Real World Math vs Fantasy Land Math

[Archie]

Over and over in Holocaust debates we see disputes over calculations. Cremation, fuel, grave space, things related to gassing, and so on. I want to highlight a general point that is often lost in these arguments. This is intended to be a sort of meta-discussion. Some decades ago, Arthur Butz, a PhD electrical engineer, educated at MIT and Minnesota, offered the following very sensible comments regarding theoretical vs realistic calculations (from Supplement 3 of Hoax).

In considering cremation capacity, it is difficult to reach conclusions on a purely technical basis because of the distinction that must unavoidably be made between what is physically possible and what is practically attainable. For example, although I am told that my car can move at about 100 miles per hour, I know I cannot drive the 20 miles that separates my home in Evanston from the University of Chicago in twelve minutes; too many obstacles intervene. The technical data provides two numbers from which only an irrelevant conclusion can be drawn, whose only value is that the arithmetic is correct.

Butz is of course completely right about this. And subsequently we have seen the arguments go off in precisely the misguided direction he warned against.

Muehlenkamp Math

The person who has really taken this to an artform is no doubt Roberto Muehlenkamp. In his calculations for wood requirements or mass grave capacity, Muehlenkamp does not even do the sort of super naive calculation Butz refers to. He goes beyond this, introducing great complexity in order to go even more extreme than what you can get with naive arithmetic.

Stacking Extreme Assumptions

If you are trying to estimate how much wood is required to cremate a human body, how do you come up with a silly value like 15 kg? The answer is that you break the problem down into a series of assumptions and for every individual assumption you pick the most extreme value you can think of in whichever direction is convenient for your argument. There is a compounding/multiplicative effect here and just by changing around assumptions you can get final answers that vary by orders of magnitude. If you assume a tiny body size AND big decomposition AND low fuel to mass ratio AND favorable weather AND ... you can end up with a much lower number. But you have to be right about ALL of those jumps.

The better way to do it is to consider the range of plausible assumptions and see how robust your conclusion is to changes in these assumptions. And, as Butz pointed out, you really need to sanity check your results with actual real world experience.

Possibility and Impossibility are Contextual

We must be precise here. Generally speaking, when we talk about what is possible or not possible, there is some implied framework, e.g., a particular technology, a particular context. Within a certain framework, X may not be feasible. If you change the framework, maybe it would be.

For instance, suppose you want to travel from NYC to LA by car. Google maps says this will take around 41 hours. This is an estimate based on realistic assumptions for traffic, average speed, etc., but it also assumes continuous driving (not realistic). Most people stop for food, sleep, gas, and these practical considerations would stretch the trip out to multiple days in most cases.

Now, we could ask, is it *possible* to drive from NYC to LA in, say, 40 hours? Sure. Is that practically possible on a family trip? No. That framework has a lot of practical constraints. Could we do it a lot faster if we dedicated ourselves to the task? Sure. People actually do this. It's called the Cannonball Run and the current record is 25 hrs and 39 mins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannonball_Run_challenge

The record time works out to an average speed of 112 mph. To achieve such high speeds, they make all sorts of special preparations. They use a fast car obviously (preferably one that doesn't look flashy). They go when traffic will be light.
They have extra fuel tanks. They use various tricks to avoid getting pulled over by the cops.

But let's say you had a big budget to work with and had government cooperation. That changes the framework and changes what is possible. If instead of a car, we assume an SR-71, then you could say it takes something like an hour. Different framework!

What Actually Happened?

So often in these debates, it feels like revisionists are arguing that the stories are wildly implausible if not outright physically impossible while the other side seems to be arguing merely for possibility. And they seem to equate mere possibility with showing that it actually happened.

[Nessie]

... Some decades ago, Arthur Butz, a PhD electrical engineer, educated at MIT and Minnesota, offered the following very sensible comments regarding theoretical vs realistic calculations (from Supplement 3 of Hoax).

In considering cremation capacity, it is difficult to reach conclusions on a purely technical basis because of the distinction that must unavoidably be made between what is physically possible and what is practically attainable. For example, although I am told that my car can move at about 100 miles per hour, I know I cannot drive the 20 miles that separates my home in Evanston from the University of Chicago in twelve minutes; too many obstacles intervene. The technical data provides two numbers from which only an irrelevant conclusion can be drawn, whose only value is that the arithmetic is correct.

Butz is of course completely right about this...

Butz argues that unless he can work out how it was done, to his satisfaction, or unless he finds a claim believable, then it did not happen, the claimant lied.

He fails to understand that people are poor at estimating time, a fact proven by numerous studies and experiments. If someone claims to be able to do that drive in 12 minutes, it is more than likely they have underestimated how long it takes. Butz cannot prove that the claimer is lying.

Germans designing and building functioning gas chambers is both physically possible and practically attainable. That Butz finds it hard to believe they did build gas chambers, does not therefore mean they did not. His is an argument from incredulity, that he is convinced is correct because of his technical approach. Revisionists are so certain about the validity of their technical approach, that they just cannot recognise it is logically flawed.

[Nessie]

...

What Actually Happened?

So often in these debates, it feels like revisionists are arguing that the stories are wildly implausible if not outright physically impossible while the other side seems to be arguing merely for possibility. And they seem to equate mere possibility with showing that it actually happened.

Revisionists do illogically argue that because they find "stories" that "wildly implausible" or "physically impossible", therefore those stories did not happen and everyone lied. They use the argument from incredulity.

"The other side" argue that the narrative which is evidenced is far more likely to have happened that the narrative that is not, it is evidence, not argument that proves what happened and what happened was not "physically impossible".

[DavidM]

Germans designing and building functioning gas chambers is both physically possible and practically attainable. That Butz finds it hard to believe they did build gas chambers, does not therefore mean they did not. His is an argument from incredulity, that he is convinced is correct because of his technical approach. Revisionists are so certain about the validity of their technical approach, that they just cannot recognise it is logically flawed.

Hello Nessie-
Excuse me but Fritz Berg pointed out the Germans built several barn-like fumigation facilities for trains...perfect if they wanted to quickly and easily gas thousands of people at once.

But Pressac has pointed out the the 4 cremation facilities at Birkenau were designed just as cremation facilities as part
of a 130,000 Soviet POW Camp in 1941-1942 See quote below.

The obvious point is that an easy simple large scale homicidal gas chamber could have been built...but wasn't.
Instead educated Believers, following Pressac claim, that the part of the cremation facilities designed and built as morgues were CONVERTED into gas chambers sometime after June 1942.


[/quote]

The main orders issued by Himmler as a result of his visit to Auschwitz KL [Concentration Camp] on 1st March 1941 were that the Stammlager [main camp] should be extended to receive 30,000 prisoners and that a camp should be built at Birkenau to hold an expected 100,000 Soviet prisoners of war.

The Camp Commandant, Rudolf Hoess, despite all his good will as an old Party Member, was technically incapable of undertaking and completing such a task, but nevertheless the extension of the Stammlager was begun in summer 1941, using bricks from the demolition of the Zasole district, situated immediately to she north of the KL.

In order to build the Birkenau POW Camp (Kriegsgefangenenlager or KGL). Amtsgruppe C (Bauwesen/Construction) of the SS Wirstschaftsverwaltungshauptamt or SS WVHA [SS Economic and Administrative Main Office] in Berlin detached SS Captain Karl Bischoff as Sonderbauleiter [Special Head of Construction], later to become “Leiter der Zentral Bauleitung / Head of the Central Construction Management” of the Auschwitz region.

The first plan of the KGL was produced on 7th October 1941, drawn by Fritz Ertl, then an SS Corporal, and approved by Bischoff on the following day [Document 1]. The camp comprised three parts: a Quarantine Camp (the future B.I) containing a "Leichenhalle/ Corpse hall" and two internment camps (Camps I and II, whose total area was a little greater than that of the future B.II). There was no plan for a rail link with the nearby Auschwitz station, A week later, on 14th October 1941, a second plan was produced [Document 2] on the same basis as the earlier one, this time including barracks for the SS guards to the east and a double track railway running from the station and ending between Camp I and the Quarantine Camp. still equipped with a "Leichenhalle" to serve as a morgue to store corpses before their transfer to the Stammlager for incineration in the crematorium there.

