"Beliefs" aren't necessarily wrong (reply to Nessie)

[HansHill]

I will reply again, it is due to the insufficiency or non existence of evidence. You have linked me to an uncorroborated witness who I can find little detail of, reports of rumour and hearsay and Soviet provided physical evidence that has no provenance or testing. That is not enough to base a belief on.

But it is corroborated. Its corroborated by:

- Rabbi Steven Wise of the World Jewish Congress
- Chamber of the Holocaust, Mount Zion - The original holocaust Museum
- The judicial panel at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
- New York Times
- Haaretz
- The British Political Warfare Executive
- Rachel Auerbach
- four distinguished university professors: Berthold Epstein, Prague; Bruno Fischer, Prague; Henri Limousin, Clermont-Ferrand; and Géza Mansfeld, Budapest
- Olga Lengyel
- Konrad Morgen
- Alexander Pechersky
- Abraham Silberschein
- Simon Wiesenthal

So, one final time: Why don't you believe claims like this, despite such strong corroborating evidence?

[Stubble]

Doesn't holocaust controversies have a blog post supporting soap and reviving lampshades in the same breath? I seem to recall one. I'll look.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... n.html?m=1

Wrong link, my how things change in a year.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... e.html?m=1

I'll look for their supporting soap blog. I'm reasonably sure it's in there. It isn't presented with the lampshade update however. My apologies.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... n.html?m=1

I'll keep digging for the wholesale nazi soap holocaust controversies blog in support. There seems to be some dispute among authors there.

[bombsaway]

There's no direct evidence of mass production of human soap, no evidence of Jews being turned into soap. Evidence of Poles being turned into soap in an experimental and limited procedure.

So the answer to the question is, direct evidence.

If you think differently, post a witness statement directly testifying to mass production of soap from people.

[Nessie]

I will reply again, it is due to the insufficiency or non existence of evidence. You have linked me to an uncorroborated witness who I can find little detail of, reports of rumour and hearsay and Soviet provided physical evidence that has no provenance or testing. That is not enough to base a belief on.

But it is corroborated. Its corroborated by:

- Rabbi Steven Wise of the World Jewish Congress
- Chamber of the Holocaust, Mount Zion - The original holocaust Museum
- The judicial panel at the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg
- New York Times
- Haaretz
- The British Political Warfare Executive
- Rachel Auerbach
- four distinguished university professors: Berthold Epstein, Prague; Bruno Fischer, Prague; Henri Limousin, Clermont-Ferrand; and Géza Mansfeld, Budapest
- Olga Lengyel
- Konrad Morgen
- Alexander Pechersky
- Abraham Silberschein
- Simon Wiesenthal

So, one final time: Why don't you believe claims like this, despite such strong corroborating evidence?
...

None of the sources are corroborative. They are all secondary or hearsay. Corroboration is a Jewish prisoner who states he unloaded corpses at the soap factory, another who states he tended the vats used to separate out the fat and a Nazi who states he guarded the other two witnesses as they did their jobs and that it was a soap factory. Three eyewitnesses who all agree, they worked inside a soap factory and saw the processes involved in the making of soap. If documents were traced at the factory, recording deliveries of corpses and number of bars of soap manufactured, that would corroborate the witnesses. If a forensic test of soap traces inside a vat were found to contain human fat, that would be corroborative forensic evidence.
There is nothing like that standard of evidence for human soap and all you are doing at the moment, is revealing your ignorance of evidencing and corroboration.

[Stubble]

There's no direct evidence of mass production of human soap, no evidence of Jews being turned into soap. Evidence of Poles being turned into soap in an experimental and limited procedure.

So the answer to the question is, direct evidence.

If you think differently, post a witness statement directly testifying to mass production of soap from people.

I could be wrong, but, I think that is for another thread.

I could be wrong again, however, it is my opinion the introduction of the story has already proved its point.

What people choose to believe they run through their own model and weigh for themselves using their opinion/interpretations of available evidence.

