The Kola Study - An Own Goal by Team Holocaust

[Archie]

33 kg? Those are called children. Provan fit his own children in a box. Wow, what a game changer.

The key to determining volume is mass not age. Provan and the adults were probably significantly larger than the emaciated Polish Jews sent to Belzec.

If they were emaciated (photos from 1942 actually don't suggest this) then you should adjust up your estimates for the fuel requirements. Emaciated bodies are harder to burn, so there's no way you would be achieving world record lows for the wood to body mass ratio in that case.

It's so obvious what you guys are doing. You take the most extreme assumptions in which ever direction is convenient for you. And then you stack these one on top of the other, all just to argue that it was not impossible. If you are wrong about any of these leaps, then it all falls apart. You need to right about the 20+ bodies per sq meter, the decomposition, 15 kg of wood per body, etc.

[bombsaway]

Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

[Archie]

Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

[bombsaway]

Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

But revisionists have no explanation for a) the large grave volume (21,000 cubic meters) b) the layers of ash deposited through out (in 95% of the graves), mixed with sand


And I gave more info here viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

Specifically you have to explain how graves like #5 came to exist
viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

[Archie]

Jews were starving to death en masse in the ghettos. 5,000 a month were dying in the Warsaw Ghetto. Maybe per kg emaciated people are harder to burn per kg, but there's also less to burn, lower water mass.

Corpses liquifying also mean less space is wasted.

There's kinetics here that are too difficult to determine without replicating in an experimental setting. Not enough to disprove a narrative.

And still, absolute silence from you about the Ash layers. Nazgul's explanation is the best one?

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

But revisionists have no explanation for a) the large grave volume (21,000 cubic meters) b) the layers of ash deposited through out (in 95% of the graves), mixed with sand


And I gave more info here viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

Specifically you have to explain how graves like #5 came to exist
viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

First, you don't get to skip straight to the ash. If you can't explain where they buried 600,000 bodies or how they burned them, then the story has already failed. Cremains are something like 5% yield vs the original bodies, so obviously it's way easier for you to do your "creative accounting" with 600,000 cremated vs 600,000 whole bodies. That's why you want to skip ahead to the ash. When you consider that these graves were not filled to brim with ash and that there would be considerable wood ash, there's nothing about any of this that compels us to accept 600,000 people were killed at this site. The ash that is there is completely consistent with a vastly smaller number of bodies. Just like at a lot of other non-extermination camps.

[bombsaway]

What I'm asking you to do is provide a plausible explanation for how graves like #5 came to exist. Be detailed

So specifically, using #5 as reference

"Located in the south-western part of the camp. The grave had the shape of an irregular lengthened rectangle with the dimensions of 32 meters by 10 meters, reaching a depth of over 4.5 meters. It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick; above 50 cm thick layer of soil, 4 following layers of crematory remains appeared, separated from each other with 20-30 cm layers of sand. The volume of the pit was about 1350 meters"

My explanation (the kind I would like to see from you) would be this:

I would say graves were dug this large because they had to accommodate a large volume of bodies. Thousands were being killed every day that had to be buried. Ash of these individuals occupies far less volume. The bodies were brought out of the graves, then cremated in bunches of bodies at a time. Each time a group of bodies was destroyed the ashes were put back in the grave, this is where the layers come from. The bodies were destroyed for the purposes of concealing the extent of the killing operation.

We can see at the bottom a layer one meter thick. If the area of the pit was roughly 300 meters, that would constitute 300 cubic meters of ash mixture. Given an average yield of 3 liters of cremated remains per person, this would constitute 100,000 people if it was 100% ash. It wasn't pure ash though, it was mixed withs sand. At 1% purity it would contain the ashes of 1000 people. As far as I can tell in my research the alleged extermination camps are the only mass graves ever reported where ash was mixed with sand. The question of why here and not anywhere else is a pertinent one. I would speculate that it was done again to conceal or confuse the extent of the killing operation.

