Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work
by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years
before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like
how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras
took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years
before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.So, Dick, how is it that western technology has, in the past, towered over the rest of the world if *they* had the knowledge first?
If you steal an idea, that could be plagiarism. However, if you steal from multiple sources, well, that is research!
I'm pretty sure that *you* are the fucking joke here, Dick...
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:29:54 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:>
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago,Pythagoras> > took advantage of his position in ancient greek
civilization to plagiarize an> > entire body of mathematics developed
1,000 years before his birth.> >> > At least, he had decency and dug
into developments that preceded his work> > by a millennium. Einstein
just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR> > span of time.>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118> >> > BTW, the european
renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other> > pirates who
stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years> >
before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in
particular> > mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other
technologies, like> > how to make paper, powder, etc.> >> > Western
science is a fucking joke.
So, Dick, how is it that western technology has, in the past, towered
over the rest of the world if *they* had the knowledge first?>> If you
steal an idea, that could be plagiarism. However, if you steal from
multiple sources, well, that is research!>> I'm pretty sure that *you*
are the fucking joke here, Dick...
Quite simple: theft, piracy, mass murder, submission of locals,
domination by force and death: Spanish empire first, Portuguese
followed. Then, after
the demise of both empires, britons, frenchies and dutches followed.
All of this in just 600 years.
Even Newton was benefited from Indian knowledge brought to England.
The behavior of invaders of eastern world was the one of depredators, something that indians and chinese had left behind for centuries.
The information is online.
Do a little of research, fucking relativistic asshole.
On 2023-10-06 01:57:42 +0000, Richard Hertz said:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 9:29:54 PM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz
wrote:> > Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years
ago, Pythagoras> > took advantage of his position in ancient greek
civilization to plagiarize an> > entire body of mathematics developed
1,000 years before his birth.> >> > At least, he had decency and dug
into developments that preceded his work> > by a millennium. Einstein
just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR> > span of time.>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289> >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118> >> > BTW, the european
renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other> > pirates who
stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years> >
before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in
particular> > mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other
technologies, like> > how to make paper, powder, etc.> >> > Western
science is a fucking joke.
So, Dick, how is it that western technology has, in the past, towered
over the rest of the world if *they* had the knowledge first?>> If
you steal an idea, that could be plagiarism. However, if you steal
from multiple sources, well, that is research!>> I'm pretty sure that
*you* are the fucking joke here, Dick...
Quite simple: theft, piracy, mass murder, submission of locals,
domination by force and death: Spanish empire first, Portuguese
followed. Then, after
the demise of both empires, britons, frenchies and dutches followed.
All of this in just 600 years.
Even Newton was benefited from Indian knowledge brought to England.
The behavior of invaders of eastern world was the one of depredators,
something that indians and chinese had left behind for centuries.
The information is online.
i.e. stuff posted by other nutters. Any references to work published by
real scientists in real journals? No. I didn't think so.
Do a little of research, fucking relativistic asshole.
the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other
pirates who stole all the science from China and India,
Western science is a fucking joke.
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work
by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years
before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like
how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work
by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
I personally think,
that Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic d'electron'
Am 06.10.2023 um 01:55 schrieb Richard Hertz:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras >> took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work
by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
I personally think, that Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic d'electron' was
submitted days befor the paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving
bodies' and the date of submission was faked (by Planck).
The reason: there was a relatively large gap between submission in june
1905 and printing in late 1905, which was unusual.
And Einstein's text was seemingly inspired by Poincare's paper, hence
had to be written after the paper of Poincare.
This little time-gap could be easily fixed, but only by 'Annalen der
Physik', hence by Planck himself.
TH
Am 06.10.2023 um 01:55 schrieb Richard Hertz:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras
took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEARI personally think,
span of time.
Le 14/10/2023 09:22, Thomas Heger a crit:
...
I personally think,
We don't care about what you think ; you are demented Thomas.
that Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic d'electron'
This is not the real title, this not even proper French.
How come you *never* get the simplest thing right Thomas?
On Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 12:20:08 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 06.10.2023 um 01:55 schrieb Richard Hertz:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras >>> took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize anI personally think,
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work >>> by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
No one cares what you think, crank
On 2023-10-14 12:13:47 +0000, Python said:
Le 14/10/2023 09:22, Thomas Heger a crit :
...
I personally think,
We don't care about what you think ; you are demented Thomas.
that Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic d'electron'
This is not the real title, this not even proper French.
This isn't the first time he has been told that. In my comment (written
after yours, I fear, but I hadn't read far enough) I said he had made
three errors, but actually it was four, because he wrote d' rather than
de l'.
Am 14.10.2023 um 15:07 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-10-14 12:13:47 +0000, Python said:
Le 14/10/2023 09:22, Thomas Heger a crit :
...
I personally think,
We don't care about what you think ; you are demented Thomas.
that Poincare's 'Sur le dynamic d'electron'
This is not the real title, this not even proper French.
This isn't the first time he has been told that. In my comment (written
after yours, I fear, but I hadn't read far enough) I said he had made
three errors, but actually it was four, because he wrote d' rather than
de l'.
I'm so sorry. But I had no French in school.
Actually I'm trying to learn some French right now, but not with much success.
I can decipher French texts to some extend, but I'm unable to write
French without errors.
TH
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize anJust because Pizzaro savagely strangled the Inca King, you get all offended. Aside from your overstatements, it is true that the idea that science began in Ionian Greece is a myth, as shown by Robin Dunbar's book, The Trouble With Science. The science of
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work
by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR
span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years
before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like
how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago,
Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization
to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his
work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincar
within 1 YEAR span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
Just because Pizzaro savagely strangled the Inca King, you get all
offended. Aside from your overstatements, it is true that the idea that science began in Ionian Greece is a myth, as shown by Robin Dunbar's book, The Trouble With Science. The science of archaeoastronomy was widespread, including knowledge of the difference between the sidereal and tropical
years in Egypt, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza long before Hipparchus. Now, "higher learning" institutions such as Harvard are teaching
pseudoscientific nonsense like CRT and Postmodernism, which deny objective reality, as does relativity. Fortunately, we have Chinese scientists deconstructing relativity.
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:As usual, you resort to straw man tactics. Mei Xiaochun does not base his criticisms on Marxist assumptions. It is relativity that is an ideology and not a science.
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
Just because Pizzaro savagely strangled the Inca King, you get all offended. Aside from your overstatements, it is true that the idea that science began in Ionian Greece is a myth, as shown by Robin Dunbar's book, The Trouble With Science. The science of archaeoastronomy was widespread, including knowledge of the difference between the sidereal and tropical years in Egypt, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza long before Hipparchus. Now, "higher learning" institutions such as Harvard are teaching pseudoscientific nonsense like CRT and Postmodernism, which deny objective reality, as does relativity. Fortunately, we have Chinese scientists deconstructing relativity.Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science.
Off to a reeducation camp with those relativists,
Jan
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincaré within 1 YEAR span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000 years before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other technologies, like how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
Just because Pizzaro savagely strangled the Inca King, you get all offended. Aside from your overstatements, it is true that the idea that science began in Ionian Greece is a myth, as shown by Robin Dunbar's book, The Trouble With Science. The science of archaeoastronomy was widespread, including knowledge of the difference between the sidereal and tropical years in Egypt, Stonehenge, and Chichen Itza long before Hipparchus. Now, "higher learning" institutions such as Harvard are teaching pseudoscientific nonsense like CRT and Postmodernism, which deny objective reality, as does relativity. Fortunately, we have Chinese scientists deconstructing relativity.Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.c.sirius@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, October 5, 2023 at 4:55:31?PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago,
Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization
to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before >>> his birth.
At least, he had decency and dug into developments that preceded his
work by a millennium. Einstein just plagiarized Lorentz and Poincar
within 1 YEAR span of time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YBC_7289
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plimpton_322
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IM_67118
BTW, the european renaissance came after Columbus, Magellan and other
pirates who stole all the science from China and India, developed 3,000
years before their depredation of eastern science and technology, in
particular mathematics, physics, metallurgy, chemistry and other
technologies, like how to make paper, powder, etc.