Some may require more evidence than others to adhere to a particular belief.

Faith is a component however in establishing belief.

There are people that will never ever not 'believe' the soap story. Their lived experience reflected the lie.

There are people who will never believe they didn't get a shower in a shower room because 'the nazis didn't have no gas that day'.

They 'know' this, in their marrow.

There are people who will never see a problem with the idea of gassing a warehouse full of people using a tank motor in 15 minutes.

They believe this.

This list could go on, almost ad infinitum.

Perhaps it is I who believes the silly thing, I suppose that's possible. In my defense, for any 'fact' I reject, there are a series of lies that led to me rejecting it.

From rivers and lakes of fire, to geysers of blood from human sardine cans, the ridiculous is numerous.

The revival of the formerly rejected historical fables, as articles are published by the hundred by the hour about combatting the rise in antisemitism, does little to build in me a belief that I should ignore former refutations or that I should not question what has been 'established'.

I'm sure that this post, just like every other, will be looked at, but ultimately ignored and dismissed with some one line rebuttal revolving around the word 'evidence'. Ultimately, both sides of the coin I'm sure, have places where they ignore what the other considers evidence for no other reason than personal belief.

[bombsaway]

Perhaps it is I who believes the silly thing, I suppose that's possible.

I'm not sure what you believe in. It seems the counter theory is that the Jews were mass resettled by the Nazis, and the millions of witnesses were suppressed and all the evidence deleted, which is hard to believe for me, just like the details of the killings are hard for you to believe. Even a resettlement of the a quarter of the Jews in question, which would be like 500,000 would leave some direct evidence, it's not believable to me that it wouldn't or. acover up would be possible.

There is perhaps a middle ground where the Jews died in a more believable fashion. Maybe they were sent to giant camps where they weren't given food mass starved to death like the Russian POWs. If this was the case I would again expect evidence though. I also wouldn't expect the allies to concoct fantastical stories when you can otherwise make a clear case for genocide. Starving to death is probably a more painful, inhumane, ultimately more unethical form of killing than a relatively quick death in a gas chamber.

DOCUMENT 15 https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... man10.html

This winter there is a danger that not all the Jews can be fed anymore. One should weigh honestly, if the most humane solution might not be to finish off those of the Jews who are not employable by means of some quick-working agent. At any rate, that would be more pleasant than to let them starve to death.

[Stubble]

Perhaps it is I who believes the silly thing, I suppose that's possible.

I'm not sure what you believe in. It seems the counter theory is that the Jews were mass resettled by the Nazis, and the millions of witnesses were suppressed and all the evidence deleted, which is hard to believe for me, just like the details of the killings are hard for you to believe. Even a resettlement of the a quarter of the Jews in question, which would be like 500,000 would leave some direct evidence, it's not believable to me that it wouldn't or. acover up would be possible.

There is perhaps a middle ground where the Jews died in a more believable fashion. Maybe they were sent to giant camps where they weren't given food mass starved to death like the Russian POWs. If this was the case I would again expect evidence though. I also wouldn't expect the allies to concoct fantastical stories when you can otherwise make a clear case for genocide. Starving to death is probably a more painful, inhumane, ultimately more unethical form of killing than a relatively quick death in a gas chamber.

DOCUMENT 15 https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... man10.html

This winter there is a danger that not all the Jews can be fed anymore. One should weigh honestly, if the most humane solution might not be to finish off those of the Jews who are not employable by means of some quick-working agent. At any rate, that would be more pleasant than to let them starve to death.

I actually haven't established a 'belief structure' as such as I have not reviewed sufficient evidence in my opinion. Regardless, that's an aside from my main point.

You believe in 'the holocaust' and I believe 'something happened and everything needs to be examined under a microscope, especially if it doesn't make any sense'.

One bone of contention here is that it is 'the holocaust' it is not 'a series of events of which some occurred, some are exaggerated and some are propaganda'. It is the holocaust. It is beyond reproach. It is all to be taken and believed uncritically and on faith.