[Nessie]

The thing is, in regards to #1, there are various explanations here like bodies being burnt, Kola not investigating all the graves (he says this explicitly in his study - there may have been more), and the physics of decomposing bodies.

That is so weak. You are trying to say that they had burned a bunch of the bodies beforehand? That is not and has never been the story. You, random guy on the internet, do not get to make up a new story out of nowhere.

Revisionists do that all the time, come up with unevidenced theories about what happened. You are now about to contradict yourself, by posting evidence that corpses were cremated and never buried.

Arad:

The opening of the mass graves in Belzec and the cremating of the corpses removed from them began with the interruption of the arrival of transports and of the killing activities there in mid-December 1942. At that time, there were about six hundred thousand corpses of murdered Jews in the pits of the camp.

You could assume perhaps that a few right at the end could be directly burned without burial or that there was very limited burning beforehand but it would be de minimus. It would not change the math much at all. Again, the story is that nearly all of the bodies were buried first. I will take the fact that you are desperately trying to change it as an admission that there is a problem.

There is no assumption.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec

"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005..."

That means for part of October, November and December 1942, no corpse was being buried. According to the transports list;

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec/bel004.html

October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250

That means at least 110,000 corpses were not buried and maybe over 200,000, depending on when it started in October. No revisionist, in their random guy on the internet calculations, has taken that into account.

"Kola not investigating all the graves" ?
Look the map. They took samples all over the camp the entire camp. Less than 10% had any human remains. Most of the samples showed "natural strata" with no disruption, i.e. there could not have been anything buried there. The bodies would have had to have been buried in the 5,490 sq meters of graves.

Decomposing bodies
The fact that Muehlenkamp had to resort to that to try to make the numbers work smacks of absolute desperation. He only brought it up as a possibility because he absolutely had to.

Revisionists also avoid the issue of decomposition and pressure, increasing the numbers of corpses per m3. When additional factors that revisionists have failed to take into account are included, because they do not suit your desired belief, you cry that is smacking of desperation. Your argument is that since you cannot work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses lied about mass graves, is countered by my argument that because I can work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses told the truth about mass graves.

If only there was a way of working out whose argument is correct, that excludes biased opinion and belief.....

[Archie]

The thing is, in regards to #1, there are various explanations here like bodies being burnt, Kola not investigating all the graves (he says this explicitly in his study - there may have been more), and the physics of decomposing bodies.

That is so weak. You are trying to say that they had burned a bunch of the bodies beforehand? That is not and has never been the story. You, random guy on the internet, do not get to make up a new story out of nowhere.

Revisionists do that all the time, come up with unevidenced theories about what happened. You are now about to contradict yourself, by posting evidence that corpses were cremated and never buried.

Arad:

The opening of the mass graves in Belzec and the cremating of the corpses removed from them began with the interruption of the arrival of transports and of the killing activities there in mid-December 1942. At that time, there were about six hundred thousand corpses of murdered Jews in the pits of the camp.

You could assume perhaps that a few right at the end could be directly burned without burial or that there was very limited burning beforehand but it would be de minimus. It would not change the math much at all. Again, the story is that nearly all of the bodies were buried first. I will take the fact that you are desperately trying to change it as an admission that there is a problem.

There is no assumption.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec

"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005..."

That means for part of October, November and December 1942, no corpse was being buried. According to the transports list;

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec/bel004.html

October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250

That means at least 110,000 corpses were not buried and maybe over 200,000, depending on when it started in October. No revisionist, in their random guy on the internet calculations, has taken that into account.

"Kola not investigating all the graves" ?
Look the map. They took samples all over the camp the entire camp. Less than 10% had any human remains. Most of the samples showed "natural strata" with no disruption, i.e. there could not have been anything buried there. The bodies would have had to have been buried in the 5,490 sq meters of graves.

Decomposing bodies
The fact that Muehlenkamp had to resort to that to try to make the numbers work smacks of absolute desperation. He only brought it up as a possibility because he absolutely had to.

