Thursday, May 14, 2015

As Jansson continues producing junk …

… the following blogs have been updated:

Friedrich Jansson proudly presents … (third update, 14.05.2015), in response to Jansson’s blog More garbage disposal

Jansson is at it again … (second update, 13.05.2015), in response to Jansson’s blog Further remarks on Ettling and car fires

Just when I thought I had seen all of Jansson’s fits … (first update, 13.05.2015), in response to Jansson’s blog Muehlenkamp cornered, lies through his teeth

Jansson on 1942 births in Leningrad (first update, 13.05.2015), in response to Jansson’s blog More garbage disposal

There’s no history in "Revisionism" (first update, 14.05.2015), in response to Jansson’s blog Revisionism and History: response to Muehlenkamp’s regurgitation of Nick Terry

Jansson seems to be rather obsessed with this writer, to whom he has dedicated 5 blogs in a row since yesterday.

The last of these blogs, with the title On burial density in terms of mass of carcasses per cubic meter, was published today and will be addressed below.

Update, 21.05.2015

Update, 22.05.2015

Burial space at the Aktion Reinhard(t) extermination camps, especially at Bełżec, is one of Jansson’s main preoccupations. When I wrote the blog Friedrich Jansson on Burial Space, Jansson had already dedicated 12 blogs to presenting mass graves in which corpses or carcasses were buried over larger areas and/or in smaller concentrations (number of corpses/carcasses or corpse/carcass mass per cubic meter) than in the AR camps, as if that were an argument against the mathematically demonstrated possibility of burying in the relatively small areas of these camps the murdered deportees for whose fate "Revisionists" haven’t managed, more than 70 years after the events, to provide a remotely plausible let alone evidence-backed alternative explanation.

Unless I missed something, Jansson has not yet been able to explain why a calculated concentration of corpse mass per cubic meter in a mass grave (in this case 663.40 kg per cubic meter, but I can do with less as demonstrated in the blog Friedrich Jansson responded …, and that’s assuming that the 33 Bełżec mass graves identified by archaeologist Prof. Andrzej Kola were the only mass graves in the camp’s area, which according to Alex Bay was not the case), moreover one largely corroborated by Charles Provan’s experiment, should be impracticable just because lower concentrations of corpses or carcasses were practiced in mass graves at this and that other place. Yet he persists in his irrelevant exercises, of which his last blog is yet another.

Jansson asks his readers to accept that the aforementioned concentrations of corpse mass per cubic meter, whose physical impracticability he cannot demonstrate, were impracticable because somewhat lower concentrations of carcass mass in mass graves follow from one of his sources. Needless to say, this is a non sequitur argument.

Jansson further weakens his argument by pointing out that in all mass burials he has "studied", "the volume of the carcass mass is considerably less than the total excavated volume" - unless, of course, he can demonstrate that it is impossible to completely fill a mass grave’s excavated volume with corpses or carcasses, especially when there are no constraints to burial density such as may result from environmental considerations in mass burial of animal carcasses.

However, it doesn’t look like Jansson can provide such demonstration. The best he can manage is some feeble mumbling about human beings being more "concave" than livestock, and thus supposedly more difficult to accommodate in a mass grave.

Equally inconclusive is Jansson’s pointing out that the burial density for pigs he established on the basis of his source, 424 and 424.6 kg/m^3, is "very close to Carlo Mattogno’s estimate of 420 kg/m^3". Considering how Mattogno established this density (by assuming, also on the basis of data from burials carried out under circumstances rather different from those at the AR camps and without the space constraints under which these camps operated, that a maximum of six adult corpses can fit into on cubic meter, and then multiplying that number with an assumed adult weight of 70 kg, see the blog Mattogno, Graf & Kues on the Aktion Reinhard(t) Mass Graves (3)), one can only say: so what?

Despite not having demonstrated that the carcass burial volumes he established were the limit of what was practically achievable (the mentioned use of only a part of the excavated volume alone already speaks against this notion), Jansson ends his blog proclaiming that "Muehlenkamp overestimates the practically achievable value by over 50% – a truly enormous error".

