Hearsay Evidence

[Charles Bunch]

The Soviets posted no affidavits about the Katyn affair.

Well, it is clear that they tried to post lies, but the West had had enough. We'll have to take our time and look at this in detail.

[/quote]

No, the point is they tried to introduce lies with respect to Katyn. There is no indication they tried to introduce lies, per se.

But the pertinent point is they did not introduce bogus affidavits or any other bogus evidence to support the Katyn lies.

We don't require any looking at the situation to establish those facts.

[Charles Bunch]

The Soviets posted no affidavits about the Katyn affair.

Well, it is clear that they tried to post lies, but the West had had enough. We'll have to take our time and look at this in detail.

Of course, we can all submit to a fanatic who believes that antiSemitism is the oldest form of hatred in the world, and who's insult generator is set on "mindless, moron, cretin, denier, etc... but there is a problem here, namely that none of us are willing to submit to your superior mind.

You are not required to submit. Your inability to make a coherent argument in support of your nonsense makes it unnecessary.

Mindless denial by Mr. Smith is a rather obvious fact, based on his constant resorting to that tactic.

There is nothing about my positions that are fanatic. They are mainstream, proven history. But then, you wouldn't know that.

The Soviets were clearly trying their hardest to lie.

About Katyn. You don't have a shred of evidence this is true about any other aspect of the trials.

But then, evidence is but an inconvenient hurdle for you, eh Dan!

[Scott Smith]

Scott -- In an exchange of views, it's important to distinguish between fact and opinion. If it's your opinion that the "soap story" is unproven, well and good. But there is a long leap from that opinion to a flat statement that the "soap story" is completely false ("soap libel", "Santa Claus," "Great Pumpkin," etc.). This is not a matter of reification. Opinions only require conviction, and stand on their own as an expression of individual (and human) belief. Statements of fact, however, require at least some evidence to move them past the realm of opinion. This standard applies to the "soap story," and it also applies to claims that the "soap story" is false. For absolute statements of fact, regardless of their origin, skepticism is wholesome.

The burden-of-proof is on the accuser, and that is not me unless to point out that Nuremberg tried to capitalize on the Human Soap atrocity rumors is an accusation.

[Scott Smith]

Nothing circular about it in the least. Are you intent on demonstrating your ignorance about every logical fallacy extant?

What would you call Is-Too/Is-Not, Chuck if not circular?

So far there is only Mazur's sensational story about Human Soap and his Mom's laundry, a picture of what the Soviets claim is a jar of Human Soap, and a kitchen recipe for soap claimed by the Soviets to have come from the Danzig Anatomical Institute.

No, there is Mazur's testimony, Wittons testimony, Neely's testimony, a soap recipe identified by Mazur, and the soap, not a photo of the soap. The recipes being from the Institue is corroborated by Mazur, so it is not just claimed by the Soviets.

So far we have only seen the text of Mazur and photos of the jars called Human Soap, submitted to the IMT as USSR-393.

No, we have seen the pertinent text of all three witnesses, and the evidence is the soap, not a photograph. Is there something about the distinction between a photograph and an actual sample you are unable to understand?

Then, perhaps Chuck will have his Human Soap sample analyzed for human tissue, or show us some proof that the IMT submitted this Soviet soap sample to any laboratory testing whatever.

The use of the world "only" might carry weight in a school yard debate, but in the real world it is childish, and meaningless. The evidence presented is sufficient and unrebutted by you in any acceptable manner.

In Chuck's world anything is "evidence" and "conclusive," if it "fits his bubble," as Roberto would say.

Mazur cannot confirm for us the recipe as being recovered from the DAI; whoever actually recovered it would need to testify to that.

Confused again I see. You argued the _Soviet_ claim to have found it in the DAI was unsubstantiated. Mazur's identification of the recipe as the one given to him by Spanner at the DAI substantiates the recipe's origin. This is not that difficult Smith.

This is where cross-examination of Mazur would be helpful. Otherwise, anybody could present a scrap of paper to a "witness" and get a nod. At the very least a good defender would object and want a witness to testify to finding the "recipe" (USSR-196) at the "crime scene."