Revisionists also avoid the issue of decomposition and pressure, increasing the numbers of corpses per m3. When additional factors that revisionists have failed to take into account are included, because they do not suit your desired belief, you cry that is smacking of desperation. Your argument is that since you cannot work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses lied about mass graves, is countered by my argument that because I can work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses told the truth about mass graves.

If only there was a way of working out whose argument is correct, that excludes biased opinion and belief.....

Most sources give a later timeline for digging up bodies. Also you can't assume that the order was put into effect that very second.

At any rate, you can only burn a few thousand bodies per day so your speculative scenario (which does not agree with Arad and other experts) is that there were over 100,000 unburied bodies. You imagine these were just in a big pile?

[Nessie]

That is so weak. You are trying to say that they had burned a bunch of the bodies beforehand? That is not and has never been the story. You, random guy on the internet, do not get to make up a new story out of nowhere.

Revisionists do that all the time, come up with unevidenced theories about what happened. You are now about to contradict yourself, by posting evidence that corpses were cremated and never buried.

Arad:


You could assume perhaps that a few right at the end could be directly burned without burial or that there was very limited burning beforehand but it would be de minimus. It would not change the math much at all. Again, the story is that nearly all of the bodies were buried first. I will take the fact that you are desperately trying to change it as an admission that there is a problem.

There is no assumption.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... cle/belzec

"In October 1942, on orders from Odilo Globocnik, camp personnel deployed Jewish forced laborers from various locations in Lublin District to exhume the mass graves at Belzec. They ordered the forced laborers to burn the bodies on open-air “ovens” made from rail track. This was in keeping with the efforts of the Sonderkommando 1005..."

That means for part of October, November and December 1942, no corpse was being buried. According to the transports list;

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec/bel004.html

October 105,764
November 89,070
December 13,250

That means at least 110,000 corpses were not buried and maybe over 200,000, depending on when it started in October. No revisionist, in their random guy on the internet calculations, has taken that into account.

"Kola not investigating all the graves" ?
Look the map. They took samples all over the camp the entire camp. Less than 10% had any human remains. Most of the samples showed "natural strata" with no disruption, i.e. there could not have been anything buried there. The bodies would have had to have been buried in the 5,490 sq meters of graves.

Decomposing bodies
The fact that Muehlenkamp had to resort to that to try to make the numbers work smacks of absolute desperation. He only brought it up as a possibility because he absolutely had to.

Revisionists also avoid the issue of decomposition and pressure, increasing the numbers of corpses per m3. When additional factors that revisionists have failed to take into account are included, because they do not suit your desired belief, you cry that is smacking of desperation. Your argument is that since you cannot work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses lied about mass graves, is countered by my argument that because I can work out how so many corpses could be buried, therefore the witnesses told the truth about mass graves.

If only there was a way of working out whose argument is correct, that excludes biased opinion and belief.....

Most sources give a later timeline for digging up bodies.

Do they? Please show those sources.

Also you can't assume that the order was put into effect that very second.

You cannot assume the order was subject to a delay.

At any rate, you can only burn a few thousand bodies per day so your speculative scenario (which does not agree with Arad and other experts) is that there were over 100,000 unburied bodies. You imagine these were just in a big pile?

You said;

"That is so weak. You are trying to say that they had burned a bunch of the bodies beforehand? That is not and has never been the story. You, random guy on the internet, do not get to make up a new story out of nowhere."

You then quote Arad, who contradicts you and I show you evidence of timelines. There is evidence that after October, corpses were no longer buried and went straight to the pyres. After transports stopped, cremations continued for months.

Kolas finds corroborate the pyres, because of the large areas of disturbed ground contained ash and cremated remains. Of course, it is not as much as you think it should be, but you are programmed to disbelieve. I would just point out that it one of the largest mass grave sites ever found.

[Callafangers]

I'm skeptical of this. Provan fit 8 people (with average weight of 33.25 kg) into a box of 21 by 21 inches (with an open top) https://mailstar.net/Provan-HI.pdf

Assuming 70 inch height (which is additional empty space clearly not filled), the box would be .5 cubic meters.

21 x 21 x 70 = 30870 cubic inches = .5 cubic meters

if we scale up the weight to 40 kg, we get 16 / 1.2 or 13.3333333333 bodies per cubic meter. But again there's clearly a lot of vertical space there since only 3 adults, so 13 is something of a minimum.

Basically your assertions are not believable to me (and shouldn't believable to anyone) because they're just talk, eg "15 bodies per m3 is completely insane", with no substantiation given. In my view you're tricking yourself into believing things. I don't want to single you out, Mattogno says the same thing, it's a pattern with revisionists tbh, but in this case you guys are failing clear empirical tests.

EDIT: Just to note, the box is only 60.5 inches tall, not 70 inches.

Let's break this down. Here is the experiment in-progress:

provan1.jpg (78.13 KiB) Viewed 83 times

Provan's box is reportedly 43.8% the volume of 1m3. However:

At least two of the people in the box (but likely three, given the woman whose head/body are covered by the men) have their heads sticking out some 5-9 inches of the box (the woman perhaps much less, but this means she is especially small). The box has more than one open side.

Moreover, to include a baby (as a doll) at all in this experiment is insane. For example, Sanning indicates:

...even an average growth rate of 0.2% per year between 1932 and 1939 seems somewhat high for the Polish-Jewish population.

p. 31, https://holocausthandbooks.com/wp-conte ... tdoeej.pdf

Thus, the inclusion of a baby in Provan's experiment overestimates the presence of babies in the 'Holocaust' by some 60-fold. This is in addition to the fact that the other children he includes were only aged 2-10 (with the 10-year-old seemingly towering over the much-smaller others). The average child should all be closer to at least the size of the 10-year-old, when factoring in 11, 12 year olds, and teenagers.

In Provan's experiment, we also have people actively cooperating to fit perfectly; this means the experiment at best represents the most extreme upper maximum, once adjusted for the problem with non-containment and disproportionate babies/children.

Here is a summary with some generous assumptions:

ProvanBox.jpg (338.36 KiB) Viewed 83 times

Ultimately, for a given volume, a reasonable packing density (assuming some very systematic yet still imperfect packing) in a 'Holocaust' context is around 8-9, with 10 or 11 being an unreasonable extreme (and higher than 12 being impossible).

As mentioned in the note under the table above, this still has not factored in other causes for ground disturbance which are known to have occurred (e.g. grave robbing, bombing, other burials). It also has not factored in certain other volume reduction constraints, such as the need for sloped side walls in graves (a constraint often missing from these types of grave volume calculations but which has been acknowledged by Muehlenkamp, etc).

And as also mentioned in the note under the table, if the Germans were burying bodies in a non-incriminating way, the packing density would be much lower, given no intentions to anticipate and maximize corpse concealment (bodies simply thrown in, cover layers between corpses as new ones arrive, etc.).

Thus, the ground disturbances identified align far more with the revisionist interpretation.

[Callafangers]

Ultimately, for a given volume, a reasonable packing density (assuming some very systematic yet still imperfect packing) in a 'Holocaust' context is around 8-9, with 10 or 11 being an unreasonable extreme (and higher than 12 being impossible).

Just to add, the argument can be made that the Jews were indeed 'skinnier' in the alleged context of the Holocaust. With that said, we might suggest that the subjects in the box, who are already fairly slim/healthy, were to each lose 25% of their body weight, this would increase the potential packing density. However, a 25% reduction in body weight doesn't lead to a proportional volume reduction because fat and muscle, which contribute to weight loss, are much more malleable than bone. These tissues compress and rearrange within a confined (packed) space, mitigating the volume change. Hence, while the body becomes lighter, its ability to fit or pack into a space changes far less dramatically. A reasonable adjustment might be in the range of up to 10% reduction in compressed volume, which suggests a feasible and systematic packing density of no more than 9-10.

[bombsaway]

Callahan, I think a lot of your assumptions wrong but we can look at this one for example

I asked the AI,

"Imagine 8 people. In one example they are 3 well fed adults and 5 children of varying ages, coming to an average weight of 33kg. How might the total volume of space they occupy differ from 6 emaciated adults and 2 children, also coming to an average weight of 33kg"

When comparing the two groups—3 well-fed adults and 5 children versus 6 emaciated adults and 2 children—both averaging 33 kg per person, several factors influence the total volume of space they occupy:

1. Body Composition and Density
Well-Fed Adults:
Higher Body Fat: Well-fed adults generally have a higher percentage of body fat, which has a lower density (~0.9 g/cm³) compared to muscle and bone.
Increased Volume: Due to the lower density, well-fed adults occupy more volume per kilogram of body weight.
Emaciated Adults:
Lower Body Fat: Emaciated individuals have reduced body fat and possibly higher muscle or bone density (~1.1 g/cm³).
Decreased Volume: Higher density means less volume is occupied per kilogram of body weight.
2. Children's Body Composition
Similar Density to Well-Fed Adults: Children typically have body compositions that include a balance of muscle, bone, and fat, similar to well-fed adults.
Growth Factors: Depending on their age, children might have a higher or lower body fat percentage, but for this comparison, we'll assume their density is comparable to well-fed adults.
3. Group Composition and Total Volume
Group 1: 3 Well-Fed Adults + 5 Children

Volume Contribution:
Adults: Higher volume per kg due to more body fat.
Children: Similar or slightly higher volume per kg compared to adults.
Overall Impact: The combination of well-fed adults and multiple children likely results in a greater total volume.
Group 2: 6 Emaciated Adults + 2 Children

Volume Contribution:
Adults: Lower volume per kg due to higher density.
Children: Fewer in number, contributing less to total volume.
Overall Impact: Despite having more adults, the total volume is likely less due to the reduced volume per kg in emaciated individuals and fewer children.
4. Conclusion
Given that well-fed adults occupy more space per kilogram than emaciated adults and considering the higher number of children (who contribute similarly to volume as well-fed adults), the group with 3 well-fed adults and 5 children would likely occupy a larger total volume compared to the group with 6 emaciated adults and 2 children.

Illustrative Summary:
Group Composition Total Individuals Characteristics Estimated Total Volume
Group 1 3 Adults + 5 Children Well-fed adults (higher volume) + children Larger
Group 2 6 Adults + 2 Children Emaciated adults (lower volume) + fewer children Smaller
Note: This analysis assumes that all other factors (such as height, posture, and activity level) are constant. Variations in these factors can also influence the total volume occupied.

So the two assumptions are, children skew the weight to volume ratio (they don't according to GPT) and emaciated vs full bodied actually goes the other way.

what would occupy more volume 3 well fed adults weighing 200 kg combined, or 5 emaciated adults weight 200kg combined?

Go very light on the calculations, and do more explanations and scientific justifcation

ChatGPT

Thought for a couple of seconds
When comparing the volume occupied by 3 well-fed adults versus 5 emaciated adults, both groups totaling 200 kg, several biological and physical factors come into play. Here's a qualitative analysis to understand which group would occupy more space:

1. Body Composition and Density
Well-Fed Adults:

Higher Body Fat Percentage: Well-fed individuals typically have a higher proportion of body fat. Fat tissue is less dense than muscle and bone.
Lower Overall Density: Due to the increased fat content, the overall density of each well-fed adult is lower. This means that, for the same mass, fat takes up more volume than denser tissues.
Emaciated Adults:

Lower Body Fat Percentage: Emaciated individuals have significantly reduced body fat, resulting in a higher proportion of lean mass (muscle, bone, organs).
Higher Overall Density: With more dense tissues and less fat, each emaciated adult has a higher density. Therefore, less volume is needed to account for the same mass.
2. Number of Individuals and Combined Volume
Fewer Well-Fed Adults (3 individuals):

Each well-fed adult occupies more volume individually due to their lower density.
Combined, the three individuals will take up more space compared to a larger number of denser individuals.
More Emaciated Adults (5 individuals):

Each emaciated adult occupies less volume individually because of their higher density.
Even though there are more individuals, their combined volume is less than that of the fewer, less dense well-fed adults.
3. Practical Implications
Imagine two groups of people each totaling 200 kg:

The well-fed group might resemble a compact cluster, but each person is "bulkier" due to higher fat content, leading to a larger overall footprint.

