virphen wrote:This thread really belongs in the conspiracy theory section with all the other tinfoil hat crap.
virphen wrote:No, moronic gullibility would be a better name for your thread.
jamest wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:jamest wrote:
Well, there is evidence - which as far as I know amounts to hearsay. Further, we should probably assume that the few witnesses were probably very loyal to Hitler, having being chosen to work that close to him. If this is the case, then "scholarly consensus" doesn't seem to cut it.
The scholarly consensus is that Hitler died in his bunker. I trust the scholarly consensus over your very shallow musings.
The scholarly consensus doesn't have the necessary evidence to state that Hitler actually died in Berlin. It's as simple as that. You just believe them because of who they are - not because of what they know.
I'm not even saying that I think Hitler did not die in Berlin. I'm just pointing-out that there is reason and [hence] credibility in doubting it as a fact.
Why? Several prominent nazis escaped to South America. What exactly do you consider to be 'absurd'?
jamest wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:and it is not published by an academic press.
Granted, which is not to say that it is fiction. From what I can gather, one of the authors is an international journalist and the other has written more than 50 books on military history. Further, 5 years of thorough research went into writing this particular book. To brush them off as Laurel & Hardy, then, seems foolhardy.
Within the context of this discussion, it simply means not asserting that this case is closed. Nothing more. I don't even have anything to say about the book itself, as I've not read it either. Yet.
jamest wrote:virphen wrote:No, moronic gullibility would be a better name for your thread.
I have already stated that I don't believe the premise of the book. How could I, if I haven't even read the book?
What I have actually stated is that I have good reason to doubt the FACT that Hitler died in Berlin in 1945, since evidence for that fact amounts to hearsay. What I am in fact saying, is that I am open minded regards this issue.
My objection in this thread, then, pertains to the arrogant mocking and disdain of perspectives/works in general, when nothing is known of those perspectives/works - combined with the fact that there is insufficient reason to close one's mind to the issue in question, anyway.
I have clearly demonstrated, then, that it is not I who is gullibe - but the likes of yourself - who evidently and unquestionably will believe anything that 'consensus' throws at you. Not only that, but that you will stubbornly and rudely defend those beliefs to the hilt, regardless of the irrationality inherent within such an endeavour. That is, your mind appears to be unjustifiably closed on this issue.
Unless I state that I believe the premise of the book in question (which I haven't) - and unless you have read the book in question (which you haven't) - then you don't have any reason to call me gullible. Not unless you conflate gullibility with open-mindedness where evidence is lacking, that is.
jamest wrote:Just a thought...
It strikes me as ironic, at a minimum, regards the lengths people will go to to support hearsay in some circumstances and reject it in others. Take this issue, for instance, where the vast majority of people here believe that Hitler died in Berlin - all grounded within the hearsay of a few people. On the other hand, the vast majority of the people here utterly reject the hearsay associated with the life and death of Jesus. Hearsay, then, appears to be good enough when you want it to be good enough. I can certainly understand that sentiment here - after all, most people would be horrified to know that Hitler might have been living it up for the best part of 20 years, after the war, instead of being hung by his balls (ball?) and left to rot.
The problem is that sentiment has very little to do with fact. Certainly, sentiment shouldn't dictate what facts are.
lordshipmayhem wrote:Actually, it's not "grounded in hearsay". We have direct witnesses who were able to swear that they waited outside the small room (which only had one entrance), heard the shot and entered the room to find the bodies of Hitler and Eva. Their statements were witnessed (the Russians wanted to be damned sure that the bastard was dead, and didn't take any one person's word for it, but insisted on corroboration), and fit in with the skeletal remains that are currently sitting in Russian archives. The dental work on the supposed skull of Hitler matches the historical dental records seized from Hitler's dentist's files.
Hearsay would be someone saying, "Well, General so-and-so said he waited in the hallway," or worse yet, "somebody (name unavailable, just 'somebody') told me (fill in the blank)."
Now, that you mention it, however, the topic might be better suited for "Pseudoscience", because that's what it is. In short, it's fine either here or in Pseudoscience, but it sure as hell isn't going back to "History".
Mazille wrote:Well, I could alternatively have moved it to General Debunking or Pseudoscience
the decision was made to move it to Conspiracy Theories, because to say that Hitler might have escaped to Argentina implies that several persons "in the know" have lied and given false testimony multiple times,
In short, it would have demanded a concerted, secret effort of many people to not only spirit Hitler away, but to keep him hidden for several decades.
And this in a time where not only the Mossad was busy hunting down Ex-Nazis.
jaygray wrote:Historical investigation requires methodical processes not conducive to journalism. If the current stories about the skull are correct, it is still quite an ambitious leap to conclude that Hitler did not commit suicide, still more that he went into exile elsewhere. Speculative history is fiction.
Journalists (and this is who we are dealing with re the History channel and alas, 'pop-history' / 'pop-investigation' books), love this stuff because it gets an audience. Reality in history tends to be far more boring as a rule.
The objections raised citing evidence against the main thrust of the book (i.e. contemporary witness testimony etc.) are very real ones, and wound the argument mortally IMHO.
As for the ‘Hitler’ skull evidence astonishing ‘scientists’, well either the astonished scientists (whoever they are) need to get out more maybe or accept that Soviet forensic science in the 1940s may have been open to error. Well duh. This doesn’t seem quite so earth-shattering to me, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
You don't appear to understand. If the skull isn't Hitlers, then the Soviets never found his body. If the Soviets never found his body, then those that led them to it were either lying or fooled = no material evidence + dodgy witnesses.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest