I am curious, how do you explain his assertion about Holocaust historians in the light of these books and the sources they use? And which of the books have you read?

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by FluffyPersian

Originally Posted by FluffyPersian

No, the result of Robert's calculation is precisely corpses per cubic meter. The reason you got this wrong is that you misunderstood the unit of measurement in the denominator of Robert's (and Mattogno's) calculation.

The numerator of Robert's calculation is density, kg/m^3. The denominator in Robert's calculation--the number you and Dogzilla tried to debate using photos of individuals--is kg/corpse. (Robert left the "/corpse" part unstated, probably because it's obvious.)

The result of his calculation, then, is

(kg/m^3)/(kg/corpse) = corpse/m^3

or, in English, corpses per cubic meter.

Yes, it's too bad the calculation in question involves DIVISION of two units of measurement. DIVIDING A by B, as you remember form arithmetic, is equivalent to multiplying A by the reciprocal of B. Or does that not apply to the Holocaust either?

You proposed that "body per cubic meter" is equivalent to "kg/corpse". So which is the common unit to express "corpse"?

This:

A * 1 / B = A / B

...is not this:

(kg/m^3) / (kg/corpse) = corpse / m^3

Originally Posted by FluffyPersian

And what do you know? There's a whole section of that very wiki site that focuses on how to MULTIPLY different types of units.

Are you purposely trying to advance arguments that sound completely "imbecilic", to use your own term from the post above?

You're trying to argue that "persons" a unit of measurement in (1)mass of waste generated per person but not in (2) body mass per person?, and I asked you why that is. Of course the two statements are contrdictory, genius. That's my point.

Quote:

Both examples are used to measure mass for the average person in a population. What they have to do with each other is that the unit is the same for both, kg/person.

And I've already given you the explanation for the both in the post you quoted. At this point, you're getting really desperate. (I'm going to sign up for the MDC with this prediction: Now that I've used the word "desperate" about SnakeTongue's argument, he will try to use it about me and possibly other debunkers in an upcoming post. For an extra $100K, I'll predict that he will use the term "hack writer" again.)

You did not gave any explanation at all. You only made a contradictory statement, as highlighted above.

So, how "kg" of waste generated by a person is applied to determine the capacity of a hypothetical space filled with dead bodies?

[nomuse]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

You proposed that "body per cubic meter" is equivalent to "kg/corpse". So which is the common unit to express "corpse"?

No. That's stupid and wrong. kg/corpse can not be used to solve corpse/m^3 without knowing kg/M^3. You are dropping units by the wayside again.

[Tomtomkent]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

You proposed that "body per cubic meter" is equivalent to "kg/corpse".

No they didn't. Which makes the rest of your post gibberish.

It was pointed out that the word "corpse" and "body" are equivallent.

[Dcdrac]

There is the "focus on different elements of the history" which are "based on 1000s of sources"!

That sentence is meaningless utterly meaningless

[erwinl]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

I do not think "potato chips per bags", "waste produced by person", "bodies/corpse", and “kg/corpse", “teddy bear/box”, “uncooked rice”, - including the imbecile attempt to explain why Wolframalpha is not producing imaginary results for density divided by mass - indicates anything wrong with my proposed arguments. Even the evidence offered from Wikibooks turned out to show my argument is supported by basic scientific principles.

How many a “body” per cubic meter is equivalent to a kilogram per cubic meter?

What is the scale for conversion of a "body" unit to another SI unit?

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?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2161

Anytime we have to do a calculation, it is important to include the units along with the actual numbers. (...) The g/L unit allows you to know it needs to be "grams divided by liters".

(...) Just as with numbers, units can be divided out when that specific unit appears in the numerator as well as the denominator.

(...) You can't subtract meters from kilometers without first converting the measurements into common units. Always check a measurement’s units to make sure that they are appropriate for a given calculation.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_Sc...roblem_Solving

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.

[LemmyCaution]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

There is the "focus on different elements of the history" which are "based on 1000s of sources"!

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?

[Robert Muehlenkamp]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

The correct size of the box is 0.44 cubic meters. Moreover, as I have already stated, you are changing something which you do not even know why is there, so just give it up. That is not your work and not your method.

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.

[Bluespaceoddity]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

3 million? What happened to the 6 million?

I could be wrong but my guess is that 000063 meant Polish Jews. What we can count on is that, unlike you, 000063 will come back and clarify.

Whether you offer an alternative explanation for what happened to subsets of victims first or try to tackle the victims of the Shoah as a whole right away is somewhat immaterial but what happened to all these people is indeed the question you need to answer - if you want to have any impact here whatsoever. So ... welcome back to this thread, Clayton Moore. Cyrix686 would really like you to reply to his brief and pointed query about tictacs - whether or not you use them? - and a few days ago I was actually looking forward to your response regarding the letters written and sent by the Dutch Red Cross informing people that their relatives and friends had perished "[...], in or in the vicinity of Auschwitz, as a result of sickness, exhaustion or gassing" or "[...], in or in the vicinity of Auschwitz, died as a result of gas asphyxiation". During your brief absence from this thread have you pondered why the Red Cross sent such letters in the 1940s and early 50s?

