View Single Post
Old 11th June 2012, 02:17 AM   #2406
Robert Muehlenkamp
New Blood
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
So, first you admitted the method is not yours, but then you proceed to admit the method “was good enough” for you. This is an explicit admission of plagiarism.
Utter nonsense. When I use Mattogno's own method to refute his claims, I'm not plagiarizing him.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You did not present any method from yourself to explain why Carlo Mattogno's method was wrong.
I didn't say Mattogno's calculation method was wrong. My argument is that he used unrealistic data in his calculations, like assuming that adult ghetto Jews weighed 70 kg on average. Hilariously unrealistic.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You just copied his method and presented it as your “realistic” method.
I didn't say the method was mine, I just replaced Mattogno's unrealistic assumptions by more realistic ones.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Now you are even suggesting that my “method may turn out more precise results”, which only indicates you are going to proceed exactly as you did with Carlo Mattogno's method.
Exactly. The method is not bad if one applies it correctly, as you did not.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You are going to admit that my method is right, but I used it wrong.
Unlike you, I'm always open to learning. And you did use it wrong.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
If you doubt it, than it is up to you present the evidence which proves my evidence is wrong.
What "evidence" are you talking about?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You failed to present a single picture where semi-starved people of 1.60m and 43Kg are being forced to march down a street.
I don't remember your having asked for a picture, but if you're interested in pictures showing what ghetto inhabitants tended to look like, I can point you to some as soon as I can post links. Or I can do something like that right away. On the Holocaust Controversies blog site, article «Bełżec mass graves and "Revisionist" mathematics», you find the following comments to similar claims made by one of your kindred spirits:

Update, 07.06.2012: You just got to love the comment of a CODOH genius writing as "trevor". The genius posted the following:

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

The adults from the photos below look much more than 43 kg body weight.
This remark is followed by a long litany of photographs showing ghetto adults (none from the ghettos from which people were deported to Bełżec, unless I missed something) that supposedly weigh more than 43 kg according to "trevor"'s worthy (and unsubstantiated) opinion.

Apart from the fact that his photos show quite a few people who look underweight to me, what the genius forgets is that the 43 kg (just 6 kg below what the BMI still considers normal weight for an adult 1.60 meters tall) are an assumed average weight for ghetto populations in which some were better off than the average whereas the overwhelming majority was malnourished, often down to starvation level.

What the genius also forgets is that, when it came to deporting people to places like Bełżec, the Nazis first took away mostly the children, the elderly and those young adults that were not in a comparatively good shape, and left behind those who were in a comparatively good shape, as these could be used to work for the German war industry. Thus it would be no susprise if, for instance, Jews captured during the Warsaw Uprising of 1943 were better fed than would correspond to the mid-value of the BMI table's "underweight" range. Those Warsaw Jews usually ended up at Majdanek and not at Treblinka (where bodies were being burned right away at that time) let alone Bełżec (which had been closed down months before).

Regarding the Jews from the ghettos in Eastern Poland deported to Bełżec, Charles Provan provides the following sourced information:

All of the seven people in my experiment were healthy and well nourished. The Jews of eastern Poland (and specifically, Lvov/Lemberg, which is where the Jews of Gerstein's account are said to have come from) were, in August of 1942, ill-fed and even starving.24

In addition to the above, according to ethnological studies done by Dr. Otto Von Verschuer, the Jews of Poland were about three inches shorter than the average German.25 This comparative smallness is confirmed by other authorities, notably John R. Baker and Lothrop Stoddard.26 Since Jews are smaller, this would probably reduce their cubic volume by approximately 5%, when compared to non-Jews of European descent, the ethnic background of all the people in my experiment.
"trevor"'s concluding remark:

If you go through all the photos, you will surely find some emaciated inhabitants of ghettos, just like some obese ones. Majority of ghetto inhabitants are neither emaciated nor obese. They are certainly more than 43 kg.
should be slapped around the fellow's ears, especially the part about "some emaciated inhabitants", considering what Raul Hilberg wrote about conditions and mortality in the Polish ghettos:

The Jewish community of Poland was dying. In the last prewar year, 1938, the monthly average death rate of Łódź was 0.09 percent. In 1941, the rate jumped to 0.63 percent, and during the first six months of 1942 it was 1.49. The same pattern, compressed into a single year, may be noted for the Warsaw ghetto, where the monthly death rate during the first half of 1941 was 0.63, and in the second half 1.47. In their rise to this plateau, the two cities were almost alike, even though Łódź was a hermetically closed ghetto, which had its own currency and in which the black market was essentially the product of internal barter, whereas Warsaw was engaged in extensive smuggling "quietly tolerated" by the Germans. The birthrates in both cities were extremely low: Łódź had one birth for every twenty deaths, while in Warsaw at the beginning of 1942 the ratio was 1:45. The implication of these figures is quite clear. A population with a net loss of one percent a month shrinks to less than five percent of its original size in just twenty-four years.

In absolute figures the long lasting Łódź ghetto, with a cumulative population (including new arrivals and births) of about 200,000, had more than 45,000 dead. The Warsaw Ghetto, with around 470,000 inhabitants over the period from the end of 1941 to the end of the mass deportations in September 1942, buried 83,000 people.
The photos taken in the Warsaw ghetto by German soldier Heinz Joest in autumn 1941 (collection starts here) were obviously quite representative of ghetto life.
You'll have to look up the blog for the link to Joest's photographs, as I can't post it here.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I did not read any article or book from Carlo Mattogno.
You didn't miss anything, trust me.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Moreover, if you think Carlo Mattogno’s method is “rudimentary”, why did you use it?
For the pleasure of stewing Mattogno in his own sauce, and because I didn't realize how rudimentary Mattogno's method is until confronted with the more precise method you misapplied.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
AGAIN: Body per cubic meter is not a measurement! Density of Kg per cubic meter divided per mass does not result in body per cubic meter, but in inverse volume:
[indent]v^-1 = 663.40Kg/m^3 / 34Kg


Reciprocal length or inverse length is a measurement used in several branches of science and mathematics. As the reciprocal of length, common units used for this measurement include the reciprocal metre or inverse metre (m−1), the reciprocal centimetre or inverse centimetre (cm−1), and, in optics, the dioptre.


This is complete nonsense.
Your mathematic wisdom is not very interesting indeed, and I don't see how it's relevant. Whether or not "bodies per cubic meter" is a mathematical measurement, you have to establish how many bodies with a certain average mass and weight could be fit into a cubic meter of grave space in order to establish how many such bodies could be buried in a grave of certain dimensions. Based on Provan's experiment, one can establish how many kilograms of body mass could be made to fit into one cubic meter, still dressed and with enough free space for them to breathe. This density can then be translated into a number of bodies by assuming a certain average weight per body. Bodies per cubic meter may or not be a measurement in a strict mathematical sense, but what does that matter?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You cannot even write down basic mathematical formulations and you pretend that my formula is "deeply flawed"... Fail.
A classic non-argument. Whether or not I can write down "basic mathematical formulations", it doesn't change the fact that the calculations I made on an Excel spreadsheet are correct and that they prove your calculations to be flawed.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
From where does the “box smaller” come from? There is no such experiment with such results. You are applying unknown values to my formula.
The "unknown values" come from the logic that the hypothetical test group of 3 adults à 43 kg and 5 children à 16 kg has a somewhat lower mass and weight than Provan's test group, so if you want to simulate how many persons of this hypothetical test group Provan could have fit into a box about as tightly as he fit his test group into a 0.44 m³ box, you have to make the hypothetical test box smaller than Mattogno's test box. I did that by multiplying the volume of Mattogno's test box with the result of dividing the weight of the hypothetical test group (209 kg) through the weight of Mattogno's test group (266 kg).

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
Mathematics extend (a graph, curve, or range of values) by inferring unknown values from trends in the known data:
(as adjective extrapolated)
a set of extrapolated values

More irrelevant math babble. If your calculations are correct, how come you managed to fit only 14 people with an average weight of 34 kg into one cubic meter when Provan fit 18 people with an average weight of 33.25 kg into one cubic meter? How come Provan's test group occupied less volume on average than 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 were lower than those of the former? How come each adult and each child in the hypothetical test group occupies exactly the same volume in the test box according to your calculations, regardless of whether you double the weights, cut them in half or uniformly multiply them by or divide them through any given factor, as I demonstrated in this thread's post 2324?

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
I am not going to discuss mass grave capacity with you anymore. It has become obvious you cannot refute my mathematical methodology with essential evidence. So you only can resort to proceed as you have previously proceeded with Carlo Mattogno's method: you admitted that my method is correct, but only in your imaginary terms without presenting any method of your own.
Actually it wasn't my intention to refute your mathematical methodology, except for the obvious mistake you made in keeping the size of the text box equal despite the much reduced mass and weight of the hypothetical test group. And I also showed you a simpler calculation method, which leads to more or less the same results:

You could also have made things easier for yourself by simply considering the following:

1. Provan's experiment gives us 266 kg in 0.44 m³, which is the equivalent of 604.545455 kg/m³.

2. 604.545455 kg correspond to 17.780749 bodies with an average weight of 34 kg.

3. Thus 17.780749 bodies with an aveage weight of 34 kg fit into 1 cubic meter of grave space.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
You fail.
I'd say you fail to convince anyone with your pointless lecture about mathematics, which doesn't change the fact that you messed up your calculations or (assuming you are the mathematical genius you claim to be) tried to take your fellow forum members and our readers for a ride.

Originally Posted by SnakeTongue View Post
[You Tube link]
Who are you trying to convince with your rhetoric, other than yourself?
Robert Muehlenkamp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top