Human soap made from the fat of jews

[Stubble]

Your assumption that human sausage would taste bad is speculative Archie, according to actual cannibals, human tastes like pork, and in more than 1 dialect the word for man is 'long pig'.

Sorry for the drift in topic, I felt that needed to be addressed though. Especially considering Muller's implication of human meat being tinned while it was still twitching and sent back to nazi cannibals in Berlin.

I'm going to go check made in Russia again, I think that may have the 'Eyewitnesses' in it, and they may not actually specify jews, although, if I understand statistical probability and death demographics at Auschwitz correctly, there's at least a 90% chance the soap was jewish.

That puts a hamper on the jewish fat as cremation fuel narrative however, so, perhaps there is some other way to fix the fuel problem.

[bombsaway]

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

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

I think you're being a little closed-minded here. As I recall, numerous survivors talk about the human soap. We should at least look at a few examples and give them a fair hearing. Then we can decide what to make of them.

Here is a passage from Olga Lengyel's Five Chimneys.

The Nordic Supermen knew how to profit from everything. Immense casks were used to gather the human grease which had melted down at high temperatures. It was not surprising that the camp soap had a peculiar odor. Nor was it astonishing that the internees became suspicious at the sight of certain pieces of fat sausage!

She does not say here if she saw these immense casks with her own eyes or if she heard this from others. This may be first-hand. She does not say she saw the Nazis making the soap, but if there were huge casks with human grease, imo, that would be good circumstantial evidence that they were making human soap. What else would they be collecting that for? Where there's smoke, there's fire, amirite?

She says the soap had a peculiar odor. She is describing her direct experience here. I think this weird smell is cause for suspicion. Especially since there was a fat shortage during the war. Whether we can give any weight to this would depend on whether Lengyel was competent to determine whether the soap was of human origin based on the smell (and other factors like texture). Does human soap have a distinctive smell? I don't know. I think we need additional research on this point. Lengyel was a trained medical professional which may give her an edge with this.

As far as the sausage, this sounds quite speculative. Human sausage would probably taste really bad.

I don't think I agree with strictly dividing testimony into "direct" and "hearsay." This is done in law because with an out-of-court statement there's no way to cross-examine or follow-up. However with history usually you can't cross-examine anyway and so the distinction is less important. It is true that all else equal a first-hand source is better than a second-hand source which is better than a third-hand source, etc. But you don't discard sources just for not being first-hand.

Back to Lengyel. It is unclear whether the casks full of human grease were based on direct observation or she was told this by others. But even in the latter instance, if she heard it from a reliable source and she wasn't too many degrees removed, we shouldn't expect too much deterioration in accuracy. So again I think you are dismissing this too hastily.

I don't think that's direct evidence, given her position as a prisoner, with no knowledge of special processes at Auschwitz, or technical expertise. If it was Hoess saying these things that would be a different story. So it's speculative, circumstantial evidence at best.

You can't 100% discount hearsay or rumors of course, but I don't think you'll find any historians when talking about contemporary history asserting mass events on the basis of hearsay, and this is the correct approach in my mind.

[Nessie]

The human soap myth is just as evidenced as many other 'facts' regarding the holocaust that are somehow beyond reproach. It is rejected by the orthodoxy, apparently, because it is not sufficiently evidenced.

Can someone explain this to me in a way that doesn't involve cognates dissonance? A way that is consistent?

All forms of evidence come in different standards. For example, there are detailed, well researched forensic tests and poorly conducted testing. There are witnesses who are all over the place, make numerous mistakes and not corroborated and there are others who are detailed, accurate and corroborated. There is eyewitness and hearsay and rumour. There are documents that are clearly worded and detailed and others that are obscure, or have sections missing.

Historians and criminal investigators are trained to identify the different standards of evidence and to be wary of and even reject evidence that is of a low standard. Some evidence, such as hearsay, is an example of evidence that is normally rejected. Revisionists struggle and often make mistakes, such as concentrating their attention on hearsay.