But since Nuremberg could accept any evidence, including from the Soviet Union, that they wanted that had "probative value" as Greuelpropanda according to the London agreement of August 8, 1945, Chuck thinks it must be real because it has Nuremberg's fingerprints all over it.
:roll:

Yeah, it is a soap recipe--and Mazur can maybe confirm that there was one, which would not be unusual. Nor can it be shown to be specific for Human Soap; it is just a kitchen recipe for soap.

You mean Mazur substantiates its origins. A soap recipe in an Anatomical Institute would be most unusual (but not a miracle Smith).

A kitchen soap recipe anywhere in wartime Germany where there would be shortages all all consumer items is not unusual at all.

A "Human Soap" recipe would be quite miraculous/unusual, however!

The evidence which shows it to have a connection with human soap is Mazur's testimony and the corroborating testimony.

We have seen the text of the Mazur story (USSR-197).

We have NOT seen Neely and Witton other than some excepts where they also make some Human Soap claims. This is not the same as corroboration of Mazur's specific claims.

According to Chuck's universe, any rumor can be proved true by merely using this method of distrortion. I find it curious indeed that the text of Neely and Witton are not published at Nizkor along with Mazur. Hypothesis: They don't really corroborate Mazur at all, just throw in some more Human Soap rumors. Bottomline: Your claim of "corroboration " is alleged and NOT YET SHOWN. Better fill out the ILL forms to show us Neely and Witton in toto, Chuckoo! They are USSR-272 and USSR-264 respectively.

You have failed to show why it's a kitchen recipe for soap, or address why a recipe for soap would be found at an Anatomical Institute, a place which just happens to have lots of fat from human bodies as a by product of producing skeletons.

You have failed to show how USSR-196 is a recipe for Human Soap and not any old kind of soap. And, despite Mazur's allegations that Dr. Spanner produced a recipe for Human Soap at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, the actual origins of USSR-196 are questionable.

We can assume that Witton and Neely corroborate Mazur on Nazi Human Soap, but without reading the text of their affidavits submitted to the IMT this is only a bold assumption.

Not in the least, since the corroborating sections of the testimony have been posted and read.

That's bullshit, Chuck, and you know it.

So either give an alternative scenario for the evidence, or offer evidence why it should be ignored.

You'll have to pony-up some evidence first.

What a desperately stupid comment. If there were no evidence, you wouldn't have to be desperately running from it as you have been.

More Is-Too/Is-Not.

But honest readers will note that your theory forces you to claim that Mazur lied, Witton lied, Neely lied, and that the prosecution participated in the lie about the manufacture of human soap at the Institute.

Not all storytellers lie; they may believe what they are saying and they may be used inappropriately by others with nefarious motives. Why the fuss, Chuck? Quit making an ass of yourself and get us the full text of Neely (USSR-272) and Witton (USSR-264) or else drop your claim that they substantiate Mazur (USSR-197).

[Scott Smith]

Whether a claim is proven or not has nothing to do with whether it exists as an abstract or concrete proposition.

A categorical claim without tautological proof (i.e., as determined by its own definitions, e.g., 2+2=4) is merely an abstract proposition needing supporting evidence to lend it substance. The other possibility is nonsense.

That sentence is absolutely meaningless. Have you subscribed to a random philosophical terms generator and forgotten how to run it?

Coming from you that's really saying something, Chuck!

A claim of human soap involves a concrete propositon. A claim that God exists involves an abstract proposition. The truth or falsity of those claims has nothing to do with whether they are abstract or concrete.

All claims are abstract propositions unless there is a primary empirical observation that can be substantiated somehow, though this is far from proving something true. A claim is not a thing in itself--not even if it was witnessed. However, tautological truths can be "Borne Witness" to by the faithful.

Don't you have any shame?

Meaningless prattle, Believer mine.

[Dan]

About Katyn. You don't have a shred of evidence this is true about any other aspect of the trials.

But then, evidence is but an inconvenient hurdle for you, eh Dan!

Evidence is somewhat hard to come by. I asked you several months ago where the bar of soap is located mentioned as existing by a Nizkor guy on the Nizkor site. We're also waiting for that hunk of white matter the Soviets submitted as evidence at (drum rolls) the IMT!

[Dan]

but Biddle rightly recognized that he and the others could not give in this time,

Interesting, and worthy of further study.