Western science is a fucking joke.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]
Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]
Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
You mean your crap?
Quote:
"
Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
with each other.
The relation between relativity and Marxism is actually beyond my intellectual horizon.
(Hope this is a good reply)
The relation is simple: 20th century Marxists, Leninists, Maoists, etc.
have generally agreed with the Nazis that relativity must be wrong.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]
Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
You mean your crap?
The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
-then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
(and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
Quote:
"
Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]
Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
You mean your crap?
The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
-then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
(and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
Quote:
"
Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]
Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
You mean your crap?
The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
-then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
(and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
Quote:
"
Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science." >>>>
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 17.10.2023 um 11:31 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
[nettiquette misbehaviour]
Don't piggy-back, reply to the original poster,
You mean your crap?
The point is that -if you snip all of my text-
-then you should also remove the attribution lines-.
(and preferably, go back in the thread and reply from there)
Piggybacking is generally considered to be bad nettiquette.
Quote:
"
Of course relativity must be completely wrong.
It conflicts with Marxist philosophy and dialectic materialism.
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science." >>>>
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict >>>> with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
Anyhow:[snip]
Read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
So, you could not possibly call Mao a nice guy.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois >>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science." >>>>>>
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict >>>>>> with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois >>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian science." >>>>>>>
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict >>>>>>> with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
contradictory.
How does this strike you? A well-brought-up Canadian teenage girl, of
Chinese ancestry, becomes starry-eyed over Mao Zedong and resolves to
visit mainland China at all costs. She gets her wish. Not only does she visit, she manages to stay on as a student and even do physical labor,
so great is her determination to be a -good Maoist- [emp. jjl] in a
Maoist paradise, where the workers always sing, everyone is equal, and
nobody ever goes without a meal. [she goes there, desillusionment next] (review of: Red China Blues_ My Long March from Mao to Now, by Jan Wong)
Not only does she visit, she manages to stay on as a student and even
do physical labor, so great is her determination to be a -good Maoist- in a Maoist paradise, where the workers always sing, everyone is equal, and
nobody ever goes without a meal.
"Mao holds actually the (current) all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
during Mao's time, but most of deaths cannot be called murder.
On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois >>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian
science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict >>>>>>> with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions, which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have theWell, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase contradictory.
Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
"Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
Forward.
To take a more recent example (on a much smaller scale), Anne
Sacoolas didn't murder Harry Dunn: he died as a result of her
incompetence and inattention.
And even that is questionable.
As for the collective madness aspects: was it really much worse
than the partisan infighting that we are seeing nowadays in the US of A?
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:38:49 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
And even that is questionable.
Your leftism is showing. Once again.
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions,
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois >>>>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian >>>>>>>>> science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict >>>>>>>>> with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to
learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
contradictory.
Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
"Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
Forward.
And even that is questionable.
Consider the situation when Mao took power:
China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive
and low-productivity agriculture.
Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
(and most of what little there had been before WWII
was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour)
On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
they had a civil war following it.
The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
after the civil war was over didn't help either.
Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over.
Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
and something drastic had to be done about it.
Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
what -they- would have done about it,
given the disastrous situation the country was in,
and how that would have worked out better.
Am 22.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions, >>>> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to >>>> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of bourgeois >>>>>>>>>> science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian >>>>>>>>>> science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
contradictory.
Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
"Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people
during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly
they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
Forward.
And even that is questionable.
Consider the situation when Mao took power:
China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive
and low-productivity agriculture.
Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
(and most of what little there had been before WWII
was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour)
On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
they had a civil war following it.
The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
after the civil war was over didn't help either.
Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over.
Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
and something drastic had to be done about it.
Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
what -they- would have done about it,
given the disastrous situation the country was in,
and how that would have worked out better.
Well, maybe you are right.
But as far as I can tell, the Soviet Shithead named (himself) 'Stalin'
had the intention to kill.
He stole the crops in the Ukraine with the intention to starve the
Ukrainians to death.
Or :soldiers were executed, who refused to fight and moved backwards,
when German tanks approached and they didn't even had a gun.
He also killed returning prisoners (Soviet citicens!) of war, after the British returned them by force in Bleiburg to the Soviets.
Masses of people were murdered in the Gulags for political reason and
without any reason at all and many of them at the order of the dictator.
Also most of the refugees from Germany were killed, who fleed Nazi
Germany and took refuge in Moscow.
Also most of the German prisoners of war were killed after WWII.
Latvia for instance had a population of 4 million and about 800,000
died in the prisons in Siberia.
And that goes an on and on and on.
So possibly Stalin was worse than Mao (at least a little).
TH
On 2023-10-22 15:45:28 +0000, Dono. said:[missing on my server, probably Google]
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:38:49?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
And even that is questionable.
Your leftism is showing. Once again.
Your My-country-right-or-wrongism is showing again.
Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
think he was mistaken?
More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of the
USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous successes?
Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
think he was mistaken?
More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of theNothing to do with US intervention. Everything to do with producing lefturd equivalences.
USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous successes?
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-22 15:45:28 +0000, Dono. said:[missing on my server, probably Google]
On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 1:38:49?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
And even that is questionable.
Your leftism is showing. Once again.
Your My-country-right-or-wrongism is showing again.No idea what Dono. wrote, since it is absent on my server.
The usual kind of agressive content-free garbage, I guess.
Did you consider the specific points that Jan made? In which did you
think he was mistaken?
More generally, do you think the examples of the interference of theChina could have been more of a succes, if those in charge in Washington
USA in the affairs of Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. were tremendous successes?
had listened to General Joseph 'Vinegar Joe' Stillwell.
(who was their commander in chief there)
He told them that Chiang Kai-shek didn't really control much of the
country, that he was thoroughly corrupt,
that he refused to fight the Japanese,
and that he used the lend-lease materials to fight Mao instead of Japan.
So Stillwell was relieved of his command,
and the USA drove Mao into the arms of Stalin.
Mao went on to win the Chinese civil war,
and the USA went on to bemoan the 'Loss of China'
as a national trauma. (as if it had been their China to begin with)
So next they had Senator Joe McCarthy blaming it all
on a 'communist plot'.
Things might have gone better...
Jan
On 2023-10-23 06:36:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 22.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions, >>>>> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to >>>>> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of >>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian >>>>>>>>>>> science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' >>>>>>>>>>> conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time.
For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks.
In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'.
One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
contradictory.
Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point
"Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people >>>> during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly >>>> they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
Forward.
And even that is questionable.
Consider the situation when Mao took power:
China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive
and low-productivity agriculture.
Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
(and most of what little there had been before WWII
was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour)
On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
they had a civil war following it.
The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
after the civil war was over didn't help either.
Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over.
Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
and something drastic had to be done about it.
Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
what -they- would have done about it,
given the disastrous situation the country was in,
and how that would have worked out better.
Well, maybe you are right.
But as far as I can tell, the Soviet Shithead named (himself) 'Stalin'
had the intention to kill.
Not the same person as Mao, so what does your diatribe have to do with
Jan's points?
As for Stalin, maybe he wanted to practise Christian love as taught to
him during his five years in a seminary training to be a priest. You can
call him Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili if you like (and don't care
about being understood) but Stalin is easier to say and what everyone
does say.
Am 23.10.2023 um 09:37 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-10-23 06:36:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 22.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions, >>>>> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to >>>>> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and >>>>> believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of >>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian >>>>>>>>>>> science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' >>>>>>>>>>> conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current) >>>>>>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time. >>>>>>For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks. >>>>>> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'. >>>>>> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
contradictory.
Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point >>>> "Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people >>>> during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly >>>> they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap
Forward.
And even that is questionable.
Consider the situation when Mao took power:
China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive >>> and low-productivity agriculture.
Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
(and most of what little there had been before WWII
was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour) >>> On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West,
they had a civil war following it.
The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
after the civil war was over didn't help either.
Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over. >>> Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
and something drastic had to be done about it.
Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
what -they- would have done about it,
given the disastrous situation the country was in,
and how that would have worked out better.
Well, maybe you are right.
But as far as I can tell, the Soviet Shithead named (himself) 'Stalin'
had the intention to kill.
Not the same person as Mao, so what does your diatribe have to do with Jan's points?
As for Stalin, maybe he wanted to practise Christian love as taught to
him during his five years in a seminary training to be a priest. You can call him Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili if you like (and don't care
about being understood) but Stalin is easier to say and what everyone
does say.
Besides of that Stalin was trained by a guy named Gurdjev in obscure
rituals.
It is also assumed, that Winston Churchill organised a training exercise
in London especially for Mr. Djugashvilli, called 'Sidney Street Siege'.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 23.10.2023 um 09:37 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-10-23 06:36:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 22.10.2023 um 10:38 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2023-10-21 16:53:41 +0000, Volney said:
On 10/21/2023 4:55 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:That is correct. English can be very subtle at times with definitions, >>>>>>> which is why it can be so difficult for non-English speaking people to >>>>>>> learn. In this case "good Maoist" does mean someone faithful to and >>>>>>> believing the teachings of Mao, and definitely does not have the >>>>>>> meaning of "not bad" or "not evil" which would make the phrase
Am 19.10.2023 um 12:04 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am 18.10.2023 um 10:53 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Any good Maoist knows that relativity is 'the epitome of >>>>>>>>>>>>> bourgeois
science', which is wrong, since it conflicts with proletarian >>>>>>>>>>>>> science."
Well, maybe I should try:
'Good Maoist' is imho an oxymoron, since 'good' and 'Maoist' >>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict
with each other.
It is just your understanding of 'good' that is wrong.
I don't think so, because Mao holds actually the (current) >>>>>>>>>>> all-time-record for mass murder.
Your English needs more work,
Well, yes, but I'm trying to enhance my abilities all the time. >>>>>>>>For your information, you are failing.
There really is more to English than your high school textbooks. >>>>>>>> In particular, 'good' has many more meanings than 'morally good'. >>>>>>>> One of them is 'being a true follower in a doctrine',
so for example a good Maoist, but also a good Catholic, etc.
contradictory.
Getting away from the (real) faults of English, and back to the point >>>>>> "Mao holds actually the (current)
all-time-record for mass murder," it is certainly true that many people >>>>>> during Mao's time, but most of y deaths cannot be called murder. Mostly >>>>>> they were a consequence of incompetent management of the Great Leap >>>>>> Forward.
And even that is questionable.
Consider the situation when Mao took power:
China had a huge and rapidly growing population,
and almost all of that population was engaged in highly labor-intensive >>>>> and low-productivity agriculture.
Industial production was next to nothing by comparison.
(and most of what little there had been before WWII
was destroyed by the Japanese, who also killed off the skilled labour) >>>>> On top of the miseries of WWII, which was as bad as WWII in the West, >>>>> they had a civil war following it.
The nearly complete boycot of the USA and its allies
after the civil war was over didn't help either.
Starvation was already the rule in much of China before Mao took over. >>>>> Mao's China was obviously in a non-sustainable situation,
and something drastic had to be done about it.
Let those who say 'mass murder' explain
what -they- would have done about it,
given the disastrous situation the country was in,
and how that would have worked out better.
Well, maybe you are right.
But as far as I can tell, the Soviet Shithead named (himself) 'Stalin' >>>> had the intention to kill.
Not the same person as Mao, so what does your diatribe have to do with
Jan's points?
As for Stalin, maybe he wanted to practise Christian love as taught to
him during his five years in a seminary training to be a priest. You can >>> call him Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili if you like (and don't care
about being understood) but Stalin is easier to say and what everyone
does say.
Besides of that Stalin was trained by a guy named Gurdjev in obscure
rituals.
For the kiddies: TH probably means George Gurdjieff. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff>
It is also assumed, that Winston Churchill organised a training exercise
in London especially for Mr. Djugashvilli, called 'Sidney Street Siege'.
Your incredible talent for picking up desinformation
and crazy conspiracy theories is really surprising,
It is also assumed, that Winston Churchill organised a training exercise
in London especially for Mr. Djugashvilli, called 'Sidney Street Siege'.
See here: https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp
On October 24, Thomas Heger wrote:
It is also assumed, that Winston Churchill organised a training exercise
in London especially for Mr. Djugashvilli, called 'Sidney Street Siege'.
See here:
https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp
"Winston Churchill was King Edward VII's son. Once his father died, Winston needed
to prove himself to his brother, the new King George V, so the 1911 Sidney Street Siege
was held as a canned meat operation"
That makes total sense to me,
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
That makes total sense to me,
All along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of pathetic imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.
Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
That makes total sense to me,
Yes, I know, he's a closet naziAll along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of pathetic imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.TH's theory posted here some time ago
that 'Mein Kampf' was really written by an Englishman
(one of the Huxleys) in English,
and that Hitler's version was a poor translation
wasn't enough to tip you off?
He is downright different abled,
Jan
(if memory serves)
Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
That makes total sense to me,
All along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of pathetic
imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.
TH's theory posted here some time ago
that 'Mein Kampf' was really written by an Englishman
(one of the Huxleys) in English,
and that Hitler's version was a poor translation
wasn't enough to tip you off?
Am 27.10.2023 um 11:58 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>
That makes total sense to me,
All along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of pathetic
imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.
TH's theory posted here some time ago
that 'Mein Kampf' was really written by an Englishman
(one of the Huxleys) in English,
and that Hitler's version was a poor translation
wasn't enough to tip you off?
No, that was not my theory!
My theory was, that the German version was a relatively poor
translation from a text, which was origionally written in English.
This conclusion came from a side-by-side comparison of the four English versions and the German version.
Because I am a nativ speaker of German and speak English quite well (as
a second language) I could find subtle inconsitencies in the
translations, which only make sense, if one of the four English
versions would be the actual original.
The Huxleys came in from a different inquiry:
there was a guy from New Sealand named Greg Hallet, who wrote a book
'Hitler was a British agent'.
My aim was now to find the real name of the Englishmen, who posed as
the 'Fuehrer'.
I found Noel Trevenen Huxley would fit.
The reasons for this conclusion are a bit longish and difficult, hence
I would not bother you with that story.
TH
On 2023-10-28 05:38:49 +0000, Thomas Heger said:Am 28.10.2023 um 09:13 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:> On 2023-10-28
Am 27.10.2023 um 11:58 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger
wrote:
That makes total sense to me,
All along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of pathetic >>>> imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.
TH's theory posted here some time ago
that 'Mein Kampf' was really written by an Englishman
(one of the Huxleys) in English,
and that Hitler's version was a poor translation
wasn't enough to tip you off?
No, that was not my theory!
My theory was, that the German version was a relatively poor
translation from a text, which was origionally written in English.
How is that different from what Jan said?
This conclusion came from a side-by-side comparison of the four
English versions and the German version.
Because I am a nativ speaker of German and speak English quite well
(as a second language) I could find subtle inconsitencies in the
translations, which only make sense, if one of the four English
versions would be the actual original.
Examples?
patheticAm 27.10.2023 um 11:58 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger
wrote:
That makes total sense to me,
All along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of
imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.
TH's theory posted here some time ago
that 'Mein Kampf' was really written by an Englishman
(one of the Huxleys) in English,
and that Hitler's version was a poor translation
wasn't enough to tip you off?
No, that was not my theory!
My theory was, that the German version was a relatively poor
translation from a text, which was origionally written in English.
How is that different from what Jan said?
This conclusion came from a side-by-side comparison of the four
English versions and the German version.
Because I am a nativ speaker of German and speak English quite well
(as a second language) I could find subtle inconsitencies in the
translations, which only make sense, if one of the four English
versions would be the actual original.
Examples?
Third: the German word ‚angreifend’ is ‚twisted’ and very bad German. Better would have been ‚erschöpfend’ (as kind of ironic statement about the ‚exhausting’ work).[...]
fourth: 'diese fortgesetzten zermürbenden Anstrengungen' misses an 'und'
or a comma. This is a rule in German, that a list of equally ranked
items need either 'und' (and) or a comma. But this is the case because 'fortgesetzten' (continously) is not a qualifier to 'zermürbenden' (exhausting). That would be 'fortgesetzt' (repeatedly).
The German sentence is actually twisted and also gramatically wrong.