With an overall total of 130,000 persons expected for the Stammlager and KGL together, it was foreseeable that the two or three 2 muffle furnaces of the single existing crematorium (i.e. 1 muffle for 22,000 or 32,000 prisoners) would prove insufficient. At the end of October 1941, Bischoff had a conversation with Kurt Prüfer, Chief Engineer of the “Krematoriumbau” department of the firm Topf & Söhne of Erfurt, concerning the construction of a new crematorium in the Stammlager (behind the existing one), the new building to have a furnace room with five 3 muffle furnaces, two “Leichenkeller” [basement morgues] and a dissecting room, all these rooms being ventilated (having air extraction systems). The components for the furnaces were to be delivered within three months [Document 3]. This would bring the number of muffles for the two camps up to 21, or roughly 1 muffle for 6,000 prisoners. This plan for a new normal crematorium implied the temporary storage of the KGL dead in morgues in Birkenau before cremation in the Stammlager.

The Drawing Office of the Bauleitung produced three plans for this project in November and December 1941, entitled “Neubau-Kremat [orium]” and numbered 870 (elevation), 871 (ground floor plan) and 875 (furnace installation).

Bauleitung drawing 885 of 5th January 1942 [Document 4] showed a further extension to the KGL, now planned for a probable population of l10,000 to 120,000 prisoners. Camps I and II were extended, to reach their final dimensions, those a of the second and third construction stages (B.II and B.III). The Quarantine Camp still contained its “Leichenhalle” in the northwest corner. In addition, Camp I now contained in the west a “Verbrennungshalle / Cremation hall” with FIVE “Leichenhallen”. Camp II was given similar installations. Though the incineration capacity of these “Verbrennungshalle” is not known, it must have been very limited in view of the disturbing number of storage morgues planned (ten), probably half underground structures as were later the Leichenkeller of Krematorien II and III.

https://phdn.org/archives/holocaust-his ... 0183.shtml

[Nessie]

Germans designing and building functioning gas chambers is both physically possible and practically attainable. That Butz finds it hard to believe they did build gas chambers, does not therefore mean they did not. His is an argument from incredulity, that he is convinced is correct because of his technical approach. Revisionists are so certain about the validity of their technical approach, that they just cannot recognise it is logically flawed.

Hello Nessie-
Excuse me but Fritz Berg pointed out the Germans built several barn-like fumigation facilities for trains...perfect if they wanted to quickly and easily gas thousands of people at once.

But Pressac has pointed out the the 4 cremation facilities at Birkenau were designed just as cremation facilities as part
of a 130,000 Soviet POW Camp in 1941-1942 See quote below.

The obvious point is that an easy simple large scale homicidal gas chamber could have been built...but wasn't.
Instead educated Believers, following Pressac claim, that the part of the cremation facilities designed and built as morgues were CONVERTED into gas chambers sometime after June 1942.

It does not matter what revisionists think about what would or would not have happened. That is fantasy land. What matter is what is evidenced to have happened. That is the real world.

[TlsMS93]

Germans designing and building functioning gas chambers is both physically possible and practically attainable. That Butz finds it hard to believe they did build gas chambers, does not therefore mean they did not. His is an argument from incredulity, that he is convinced is correct because of his technical approach. Revisionists are so certain about the validity of their technical approach, that they just cannot recognise it is logically flawed.

Hello Nessie-
Excuse me but Fritz Berg pointed out the Germans built several barn-like fumigation facilities for trains...perfect if they wanted to quickly and easily gas thousands of people at once.

But Pressac has pointed out the the 4 cremation facilities at Birkenau were designed just as cremation facilities as part
of a 130,000 Soviet POW Camp in 1941-1942 See quote below.

The obvious point is that an easy simple large scale homicidal gas chamber could have been built...but wasn't.
Instead educated Believers, following Pressac claim, that the part of the cremation facilities designed and built as morgues were CONVERTED into gas chambers sometime after June 1942.

It does not matter what revisionists think about what would or would not have happened. That is fantasy land. What matter is what is evidenced to have happened. That is the real world.

And what was evidenced? Planted evidence, false or exaggerated testimonies, confessions under torture?

We still hope to know the accounting of the origin of the wood, the hundreds of non-existent trucks, the unavailable diesel, the record of the train bringing wood, the accounting of the ashes that are said to be in the fields, Soviet aerial reconnaissance photos proving Aktion 1005, clandestine photos of open-air cremation operations.

But for you, everything is evidence of disbelief.

[Nessie]

.....

It does not matter what revisionists think about what would or would not have happened. That is fantasy land. What matter is what is evidenced to have happened. That is the real world.

And what was evidenced? Planted evidence, false or exaggerated testimonies, confessions under torture?

No, all the 100% of eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, who agree gassings took place, who are corroborated by documents recording the construction of gas chambers and the circumstantial evidence of selections and those not needed for work being sent to the Kremas and mass cremations. Plus the Nazis had motive, ability and opportunity and their conduct after the crime.

We still hope to know the accounting of the origin of the wood, the hundreds of non-existent trucks, the unavailable diesel, the record of the train bringing wood, the accounting of the ashes that are said to be in the fields, Soviet aerial reconnaissance photos proving Aktion 1005, clandestine photos of open-air cremation operations.

But for you, everything is evidence of disbelief.

Since revisionists cannot evidence what happened, if it was gassings, they needed to come up with a different tactic. They started to dispute the possibility of gassing so many people, not realising they were now relying on an illogical argument, the argument from incredulity. Even when their flawed use of that argument is explained, they still use it! Revisionism is a non-history, that argues what did not happen and cannot say what did happen.

[TlsMS93]

.....

It does not matter what revisionists think about what would or would not have happened. That is fantasy land. What matter is what is evidenced to have happened. That is the real world.

And what was evidenced? Planted evidence, false or exaggerated testimonies, confessions under torture?

No, all the 100% of eyewitnesses who worked at the Kremas, who agree gassings took place, who are corroborated by documents recording the construction of gas chambers and the circumstantial evidence of selections and those not needed for work being sent to the Kremas and mass cremations. Plus the Nazis had motive, ability and opportunity and their conduct after the crime.

We still hope to know the accounting of the origin of the wood, the hundreds of non-existent trucks, the unavailable diesel, the record of the train bringing wood, the accounting of the ashes that are said to be in the fields, Soviet aerial reconnaissance photos proving Aktion 1005, clandestine photos of open-air cremation operations.

But for you, everything is evidence of disbelief.

Since revisionists cannot evidence what happened, if it was gassings, they needed to come up with a different tactic. They started to dispute the possibility of gassing so many people, not realising they were now relying on an illogical argument, the argument from incredulity. Even when their flawed use of that argument is explained, they still use it! Revisionism is a non-history, that argues what did not happen and cannot say what did happen.

All abduction victims agree that they were abducted. This reasoning is circular.

Jews were forced to work cremating their compatriots, or whatever they call themselves, who would die in the camp and were forced to cremate them, against everything they believe (their religion forbids cremations) and many claim that they were Orthodox Jews.

A picture is formed that as a sign of revenge they committed the most atrocious acts possible against their tormentors now that they could do nothing more against them. Many believed that they would be the next to be killed and this psychologically remained ingrained in their minds. Dario Gabbai says they died in 5 minutes and you say that 10 was too little, or that you dragged the bodies with a cane, or that they were constantly watched by the SS, but one managed to take photos of an alleged open-air cremation at Krema V.

Without ovens capable of cremating the alleged number, without the necessary coal, without repairs to the muffles, without gassing.

[Nessie]

....
Since revisionists cannot evidence what happened, if it was gassings, they needed to come up with a different tactic. They started to dispute the possibility of gassing so many people, not realising they were now relying on an illogical argument, the argument from incredulity. Even when their flawed use of that argument is explained, they still use it! Revisionism is a non-history, that argues what did not happen and cannot say what did happen.

All abduction victims agree that they were abducted. This reasoning is circular.

Someone who says they were abducted, where the abductor admits to the crime and there is other evidence of the abduction taking place, is not circular reasoning.

Jews were forced to work cremating their compatriots, or whatever they call themselves, who would die in the camp and were forced to cremate them, against everything they believe (their religion forbids cremations) and many claim that they were Orthodox Jews.

