Human soap made from the fat of jews

[bombsaway]

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.

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.

Perhaps you can argue an average person might come to that conclusion, or Jews might come to that conclusion, but I don't think it's reasonable to assert or believe in mass events based on secondary sources. The standards I have for myself I would say everyone should have.

BTW I'm not saying definitively No Jews were soaped, just that there's no evidence of this, so that belief is unjustifiable.

[HansHill]

Perhaps you can argue an average person might come to that conclusion, or Jews might come to that conclusion, but I don't think it's reasonable to assert or believe in mass events based on secondary sources. The standards I have for myself I would say everyone should have.

BTW I'm not saying definitively No Jews were soaped, just that there's no evidence of this, so that belief is unjustifiable.

Emphasis mine.

There is no "might" about it - we know this is the case, given the volume of claims that I presented earlier in the thread, even from some very influential jews (rabbi Stephen Wise for example). Alternatively you could argue they didn't actually believe it, and this was simply wartime propaganda. That would be even more in my favour.

All of this supports what I was telling you about narrative shift, and in the other thread what Archie was telling you about the narrative being constructed from agreed consensus. That the soaping is ridiculous and has fallen out of favour, yet existed heavily and hysterically at the time, is a perfect demonstration of this.

[Stubble]

They ritually buried bars of soap. I'm pretty sure they believed it. They believed in mass produced jew soap.

[bombsaway]

Perhaps you can argue an average person might come to that conclusion, or Jews might come to that conclusion, but I don't think it's reasonable to assert or believe in mass events based on secondary sources. The standards I have for myself I would say everyone should have.

BTW I'm not saying definitively No Jews were soaped, just that there's no evidence of this, so that belief is unjustifiable.

Emphasis mine.

There is no "might" about it - we know this is the case, given the volume of claims that I presented earlier in the thread, even from some very influential jews (rabbi Stephen Wise for example). Alternatively you could argue they didn't actually believe it, and this was simply wartime propaganda. That would be even more in my favour.

All of this supports what I was telling you about narrative shift, and in the other thread what Archie was telling you about the narrative being constructed from agreed consensus. That the soaping is ridiculous and has fallen out of favour, yet existed heavily and hysterically at the time, is a perfect demonstration of this.

I take issue with your sentence ". 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." It's not reasonable for someone to believe in mass events based on secondary sources. On the other hand gassing is supported by direct evidence. There are direct witness testimonies, often from the perpetrators themselves, and documents https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/docum ... ?mode=text

This is something that doesn't exist for Jew Soap. Sorry, these things are Not The Same, try as you might to fit a round peg in a square hole. Really what you have to argue for is that what I am saying is wrong - actually mass events can and should be asserted on the basis of secondary source evidence. This is clearly senseless though, so I think it's a hopeless argument for you.

[HansHill]

I take issue with your sentence ". 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." It's not reasonable for someone to believe in mass events based on secondary sources. On the other hand gassing is supported by direct evidence. There are direct witness testimonies, often from the perpetrators themselves, and documents https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/docum ... ?mode=text

This is something that doesn't exist for Jew Soap. Sorry, these things are Not The Same, try as you might to fit a round peg in a square hole. Really what you have to argue for is that what I am saying is wrong - actually mass events can and should be asserted on the basis of secondary source evidence. This is clearly senseless though, so I think it's a hopeless argument for you.

Consider from NMT day 188

Meanwhile, the mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz and the other extermination centers was becoming a State industry with byproducts. Bales of hair, some of it, as you will remember, still plaited as it has been shorn off the girls' heads, tons of clothing, toys, spectacles, and other articles went back to the Reich to stuff the chairs and clothe the people of the Nazi State. The gold from their victims' teeth, 72 transports full, went to fill the coffers of Funk's Reichsbank. On occasion, even the bodies of their victims were used to make good the wartime shortage of soap (Document Number USSR-272).

You have not demonstrated why a reasonable person would disbelieve this. Are you suggesting a reasonable person would sit in the courtroom listening intently, and view Allied evidence as suspicious wartime propaganda? Is he correct to be suspicious? What else could he infer about his suspicions?

[bombsaway]

I take issue with your sentence ". 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." It's not reasonable for someone to believe in mass events based on secondary sources. On the other hand gassing is supported by direct evidence. There are direct witness testimonies, often from the perpetrators themselves, and documents https://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/docum ... ?mode=text

This is something that doesn't exist for Jew Soap. Sorry, these things are Not The Same, try as you might to fit a round peg in a square hole. Really what you have to argue for is that what I am saying is wrong - actually mass events can and should be asserted on the basis of secondary source evidence. This is clearly senseless though, so I think it's a hopeless argument for you.

Consider from NMT day 188

Meanwhile, the mass murder of Jews at Auschwitz and the other extermination centers was becoming a State industry with byproducts. Bales of hair, some of it, as you will remember, still plaited as it has been shorn off the girls' heads, tons of clothing, toys, spectacles, and other articles went back to the Reich to stuff the chairs and clothe the people of the Nazi State. The gold from their victims' teeth, 72 transports full, went to fill the coffers of Funk's Reichsbank. On occasion, even the bodies of their victims were used to make good the wartime shortage of soap (Document Number USSR-272).

You have not demonstrated why a reasonable person would disbelieve this. Are you suggesting a reasonable person would sit in the courtroom listening intently, and view Allied evidence as suspicious wartime propaganda? Is he correct to be suspicious? What else could he infer about his suspicions?

No it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to trust any controversial or major claim from a government with zero evidence provided.

You seem to be arguing that people do this, which I agree with you that they do, but this is different than arguing whether it is a logically sound or a reasonable decision on their part. I'm saying it isn't, you are? This is getting funny.

[HansHill]

No it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to trust any controversial or major claim from a government with zero evidence provided.

You seem to be arguing that people do this, which I agree with you that they do, but this is different than arguing whether it is a logically sound or a reasonable decision on their part. I'm saying it isn't, you are? This is getting funny.

There is evidence - in the snippet above it is cited as Document Number USSR-272, you simply seem to think the evidence was deliberately fabricated, misleading and lacking in merit. This also, incidentally asserted by the British lead prosecutor, using Soviet evidence, so we can infer at least two of the Allies involved in pursuing this.

So again - is our reasonable man right to be suspicious of what's being presented? What can he infer from these suspicions? If this is funny to you, please try to take it seriously.

[bombsaway]

No it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to trust any controversial or major claim from a government with zero evidence provided.

You seem to be arguing that people do this, which I agree with you that they do, but this is different than arguing whether it is a logically sound or a reasonable decision on their part. I'm saying it isn't, you are? This is getting funny.

There is evidence - in the snippet above it is cited as Document Number USSR-272, you simply seem to think the evidence was deliberately fabricated, misleading and lacking in merit. This also, incidentally asserted by the British lead prosecutor, using Soviet evidence, so we can infer at least two of the Allies involved in pursuing this.

So again - is our reasonable man right to be suspicious of what's being presented? What can he infer from these suspicions? If this is funny to you, please try to take it seriously.

Yes, I've looked at that testimony and it clearly doesn't support the notion that either Jews were being turned into soap or mass production of soap had commenced to "make good the wartime shortage of soap". There's no evidence for these things so no reason to believe in them, if you are a reasonable person.

[HansHill]

Yes, I've looked at that testimony and it clearly doesn't support the notion that either Jews were being turned into soap or mass production of soap had commenced to "make good the wartime shortage of soap". There's no evidence for these things so no reason to believe in them, if you are a reasonable person.

Perfect, that was all i wanted to clarify.

[Nessie]

...

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.

The evidence of the use of mass gassings of Jews in gas chambers, is greater than the evidence of the mass manufacture of human soap from Jewish corpses, in terms of quality and volume. You are falling for the common revisionist problem of a failure to distinguish between standards of evidence, such as the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence.

As for narrative drift, bombsaway and I know we do not know everything, and we are prepared to alter our positions as evidence previously unknown to use, becomes known. All historians and other trained investigators should be prepared for narrative drift. Revisionists seem to think narrative drift is a problem, when it is not. But, revisionists have a fixed opinion and they will not accept evidence that really should cause them to alter their opinion.

[HansHill]

The evidence of the use of mass gassings of Jews in gas chambers, is greater than the evidence of the mass manufacture of human soap from Jewish corpses, in terms of quality and volume.

No, it's not. To remind you - you have "criminal traces" that evaporate under a microscope. Revisionists on the other hand have:

- Absence of HcN residues
- Absence of introduction holes
- Absence of Kula columns
- Motive, opportunity and pattern of the fabrication of material, witness and circumstantial evidence

[borjastick]

The evidence of the use of mass gassings of Jews in gas chambers, is greater than the evidence of the mass manufacture of human soap from Jewish corpses, in terms of quality and volume.

No, it's not. To remind you - you have "criminal traces" that evaporate under a microscope. Revisionists on the other hand have:

- Absence of HcN residues
- Absence of introduction holes
- Absence of Kula columns
- Motive, opportunity and pattern of the fabrication of material, witness and circumstantial evidence

Mrs Nessie at it again using weasel words and nonsense in a vain attempt to bamboozle the hard of understanding. Still cannot show a gas chamber, cannot answer my question on another topic, cannot show remains, cannot explain the time line of cremations let alone the physical operation of it, has no idea about the actual number of jews and others in camps and seems only interested in brainwashing and manipulation.

Once again I say - human skin lamp shades anyone...

[Nessie]

The evidence of the use of mass gassings of Jews in gas chambers, is greater than the evidence of the mass manufacture of human soap from Jewish corpses, in terms of quality and volume.

No, it's not. To remind you - you have "criminal traces" that evaporate under a microscope. Revisionists on the other hand have:

- Absence of HcN residues

You do not have an absence, you have a lower than the residues in the delousing chambers, which you use to dispute the possibility of mass gassings.

- Absence of introduction holes

You cannot prove that Kremas I to III never had holes in their roofs. There is variously, physical, photographic, witness and circumstantial evidence they did have holes.

- Absence of Kula columns

There is witness and documentary evidence for Kula columns.

- Motive, opportunity and pattern of the fabrication of material, witness and circumstantial evidence

What is the motive, opportunity and other evidence you say revisionist's have? Please example each type.

[Stubble]

There is more evidence for mass produced soap made from jewish fat than there is for kula's columns.

There is a distinction to make about this as well, the soap story is of a higher standard than kula columns because it is at least consistent and uniform.

Even kula himself fails this basic standard.

[Nessie]

There is more evidence for mass produced soap made from jewish fat than there is for kula's columns.

There is a distinction to make about this as well, the soap story is of a higher standard than kula columns because it is at least consistent and uniform.

Even kula himself fails this basic standard.

Please go into more detail. Explain how the soap evidence is to a higher standard, show that there is more of it and what it proves.