Friday, May 29, 2015

Jansson goes on fussing …

this time about my having made "the unsubstantiated assumption that the conscientious objectors in the Minnesota starvation experiment had the same levels of body fat as the large anthrax carcasses with which Lothes and Profé worked with" .

That’s really frightfully shocking, especially as I identified my assumption as a mere assumption, nothing more.

But then, I guess that Jansson is desperate for something to fuss about, if only to let off steam after all his arguments that have been deconstructed in our discussions since 11 April 2015, not to mention the demonstrations of his intellectual dishonesty (especially here and here) and the questions he continues running away from (see for instance here).

Thus Jansson’s audience (and ours) is being treated to the hilarious spectacle of Jansson trying to "get even" with his opponent, by rambling away about any of his opponent’s actual or perceived fallacies that he thinks he can ramble about.

What is more, apparently Jansson has not yet understood the rules of the game, which apply to my educated guess that the average weight of a malnourished adult population with an average height of 1.60 meters might correspond to the weight of a malnourished individual 1.60 meters tall, as they do to what he calls my unsustainable "cross-species extrapolation from a single data point" (which isn’t exactly unsustainable, also considering that, as mentioned i.a. here, the inventor of the Mokshda Green Cremation System thinks it should be possible to burn a human body with no more than 22 kg of wood - ratio assuming a body weight of 70 kg as Mattogno does: 0.31 to 1 - , and already managed with 100 kg per body - ratio: 1.43 to 1 - using the "raised human size brazier" he tried to introduce in 1993). So I'll tell him again who must do what in our discussions.

It is not my task, as someone who reasonably accepts facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a convergence of eyewitness, documentary, demographic and physical evidence, to make a fully substantiated case against the claims of practical impossibility dreamed up by ideologically motivated axe-grinders to challenge facts inconvenient to their ideological beliefs (David Cole, incidentally, called such claims "the last filthy hiding place of denier cockroaches", as mentioned here). All I have to do is to provide arguments, if possible supported by some data, whereby said claims of physical impracticability fail to take into account important aspects or are otherwise as unsound as their proponent’s inability to answer certain crucial questions (e.g. the one about names of "transited" deportees, see here) already shows them to be. This I have done.

On the other hand, it is the task of unreasonable challengers of ideologically inconvenient historical facts, such as Jansson, to provide a conclusive and wholly substantiated demonstration that these facts could not have happened because they were physically impracticable, and that thus there must be something wrong with the evidence that has led historians, criminal investigators and other objective persons to accept these facts.

And that task, my dear Jansson, is not accomplished by fussing about a lack of "empirical data" supporting my assumptions, especially when you can’t provide "empirical data" showing that my assumptions are implausible – in this case, that it wouldn’t be possible to achieve in mass cremation of human beings at the AR camps the ratios between external fuel and body mass that were achieved in the carcass-burning experiments of Dr. Lothes and Dr. Profé in the early 20th Century, even though
a) the method was similar (in that Lothes and Profé burned carcasses on a grate over a fire and the SS at the AR camps burned corpses on a grate over a fire),
b) body fat dripping onto the fire could have helped cremation to a certain extent at a place (Treblinka) that arsonist Bruce Ettling was reminded of by the incidental results of one his carcass-burning experiments, and
c) it is likely that the corpses of air raid victims burned on a grate over a fire at the Dresden Altmarkt were burned with similar or lower relative amounts of fuel

To put it simply, it’s not for me to demonstrate that what is proven by conclusive evidence (the cremation of murdered deportees at the AR camps in the numbers and within the time frames that become apparent from the evidence) was physically practicable. It’s for Jansson to demonstrate that it was physically impracticable.

Whether or not Jansson understands this reasonable principle is his problem.

To finish this blog, I would like to ask Jansson a few questions connected with his latest blog, which I hope I won’t have to repeat half a dozen times before he finally addresses them (if he addresses them at all):

1. Why am I supposed to falsely suppose that Lothes and Profé "achieved complete cremation of certain anthrax carcasses", when the veterinarians expressly mention "complete combustion", and regarding one experiment even go into the detail of stating that "only a weakly smoking heap of ashes was left" of the carcass?

2. If you think that my "cross-species extrapolation from a single data point" is "obviously unsustainable", do you consider Mattogno’s inferring fuel requirements for mass incineration of human beings from his backyard beef-burning experiments (discussed here) to be sustainable? If so, why?

3. If you think that my "cross-species extrapolation from a single data point" is "obviously unsustainable", why have you yourself presented examples of carcass incineration as a guideline to establish fuel requirements for incinerating human beings (see the blogs Friedrich Jansson changes the subject and Friedrich Jansson freaked out …)?

I look forward to your answers, Mr. Jansson.

This makes four "Muehlenkamp" posts in a row by Jansson this week, by the way. One might think that the fellow has nothing other than Muehlenkamp on his mind.

Update, 30.05.2015

The paragraph "And that task, my dear Jansson, ..." was expanded by the passages written in italics. The expression "between wood or wood equivalent weight and corpse/carcass weight" was replaced by "between external fuel and body mass".

No comments: