Hitler and Evas postcard from Argentina

reply to post by Hongkongphooey


I get it, so I'm to take all of those sources at face value, and not validate them as well? Got it, thanks.

ETA: If it will please everyone so much, I'll at least check the book out of the library if you give me an actual page number or set of page numbers to look at.

However, none of the sources I reviewed in that book (and there were many) were in relation to the topic being discussed, or if they were they were not valid - certainly not ones I'd dare use in a program to grant me a degree. The credit here is that there is a bib, but what quality that bib is, is another story.

reply to post by Hongkongphooey


Why should I do research to support your claims? I must be missing something here. I feel I missed the point of the idea of an OP and a discussion, but apparently you seem to think I should read what's been said, take it at value and then search for more info myself.

Sorry, that's not how it works.

Shugo
reply to post by Hongkongphooey

 

I get it, so I'm to take all of those sources at face value, and not validate them as well? Got it, thanks.

reply to post by Hongkongphooey

 

Why should I do research to support your claims? I must be missing something here. I feel I missed the point of the idea of an OP and a discussion, but apparently you seem to think I should read what's been said, take it at value and then search for more info myself.

Sorry, that's not how it works.

Would an insurance company pay out on the deaths of Adolph and Eva? with the facts as stated regarding their deaths. I very much doubt it.

reply to post by anonentity


You haven't stated any facts in this thread. I am giving some benefit of the doubt on the book referred to in the first page, despite the fact anything having to do with said book was not explicit.

Where are the sources for the claims you're making? If you're so interested in having a discussion where your theory gains ground, don't come up empty handed.

reply to post by Shugo


The only reason to distrust them is if you have reasonable suspicion they are lying....Do you? I find it ironic the level of degradation given to anecdotal evidence....

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Using that logic I should submit that chemtrails are real, reptilians are in the White House, the Earth is flat, there are over 10,000 gods and goddesses and Hitler, Tupac, Elvis, and MJ are still alive.

The fact is it breaks what has been accepted on the grounds of historical context. The only reason I'm pressing for sources of the caliber is because its a big claim that takes place in the past. It is not unreasonable to request further resources that are valid to stimulate discussion. I will only say that while I don't accept the book referenced on the first page as the one piece that ends it all - I will accept that the source should be given a more in depth review.

So no, my only issue thus far is there has been no proof presented thus far and everything is being asked to be taken at face value without providing any evidence to point to the contrary.

reply to post by Shugo


I didn't say that humans haven't been prone to create things or events out of thin air to stir the pot, but a blanket disdain for anecdotal evidence just because somebody 'can' lie, yet you have no proof that they are lying, is a bit too extravagant. I'm glad you will look further into the book, but from what I've experienced, you will never truly learn anything if you desire it to be spoon fed to you.

My suggestion is exactly the same as one above. Read some of the book, do some of your own research, employ critical thinking skills, etc, and come to your own conclusion. Something to keep in mind when attempting to discern who the liar is, in any given situation, is to find out who has the most to gain by lying, and the most to lose by being caught.

How do we know that we haven't been lied to from the get go about the situation, because Hitler was only a puppet for a specific purpose and then enjoyed his spoils from it.

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


That's fine. But again I'm not reading all 434 pages of the book to find out which parts are the most important. I'd at least appreciate a page number or page range from the person who recommended it. I don't think I'm asking for too much there. That being said, the idea of everything is not what it seems is dated. This isn't the 1980s or 90s anymore. The claims as specified in the OP are rather bold and extreme to make, and no evidence was provided to support it. I do not accept things on face value - that includes everything I've known up to now.

reply to post by Hongkongphooey


I'm going to ignore all of the personal attacks on my status and skip right to the point. Give me a page number as you would to cite any source and I will look at it. I'm not going to look through 434 pages of a book by someone who I hold little regards for simply because some unknown person on an internet discussion board told me to. This is your story, tell me where I'm supposed to be looking, this isn't unreasonable.

If asking for a page number makes me a poor researcher, then you're going to have to include just about everyone in that category. I'd really appreciate it if you'd actually do everyone a favor and outline either exact page numbers or the excerpts (...with the source and page) from the said book. If you aren't going to present the materials I can't have a discussion with you. I'm sorry I don't subscribe to the paranoid "the UFO's are out there" mindset of the rest of the people you seem to think are the ones who are right, but I don't. But I'm actually willing to look at what you've got, if you'd just stop being so stubborn and give me something to actually look AT.

reply to post by Shugo


So is that how scholars do things? Ask other people do the research and then just direct them to what they want to know?

If your interested do the research, if your not then don't ask others to do it for you!

Scholars who are afraid to read a book of 400-500 pages, really? I have a name for you and it certainly isn't scholar!

Shugo
reply to post by Hongkongphooey

 

But I'm actually willing to look at what you've got, if you'd just stop being so stubborn and give me something to actually look AT.

edit on 11.10.2013 by Shugo because: (no reason given)

Two books, but you are NOT willing are you? You want sentences, are you not able to read books yet? Never mind when you get older you'll e able to read Janet & john books all the way through!