Human soap, which has a history of being a wartime atrocity story, is only evidenced by poor sources of evidence. At best, there were some ingredients that had a human origin put into some soap, but it was far from mass manufacture and probably not even from Jewish corpses. Revisionists highlight human soap as a poorly evidenced atrocity story, to support their belief that many other parts of the Holocaust are also just atrocity stories.

[borjastick]

Human soap, which has a history of being a wartime atrocity story, is only evidenced by poor sources of evidence. At best, there were some ingredients that had a human origin put into some soap, but it was far from mass manufacture and probably not even from Jewish corpses. Revisionists highlight human soap as a poorly evidenced atrocity story, to support their belief that many other parts of the Holocaust are also just atrocity stories.

More complete bollocks and obfuscation from Mrs Nessie. How's them human skin lampshades going?

The reason there are a million reasons to prove the holocaust as claimed didn't happen is because it didn't happen. Don't dig too deep into the low IQ answers from this idiot. Just ask yourself why revisionism exists. Partly it's because many people dislike jews or the fake ones anyway but mainly it's because the world has been held to ransom by these liars and shysters and when you spend just a few hours of your life looking at the holocaust claims you realise it is a lie.

[HansHill]

Documentary evidence - Check
Physical evidence - Check
Production / Methodological evidence - Check
Eye-witness evidence - Check

All of the highest standard.

Exhibit Number USSR-197 - the testimony of one of the direct participants in the production of soap from human fat. It is the testimony of Sigmund Mazur, who was a laboratory assistant at the Danzig Anatomic Institute - “I boiled the soap out of the bodies of women and men.”

A British POW John Henry Witton’s testimony was read out only moments later about producing the soap, going into the explicit details of the manufacturing process, and supported by a new eye-witness William Anderson Neely who claims to have physically seen it, and then a sample of the soap is produced Exhibit USSR-393 for the Tribunal to see and smell.

Eye-witnesses:

Fred Schiefler – Odysee Link - https://odysee.com/@re:a4/TRUTH-SERUM-F ... rdinaire:c

Ann Dancyger – Odysee Link - https://odysee.com/@R.A.I.N.:0/Holocaus ... man-soap:d

Rachel Hanan – Odysee Link - https://odysee.com/@Hate_Speech:3/RACHE ... ND-MORE):a

This is in addition to the half-dozen eye-witnesses I have already provided you previously which you seemingly ignored.

Now I will ask you to be consistent here - I have the feeling that you won't but if you don't, then I still win because it will be in black and white for everyone to see. As a thought experiment, I am sitting in the courtroom witnessing the Nuremberg trials as they unfold. Assume I am a layman, and assume whatever you want about my political biases (keep your assumptions realistic, for example I am broadly pro-Ally, and dont have access to a smartphone etc)

Why am I right to believe the gas chamber story and why am i wrong to believe the soap story given what I have just heard?

[Stubble]

Human soap, which has a history of being a wartime atrocity story, is only evidenced by poor sources of evidence. At best, there were some ingredients that had a human origin put into some soap, but it was far from mass manufacture and probably not even from Jewish corpses. Revisionists highlight human soap as a poorly evidenced atrocity story, to support their belief that many other parts of the Holocaust are also just atrocity stories.

More complete bollocks and obfuscation from Mrs Nessie. How's them human skin lampshades going?

The reason there are a million reasons to prove the holocaust as claimed didn't happen is because it didn't happen. Don't dig too deep into the low IQ answers from this idiot. Just ask yourself why revisionism exists. Partly it's because many people dislike jews or the fake ones anyway but mainly it's because the world has been held to ransom by these liars and shysters and when you spend just a few hours of your life looking at the holocaust claims you realise it is a lie.

I'm not usually one for short, one line posts, however, there's just not much to say.

[Nessie]

Documentary evidence - Check
Physical evidence - Check
Production / Methodological evidence - Check
Eye-witness evidence - Check

All of the highest standard.

