Soap

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re: A Falsifier of History...

Post by Charles Bunch » 24 Aug 2002 20:54

Porter makes some excellent points that I tried to make earlier in this discussion on evidence and hearsay:
Carlos Porter wrote: COMMENT: Hearsay is an “out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated” (Definition: CRIMINAL LAW ADVOCACY, Matthew Bender Publishers, NY). Hearsay achieves no added dignity by being written down.
Excellent point, Mr. Porter! Even this "drug-store lawyer" knows that and every sophomore History student should be aware of it as well.
Well, that's why we don't allow sophomore history students, or drug-store lawyers, to practice law. First of all Porter cites US law. There is no reason to assume these international trials should have been carried out under US law. But more specifically, and as I indicated to you before, there are a whole series of hearsay exception rules to be found in US criminal procedure, so the admission of a document such as Mazur's is not necessarily hearsay.

Of course, even if it was, that would say nothing about its value as an historical document.

Carlos Porter wrote: COMMENT: That is not true. It is the responsibility of the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove the authenticity of the documents which it introduces into evidence. Is it not my responsibility to prove that everything is a forgery. What is the value of “evidence” introduced in a “trial” in which something like USSR-197 or USSR-470 or R-135 could even be considered? What is the value of a “trial” in which such “evidence” could be considered? [Emphasis mine.]
When Porter declares a document a forgery, it is his responsibility to provide evidence for the claim.
And Porter continues (emphases mine)...
Carlos Porter wrote: All 3 “human soap” statements -- Mazur, Neely, and Witton -- are written hearsay, in addition to which, the Mazur statement is not even signed by Mazur! All signatures by Mazur are typewritten.
They are not necessarily hearsay, affidavits are always prepared and typed by someone else, and provided witnesses attest to the witness having made the statement there is nothing wrong with it.
Neely and Witton prepared corpses for dissection in an anatomical institute (a perfectly normal non-criminal function) and had nothing -- I repeat , NOTHING -- to do with the preparation of any “human soap”. They stated that they were TOLD that the fat removed from the corpses was turned into soap, and were furthermore TOLD that the soap was EXCELLENT for the purpose.


Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: A Falsifier of History...

Post by Scott Smith » 24 Aug 2002 23:36

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:
Carlos Porter wrote:
Scott wrote:Porter makes some excellent points that I tried to make earlier in this discussion on evidence and hearsay:
COMMENT: Hearsay is an “out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated” (Definition: CRIMINAL LAW ADVOCACY, Matthew Bender Publishers, NY). Hearsay achieves no added dignity by being written down.

http://www.cwporter.com/soap1.html
Excellent point, Mr. Porter! Even this "drug-store lawyer" knows that and every sophomore History student should be aware of it as well.
Well, that's why we don't allow sophomore history students, or drug-store lawyers, to practice law. First of all Porter cites US law. There is no reason to assume these international trials should have been carried out under US law. But more specifically, and as I indicated to you before, there are a whole series of hearsay exception rules to be found in US criminal procedure, so the admission of a document such as Mazur's is not necessarily hearsay.
If our standards of proof are a Medieval Inquisition or a Soviet Show-Trial, Yes. Both are very meticulous and proper about "the Law." But perhaps they falter on Justice and Truth. :mrgreen:
Of course, even if it was, that would say nothing about its value as an historical document.
At best the epistemology would be a maybe, certainly not sufficient for an accusation. Not even one made against Nazis. :wink:
Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?
If so, I haven't found it yet. Porter's site is not any better organized than Nizkor's. I'll look some more later.
:)

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re: A Falsifier of History...

Post by Charles Bunch » 25 Aug 2002 00:49

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:
Carlos Porter wrote: COMMENT: Hearsay is an “out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated” (Definition: CRIMINAL LAW ADVOCACY, Matthew Bender Publishers, NY). Hearsay achieves no added dignity by being written down.

http://www.cwporter.com/soap1.html
Excellent point, Mr. Porter! Even this "drug-store lawyer" knows that and every sophomore History student should be aware of it as well.
Well, that's why we don't allow sophomore history students, or drug-store lawyers, to practice law. First of all Porter cites US law. There is no reason to assume these international trials should have been carried out under US law. But more specifically, and as I indicated to you before, there are a whole series of hearsay exception rules to be found in US criminal procedure, so the admission of a document such as Mazur's is not necessarily hearsay.
If our standards of proof are a Medieval Inquisition or a Soviet Show-Trial, Yes.
Meaningless rhetoric.

Standards of justice are not medieval or Soviet just because they differ from US criminal law.

And Soviet Show trials have a very specific signature which has nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials.
Of course, even if it was, that would say nothing about its value as an historical document.
At best the epistemology would be a maybe, certainly not sufficient for an accusation. Not even one made against Nazis.
More rhetoric. Epistemology has nothing to do with this discussion. The evidence most certainly would be good enough for an accusation under both historical and legal processes.
Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?
If so, I haven't found it yet. Porter's site is not any better organized than Nizkor's. I'll look some more later.
Given the fact the two British POWs were there, and given some of their testimony, I suspect Porter's charge of hearsay (apart from his charge that affidavits are hearsay) is not supported by the testimony.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 25 Aug 2002 00:51

Charles wrote
The link is not to a document from the Museum. It is a David Irving document which utilizes a few snippets purportedly from a Museum fact sheet.
It is a quote from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution of September 25, 2000, p. 1A, but I have not checked this source.

Charles wrote

Of course you know that he was not Jewish, correct?
No, I don't. He seems to be either an ethnic Pole who got German citizenship towards the end of the war, or perhaps something else.
The fact that it is a general recipe is irrelevant. There is no reason the recipe should be anything other than general. The question is what was the source of the fat used in the recipe.

The recipe is used by some chemistry teachers in some High Schools and lower grades for an example of very basis science. It is not something taught in Anatomical Medical Institutes
The question is why it would be nailed to a piece of wood in plain view if it were secret, and why it is so different than Doc. 197 if it has any sinister relevance.
Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?
Could you please post those two documents?

Thanks

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 25 Aug 2002 01:14

Dan wrote:Charles wrote
The link is not to a document from the Museum. It is a David Irving document which utilizes a few snippets purportedly from a Museum fact sheet.
It is a quote from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution of September 25, 2000, p. 1A, but I have not checked this source.
But it is not a museum document, and only makes reference to snippets of the fact sheet.

Charles wrote

Of course you know that he was not Jewish, correct?
No, I don't. He seems to be either an ethnic Pole who got German citizenship towards the end of the war, or perhaps something else.
How many Jews do you think Germany was awarding citizenship to in 1940-1941?

The fact that it is a general recipe is irrelevant. There is no reason the recipe should be anything other than general. The question is what was the source of the fat used in the recipe.

The recipe is used by some chemistry teachers in some High Schools and lower grades for an example of very basis science. It is not something taught in Anatomical Medical Institutes
The question is why it would be nailed to a piece of wood in plain view if it were secret, and why it is so different than Doc. 197 if it has any sinister relevance.
It wasn't secret from the people using the recipe!
Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?
Could you please post those two documents?

Thanks
I'm not able to find them. I doubt Porter has posted them, which makes his claims about what they said rather suspect.

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 25 Aug 2002 01:26

Dan wrote:
Robert Frenz did several experiments to try to make soap using the Mazur testimony rather then the general recipe.

LOL, it never fails...

This has NOTHING to do with Mr. Frenz's ability or alleged ability as a chemist and an expert on soap, but if this is the Mr. Frenz I am sure that it is, the Deniers cannot seem to ever have an ordinary chemist or expert that is not also a neo-Nazi, a Jew hater, or a Hitler groupie.

Then, of course, go into a long spiel about the expert's qualifications while conviently leaving out their having been basement converted into a shrine and a Fuhrerbunker.

Hey Deniers: get a clue, will you? Get some experts from outside your club.

Regards,

Mark

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 25 Aug 2002 01:36

Mark, I give you my word that I never heard of the man until I found his article on the web after seeing a reference to it. I would be grateful for any chemist's views on the subject, provided you have any. Otherwise you post consists of nothing but mindless rambling.

Do you have anything contructive to add to this debate? We could all use the testimony of the two Brit POWs.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: A Falsifier of History...

Post by Scott Smith » 25 Aug 2002 01:41

Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott wrote:
Carlos Porter wrote: COMMENT: Hearsay is an "out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated" (Definition: CRIMINAL LAW ADVOCACY, Matthew Bender Publishers, NY). Hearsay achieves no added dignity by being written down.
http://www.cwporter.com/soap1.html
Excellent point, Mr. Porter! Even this "drug-store lawyer" knows that and every sophomore History student should be aware of it as well.
Well, that's why we don't allow sophomore history students, or drug-store lawyers, to practice law. First of all Porter cites US law. There is no reason to assume these international trials should have been carried out under US law. But more specifically, and as I indicated to you before, there are a whole series of hearsay exception rules to be found in US criminal procedure, so the admission of a document such as Mazur's is not necessarily hearsay.
If our standards of proof are a Medieval Inquisition or a Soviet Show-Trial, Yes.
Meaningless rhetoric. Standards of justice are not medieval or Soviet just because they differ from US criminal law. And Soviet Show trials have a very specific signature which has nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials.
The IMT was nothing if not a Show-Trial. It was a public spectacle designed to showcase the guilt and infamy of the defeated enemy. Yes, Constitutional principles mean nothing, of course; that's why we have them. But the only one that said anything about U.S. law was you.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:Of course, even if it was, that would say nothing about its value as an historical document.
At best the epistemology would be a maybe, certainly not sufficient for an accusation. Not even one made against Nazis.
More rhetoric. Epistemology has nothing to do with this discussion. The evidence most certainly would be good enough for an accusation under both historical and legal processes.
Every honest historian knows that evidence has to be qualified, including testimonial evidence. The question certainly is about epistemology and ways of determining the truth and advancing our knowledge using judicial and historiographical methodology. Like Show-Trials and Inquisitions, Witch Trials were legally very meticulous, so what? Demonology doesn't tell us very much about the universe.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?
If so, I haven't found it yet. Porter's site is not any better organized than Nizkor's. I'll look some more later.
Given the fact the two British POWs were there, and given some of their testimony, I suspect Porter's charge of hearsay (apart from his charge that affidavits are hearsay) is not supported by the testimony.
They weren't there; that's the point. Why not? Porter actually tracked down Neely in Scotland and interviewed him.

So, less posturing then! Show me USSR-264 (Witton) and USSR-272 (Neely). Professor Spanner would be interesting too if we can find any statement that he might have made. For some reason the IMT wasn't interested in him.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 25 Aug 2002 01:48, edited 2 times in total.

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 25 Aug 2002 01:41

Charles wrote
How many Jews do you think Germany was awarding citizenship to in 1940-1941?
It depends on the definition of Jew, doesn't it. His name doesn't seem typically Polish. What is your view?

I'm not able to find them. I doubt Porter has posted them, which makes his claims about what they said rather suspect.
We should then concentrate on the opinions expressed by the US Holocaust Museum, and other sources which have studied the testimonies.

Regards

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 25 Aug 2002 02:53

Dan wrote:
Otherwise you post consists of nothing but mindless rambling.
ROFL!

You quote Frenz from Porter; if Frenz's comments on the validity of this recipe for soap are immaterial, then why use them...and if they are material, your source is a guy who publishes a webpage that is an anti-jew, white supremacist, and apparently adores the NDSAP. He isn't just a chemist, he is full-blown Denier.

Your hypocrisy is illuminating; on other threads, you question admantly testimony and witness accounts of Jews because they are Jews (your famous "many Jews" lie about their Holocaust experiences), but apparently you find that scrutiny applied to your sources is "mindless rambling".

Do I know where you can find the depositions of Neely and Anderson? No, I don't but I do know when and where they were given (and it was to the British JAG), that both worked at Danzig, that the IMT did not state that the Nazis made soap out of Jews ("After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.").

This whole obsessive thread is amazing. You cannot simply wish away Mazur, Neely, and Anderson, or why the Institute would even have a recipe for making soap as Charles pointed out, or that the IMT did not state that the Nazis turned Jewish fat into soap, and prominent Jews, including your arch villian Lipstadt have publicly stated that.

Historians, Nizkor, and most of us here do not believe that soap in wartime Germany came from rendered fat of dead Jews. You are preaching to the choir; write your local newspaper if you want a public forum to exonerate the Nazis of the soap libel.

And it is rather pointless; rendering Jews for soap is a terrible libel but cutting their hair off and removing their teeth is somehow "okay"? You are so deeply offended by soap but that head shaving and teeth yanking is...what? Or perhaps that is the next "libel" you wish to have rehabilitated. From what I read in the _Wall Street Journal_ this week on the artifacts left at Auschwitz that are disintegrating with age, you can start with the two tons of hair they have there, left behind.

Mark

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 25 Aug 2002 03:20

We should then concentrate on the opinions expressed by the US Holocaust Museum, and other sources which have studied the testimonies.
What opinions does the US Holocaust Memorial Museum hold on these testimonies?

As far as I can find, there is nothing there.

Mark

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 25 Aug 2002 03:36

Tarpon27 wrote:Dan wrote:
Otherwise you post consists of nothing but mindless rambling.
ROFL!
You quote Frenz from Porter; if Frenz's comments on the validity of this recipe for soap are immaterial, then why use them...
What are you blathering about?
and if they are material, your source is a guy who publishes a webpage that is an anti-jew, white supremacist, and apparently adores the NDSAP. He isn't just a chemist, he is full-blown Denier.

Whatever that means
Your hypocrisy is illuminating; on other threads, you question admantly testimony and witness accounts of Jews because they are Jews (your famous "many Jews" lie about their Holocaust experiences), but apparently you find that scrutiny applied to your sources is "mindless rambling".
Well, why don't you be a clever researcher, and go on record saying that many Jews DID NOT exaggerate or lie about their treatment durning WW2
Do I know where you can find the depositions of Neely and Anderson? No, I don't but I do know when and where they were given (and it was to the British JAG), that both worked at Danzig, that the IMT did not state that the Nazis made soap out of Jews ("After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.").
And I'm sure that a scholar such as yourself can give us proof?



This whole obsessive thread is amazing. You cannot simply wish away Mazur,
I'm the one who posted his testimony, butt head.



Neely, and Anderson, or why the Institute would even have a recipe for making soap as Charles pointed out
,

Let us have you interpretation on the subject.


or that the IMT did not state that the Nazis turned Jewish fat into soap, and prominent Jews, including your arch villian Lipstadt have publicly stated that.
Prominent or obscure, it's seems a big, fat, lie.
Historians, Nizkor, and most of us here do not believe that soap in wartime Germany came from rendered fat of dead Jews. You are preaching to the choir; write your local newspaper if you want a public forum to exonerate the Nazis of the soap libel.
I want you to admit there is no credible evidence that they ever did it, even as a feasibility study.


And it is rather pointless; rendering Jews for soap is a terrible libel but cutting their hair off and removing their teeth is somehow "okay"?
When did I say that, Jackass?

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Re: A Falsifier of History...

Post by Charles Bunch » 25 Aug 2002 04:31

Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Charles Bunch wrote: Well, that's why we don't allow sophomore history students, or drug-store lawyers, to practice law. First of all Porter cites US law. There is no reason to assume these international trials should have been carried out under US law. But more specifically, and as I indicated to you before, there are a whole series of hearsay exception rules to be found in US criminal procedure, so the admission of a document such as Mazur's is not necessarily hearsay.
If our standards of proof are a Medieval Inquisition or a Soviet Show-Trial, Yes.
Meaningless rhetoric. Standards of justice are not medieval or Soviet just because they differ from US criminal law. And Soviet Show trials have a very specific signature which has nothing to do with the Nuremberg trials.
The IMT was nothing if not a Show-Trial. It was a public spectacle designed to showcase the guilt and infamy of the defeated enemy. Yes, Constitutional principles mean nothing, of course; that's why we have them. But the only one that said anything about U.S. law was you.
More utterly empty rhetoric. There was nothing about the Nuremberg trials that shared any elements of a Soviet show trial. Why do you persist in saying such stupid things?

As for hearsay, whose standards were you using, or were you just parroting Porter, an inveterate liar.
Chuck wrote:
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:Of course, even if it was, that would say nothing about its value as an historical document.
At best the epistemology would be a maybe, certainly not sufficient for an accusation. Not even one made against Nazis.
More rhetoric. Epistemology has nothing to do with this discussion. The evidence most certainly would be good enough for an accusation under both historical and legal processes.
Every honest historian knows that evidence has to be qualified, including testimonial evidence.
But not by a court, which was the point. You really must learn to think about your replies before typing. You tend to just wander all over the place inserting one denier cliche after another into what you presume is an appropriate spot.
The question certainly is about epistemology and ways of determining the truth and advancing our knowledge using judicial and historiographical methodology.
History has it procedures for establishing the worth of evidence, and the best approximation of truth. There is no epistemological relevance to whether a document was considered hearsay in a court.
Like Show-Trials and Inquisitions, Witch Trials were legally very meticulous, so what? Demonology doesn't tell us very much about the universe.
Blah, blah, blah.

Don't you ever tire of saying nothing?

List the elements of the Nuremberg trials which they share with Soviet Show trials.


[
quote="Chuck"]
Scott wrote:
Chuck wrote:Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?
If so, I haven't found it yet. Porter's site is not any better organized than Nizkor's. I'll look some more later.
Given the fact the two British POWs were there, and given some of their testimony, I suspect Porter's charge of hearsay (apart from his charge that affidavits are hearsay) is not supported by the testimony.
They weren't there; that's the point. Why not? Porter actually tracked down Neely in Scotland and interviewed him.
They weren't where?
So, less posturing then!
It is you who are posturing, you and Porter. Here's a thought for you Smith. If Porter has never seen the affidavits from these two British POWs, how did he conclude they never saw any elements of the soap making process and that their testimony is hearsay? Hmmm?

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 25 Aug 2002 04:38

Dan wrote:Charles wrote
How many Jews do you think Germany was awarding citizenship to in 1940-1941?
It depends on the definition of Jew, doesn't it. His name doesn't seem typically Polish. What is your view?
What sorts of Jews was Nazi Germany awarding citizenship to in this time period?
I'm not able to find them. I doubt Porter has posted them, which makes his claims about what they said rather suspect.
We should then concentrate on the opinions expressed by the US Holocaust Museum, and other sources which have studied the testimonies.
We've little of the museum's opinion on the matter, just snippets. But as I've already explained above, their is no change from what I pointed out to you from the very beginning.

There exists evidence of experimental soap making at the Danzig Institute. It is fairly substantial in quantity, and I think quality. The Museum is being very cautious in its opinions, such as we can glean them from snippets in a newpaper article. Other historians believe the evidence is conclusive. But under no circumstances is the denier claim that experimental soap making has been disproven true.

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Post by Charles Bunch » 25 Aug 2002 04:46

Well, why don't you be a clever researcher, and go on record saying that many Jews DID NOT exaggerate or lie about their treatment durning WW2
No more than the number of American GI's who exaggerated or lied about their experiences during WWII. Does that mean American GI's didn't fight during WWII?
I want you to admit there is no credible evidence that they ever did it, even as a feasibility study.
Having discussed a number of pieces of credible evidence, why would anyone admit that?

Good God, you haven't absorbed a thing from this thread, have you?

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”