Unbelievable a scholar who doesn't like books LOL

reply to post by Hongkongphooey


It has nothing to do with that. You are the ones who are making the claim, it isn't my job to do your research. I don't know how many times it has to be said. Yes, this is how scholars do things. They cite something in a book they provide a page number for someone to refer back to on their claims, thus the reason for a bibliography. It's becoming quite obvious that you have no intentions of doing that, possibly because you don't actually know where in the book your claims may be support or where in the book your theory is shot down?

anonentity

I think its a bot.

Based on what?

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

Here is a bit more that that tells a few more things about the theory. A body double was shot. Which suggests all the top brass had doubles. If the Nazis were prepared to surrender, back in 1944 with terms to the effect that they gave up there foreign dominions, and would maintain economic control of Germany, but this was rejected by the allies to the effect that only unconditional surrender would do. Then this gave the higher echelons plenty of time to make good there escape. The eye witness reports from the last man at the Bunker ie. the mechanic keeping the complex going certainly makes it look like a great deal of fabricating went on. tst.greyfalcon.us...

reply to post by anonentity


The only thing that has any relative substance on that page is the newspaper article which hints at Eva's survival, not Hitlers. I checked into Franz Unterreiner, and found absolutely nothing other than a Facebook for "peace and love", which I doubt is the same person.

Shugo
reply to post by anonentity

 

The only thing that has any relative substance on that page is the newspaper article which hints at Eva's survival, not Hitlers. I checked into Franz Unterreiner, and found absolutely nothing other than a Facebook for "peace and love", which I doubt is the same person.

So you don't think it strange that the dead body double was first thought to be Hitler. Or the whole complex was looted, by Red army females, more interested in the nice clothing. If there was the slightest proof that Hitlers body was found, I would go along with the accepted theory. But their isn't the slightest evidence that Adolph or Eva were found at the Bunker. No Photographs of the autopsy of the bodies, that were found, and a hundred year embargo of the Scotland yard investigation on the whereabouts of Adolph Hitler?. You could also ask where is Hitlers looted artworks?, he got first pick, but they have never been found. Or even the fact that three high ranking Nazis were known to have had extensive facial surgery, and the Plastic surgeon that did the operation was killed with his family and the place destroyed? The daughter of the surgeon was in Nazi intelligence , who turned double agent after her family was wiped out.
These people killed the proof. They were playing a high stakes game. Hitlers bodyguard after nine years in a Soviet prison camp, arrives back in West Berlin and ends up running his own printing business? what with??, he's on record as saying Hitler was a nice chap and a great Boss to work for?? He died at ninety three. The level of loyalty these guys had for the Boss was something else.

reply to post by anonentity


Is this the part of the thread where I relate that to the killing of Osama bin Laden? Because no one here has seen the body that means it didn't happen? Well, if we use that logic then if I can't see the pic of Hitler which is odd because there are thousands of pictures from the 1940s through the 1980s which are available online - then that solves the case right there. No picture. No Hitler. He wasn't in the bunker and he wasn't in Argentina, nor Spain. He simply vanished with that logic. If you haven't noticed it by now - there's a big flaw in that theory.

Shugo
reply to post by anonentity

 

Is this the part of the thread where I relate that to the killing of Osama bin Laden? Because no one here has seen the body that means it didn't happen? Well, if we use that logic then if I can't see the pic of Hitler which is odd because there are thousands of pictures from the 1940s through the 1980s which are available online - then that solves the case right there. No picture. No Hitler. He wasn't in the bunker and he wasn't in Argentina, nor Spain. He simply vanished with that logic. If you haven't noticed it by now - there's a big flaw in that theory.

There is a big flaw in every theory, unless you were there at a given time. But it might be worth checking the pic, of Hitler opening an autobahn he was actually standing behind a double that was doing the honors, both him and the double were cheered.

reply to post by anonentity


Very well then, I'm assuming you have found that picture somewhere. I'd be happy to at least look at the image.

anonentity

Shugo
reply to post by anonentity

 

The only thing that has any relative substance on that page is the newspaper article which hints at Eva's survival, not Hitlers. I checked into Franz Unterreiner, and found absolutely nothing other than a Facebook for "peace and love", which I doubt is the same person.

So you don't think it strange that the dead body double was first thought to be Hitler. Or the whole complex was looted, by Red army females, more interested in the nice clothing. If there was the slightest proof that Hitlers body was found, I would go along with the accepted theory. But their isn't the slightest evidence that Adolph or Eva were found at the Bunker. No Photographs of the autopsy of the bodies, that were found, and a hundred year embargo of the Scotland yard investigation on the whereabouts of Adolph Hitler?. You could also ask where is Hitlers looted artworks?, he got first pick, but they have never been found. Or even the fact that three high ranking Nazis were known to have had extensive facial surgery, and the Plastic surgeon that did the operation was killed with his family and the place destroyed? The daughter of the surgeon was in Nazi intelligence , who turned double agent after her family was wiped out.
These people killed the proof. They were playing a high stakes game. Hitlers bodyguard after nine years in a Soviet prison camp, arrives back in West Berlin and ends up running his own printing business? what with??, he's on record as saying Hitler was a nice chap and a great Boss to work for?? He died at ninety three. The level of loyalty these guys had for the Boss was something else.

Do you have even the slightest scintilla of evidence for any of the above? And what Scotland Yard investigation? Why on earth would they get involved? It wasn't a civil case, it was a case for Military Intelligence - and we have the report that Hugh Trevor-Roper provided, detailing everything that he found. Hitler died in that bunker. He died a coward's death.