To use one of Jansson’s own expressions, one can only laugh at how eagerly Jansson jumps to a conclusion that does not follow from his data.

Update, 21.05.2015

It seems that this writer continues showing up in Jansson’s nightmares, for Jansson has fired off yet another load of rabid bluster, with the title Muehlenkamp on the run (wishful thinking is the kind of thinking that "Revisionists" tend to excel in, and Jansson is no exception).

So I'll have some more fun with good old Jansson.

1. Introduction

Jansson babbles about the quality of my comments being "low as usual". He apparently hasn’t realized that such pep-talk becomes less convincing with every repetition, especially as Jansson has spent most of his blogging time over the last month on this writer alone. Even the dumbest among Jansson’s readers are likely to sooner or later recognize such pep-talk as what it is, namely a lame attempt to cover up Jansson’s flagrant dodging of a substantial part of his opponent’s arguments.

2. Regarding the blog Jansson on 1942 births in Leningrad, first update

Jansson concedes that one passage in the related part of this garbage was "poorly phrased" and "has been updated" (changing "considerably larger quantities" into "quantities up to somewhat higher" is what Jansson calls updating a "poorly phrased" passage).

Now, what about my sources whereby malnutrition in children corresponds to weights below the third percentile, which Jansson bluntly ignored?

What about my refutation of his arguments regarding Verschuer and the "Gewichtstabelle nach BMI"?

And what about my demonstration that Jansson deliberately omitted information in his Leningrad source that contradicted an essential argument of his (and then tried to cover up this lie by omission with further falsehood)?

Jansson’s silence on these issues would have been embarrassing enough, but the poor fellow chose to disgrace himself further by feebly squealing that my comments "are simply stupid rhetoric, and will be ignored".

What could be more pathetic?

It’s funny to be falsely accused of "rhetoric" by someone who produces as much rhetoric as Jansson does, by the way.

3. Regarding the blog Just when I thought I had seen all of Jansson’s fits …, first update

With as much rhetorical decoration as he considers necessary to impress his readers, foot-stomping Jansson repeats his somewhat-less-than intelligent (and somewhat-less-than honest) "lie" hollering ("Muehlenkamp tried to pull the wool over his readers’ eyes by misrepresenting my argument."; "Muehlenkamp, having rashly misinterpreted my initial post, launched an ill-thought attack. When caught in this, he made the fateful decision not to admit his error, but to seek to obfuscate the matter through lies and derailments.").

Defamation and self-justification seem to be equally important undertakings in Jansson’s mind.

Jansson dedicates much text to arguing that – contrary to what is suggested by the indication regarding the BMI’s derivation on this page (which he dishonestly insists in calling part of my source, even though the only source I had referred to was the "Gewichtstabelle nach BMI" that happens to be part of the same website), and by the fact that the Gewichtstabelle obviously considers a BMI of 18.75 as the upper limit of "underweight", whereas the WHO sets that upper limit at BMI 18.5 – the weights in the Gewichtstabelle were derived from BMI values and not the other way round.

A slab of text at least as long is dedicated to furiously ("It’s truly moronic to think that I would round one of the values to the nearest integer and the other to the nearest tenth.") attacking what I called a hunch.

Yet Jansson ignores my question why, if he took the BMI range of 15-18.8 from this page, he had not mentioned this in his earlier reply.

And what is more, he completely glosses over the following remarks, which make his rambling look sort of like crashing into an open door:

If my hunch should be mistaken and Jansson should (despite the above-mentioned indication to the contrary) actually have seen this page prior to his initial post, this would mean that he created an unnecessary misunderstanding by producing this bluster:
Muehlenkamp refers to a website (though he fails to give the url) for a claim that underweight individuals have a BMI between 15 and 18.8. Based on this, he gives the figures of 38 and 48 kg (corresponding to BMIs of 14.84 and 18.75 at a height of 1.60 meters), and takes their mean, 43 kg. This corresponds to a BMI of 16.8. Note that these numbers are pure inventions on Muehlenkamp’s part, and rest on no data whatsoever.
without mentioning where he had got the "BMI between 15 and 18.8" from.