[Charles Bunch]

Nothing circular about it in the least. Are you intent on demonstrating your ignorance about every logical fallacy extant?

What would you call Is-Too/Is-Not, Chuck if not circular?

There is nothing circular about it. Like most of the terms you throw around, you don't know what they mean.

So far there is only Mazur's sensational story about Human Soap and his Mom's laundry, a picture of what the Soviets claim is a jar of Human Soap, and a kitchen recipe for soap claimed by the Soviets to have come from the Danzig Anatomical Institute.

No, there is Mazur's testimony, Wittons testimony, Neely's testimony, a soap recipe identified by Mazur, and the soap, not a photo of the soap. The recipes being from the Institue is corroborated by Mazur, so it is not just claimed by the Soviets.

So far we have only seen the text of Mazur and photos of the jars called Human Soap, submitted to the IMT as USSR-393.

No, we have seen the pertinent text of all three witnesses, and the evidence is the soap, not a photograph. Is there something about the distinction between a photograph and an actual sample you are unable to understand?

Then, perhaps Chuck will have his Human Soap sample analyzed for human tissue, or show us some proof that the IMT submitted this Soviet soap sample to any laboratory testing whatever.

Why?

The evidence in toto is already sufficient. One deals with the evidence one has. Only someone out to deny the clear implication of what the evidence shows would focus on asking for what doesn't exist, rather than what does.

quote]The use of the world "only" might carry weight in a school yard debate, but in the real world it is childish, and meaningless. The evidence presented is sufficient and unrebutted by you in any acceptable manner.

In Chuck's world anything is "evidence" and "conclusive," if it "fits his bubble," as Roberto would say.

In my world evidence, when sufficient, leads to conclusions. In Smith's world, the conclusion is reached first (The Nazis didn't commit atrocities or gas Jews, or do just about anything) and evidence inconvenient to that conclusion is denied, over and over and over and over again. Sort of makes a mockery of your "Skeptics" stance, eh!

Mazur cannot confirm for us the recipe as being recovered from the DAI; whoever actually recovered it would need to testify to that.

Confused again I see. You argued the _Soviet_ claim to have found it in the DAI was unsubstantiated. Mazur's identification of the recipe as the one given to him by Spanner at the DAI substantiates the recipe's origin. This is not that difficult Smith.

This is where cross-examination of Mazur would be helpful.

Helpful, but not necessary. That's persumably why the defense didn't cross examine him!

Otherwise, anybody could present a scrap of paper to a "witness" and get a nod. At the very least a good defender would object and want a witness to testify to finding the "recipe" (USSR-196) at the "crime scene."

More of Smith's continuous use of ipse dixit arguments!

But note the desperate tactic. Part of the time Smith argues there is nothing odd about this "kitchen" recipe for soap being at an Anatomical Insitute, and that it doesn't even mention human fat; now he's arguing that the Soviets planted this innocuous piece of evidence!! The latter reliance on a conspiracy theory is always the last resort of the mindless denier.

Does this look like the process of a man attempting to understand what the evidence might show, or that of someone throwing up specious, and often contradictory arguments for denying the evidence?

But since Nuremberg could accept any evidence, including from the Soviet Union, that they wanted that had "probative value"

Nothing wrong with that. Accepting the evidence for assessment is an eminently fair to go about it. Show trials, on the other hand, would decide before hand what evidence to allow into the record.

quote="Chuck"]

Yeah, it is a soap recipe--and Mazur can maybe confirm that there was one, which would not be unusual. Nor can it be shown to be specific for Human Soap; it is just a kitchen recipe for soap.

You mean Mazur substantiates its origins. A soap recipe in an Anatomical Institute would be most unusual (but not a miracle Smith).

A kitchen soap recipe anywhere in wartime Germany where there would be shortages all all consumer items is not unusual at all.

So why would the Soviets need to introduce a bogus document, as you suggest above?!!

The fact is you have no evidence that such recipes existed in homes, or that top Nazi scientific institutes had to make their own soap!!!

A "Human Soap" recipe would be quite miraculous/unusual, however!

Not miraculous at all. Why aren't you embarrassed by your stubborn refusal to take proper correction for your errors?

