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.