Sunday, September 17, 2006

More than one third of the "One third..."

We have debunked more than one third of the "One third of the Holocaust" clips. By the author's standards that's as good as debunking the whole, but don't expect us to stop.

With two more long contributions from Andrew and Roberto about a single clip (plus a forthcoming addendum from me) you can see that it is very easy to make a silly video, but it takes lots of time and (virtual) paper to debunk it. We've already spent about 200 kilobytes of text on this.

But we're not the only ones taking on the Ugly Voice's video. Check out this neat clip by lokulotes at YouTube.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The first problem with this reply video is the obviously biased nature in which it is presented.
It employs the tactic of making light of the original video by selectively describing the hardest to swallow aspects

of it first in an attempt to immediately debunk it with the viewer.
Such commentary is designed to present the views of the author as extreme, without having even yet provided a sound

basis for this. This is akin to the common name calling of 'anti-semite' and 'extremist'.
This trend is again continued when examining the fact that video is split into 30 parts. You make light of this by

belittling the 30 details as if they are each insignificant. Whether or not you 'agree' on the next slide is

irrelevant - the damage is already done. There are further repeated incidences of this throughout your reply, but I've

made my point on this issue.

The second problem is how you present sand in the picture. You use the word 'scattered' to suggest that a very thin

layer was placed over the bodies. However, you have to ask yourself what purpose this would hold. And that's just it -

none. A much more reasonably purpose for the sand is to provide a layer of separation between each level of bodies,

and also to level out the foundation so that new bodies can be placed with ease. Also, this leveling of foundation

allows those working in the fits form footing - if the corpses were simply stacked with no sand in between, it would

be a highly unstable structure to stand on.

The third problem relates to your relation of human mass to litres. There are two flaws with this.
Firstly, of minor incidence is the fact that a litre represents 1kg of pure water. The human body does not fit this

definition, and so your estimations are off to a degree (but not enough to overly impact your following arguments).
Secondly, it is important to consider the structure and shape of a human body, and also the layout in which they were

placed in the sand. Visualise a body laid on it's back, with the arms at the side. If you consider a rectangle that

encompasses the bounds of this (that is, in 2D from a top down view), you can see that there is already a large

percentage of that rectangle not filled simply due to the body shape. The spaces to the inside and outside of the legs

would be roughly 25% (half of lower half). There is also a good amount of space above the shoulders, approximately

10%. Considering that the heads were placed between the feet, this should remove about 10% - 5% of the above shoulders

region, 5% of the legs region.
So with this in mind, your volume calculations for the area a body will use that cannot be used by other bodies is

~25% off. Note that only one thing will fill this space - sand. So that also negates this amount of sand from your

sand argument.

You sum up your argument by comparing the large volume of sand to the volume of the bodies themselves, rather than the

area they take up in the layout they were in. Added to the fact that you ignored considering the purpose of the sand,

you made it seem unreasonable that there is so much sand. However, if used for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and

also to fill in the voids between bodies, it is no surprise that there is at least twice as much sand as bodies.

However, four times as much strikes me as an exaggeration.

The final problem is that you skip the subject of how many pits would be required. This is due to the fact that your

model of compactly spaced body volume which does not consider the human shape and inherent gaps caused is not suitable

for this.
The original author's approach however is much more relevant for this question.
I will grant that the original author did overestimate the space occupied by the bodies (in my opinion, I'd guess

you'd agree as well), especially in regard to the space between them (width). However, you have essentially done the

opposite of this, but sadly in an even worse manner - you have abstracted the situation unreasonably, and made

something which actually isn't that incredible (sand vs bodies) seem staggering (although this is partially due to the

liberal estimates in the original author's evidence being expanded upon for your own).

Below are the figures I will use, with the original author's in brackets (Remember that this approach caters for the

gaps due to body shape which cannot be filled by other bodies in the used body layout). Note that I have reduced the

original author's estimates in numerous places to make sure the values are more realistic - body width by a large

amount, sand depth marginally, top dirt layer on pits marginally.

Bodies:
height = 1.27m (1.27m)
- this is a fair approximation.
width = 45cm (66cm)
- the original author's had the bodies in a pose, rather than arms at side.
depth = 23cm + 15cm sand (23cm + 18cm)
- Sand used for foundation makes 15cm reasonable.
= 1.27 * 0.45 * 0.38 = 0.2172 cubic metres.