The evidence which shows it to have a connection with human soap is Mazur's testimony and the corroborating testimony.

We have seen the text of the Mazur story (USSR-197).

We have NOT seen Neely and Witton other than some excepts where they also make some Human Soap claims. This is not the same as corroboration of Mazur's specific claims.

It is exactly corroboration. The failure to read into the record the entire affidavit has no effect whatsoever on the matter.

According to Chuck's universe, any rumor can be proved true by merely using this method of distrortion.

Testimony under oath to a crime is not a rumor. Smith's continued dishonesty and desperation are a thing to behold!

I find it curious indeed that the text of Neely and Witton are not published at Nizkor along with Mazur.

Not nearly as curious that deniers haven't published!!

There is nothing at all curious about Nizkor not archiving every document introduced at Nuremberg. I belive there were about 500,000 of them.

You have failed to show why it's a kitchen recipe for soap, or address why a recipe for soap would be found at an Anatomical Institute, a place which just happens to have lots of fat from human bodies as a by product of producing skeletons.

You have failed to show how USSR-196 is a recipe for Human Soap and not any old kind of soap.

That is false. The testimonial evidence of witnesses establishes that.

We can assume that Witton and Neely corroborate Mazur on Nazi Human Soap, but without reading the text of their affidavits submitted to the IMT this is only a bold assumption.

Not in the least, since the corroborating sections of the testimony have been posted and read.

That's bullshit, Chuck, and you know it.

The corroborating sections of the testimony have been posted and read.

So either give an alternative scenario for the evidence, or offer evidence why it should be ignored.

You'll have to pony-up some evidence first.

What a desperately stupid comment.

The evidence has been posted and discussed for weeks!

But you're not a denier, eh Smith!!!!

[Charles Bunch]

Whether a claim is proven or not has nothing to do with whether it exists as an abstract or concrete proposition.

A categorical claim without tautological proof (i.e., as determined by its own definitions, e.g., 2+2=4) is merely an abstract proposition needing supporting evidence to lend it substance. The other possibility is nonsense.

That sentence is absolutely meaningless. Have you subscribed to a random philosophical terms generator and forgotten how to run it?

Coming from you that's really saying something, Chuck!

You know it's absolute drivel, don't you!

A claim of human soap involves a concrete propositon. A claim that God exists involves an abstract proposition. The truth or falsity of those claims has nothing to do with whether they are abstract or concrete.

All claims are abstract propositions

Irrelevant. We're discussing whether human soap is a concrete or abstract proposition.

Don't you have any shame?

Meaningless prattle, Believer mine.

Meaningless prattle is what is emanating more and more from your keyboard as you get more desperate.

Don't you realize what a record of classic denial I've enticed you to make on this issue!!

[Charles Bunch]

About Katyn. You don't have a shred of evidence this is true about any other aspect of the trials.

But then, evidence is but an inconvenient hurdle for you, eh Dan!

Evidence is somewhat hard to come by.

No it isn't. The evidence has been shown to you.

I asked you several months ago where the bar of soap is located mentioned as existing by a Nizkor guy on the Nizkor site.

I see, so your going to ignore the evidence which doesn't exist while hiding behind a request for more evidence. That's not the way it works. You assess the evidence you have.

[Scott Smith]

Chuck, wipe the spittle from your chin and make a note to self: "Get USSR-272 and USSR-264 so that I can persist with my attempts at silly soap substantiation."

[Charles Bunch]

Chuck, wipe the spittle from your chin and make a note to self: "Get USSR-272 and USSR-264 so that I can persist with my attempts at silly soap substantiation."

So which is it Smith, did all the witnesses lie, or were they all part of the Soviet conspiracy which also planted the soap recipe which you claim is innocuous?!!!

Until the evidence is rebutted or shown to be tainted, all you have is mindless denial.

[Scott Smith]

Well, we have to see that evidence first, don't we, Chuck...

[Charles Bunch]

Well, we have to see that evidence first, don't we, Chuck...

We've seen the evidence!!!

Asking for more is just a denier tactic.

[Charles Bunch]

Well, we have to see that evidence first, don't we, Chuck...

We've seen the evidence!!!

Asking for more is just a denier tactic.