A picture is formed that as a sign of revenge they committed the most atrocious acts possible against their tormentors now that they could do nothing more against them. Many believed that they would be the next to be killed and this psychologically remained ingrained in their minds. Dario Gabbai says they died in 5 minutes and you say that 10 was too little, or that you dragged the bodies with a cane, or that they were constantly watched by the SS, but one managed to take photos of an alleged open-air cremation at Krema V.

Without ovens capable of cremating the alleged number, without the necessary coal, without repairs to the muffles, without gassing.

I prefer the corroborating evidence from documents and the Nazis who designed the ovens and witnesses who worked at them, over your opinion, which is formed using a logical fallacy.

[TlsMS93]

....
Since revisionists cannot evidence what happened, if it was gassings, they needed to come up with a different tactic. They started to dispute the possibility of gassing so many people, not realising they were now relying on an illogical argument, the argument from incredulity. Even when their flawed use of that argument is explained, they still use it! Revisionism is a non-history, that argues what did not happen and cannot say what did happen.

All abduction victims agree that they were abducted. This reasoning is circular.

Someone who says they were abducted, where the abductor admits to the crime and there is other evidence of the abduction taking place, is not circular reasoning.

Jews were forced to work cremating their compatriots, or whatever they call themselves, who would die in the camp and were forced to cremate them, against everything they believe (their religion forbids cremations) and many claim that they were Orthodox Jews.

A picture is formed that as a sign of revenge they committed the most atrocious acts possible against their tormentors now that they could do nothing more against them. Many believed that they would be the next to be killed and this psychologically remained ingrained in their minds. Dario Gabbai says they died in 5 minutes and you say that 10 was too little, or that you dragged the bodies with a cane, or that they were constantly watched by the SS, but one managed to take photos of an alleged open-air cremation at Krema V.

Without ovens capable of cremating the alleged number, without the necessary coal, without repairs to the muffles, without gassing.

I prefer the corroborating evidence from documents and the Nazis who designed the ovens and witnesses who worked at them, over your opinion, which is formed using a logical fallacy.

If you watched Rudolf explaining how disorganized the narratives of the Reinhardt camps were and who organized them, you wouldn't say that.

[Nessie]

...

I prefer the corroborating evidence from documents and the Nazis who designed the ovens and witnesses who worked at them, over your opinion, which is formed using a logical fallacy.

If you watched Rudolf explaining how disorganized the narratives of the Reinhardt camps were and who organized them, you wouldn't say that.

The majority of the narratives come from the SS who worked there, Germans and Ukrainians. All the witnesses are consistent about the main events and process inside the camp. Mass transports arrive, people undress and their property stolen, they are killed inside chambers, there are mass graves and pyres.

[DavidM]

Germans designing and building functioning gas chambers is both physically possible and practically attainable. That Butz finds it hard to believe they did build gas chambers, does not therefore mean they did not. His is an argument from incredulity, that he is convinced is correct because of his technical approach. Revisionists are so certain about the validity of their technical approach, that they just cannot recognise it is logically flawed.

Hello Nessie-
Excuse me but Fritz Berg pointed out the Germans built several barn-like fumigation facilities for trains...perfect if they wanted to quickly and easily gas thousands of people at once.

But Pressac has pointed out the the 4 cremation facilities at Birkenau were designed just as cremation facilities as part
of a 130,000 Soviet POW Camp in 1941-1942 See quote below.

The obvious point is that an easy simple large scale homicidal gas chamber could have been built...but wasn't.
Instead educated Believers, following Pressac claim, that the part of the cremation facilities designed and built as morgues were CONVERTED into gas chambers sometime after June 1942.

It does not matter what revisionists think about what would or would not have happened. That is fantasy land. What matter is what is evidenced to have happened. That is the real world.

It is not fantasy land to point out the Germans did have fumigation facilities large enough to gas a train...it is a
an inconvenient truth that Believers ignore since it casts doubt on the rather absurd schemes Believers promote.

You Believers claim that the Germans had a top secret (but well organized) plan to murder millions of Jewish people secretly. (that is another topic)

But the FACT is that at Auschwitz there was never a building designed and built as a mass gas chamber. That is the
evidence.
Believers are reduced to claiming that the Germans took non-homicidal buildings and converted them into gas chambers by knocking holes in the roof... Or climbing up a ladder and handing a can of Zyklon through a window in the
case of Krema IV and V.

So yes, Believers do have "eye witness testimony" and blood-splattered confessions as their evidence.
Like Pressac, I rely on the existing plans, the physical remains of the buildings, photographic evidence (lots of it left by the Germans) but also aerial photographs, and what could be called the lack of a corpus delicti.

[TlsMS93]

...

I prefer the corroborating evidence from documents and the Nazis who designed the ovens and witnesses who worked at them, over your opinion, which is formed using a logical fallacy.

If you watched Rudolf explaining how disorganized the narratives of the Reinhardt camps were and who organized them, you wouldn't say that.

The majority of the narratives come from the SS who worked there, Germans and Ukrainians. All the witnesses are consistent about the main events and process inside the camp. Mass transports arrive, people undress and their property stolen, they are killed inside chambers, there are mass graves and pyres.

We know about these “confession” methods. In fact, don’t you find it strange that confessions are made when all the defendants in Nuremberg declared themselves innocent? In subsequent trials in Germany, they realized that this would not help them and opted for Speer’s tactic to reduce their sentences.

And why should I believe in Nazi confessions? Those who claimed to be innocent say that they were proven wrong, so what?

The narrative that the SS told was preconceived by the Allies, or is it true or false that the narrative of undressing, receiving a towel and soap under the pretext of taking a shower to go to the Dachau gas chamber did not happen? Do you believe that today?

[Nessie]

...
It is not fantasy land to point out the Germans did have fumigation facilities large enough to gas a train...it is a
an inconvenient truth that Believers ignore since it casts doubt on the rather absurd schemes Believers promote.

That you believe the Nazis would gas people as they would fumigate a train, rather than build gas chambers, therefore the gas chambers did not happen, is pure fantasy and is the argument from incredulity. You are being driven by your opinion on what you want to imagine, rather than what is evidenced.

You Believers claim that the Germans had a top secret (but well organized) plan to murder millions of Jewish people secretly. (that is another topic)

That claim is based on the evidence as to what happened.

But the FACT is that at Auschwitz there was never a building designed and built as a mass gas chamber. That is the evidence.
Believers are reduced to claiming that the Germans took non-homicidal buildings and converted them into gas chambers by knocking holes in the roof... Or climbing up a ladder and handing a can of Zyklon through a window in the
case of Krema IV and V.

Gassings were only going to be a temporary action, so modifying an existing design of building that can be put back to another use afterwards, makes sense. It is also evidenced to have happened.

So yes, Believers do have "eye witness testimony" and blood-splattered confessions as their evidence.
Like Pressac, I rely on the existing plans, the physical remains of the buildings, photographic evidence (lots of it left by the Germans) but also aerial photographs, and what could be called the lack of a corpus delicti.

You have to ditch 100% of the eyewitness and circumstantial evidence to make your beliefs work and you fail in the basic task of all investigations, you cannot evidence and conclude what happened.

[Nessie]

If you watched Rudolf explaining how disorganized the narratives of the Reinhardt camps were and who organized them, you wouldn't say that.

The majority of the narratives come from the SS who worked there, Germans and Ukrainians. All the witnesses are consistent about the main events and process inside the camp. Mass transports arrive, people undress and their property stolen, they are killed inside chambers, there are mass graves and pyres.

We know about these “confession” methods. In fact, don’t you find it strange that confessions are made when all the defendants in Nuremberg declared themselves innocent? In subsequent trials in Germany, they realized that this would not help them and opted for Speer’s tactic to reduce their sentences.

The Nuremberg trials were war crime trials of senior Nazis, who had no direct links to the death camps and could claim no knowledge or responsibility. The camp staff trials were of the Nazis who were directly responsible for the deaths.

It is very strange that you do not find it odd that not one single Nazi claimed to know what really happened and where the millions of Jews they had arrested and supposedly had not killed, were in 1944-5.

And why should I believe in Nazi confessions? Those who claimed to be innocent say that they were proven wrong, so what?

Their confessions are corroborated and there is no evidence anything else happened.

The narrative that the SS told was preconceived by the Allies, or is it true or false that the narrative of undressing, receiving a towel and soap under the pretext of taking a shower to go to the Dachau gas chamber did not happen? Do you believe that today?

That just proves the Allies investigated everything, to ensure claims were correct.