On top if yet another puerile "lie" accusation (which is amusingly rabid, as the fellow hollers that "in addition to being an illiterate moron", I am also "an arrant liar") and another demonstrable lie of his own (besides the ones pointed out here and here), this would look bad enough on Jansson.

Considering these remarks conveniently ignored by Jansson, this "conclusion" of Jansson’s:

Thanks to his continued emphasis on the issue, and his refusal to simply admit his error, he has turned what was initially simply an embarrassing error on his part into an ongoing meltdown, as he is forced to put his dishonesty on display again and again.

comes across at yet another example of Jansson’s accusing his opponent of the dishonesty that characterizes his own behavior.

4. Regarding the blog Friedrich Jansson proudly presents …, third update

Jansson starts by yelling that I should look up myself the supposed non-homicidal use of the term "ausrotten" in the Luther bible, which he had earlier invoked. This suggests that the Luther bible doesn’t support Jansson’s claim. Why else would he childishly refer his opponent to a search engine, instead of proudly parading the passages in question?

Then Jansson produces the following pearl:
Regarding the book Der Gelbe Fleck, Muehlenkamp advances the thesis that the reference to Ausrottung in the title is an allusion to “the precarious living conditions forced upon the Jewish population, the reduced birth rate and increase of suicides due to these conditions”. That is to say, he believes that the use of Ausrottung was a reference to the subreplacement Jewish birthrate – and suggests that this somehow supports his interpretation of Ausrottung (of people) as necessarily homicidal. This a truly astonishing argument. Guess what other country has a subreplacement birthrate? Well, how about… modern Germany! Now, if Muehlenkamp wants to argue that the current German government is implementing the Ausrottung of the German Volk, I won’t object – but this seems to be rather contrary to the interpretation of Ausrottung as implying killing.
First of all, the question I asked Jansson was not related to the book’s title, but to a certain passage of the book (which will again be quoted below).

Second, if the sub-replacement birthrate of Germany resulted from a repressive government’s forcing unbearable living conditions upon the population and thus discouraging procreation and raising general mortality and suicide rates, with the apparent aim of slowly wiping out the German population, I wouldn’t consider it hyperbolic if someone accused such government of acting according to a plan to gradually assassinate, murder or exterminate the German population.

Third, Jansson continues running away from my question, which is again repeated below:
As to Langowski’s article, I wasn’t referring to "a few passages from the book’s early pages in which violence is mentioned. In other words, there were individual cases in which Jews were killed", as dodging and subject-changing Jansson well knows. I was referring to a description of the precarious living conditions forced upon the Jewish population, the reduced birth rate and increase of suicides due to these conditions, which is followed by this indictment (my translation):
No, these are not excesses!
No, these are not 'riots'!
This is the coldly premeditated, cynically conceived assassination (Meuchelmord) of a defenseless minority, which is inseparably linked to the National Socialist system.

So, Mr. Jansson, what did the author of these lines mean to express, if not that, in his opinion, the Jewish minority in Germany was being assassinated by creating unbearable living conditions for Germany’s Jews, driving them to despair and thus causing them to commit suicide and/or no longer have children, and thereby to gradually become extinct?
Jansson continues:
As Muehlenkamp has not even read the book which he purports to interpret (on the basis of a single short excerpt), he cannot know that, for instance, the book has a whole chapter on “Die Austreibung.” If he could only overcome his phobia of libraries he might inform himself better, but alas, it seems that despite his experience with medication for mental illness, he has been unable to conquer this fear.
First of all, I do not purport to interpret Feuchtwanger’s Der gelbe Fleck. I’m asking a question about the meaning of a certain passage of that book in the mind of who wrote that passage, and Jansson is running away as far as he can from this question.