Can you pick up where you left off? In a way I kinda hope so because I uploaded some images for you along those lines and while I don't want to distract Snaketongue from his seminal work in artithmetic I am nevertheless hoping he has time to glance at those documents sideways in light of previous interest he showed in records from the Netherlands.

The first image I uploaded to my profile is a larger version of the picture in my avatar. It is a scan of one page from a Westerbork deportation list. The mother of one of the Nebenklaeger in the Demjanjuk trial is listed among those 2511 people who were on that 18.5.1943 transport. She was a member of the Portuguese-Jewish community in the Netherlands. Her husband and son weren't on the train but survived in hiding.

The second image is the October 26, 1948 Red Cross letter received by her family informing them that she had died on or about May 21, 1943 in Sobibor as a result of gas asphyxiation.

Both these documents were submitted into evidence during the Demjanjuk trial along with a.o. the letter she had written on the day before she was force to board the train telling her relatives how much she was looking forward to reuniting with them. She never came back from the East. For some reason, Holocaust deniers have been unable to submit evidence that she didn't die there and Iwan Demjanjuk has since died while awaiting appeal after being convicted for Beihilfe zum Mord. Bit of a missed opportunity if all the bluster from you guys about knowing the whereabouts of "missing Jews" is correct, isn't it?

There are Holocaust deniers who claim that the Red Cross never heard statements from survivors regarding the existence of gas chambers but these letters and the statements on which they are in part based demonstrate clearly that that position is untenable. Since Milkfox still watches thousands of witness videos on a daily basis he might know that two of these witnesses participated in recording video interviews for the Shoah Foundation Institute. All three had previously given testimony in earlier court cases. During the case against Karl Frenzel a.o. in Hagen for example. As Roberto Muehlenkamp has pointed out, in several blogs and fora, they are listed among the credible witnesses in documents prepared for that trial. For some reason I doubt Milkfox counted them in his 2 nameless comments so far. Maybe he too isn't that good with numbers.

Why did the Red Cross record statements from these people, sent out letters in the 1940s and why did a Red Cross representative testify at the Demjajuk trial in 2010 affirming that their records show that thousands of Jews deported from the Netherlands were gassed on arrival in Sobibor? Do these actions not directly contradict your earlier claims about statements attributed to the Red Cross?

From your comments it seems to me that there isn't anything that could possibly convince you that you are wrong but you did suggest that you might accept the judgment of the Red Cross.
Are you content with the image the links you choose paint of you?

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by nomuse

Originally Posted by Snaketongue

You proposed that "body per cubic meter" is equivalent to "kg/corpse". So which is the common unit to express "corpse"?

No. That's stupid and wrong. kg/corpse can not be used to solve corpse/m^3 without knowing kg/M^3. You are dropping units by the wayside again.

Originally Posted by Tomtomkent

No they didn't. Which makes the rest of your post gibberish.

It was pointed out that the word "corpse" and "body" are equivallent.

The only one proposing that was FluffyPersian.

In lack of scientific support for your imbecile arguments, you can only insist on contradictory statements, with no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. As I had stated, density divided per mass results in reciprocal cubic meter. If there is an unusual measurement present in the calculation, them the measurement must have a fixed scale for unit conversion.

This is amusing.

Originally Posted by FluffyPersian

No, the result of Robert's calculation is precisely corpses per cubic meter. The reason you got this wrong is that you misunderstood the unit of measurement in the denominator of Robert's (and Mattogno's) calculation.

The numerator of Robert's calculation is density, kg/m^3. The denominator in Robert's calculation--the number you and Dogzilla tried to debate using photos of individuals--is kg/corpse. (Robert left the "/corpse" part unstated, probably because it's obvious.)

The result of his calculation, then, is

(kg/m^3)/(kg/corpse) = corpse/m^3

or, in English, corpses per cubic meter.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2331

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

As I had stated, density divided per mass results in reciprocal cubic meter.

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.

Quote:

If there is an unusual measurement present in the calculation, them the measurement must have a fixed scale for unit conversion.

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.

Quote:

This is amusing.

It's sad, is what it is.

[nomuse]

Has Snake constructed a great new example of GIGO here?

Perhaps he should plug in some more nonsense units to Wolfram Alpha, and then regale us all with how "Fruits per cubic bat" IS TOO a legit calculation.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

The only one proposing that was FluffyPersian.

In lack of scientific support for your imbecile arguments, you can only insist on contradictory statements, with no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. As I had stated, density divided per mass results in reciprocal cubic meter. If there is an unusual measurement present in the calculation, them the measurement must have a fixed scale for unit conversion.

This is amusing.



http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=2331

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.

[SnakeTongue]

Originally Posted by erwinl

Originally Posted by 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]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

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]

Originally Posted by abaddon

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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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!

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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!

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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!

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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?

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Muehlenkamp

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]

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

Originally Posted by LemmyCaution

(...) 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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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

Quote:

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!

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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:

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

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

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by Clayton Moore

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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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]

Originally Posted by nomuse

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

Originally Posted by nomuse

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...

Originally Posted by nomuse

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

Originally Posted by nomuse

"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!

Originally Posted by nomuse

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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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]

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Quote:

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.

Originally Posted by TSR

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 Clayton Moore

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?