Human soap made from the fat of jews

[borjastick]

I don't feel compelled to explain to you the patently obvious about your bias. Further, if I have to explain it to you, you are not likely to understand. It is a selective bias, as exhibited with the soap.

Pick up almost any mainstream 'holocaust history' book, look at the snippets used to weave a narrative, then look at the source material and the picking, choosing and manipulating should be self evident.

I don't know what to tell you Nessie, you are not being objective here.

/shrug

Objectivity is the last they they want or do. Look at any holocaust tv documentary and notice how in the set-up or opening sections and then in the B roll and infill parts they run multiple clips of holocaust camp film purporting to be part of the story they are actually telling. The reality is these clips are fluff, foggy bottom stuff. They are never from the camp being discussed but mere charades of truth designed to hood wink the casual observer. It works. Deflection is a major part of holocaust 'truth' as is modern day israeli propaganda like the rubbish spouted by the jews over the October 7th attack.

[Stubble]

I don't feel compelled to explain to you the patently obvious about your bias. Further, if I have to explain it to you, you are not likely to understand. It is a selective bias, as exhibited with the soap.

Pick up almost any mainstream 'holocaust history' book, look at the snippets used to weave a narrative, then look at the source material and the picking, choosing and manipulating should be self evident.

I don't know what to tell you Nessie, you are not being objective here.

/shrug

Objectivity is the last they they want or do. Look at any holocaust tv documentary and notice how in the set-up or opening sections and then in the B roll and infill parts they run multiple clips of holocaust camp film purporting to be part of the story they are actually telling. The reality is these clips are fluff, foggy bottom stuff. They are never from the camp being discussed but mere charades of truth designed to hood wink the casual observer. It works. Deflection is a major part of holocaust 'truth' as is modern day israeli propaganda like the rubbish spouted by the jews over the October 7th attack.

Why is it always babies in ovens...

[Nessie]

I don't feel compelled to explain to you the patently obvious about your bias. Further, if I have to explain it to you, you are not likely to understand. It is a selective bias, as exhibited with the soap.

Pick up almost any mainstream 'holocaust history' book, look at the snippets used to weave a narrative, then look at the source material and the picking, choosing and manipulating should be self evident.

I don't know what to tell you Nessie, you are not being objective here.

/shrug

You accuse me of not being objective, but you do not explain why, or give any examples. I can explain how I am being objective, with examples.

I accept eyewitness evidence that is corroborated and the greater the corroboration the better. For example, people who worked at the Kremas, who saw what was happening and documents from the construction office about the operation of the building. Two sources of multiple individual pieces of evidence. That is strong corroboration.

I accept that there is some witness and forensic evidence for the making of soap using ingredients for corpses, but it was not on an industrial scale and the source of the corpses is not clear to be able to claim it was Jewish soap. The evidence and corroboration is weak.

I do not accept hearsay and rumour, such as newspaper articles about the mass manufacture of human soap.

It does not matter the circumstances, I am consistent and objective as to how I treat evidence and proof.

[Stubble]

Nessie, this entire thread is the example.

You believe in kula columns, but not soap. What is the standard here?

One is 'helpful' for your concept of events, and historians have a consensus. The other has been rejected by consensus.

[Archie]

The reason anti-revisionists talk so much about hearsay is because they need a way to try to discard the most problematic stories but without admitting that any of the false stories could have been due to deliberate deception. Enter the hearsay excuse. This allows them to strain out the most embarrassing bits without eroding faith in the witnesses more broadly. Oh, there maybe have been some rumors, but don't worry because definitely nobody was lying about any of this.

In a lot of cases, especially in these survivor memoirs, it's not always clear what they are claiming to have personally seen vs heard secondhand. You'd have to cross-examine them to figure it out.

[Nessie]

Nessie, this entire thread is the example.

You believe in kula columns, but not soap. What is the standard here?

One is 'helpful' for your concept of events, and historians have a consensus. The other has been rejected by consensus.

I have explained the standard. Initially, I did not realise that there was evidence of one isolated instance of soap making, that used an ingredient obtained from corpses. I first responded to claims of mass manufacture of soap from Jews, which is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted.

I do not get why revisionists struggle with the concept that evidencing varies and a possible event can be poorly evidenced and vice versa, but all the evidence for the improbable event is of a poor standard, such as all the rumour and hearsay about Jewish human soap.

