Judetvål

So it was probably human soap, but the burden is apparently on the deniers to prove it is not soap rather than on the believers to prove it is. This is a reversal of the burden of proof. This is like when Muehlenkamp said we have no reason to doubt Kola since archaeologists are generally trustworthy, whereas archaeologists have to prove what they say is there. Archaeology is generally a respected field and archaeologists are generally trustworthy because they PROVE their trust by documenting what they find and publishing it worldwide. In other words archaeologist A can't ride on the back of the proven trustworthiness of archaeologist B and demand that we believe him (archaeologist A) without checking his results.

2) What does it mean to "make soap"? Does it mean to manufacture it on an industrial scale? In this case, certainly not. At most, we're talking about small-scale experiments of cleaning-agent production for local purposes. Dr. Joachim Neander proposes in his fine article that no "production" was actually involved, rather, the soap might have been a simple by-product of corpses' maceration. I think this might be possible, though I also think that the article is flawed in several important respects. Regardless of its flaws, however, it does point out several problems with evidence for the claim that the "soap" was manufactured, rather than created as a normal by-product.

In my personal opinion, the issue is not fully resolved.

3) Regardless of whether there was a "manufacture" of soap or not, there is actually no controversy as to whether there was a cleaning-agent involved, which was produced from human tissues. Dr. Spanner himself testified to that fact in a German court, as Dr. Neander points out. Of course, he (Spanner) denied that the corpses were boiled in order to produce soap - he went with the "by-product" version.

4) This fact, and also the new findings, show that the "soap" produced by the Soviets as evidence at Nuremberg is quite probably authentic human soap. At least deniers cannot prove otherwise. One more canard shot down.

Mermelstein said that “since I know that human remains have to be buried,” he contacted people he knew at Misaskim, an Orthodox Brooklyn-based group that provides support to families in mourning and other services.

“They asked if it was real,” Mermelstein said. “I said I wish it wasn’t, but it is. … My mother was in a concentration camp, perhaps he got the soap from her. … It’s a one in a billion chance you find something like this.”

[...]

Mermelstein said he would like to have the bar of soap from his uncle’s suitcase tested to see if it contains human fat. If it does, he said, it would be buried with proper respect.

It has been almost a year. Where are the test results? Has he buried the bar of soap yet? Secondly did anyone notice the name of the person who was involved with this bar of soap? MERMELSTEIN. Do you think it's any relation to that sham of a witness and exposed liar Mel Mermelstein? Just maybe. Secondly, look at the pathetic blog entry of Roberto Muehlenkamp.