Is it? The links you provide below to the witness testimony do not seem to think so and you would not normally accept Soviet sourced evidence.

Exhibit Number USSR-197 - the testimony of one of the direct participants in the production of soap from human fat. It is the testimony of Sigmund Mazur, who was a laboratory assistant at the Danzig Anatomic Institute - “I boiled the soap out of the bodies of women and men.”

A British POW John Henry Witton’s testimony was read out only moments later about producing the soap, going into the explicit details of the manufacturing process, and supported by a new eye-witness William Anderson Neely who claims to have physically seen it, and then a sample of the soap is produced Exhibit USSR-393 for the Tribunal to see and smell.

Eye-witnesses:

Fred Schiefler – Odysee Link - https://odysee.com/@re:a4/TRUTH-SERUM-F ... rdinaire:c

Ann Dancyger – Odysee Link - https://odysee.com/@R.A.I.N.:0/Holocaus ... man-soap:d

Rachel Hanan – Odysee Link - https://odysee.com/@Hate_Speech:3/RACHE ... ND-MORE):a

This is in addition to the half-dozen eye-witnesses I have already provided you previously which you seemingly ignored.

Now I will ask you to be consistent here - I have the feeling that you won't but if you don't, then I still win because it will be in black and white for everyone to see. As a thought experiment, I am sitting in the courtroom witnessing the Nuremberg trials as they unfold. Assume I am a layman, and assume whatever you want about my political biases (keep your assumptions realistic, for example I am broadly pro-Ally, and dont have access to a smartphone etc)

Why am I right to believe the gas chamber story and why am i wrong to believe the soap story given what I have just heard?

You are right to believe the gas chamber "story" because of the sheer volume of evidence, the quality of that evidence and the lack of evidence something else happened. For example, every single person who worked at a Krema, German SS, German and Polish civilians and Jewish prisoners from various different countries, agree they were used as gas chambers. No one said they had a different use. Documents from the camp and civilian sources confirm the construction of gas chambers. Forensic tests find traces of the use of Zyklon B. The circumstantial evidence fits with gassings, with the selection process, theft of property and mass cremations. There is also evidence of motive and opportunity to kill those who were considered to be a danger to, or unnecessary burden on, Nazi society. There is evidence of a cover up and destruction of evidence, consistent with the commission of a crime.

The evidence of human soap is not to the same standard as gassings. Reports of the mass production of human soap are from dubious, hearsay sources. There is a history of human soap as an atrocity story. Now, I have checked, and Holocaust Controversies considers human soap to have been proven in one instance;

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... human.html

It would appear that isolated case, which was not manufacturing soap that then went on general sale, and falls under the general category of allegations of bizarre experiments by Nazi doctors. There may be some truth, but also a lot of exaggeration.

Just because "documentary evidence - check" etc, does not therefore mean human soap is anywhere near as well evidenced as gas chambers.

[HansHill]

.

That's exactly how I thought you would respond. This is confirmation bias. You are looking for reasons to disbelieve the soap, and looking for (inventing) reasons to believe the gas chambers, even though as presented to a layperson, they appear identical in their legitimacy.

I'll wait to see how your friend BA answers.

[Stubble]

For the record there is some documentation referring to 'human soup'. Some thought this was a misprint of soap and so compared documents in different languages. It is indeed 'human soup' and not 'human soap'. So there is a deviation in investigation that is possible here as well.

[Nessie]

.

That's exactly how I thought you would respond. This is confirmation bias. You are looking for reasons to disbelieve the soap, and looking for (inventing) reasons to believe the gas chambers, even though as presented to a layperson, they appear identical in their legitimacy.

I'll wait to see how your friend BA answers.

I think most laypeople will see the difference in the standard and level of evidence for gas chambers, over human soap. They will see that revisionist beliefs do not necessarily follow the evidence and indeed, they are often unevidenced, or are contradicted by the evidence.

[Stubble]

.

That's exactly how I thought you would respond. This is confirmation bias. You are looking for reasons to disbelieve the soap, and looking for (inventing) reasons to believe the gas chambers, even though as presented to a layperson, they appear identical in their legitimacy.

I'll wait to see how your friend BA answers.

I think most laypeople will see the difference in the standard and level of evidence for gas chambers, over human soap. They will see that revisionist beliefs do not necessarily follow the evidence and indeed, they are often unevidenced, or are contradicted by the evidence.

You don't think anyone will notice the selective nature of exterminationist evidence?

Odd.

[Nessie]

That's exactly how I thought you would respond. This is confirmation bias. You are looking for reasons to disbelieve the soap, and looking for (inventing) reasons to believe the gas chambers, even though as presented to a layperson, they appear identical in their legitimacy.

I'll wait to see how your friend BA answers.

I think most laypeople will see the difference in the standard and level of evidence for gas chambers, over human soap. They will see that revisionist beliefs do not necessarily follow the evidence and indeed, they are often unevidenced, or are contradicted by the evidence.

You don't think anyone will notice the selective nature of exterminationist evidence?

Odd.

Oh, I would hope and expect that laypeople see the selective nature of how historians use evidence, how and why they give some evidence more weight and authority than others. To me, it is common sense, which is something revisionists clearly lack as they dismiss perfectly good evidence, obsess over hearsay and believe what is not evidenced.

[Stubble]

I think most laypeople will see the difference in the standard and level of evidence for gas chambers, over human soap. They will see that revisionist beliefs do not necessarily follow the evidence and indeed, they are often unevidenced, or are contradicted by the evidence.

You don't think anyone will notice the selective nature of exterminationist evidence?

Odd.

Oh, I would hope and expect that laypeople see the selective nature of how historians use evidence, how and why they give some evidence more weight and authority than others. To me, it is common sense, which is something revisionists clearly lack as they dismiss perfectly good evidence, obsess over hearsay and believe what is not evidenced.

Again, we give the evidence different value. You consider it beyond reproach, I, especially when the evidence violates the laws of physics or is simply retarded, wonder personally how it was selected as being of value.

I also don't fail to notice the habit historians have of clipping multiple selective quotations to make 1 coherent narrative, while ignoring much of the body that was originally contained there in.

/shrug

In short, you have a confirmation bias. I'm sure I have a bias as well. Given the exposure I've had to lies presented as fact by 'authorities', I feel my bias is justified.

You don't, but, that's fine. You don't have to 'feel' that I'm justified. I honestly don't really care.

I just want truth, ultimately.

[Nessie]

You don't think anyone will notice the selective nature of exterminationist evidence?

Odd.

Oh, I would hope and expect that laypeople see the selective nature of how historians use evidence, how and why they give some evidence more weight and authority than others. To me, it is common sense, which is something revisionists clearly lack as they dismiss perfectly good evidence, obsess over hearsay and believe what is not evidenced.

Again, we give the evidence different value. You consider it beyond reproach,

You know that is not true. I bang on about corroboration, incessantly, as a means to verify evidence.

I, especially when the evidence violates the laws of physics or is simply retarded, wonder personally how it was selected as being of value.

It is because the witness overestimated, mis-remembers, uses emotive descriptions and all the common errors witness make, but they are corroborated. It is also because you are so dependent on your incredulity to support your beliefs, that you cannot face it being a logical fallacy you should stop using.

I also don't fail to notice the habit historians have of clipping multiple selective quotations to make 1 coherent narrative, while ignoring much of the body that was originally contained there in.

/shrug

Any examples?

In short, you have a confirmation bias. I'm sure I have a bias as well. Given the exposure I've had to lies presented as fact by 'authorities', I feel my bias is justified.

You don't, but, that's fine. You don't have to 'feel' that I'm justified. I honestly don't really care.

I just want truth, ultimately.

The only way to do that, is to gather evidence to establish a chronological narrative. The way you would investigate any historical event, except for the Holocaust, for some reason.

[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