Second, a chapter on Austreibung (expulsion) suggests that, notwithstanding the book’s deliberately alarming title, not all of the authors whose writings Feuchtwanger reproduced were of the opinion that the Nazis’ anti-Jewish policy at the time was aimed at an Ausrottung (extermination) of Germany’s Jewish population, as opposed to expelling Germany’s Jews or inducing them to leave the country. No banana here for Jansson.

Third, libraries featuring Feuchtwanger’s Der gelbe Fleck are hard to come about where I live, to say the least.

Fourth, Jansson’s getting exceedingly personal with his "medication for mental illness" remark is gratefully recorded as further evidence that Jansson is the obnoxious individual (to put it politely) that has abundantly come across in his previous writings.

Last but not least, Jansson’s insistent babbling about his opponent’s supposed "fear" of this and that suggests, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, that poor Jansson is afraid of a great many things, including without limitation historical facts inconvenient to his ideology.

Fear seems to be the reason that has kept Jansson from answering the aforementioned question and the other questions I asked him in the blog Friedrich Jansson proudly presents …, including without limitation the following:
Jansson lamely contends that the supposition that killing is meant in all of my examples is wrong. He has to, for acknowledging otherwise regarding the last two of these examples would mean that he can either squeal "forgery" or pack up, close down his blog page and dedicate himself to gardening or some other hobby more fruitful than disputing facts contrary to his ideological beliefs. I would ask Jansson to be more specific here. Which of the examples I provided does he think do not mean or imply killing people, and how does he justify his understanding in regard to each of these examples? Let's hear, Mr. Jansson.

Now, assuming that Langowski’s reading is mistaken and Feuchtwanger’s book did not mean to convey the impression that the Jews of Germany were being exterminated or "assassinated", would this mean that Fegelein, Frank and Himmler, in the examples cited in this blog, had anything other than physical killing in mind when they spoke of "Ausrottung"? Please do tell us, Mr. Jansson.

So, Mr. Jansson, how does one ausrotten a group of people without killing them all or at least a substantial part of them? One might think of sterilizing a population to keep it from procreating, and thus causing it to gradually disappear. This gets us back to my examples.

Is this non-homicidal variety of ausrotten supposed to have been what SS-Gruppenführer Hermann Fegelein had in mind when, in his order of 28.09.1941, he instructed his troops to create Jewish quarters or ghettos where the local Jewish population could not be immediately ausgerottet?

Or what General Governor Hans Frank had in mind when, on 9 June 1944, he stated that the "natural fertility" required to assure Jewry’s continuity had been destroyed by the Ausrottung of the Jews in Poland, as these were the only ones who "had children"?

Or what Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler had in mind when he told his Posen audience, on 6 October 1943, that he had not considered himself entitled to ausrotten the Jewish males, "that is, to kill them or to have them killed", and let the children grow up "as avengers against our sons and grandsons", for which reason the difficult decision had been taken "to make this people disappear from the earth"?

Let’s hear, Mr. Jansson.

5. Regarding my response in the present blog to Jansson’s blog On burial density in terms of mass of carcasses per cubic meter

Here we have vintage Jansson:
In his typical method in dealing with inconvenient information, Muehlenkamp responds with an attempted derailment, talking about peripheral matters before rushing to ignore the information in the study.
So Jansson’s inability to demonstrate the impracticability of the corpse mass concentration I calculated (or of the lower concentration considered in the blog Friedrich Jansson responded …) is supposed to be a "peripheral" matter in this discussion.

And the same, I guess, applies to evidence suggesting that the 33 Bełżec mass graves identified by archaeologist Prof. Andrzej Kola were not the only mass graves in that camp’s area, which would mean that an even lower corpse mass concentration was sufficient to accommodate the corpses of all deportees buried in that area.

I see.

And of course my logical observation, that the physical impracticability of the aforementioned concentrations of corpse mass per cubic meter does not follow from lower concentrations of carcass mass in mass graves elsewhere, is as "peripheral" as can be.

The obvious reason why Jansson lamely calls these central matters "peripheral" is his lack of arguments against mine.