The emaciated group, while having more members, would be "slimmer" and occupy less space collectively because their bodies are denser.

Scientific Justification
Density Relationship: Volume is inversely related to density when mass is constant (Volume = Mass/Density). Lower density (well-fed) results in higher volume, and higher density (emaciated) results in lower volume.

Body Composition Studies: Research shows that fat tissue has a density of about 0.9 g/cm³, while lean tissue (muscle, bone) has a density closer to 1.1 g/cm³. Therefore, a higher fat percentage reduces overall body density.

Conclusion
Given that both groups have the same total mass, the 3 well-fed adults would occupy more volume compared to the 5 emaciated adults. This is primarily because the well-fed individuals have a lower overall body density due to higher fat content, leading to a greater volume required to house the same mass.

Let's interrogate this point further, but it occurs to me you are blatantly wrong. Just because weight is the critical factor, and skinny people are going to be more dense than normal weight people, therefore less volume per kg. I think you confused yourself and got this the other way around.

[Callafangers]

3 well fed adults and 5 children

bombsaway, when you lie/misrepresent to the AI you're dealing with, you're obviously just trying to add an inference of credibility to your distortions.

The term "well-fed" implies the subjects have lots of fat to go around. But when you are dealing with people who are already quite healthy and slim (as those subjects in Provan's box clearly are), the adjustments to quantity of body fat and muscle tissue are much less significant, overall. This is due to concepts of malleability and structural constants:

• Fat and muscle are flexible/compressible and can reorganize within a space, lessening the total volume change despite notable weight loss.
• Bones and other structural elements in the body remain largely unchanged with a baseline volume that doesn't decrease with weight loss.
• Your assumptions on density reflect the understanding that lower density (e.g., fat) occupies more volume, but in people who are healthy/thin to begin with, the reduction is far from one-to-one.

By using the term "well-fed", you distort the interpretation of your AI to interpret your meaning as persons having an excessive amount of fat making up their bodies' shape/volume. This is clearly not the case in Provan's experiment. I have already factored in the difference between Provan's subjects and what could be considered especially thin/emaciated with the 25% weight loss indicated in my last reply. The matter of weight and volume has already been adequately addressed and only via further distortions to ChatGPT (or repeated clicks of the "Retry" button... LOL) will you find any logic claiming otherwise.

[bombsaway]

What about the ash layers? What was the argument?

But revisionists have no explanation for a) the large grave volume (21,000 cubic meters) b) the layers of ash deposited through out (in 95% of the graves), mixed with sand


And I gave more info here viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

Specifically you have to explain how graves like #5 came to exist
viewtopic.php?p=1373#p1373

First, you don't get to skip straight to the ash. If you can't explain where they buried 600,000 bodies or how they burned them, then the story has already failed. Cremains are something like 5% yield vs the original bodies, so obviously it's way easier for you to do your "creative accounting" with 600,000 cremated vs 600,000 whole bodies. That's why you want to skip ahead to the ash. When you consider that these graves were not filled to brim with ash and that there would be considerable wood ash, there's nothing about any of this that compels us to accept 600,000 people were killed at this site. The ash that is there is completely consistent with a vastly smaller number of bodies. Just like at a lot of other non-extermination camps.

I'm not sure you saw that I responded to this clarifying what I meant by explain

posting.php?mode=quote&p=1398#:~:text=o ... 0bombsaway

When you look at the details of what happened there are gaps in the record (about how and when burning was done, timelines). But your bias shows through when you say stuff like "If you can't explain where they buried 600,000 bodies". You are trying to show that the story is impossible of it, but you are cherry picking a version to use which is not even supported by the primary data. Historian estimates were based on rough deportation records before the Hoefle telegram.

Based on that the estimate of those killed should be lowered. Belzec museum uses 450,000. https://www.belzec.eu/en/history/camp_history/2

Why do you use the higher figure?

We can argue about grave space and what happened to the wood ash, but it is fair to ask about the body ash. The notion that there isn't a lot of it "The ash that is there is completely consistent with a vastly smaller number of bodies."

Kola specifies roughly what percentage of the graves were occupied by crematory contents. With grave number 5 it is



How many bodies do you think this is? You're speculating about ash, so let's talk ash.

[bombsaway]

3 well fed adults and 5 children

bombsaway, when you lie/misrepresent to the AI you're dealing with, you're obviously just trying to add an inference of credibility to your distortions.

The term "well-fed" implies the subjects have lots of fat to go around. But when you are dealing with people who are already quite healthy and slim (as those subjects in Provan's box clearly are), the adjustments to quantity of body fat and muscle tissue are much less significant, overall. This is due to concepts of malleability and structural constants:

• Fat and muscle are flexible/compressible and can reorganize within a space, lessening the total volume change despite notable weight loss.
• Bones and other structural elements in the body remain largely unchanged with a baseline volume that doesn't decrease with weight loss.
• Your assumptions on density reflect the understanding that lower density (e.g., fat) occupies more volume, but in people who are healthy/thin to begin with, the reduction is far from one-to-one.

By using the term "well-fed", you distort the interpretation of your AI to interpret your meaning as persons having an excessive amount of fat making up their bodies' shape/volume. This is clearly not the case in Provan's experiment. I have already factored in the difference between Provan's subjects and what could be considered especially thin/emaciated with the 25% weight loss indicated in my last reply. The matter of weight and volume has already been adequately addressed and only via further distortions to ChatGPT (or repeated clicks of the "Retry" button... LOL) will you find any logic claiming otherwise.

I'll repeat the question from a brand new prompt

what would occupy more volume- 3 normal adults (in terms of body fat percentage and muscle mass) weighing 200 kg combined, or 5 emaciated adults weight 200kg combined?

Go very light on the calculations, and do more explanations and scientific justifcation

Great question! To determine which group occupies more volume—the three normal adults or the five emaciated adults, both weighing a total of 200 kg—we can explore the concepts of body composition and density.

### **Body Composition and Density**

1. **Normal Adults:**
- **Body Fat Percentage:** Typically higher in normal adults. Fat tissue has a lower density (~0.9 g/cm³) compared to muscle.
- **Muscle Mass:** Adequate muscle mass contributes to overall body structure but doesn't significantly offset the lower density of fat.

2. **Emaciated Adults:**
- **Body Fat Percentage:** Significantly lower. Emaciation implies a reduction in fat stores.
- **Muscle Mass:** While muscle is denser (~1.1 g/cm³) than fat, emaciated individuals also have reduced muscle mass, but the overall density remains higher than that of normal adults due to the lower fat content.

### **Volume Implications**

- **Density and Volume Relationship:** Density is mass divided by volume. For a given mass, a lower density means a larger volume, and vice versa.

- **Applying to the Groups:**
- **Three Normal Adults:** With a higher fat percentage, their bodies are less dense. Therefore, to maintain the same total mass (200 kg), they would occupy a **larger volume**.
- **Five Emaciated Adults:** Lower body fat makes their bodies denser. To have the same total mass, they would occupy a **smaller volume**.

### **Scientific Justification**

- **Fat vs. Muscle Density:** Since fat is less dense than muscle, bodies with higher fat content take up more space for the same weight.

- **Group Composition:** Even though there are fewer individuals in the normal group, their bodies are less dense, leading to greater overall volume compared to the larger, denser group of emaciated individuals.

### **Conclusion**

**The three normal adults would occupy more volume than the five emaciated adults** when both groups have a combined weight of 200 kg. This is primarily due to the differences in body composition affecting overall density and, consequently, the space each group occupies.

Same result.