[Nessie]

The reason anti-revisionists talk so much about hearsay is because they need a way to try to discard the most problematic stories but without admitting that any of the false stories could have been due to deliberate deception. Enter the hearsay excuse. This allows them to strain out the most embarrassing bits without eroding faith in the witnesses more broadly. Oh, there maybe have been some rumors, but don't worry because definitely nobody was lying about any of this.

In a lot of cases, especially in these survivor memoirs, it's not always clear what they are claiming to have personally seen vs heard secondhand. You'd have to cross-examine them to figure it out.

Most courts do not allow hearsay. Are you claiming they are wrong to "strain out" the most unreliable source of evidence?

Historians report the hearsay, as well as the more reliable evidence, as they do not "strain out" evidence and prefer to present all of it. Less weight is given to the hearsay, because it is less reliable. It is often reported as rumours, an example of which are the early rumours of mass murder of Jews. Those early rumours, and subsequent hearsay from witnesses such as prisoners who escaped from A-B, are part of the history of what happened.

Some of the claim revisionists love to latch onto, like opening floors and masturbation machines, are possibly, probably, witnesses lying. But those witnesses are not a key part of the evidence. They are correctly sidelined in favour of the eyewitnesses.

You do not need to cross-examine a witness to establish if what they said was hearsay. If someone writes in their memoirs that they worked in the camp laundry and they talk about the gas chambers, then we know what they are saying about the gas chambers, is hearsay.

[Stubble]

You are so close to getting it Nessie, so close. You can do this, connect the dots, look at what I'm saying, then look at what you said.

You can do it buddy! I've got faith in you. Just think a little bit harder about what you just said. Then think about the soap. Then think about the kula columns. Be objective. Remember to hold a consistent standard of evidence.

Nessie, this entire thread is the example.

You believe in kula columns, but not soap. What is the standard here?

One is 'helpful' for your concept of events, and historians have a consensus. The other has been rejected by consensus.

I have explained the standard. Initially, I did not realise that there was evidence of one isolated instance of soap making, that used an ingredient obtained from corpses. I first responded to claims of mass manufacture of soap from Jews, which is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted.

I do not get why revisionists struggle with the concept that evidencing varies and a possible event can be poorly evidenced and vice versa, but all the evidence for the improbable event is of a poor standard, such as all the rumour and hearsay about Jewish human soap.

[Nessie]

You are so close to getting it Nessie, so close. You can do this, connect the dots, look at what I'm saying, then look at what you said.

You can do it buddy! I've got faith in you. Just think a little bit harder about what you just said. Then think about the soap. Then think about the kula columns. Be objective. Remember to hold a consistent standard of evidence.

Nessie, this entire thread is the example.

You believe in kula columns, but not soap. What is the standard here?

One is 'helpful' for your concept of events, and historians have a consensus. The other has been rejected by consensus.

I have explained the standard. Initially, I did not realise that there was evidence of one isolated instance of soap making, that used an ingredient obtained from corpses. I first responded to claims of mass manufacture of soap from Jews, which is not sufficiently evidenced to be accepted.

I do not get why revisionists struggle with the concept that evidencing varies and a possible event can be poorly evidenced and vice versa, but all the evidence for the improbable event is of a poor standard, such as all the rumour and hearsay about Jewish human soap.

The objective standard is set by the quality of the evidence (this is not the definitive list BTW)

- Witnesses. Are they eyewitnesses? Is their testimony hearsay? Are there issues with reliability and memory due to the passage of time?

- Documents. Can the source be verified? Is the document clear about its subject? Is it complete?

- Forensics, archaeology. How qualified is the person conducting the study? Have they made mistakes? Is any equipment and process they used reliable?

- Physical evidence. Can the source be verified? What can it evidence?

- Photographic evidence. How clear is the photo? Who took it and when?

- Circumstantial evidence. How contemporaneous and relevant is it? How well does it fit chronologically? Is it corroborative?

- Motive. Can it be evidenced and established?

- Opportunity. Could the accused do what they are accused of and did they have the time to do it?

- Conduct after the crime. Did the accused destroy or hide evidence, lie, hide or avoid capture?

Kula columns are evidenced by eyewitness, documentary and circumstantial evidence, with no evidence to the contrary. The Nazis had motive to kill and they destroyed any columns and the Kremas they were used in.

Human soap has been an atrocity story before, it was based on hearsay and rumour, but there is forensic and witness evidence of very limited production of soap with ingredients from corpses, not necessarily Jewish.

[Stubble]

Something something horse, something something drink.

[HansHill]

Ok we were talking about the soap, so how am I dishonestly interpreting the testimony you provided or why do you think that?

Because you haven't addressed this very simple question from this thread:

Why would a reasonable person sitting in the courtroom at Nuremberg be expected to reject the testimony of Sigmund Mazur and the physical evidence (bars of soap) infront of his face, yet accept the testimony of say Rudolf Hoess without it being supported by something so tangible?

Please be specific - and keep your answer within the spirit which it is intended: you are assessing the evidence at face value.

My accusation against you is that you are discarding Mazur's testimony not because it's any weaker (in fact it is stronger), rather you are rejecting it simply because that is the prevailing narrative.

[bombsaway]

Ok we were talking about the soap, so how am I dishonestly interpreting the testimony you provided or why do you think that?

Because you haven't addressed this very simple question from this thread:

Why would a reasonable person sitting in the courtroom at Nuremberg be expected to reject the testimony of Sigmund Mazur and the physical evidence (bars of soap) infront of his face, yet accept the testimony of say Rudolf Hoess without it being supported by something so tangible?

Please be specific - and keep your answer within the spirit which it is intended: you are assessing the evidence at face value.

My accusation against you is that you are discarding Mazur's testimony not because it's any weaker (in fact it is stronger), rather you are rejecting it simply because that is the prevailing narrative.

Where did I say I rejected it or discard it? What I rejected is your implication it was about Jew soap. I've stated before that I believe in limited experimental production of soap using human remains

[HansHill]

Where did I say I rejected it or discard it? What I rejected is your implication it was about Jew soap. I've stated before that I believe in limited experimental production of soap using human remains

You have just demonstrated it again. Watch this:

Jews: Our people were being turned into soap
Mazur: Here is my testimony on how I was turning human fat into soap
BA: Jews were categorically not turned into soap but others were

A reasonable person has no avenue to arrive at this conclusion if only looking at the evidence and claims as presented. This is why i'm accusing you of retroactively applying the narrative that we understand today that the soap story is bunk, to save face.

Are you implying we don't have witnesses that saw jew soap?

I'm not implying, I'm telling you.

[bombsaway]

Where did I say I rejected it or discard it? What I rejected is your implication it was about Jew soap. I've stated before that I believe in limited experimental production of soap using human remains

You have just demonstrated it again. Watch this:

Jews: Our people were being turned into soap
Mazur: Here is my testimony on how I was turning human fat into soap
BA: Jews were categorically not turned into soap but others were

A reasonable person has no avenue to arrive at this conclusion if only looking at the evidence and claims as presented. This is why i'm accusing you of retroactively applying the narrative that we understand today that the soap story is bunk, to save face.

Are you implying we don't have witnesses that saw jew soap?

I'm not implying, I'm telling you.

The soap story isn't bunk though, theres just no evidence they were making it out of Jews. This is if anything counter indicated by Mazur, who says whose bodies were delivered (Poles, Russians and Uzbeks). The comments that Jew soap was being made are secondary sources, that's what I disregard, in accordance with my stated principles. I think it's you who are confused in this whole situation and you should probably do some soul searching about your efforts to frame me as making some grievous error here.

[HansHill]

The soap story isn't bunk though, theres just no evidence they were making it out of Jews. This is if anything counter indicated by Mazur, who says whose bodies were delivered (Poles, Russians and Uzbeks). The comments that Jew soap was being made are secondary sources, that's what I disregard, in accordance with my stated principles. I think it's you who are confused in this whole situation and you should probably do some soul searching about your efforts to frame me as making some grievous error here.

We are at an impasse then. I'll just add this final note before leaving my arguments to stand for themselves for others to review:

theres just no evidence they were making it out of Jews.

I know. Thats what is bunk. However this would not have been understood by a reasonable person reviewing the claims and evidence as presented. Only after decades of narrative shift.

This is if anything counter indicated by Mazur, who says whose bodies were delivered (Poles, Russians and Uzbeks).

One way for you to satisfy this would be to categorically define the subset of "jew" outside of the set of "people" who were allegedly being turned into soap. You could for example appeal to categorization, such as Mazur was only referring to Christians, Muslims, Hindus etc. This could be supported with the "jews are unclean" trope for example. It would of course have to be supported some way, and to my knowledge Mazur (or anyone else) doesn't distinguish "jew" from "people".

Therefore my accusation stands. A reasonable person at Nuremberg who believes in the jews in gas chambers story has every reason if not more reasons, to believe the jews into soap story. The fact that you are arguing they have no reasons to believe this, is a feature of narrative drift across time.