More of the same:
His one actual argument is a lie.
What, another of Jansson’s infantile "lie" accusations?

Jansson should be careful with yelling "lie" all the time, lest he wants the "boy cries wolf" to set in (meaning that, in the improbable case of Jansson ever demonstrating that I made a claim against better knowledge, no one in his right mind will believe him because he has embarrassed himself with baseless "lie" accusations too often before).

And some more:
Remember: I posted data on the density of the carcass mass itself, not in terms of total excavated volume. Yet Muehlenkamp twice assumes the contrary.
Err, that would be one and the same assumption repeated twice, and not two separate assumptions. Looks like Jansson forgot to think before hitting the keyboard.

Jansson continues:
Did I mention that I posted data on the density of the carcass mass itself, not in terms of total excavated volume? In fact, I posted data on the density of the carcass mass itself, not in terms of total excavated volume. How many times do I have to repeat it before it sinks into Muehlenkamp’s thick skull?
So now I’m supposed to have a "thick skull", which contradicts the earlier "lie" BS. Jansson will have to make up his mind.

Now, while "thick skull" has understood that Jansson was talking about "the carcass mass itself", he still hasn’t understood how this follows from the data so far presented by Jansson. Let’s take a look at the table he provided:

The table mentions "burial volumes (m³) excluding two metres capping layer". How were these burial volumes established? Did someone measure the length, width and height of a pile of carcasses inside a mass grave?

I consider that unlikely, and unless Jansson can provide evidence that this was what was done, it is reasonable to assume that the burial volume is simply the excavated volume of the pit minus the volume of the capping layer.

This, of course, does not imply that the burial volume is equal to the volume of the buried carcasses. The volume of the pit (minus the capping layer) that is occupied by the carcasses may be smaller than the excavated volume of the pit (again, minus the capping layer), meaning that the pit’s volume below the capping layer is not filled to capacity and more carcasses would fit in if that volume were to be completely filled up with carcasses.

And if Jansson’s finds whereby "the volume of the carcass mass is considerably less than the total excavated volume" do not just refer to the difference between total excavated volume and capping layer volume, it is likely that this is the case.

This, in turn, means that what Jansson alternately labeled as "lie" or "thick skull" incomprehension was actually a pertinent observation.

The next two paragraphs of Jansson’s exercise go under the headings "blah, blah, blah" and "fish-wife-bitching. First the blah, blah, blah:
Of course, Muehlenkamp also reiterates his comical claims to have “mathematically demonstrated” various crap. News flash: making up numbers and performing arithmetical operations with them doesn’t “mathematically demonstrate” anything. The only things that get mathematically demonstrated are mathematical propositions. For statements about this world, we need empirical input, and even assuming that a particular piece of mathematical deduction is sound, it’s only as good as the assumptions that went into it.
With all due respect for Jansson’s amazing capacity to sound like he is saying something while actually saying nothing, I have to take exception to the "making up numbers" crap. As Jansson well knows, the 663.40 kg per cubic meter are based on Alex Bay’s "Vetruvian man" calculations.

On we move to the fish-wife bitching:
Thus, on one side of this issue (my side, naturally) we have actual empirical data on mass burials, while on the other side we have Muehlenkamp whimpering “I made up some numbers mathematically demonstrated it… if only Provan’s subjects had ducked… of course they could have… never mind that it was a doll, never mind that its weight was simply invented, never mind that the other measurements are full of errors… of course corpses are capable of deliberate action to fit into the smallest possible volume… *sniff* I *snuffle* mathematically *sob* demonstrated it.” Gee – which should we choose?
I take that this is Jansson’s way of admitting his inability to demonstrate that Provan’s test persons didn’t have the stated mass/weight, that assuming a mass of 7 kg for a doll the size of a human baby was arbitrary, or that the test persons and the doll could not have fitted head to foot inside Provan’s test box, meaning that a human mass density of 604.55 kg per cubic meter (which, as demonstrated here, is all I need, assuming against Bay’s air photo analysis that the mass graves identified by Prof. Kola’s archaeological team were the only mass graves at Bełżec) is a possibility borne out not only by calculations, but also by Provan’s experiment.

Update, 22.05.2015

6. Regarding the blog Jansson is at it again …, second update

Ettling’s experiments obviously cause Jansson much concern, so he tries to make it look as if they favor his arguments, even it that requires misrepresenting what Ettling wrote.

Jansson starts out by repeating his mendacious claim that my "beliefs" (which I don’t have – believing I leave to the likes of Jansson) imply that "the very fat sheep in Ettling’s experiment should have self-cremated", as if I had not clearly stated that the corpses’ own fat on the Treblinka pyres had contributed to but not wholly (or even mostly) accounted for these corpses' combustion (which moreover was not exactly complete).

Then he rambles about a supposed "blunder" of mine in having tried to demonstrate the relatively little contribution of external fuel in Ettling’s experiments from the comparative results of these experiments, which is supposed to have "proved" that I "didn’t know the contents of Ettling’s paper", because the experiments differed in the amount of fuel used, the arrangement of the fire and the fact that in the experiment with the 150-pound ewe the fire was extinguished whereas in the experiment with the 170-pound ewe it was allowed to burn itself out. Never mind that, as clearly follows from Ettling’s article, the differences that Jansson made so much off didn’t make the latter ewe burn better than the former, as I pointed out in my previous update of the above-mentioned blog.

To tackle this uncomfortable argument, Jansson takes to misrepresenting both my argument and Ettling’s article, as follows:
Instead, he focuses on Ettling’s statements on the fact that the slow process of “spontaneous combustion” lasted longer than the period of more intense combustion when the external combustibles were consumed. Certainly it lasted longer, but so what? The energy release in the shorter, highly energetic first phase of the fire will have been larger than that in the longer, more sedate portion (as one may readily calculate from the appropriate sources). There are no grounds whatsoever to say that the external combustibles (equivalent in energy content to hundreds of kilograms of wood) did not make a significant contribution.
Except, of course, that my argument was not about the length of the "spontaneous combustion" process (Jansson creatively made that up) but about Ettling’s observations and conclusions, and that the comparatively little contribution of the external fuel versus the more significant contribution of the carcass’s own fat, due to the carcass’s position over a fire fed by that fat, was clearly what Ettling observed (when he pointed out that in the initial blaze "everything in the car that could burn was consumed except for the carcass", emphasis added) and concluded (for Ettling’s writing that "for a ewe, and presumably for a human also, the body can be rather thoroughly consumed by fire from its own fat", emphasis added, is clearly incompatible with his having assumed a significant contribution of external fuel to the cremation process).

Following this sorry attempt to take his readers for a ride, Jansson produces the following nonsense:
Furthermore, a vehicle fire with extensive fuel creates a kind of crematorium on wheels for a time. As Muehlenkamp and his blogging colleagues believe that at Auschwitz, one small crematory muffle could cremate several bodies in some 20-30 minutes, he should believe that the initial 30 minute period of intense combustion would have been able to cremate the ewe entirely.
Not that it would matter to this discussion, but I don’t remember having claimed that an Auschwitz muffle could cremate "several bodies in some 20-30 minutes" (must be another of Jansson’s creative inventions). And while it may be that a vehicle fire generates crematorium-like heat under certain circumstances, this was obviously not what happened in Ettling’s experiment with the 170-ewe, which (as Ettling expressly stated) had not been consumed by the thirty-minute-long external fuel fire. This observation of Ettling’s, and the conclusion he derived from it and from his observation of the carcass’s subsequent self-combustion, make it completely irrelevant what I’m supposed to believe or what can happen or has happened in vehicle fires other than those of Ettling’s experiments.

Ettling’s further conclusion that "the bodies found in the car in Idaho could have been consumed by their own fire without someone else adding fuel" is also not to Jansson’s liking. So he tries to "sanitize" it as follows:
Finally, on the basis of Ettling’s statement that “the bodies found in the car in Idaho could have been consumed by their own fire without someone else adding fuel” Muehlenkamp concludes that “it is evident that Ettling considered the external fuel to have made but a small or negligible contribution to the carcass’s being mostly destroyed by fire.”