[HansHill]

You people have the consistency of runny eggs. You are bending over backwards to avoid acknowledging the obvious:

That those advancing these claims are lying scumbags. That goes for each of the Allies who had influential legal representations present at Nuremberg. That goes for all the media outlets that covered it, along with the various institutions and academics. And you people are attempting tactical evasion, because you know exactly where that leads to next.

Nessie cannot bring himself to say simply "i disbelieve the soap story because it's horseshit" like a normal person, because he has tied himself in knots on this forum about eyewitnesses outranking physical evidence and the incredulity fallacy he doesn't understand. Instead he must construct these strange elaborations to avoid the massive L looming before him.

All of this, despite the soap story having every bit as high of an evidentiary value as say - the non-existant Kula columns. Insufferable!

[Stubble]

I'd say it's better evidenced than kula columns, but, ultimately it doesn't matter, because the line has been drawn on the soap, and so, there is no soap.

Unless the consensus changes, which it is doing, as human skin lampshades get revived.

And the shrunken heads, with full heads of hair I might add, also get brought back out as an actual nazi atrocity, not propaganda.

Being able to show psywar actually deployed at buchenwald won't change anything any more than anyone will accept that the allies built the 'gas chamber, disguised as a shower room, never used as a gas chamber' at dachau. Not the whole facility mind you, just the ridiculous fake gas chamber.

Just like they did in Paris, where you not only find a fake gas chamber built by the allies, and not just claw marks in cement, but whole hand prints. In cement.

That's how hard people were gassed at the Eiffel Tower. So hard that they left handprints in cement.

[HansHill]

I'd say it's better evidenced than kula columns

Good point. The soap outranks the Kula columns, because the soap has made two physical appearances that I'm aware of: One at Nuremberg, and one at the Mount Zion Chamber of the Holocaust.

[Stubble]

There is also a piece of human soap on display in Germany that they will let you smell. And it smells horrible from what I understand.

Its patents is questionable however and it has been said that if it is of human origin, it was most likely a Soviet product, not of German origin.

[bombsaway]

You guys still don't understand, the assertions of soap mass produced from bodies or soap produced from Jews fail the most basic criteria of historical inquiry - no direct evidence. If there is direct evidence, it still might not be true, but even this doesn't exist. There's no reason to believe, simply.

You.methods of assessing history are just your own, it's not standard practice, and I would say it speaks to a high level of motivated reasoning. You want the soap assertions to be better evidenced than columns. They aren't unless you are rewriting the basic rules of how history is done.

[Stubble]

You guys still don't understand, the assertions of soap mass produced from bodies or soap produced from Jews fail the most basic criteria of historical inquiry - no direct evidence. If there is direct evidence, it still might not be true, but even this doesn't exist. There's no reason to believe, simply.

You.methods of assessing history are just your own, it's not standard practice, and I would say it speaks to a high level of motivated reasoning. You want the soap assertions to be better evidenced than columns. They aren't unless you are rewriting the basic rules of how history is done.

What?

Ok, now we need a jew soap thread.

[bombsaway]

You guys still don't understand, the assertions of soap mass produced from bodies or soap produced from Jews fail the most basic criteria of historical inquiry - no direct evidence. If there is direct evidence, it still might not be true, but even this doesn't exist. There's no reason to believe, simply.

You.methods of assessing history are just your own, it's not standard practice, and I would say it speaks to a high level of motivated reasoning. You want the soap assertions to be better evidenced than columns. They aren't unless you are rewriting the basic rules of how history is done.

What?

Ok, now we need a jew soap thread.

Maybe you want to believe that he allies fabricated documents and got false witness confessions or testimonies like they did for the other things you call lies, but this just isn't the case.

[Stubble]

Bombs, I didn't even consider that 3rd order effect, but, you are not wrong. That's certainly something for me to explore.

In another thread