Pits:
length = 50m (50m)
width = 25m (25m)
depth = 9.5m (9m)
= 50 * 25 * 9.5 = 11875 cubic metres.

If you consider these values unreasonable I insist that you provide feedback, but please keep it in the same model -

no reverting to abstract and inaccurate ones.

For Treblinka:
Counting the pits as a total of four of our standard pits in volume (47,500 cubic meters) is lenient considering that

based on the maps, the 3 smaller pits would more arguably total 4/5 of 2 pits (which would reduce us to 38,000 cubic

meters). However, I will nonetheless remain lenient and also avoid this reduction.

Over 700,000 bodies.
4 'standard pits' (11875 cubic metres * 4 = 47500 cubic metres).
47500 / 0.2172 = 218692 bodies.
(0.2172 * 700000) / 11875 = 12.8 pits for 700,000 bodies.

Note that even if the sand layer between is removed (15cm) we still only have capacity for:
47500 / 0.1314 = 361492 bodies. Just over half of 700,000.

There is no denying that such a large inconsistency is highly worthy of doubt.


I am sure like any moral person, you are very sensitive about the denial of such a horrible massacre. But simply

because it is horrible, and simply because it is understandably close to heart, does not give you the right to

unfairly judge it, talk it down, and provide inadequate evidence as a basis for doing so.
This is about the search for truth on one of many occurrences that has never been fully substantiated. If it did

indeed happen then it should be extremely easy to disprove videos such as this, as well as the majority of the

holocaust denial community. Such has not been done. The gift to those who manipulate us is that most people willingly

believe what they are told in school and on TV without thinking twice.

I look forward to your response in the hope that this can continue in a constructive manner.

bE said...

this debunked material is sooooooooooo boring! just like school was remember, just like church was remember, just like any bloody institution which tells you how to think. long live the information revolution and may it be a political, historical equalizer for us and many generations to come.

Anonymous said...

this video scares me because it makes me think "one third of the holocaust" might have some validity, if this response to it is to be taken seriously. YOu can't "pour" liquid humans into one top layer, and put sand in the rest of the volume - the human remains are solid and are interspresed necessarily throughout the sand; even compactly squishing the bodies together you can't get near the voluume they would take if purely liquid. this video seems very deceptive to me. And is this the reason "one third the holocaust" is banned from YouTube????

infochart said...

The main evidence presented in the onethirdoftheholocaust.com movie is that the witnesses testimony and confessions of defendants were non-credible. You chose however not to address this but to highlight some obscure technical details of the documentary. Until you can show us that the testimony and confessions given at Nuremberg were indeed credible then we'll give the defendants the benifit of the doubt that the court did not.
After all there is no 'body' and scant forensic evidence so the testimony is key, isn't it ?

Anonymous said...

The main evidence presented in the onethirdoftheholocaust.com movie is that the witnesses testimony and confessions of defendants were non-credible. You chose however not to address this but to highlight some obscure technical details of the documentary. Until you can show us that the testimony and confessions given at Nuremberg were indeed credible then we'll give the defendants the benifit of the doubt that the court did not.
After all there is no 'body' and scant forensic evidence so the testimony is key, isn't it ?

Anonymous said...

The holocaust was completely documented at Nuremberg. If you consider 20 minutes of courtroom time a thorough documentation of 1.5 million deaths.
Yet, this is what the official story of the holocaust is based upon. We believed the official story because it was told to us over and over again. Now we have the ability to look at the actual facts of the case and decide for ourselves.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to see so many people aren't falling for ZOGs lies any more. This feeble attempt to debunk the video is just pouring petrol on the flames.

Burn copies people!
Spread the word!

Anonymous said...

I think it's high time we ask for all that reparation money back at 28.99% interest compounded daily - just like the jews try to force us to pay!

Briony Coote said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PsychoPigeon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PsychoPigeon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mike Bara said...

It is simple start digging! That is the only way to debunk these claims. Censorship of comments says a lot as well.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

Start digging? I would love to.. Especially as what digging or drilling has been done has produced rather telling results, see for instance here and here.

As to "censorship", having incoming posts pass through a moderator is not censorship. It just means we don’t want commercial publicity and other off-topic spam on our site. The day an on-topic post of yours is not published, you may complain about censorship. But not before.