This is wrong. Ettling was an arson investigator. He was looking at questions about whether certain physical evidence from a car fire implied anything about foul play versus a “natural” car fire. When he refers to “their own fire” he is talking about a normal, “natural” car fire without extra fuel. This is obvious to anyone who has read about fire forensics an arson investigation. If a body from a car fire is quite well burned, does this imply that, for example, someone added fuel to the fire? Perhaps (and this is the classic question with a car fire) the person was killed first, then put in the car and burned to dispose of the evidence, with some additional fuel included to make sure the burning was sufficiently destructive? Ettling is saying that a “normal” car fire can account for a high degree of burning, and is not referring to a fire with no external combustibles. Yet again, Muehlenkamp has misinterpreted a text because he couldn’t be bothered to actually read anything significant in the literature on the subject. Despite his sloth, you would have imagined that Muehlenkamp would have picked up on the fact that this is explained in the paper’s first paragraph, which begins by referring to a case where a burned out car was found, and in that car were two bodies sufficiently well burned to make identification difficult.
The inevitable "sloth" abuse aside, Jansson is acting as if a) I had derived my conclusion from Ettling’s statement about the Idaho car fire alone (which of course I did not) and b) that statement had been made in isolation. However, the statement in question was clearly connected to and derived from  Ettling’s earlier conclusion that "for a ewe, and presumably for a human also, the body can be rather thoroughly consumed by fire from its own fat", and preceded by the Treblinka parallel that this conclusion reminded Ettling of. So the context of Ettling's statement about the Idaho car fire  contradicts Jansson’s speculative interpretation of "by their own fire", and renders moot his lecture about fire forensics and arson investigation.

Jansson’s argument doesn’t improve with his following remark:
Then comes the motivating question for the whole paper:
Questions arose concerning how much fuel would be required to burn the bodies so thoroughly and whether additional fuel had been added during the fire.

This is the question which all of Ettling’s discussion refers back to.

For the answer to the motivating question, which follows from Ettling’s observations and conclusions regarding the 170-pound ewe’s having been mostly destroyed in a fire fed by its own fat, is that the bodies in the Idaho car could have been burned the way the 170-pound ewe had been burned, i.e. in a fire fed by their own fat connected with the burning of their car for possibly accidental reasons (Ettling added that "a cigarette could burn out a car by smoldering over a period of time" and that, if the couple had fallen asleep with a lighted cigarette, "A smoldering fire could have resulted which asphyxiated the couple").

This means that Jansson’s final conclusion:
Had Muehlenkamp realized this fact, he would not have made the foolish misinterpretations which he did. We have yet another case of Muehlenkamp’s famously poor reading comprehension.
is just more Janssonian baloney. Rather than "foolish misinterpretations" and "poor reading comprehension" on my part, what we have here is another case of Jansson’s trying to creatively twist a source so that it fits his belief system.


1. The text in this section was slightly modified after the initial publication, in order to bring across my points more clearly.

2. I'm still waiting for Jansson's answer to my Dresden Altmarkt question:
So please tell me, Mr. Jansson, how much gasoline do you think they used to cremate 6,865 corpses (or 10 times that many, if you choose to fall for the doctored version of TB 47) on the Dresden Altmarkt after the bombing of 13/14 February 1945?

Do you accept my calculation whereby it was about 68,000 liters (more than twice the daily consumption of a Panzer division, at a time when Nazi Germany was fighting for survival and its armed forces were running woefully short of fuel)?

Do you think 68,000 liters is too high, as one might think Mattogno does?

Or do you think the amount was twice or three times or four times as high (implying a Panzer division immobilized for lack of fuel not two but four, six or eight days)?

Let’s have your take on this, Mr. Jansson. I’m definitely curious.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please read our Comments Policy