In the job of the archivist is to assist the public in using the archives. I would not say the archives that I have visited that the employees are exactly worked off their feet. They should try working in a hospital if they want to know what constantly busy means.David Thompson wrote:little grey rabbit -- You wrote:Generally, archivists have a lot of work to do, and deal with many inquiries every day, so they may not have given your requests the priority you think they merit.Repeated attempts by me to get an answer from the Hague as to whether they have an archival holding of soap has never resulted in a single reply, apart from "Your email has been passed on to the responsible department." If anyone, anyone can give me the email address of someone in the archives there who will answer and confirm or deny they have a holding of soap, I would be immensely grateful.
Using a variety of aliases and a variety of back stories I was unable to once get an answer - and this is over a period of 4 years. The most recent attempt was four months ago. I believe I am an imaginative person. I believe I can frame a question that I appear the most respectful Soap believing person on Planet Earth.
Tis of no consequence - the archive remains mute.
Porter's claims (and his claim there is not very specific or detailed) need to be taken with a grain of salt. He had rather strange ideas of what was supposed to be on the Hague archives and believed because they could not show him original documents that they were all photo-manipulations. In fact, as I pointed out in most cases the original documents were returned to the various authorities that supplied them.However, Carlos Whitlock Porter claimed to have seen and sniffed the soap exhibit there, some time prior to 2003. See http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 88#p217488
See also lukeo's 2003 post refering to a similar exhibit in Poland at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 40#p284640
Perhaps Soap was an exception to this rule? As for lukeo's claim of a Soap exhibit, I would defer to Dr Neander's opinion on that, having put the hard leg work into the slippery work of Soap chasing.
I am happy to believe that there is Soap sitting in a Hague basement. I just point out as a fact that I can not get confirmation of this from the Hague. I don't want to see the soap, I don't want to smell the soap or test the soap. I just want to do the very basics of fact checking and get a confirmation from the Hague they have a holding of Soap, its (cyrillic apparantly) reference signatur and a confirmation that it was sampled in 2006.
I am thinking of offering a reward.
This would still leave gapping holes in the chain of custody as, according to Dr Neander, they tested two samples, one from private collection. One of these samples using an unpublished and unrevealed discrimination of lipid profile was found to be undisputably human fat-derived, the other could not be determined if it was human or pig.
Perhaps if they published in a journal we would be better placed, I am sure plenty of scientific journals would be only too happy to run such study (if properly done) on a point of historic interest.