To translate the Geramn sentence is difficult, but would mean something
like 'crunched repeatedly by efforts'.
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
On 10/29/2023 3:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Third: the German word ‚angreifend’ is ‚twisted’ and very bad[...]
German. Better would have been ‚erschöpfend’ (as kind of ironic
statement about the ‚exhausting’ work).
fourth: 'diese fortgesetzten zermürbenden Anstrengungen' misses an
'und' or a comma. This is a rule in German, that a list of equally
ranked items need either 'und' (and) or a comma. But this is the case
because 'fortgesetzten' (continously) is not a qualifier to
'zermürbenden' (exhausting). That would be 'fortgesetzt' (repeatedly).
The German sentence is actually twisted and also gramatically wrong.
To translate the Geramn sentence is difficult, but would mean something
like 'crunched repeatedly by efforts'.
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
On 10/29/2023 3:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Third: the German word ‚angreifend’ is ‚twisted’ and very bad German.[...]
Better would have been ‚erschöpfend’ (as kind of ironic statement
about the ‚exhausting’ work).
fourth: 'diese fortgesetzten zermürbenden Anstrengungen' misses an
'und' or a comma. This is a rule in German, that a list of equally
ranked items need either 'und' (and) or a comma. But this is the case
because 'fortgesetzten' (continously) is not a qualifier to
'zermürbenden' (exhausting). That would be 'fortgesetzt' (repeatedly).
The German sentence is actually twisted and also gramatically wrong.
To translate the Geramn sentence is difficult, but would mean
something like 'crunched repeatedly by efforts'.
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not even
as a painter).
Am 30.10.2023 um 08:12 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 schrieb Volney:
On 10/29/2023 3:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Third: the German word ‚angreifend’ is ‚twisted’ and very bad German.[...]
Better would have been ‚erschöpfend’ (as kind of ironic statement >>>> about the ‚exhausting’ work).
fourth: 'diese fortgesetzten zermürbenden Anstrengungen' misses an
'und' or a comma. This is a rule in German, that a list of equally
ranked items need either 'und' (and) or a comma. But this is the case
because 'fortgesetzten' (continously) is not a qualifier to
'zermürbenden' (exhausting). That would be 'fortgesetzt' (repeatedly). >>>> The German sentence is actually twisted and also gramatically wrong.
To translate the Geramn sentence is difficult, but would mean
something like 'crunched repeatedly by efforts'.
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while
the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
This hypothesis was meant as an extension to the book 'Hitler was a
British Agent' by Greg Hallet.
The book 'My Struggle' wasn't written by Hitler, anyhow, because Hess
and other comrades in the Coup d'etat of 1923 wrote with a typewriter in
Landsberg prison.
The question was, whether or not the source was written in English and
the inmates of Landsberg translated that into German, or the 'Fuehrer'
dictated this text (as 'Great Dictator').
the presence of Hitler in Landsberg is only 'prooven' by a photo, which
violates all know facts about prisons and human anatomy:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 schrieb Volney:
On 10/29/2023 3:46 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Third: the German word ‚angreifend’ is ‚twisted’ and very bad German.[...]
Better would have been ‚erschöpfend’ (as kind of ironic statement
about the ‚exhausting’ work).
fourth: 'diese fortgesetzten zermürbenden Anstrengungen' misses an
'und' or a comma. This is a rule in German, that a list of equally
ranked items need either 'und' (and) or a comma. But this is the case
because 'fortgesetzten' (continously) is not a qualifier to
'zermürbenden' (exhausting). That would be 'fortgesetzt' (repeatedly).
The German sentence is actually twisted and also gramatically wrong.
To translate the Geramn sentence is difficult, but would mean
something like 'crunched repeatedly by efforts'.
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while
the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
This hypothesis was meant as an extension to the book 'Hitler was a
British Agent' by Greg Hallet.
The book 'My Struggle' wasn't written by Hitler, anyhow, because Hess
and other comrades in the Coup d'etat of 1923 wrote with a typewriter in Landsberg prison.
The question was, whether or not the source was written in English and
the inmates of Landsberg translated that into German, or the 'Fuehrer' dictated this text (as 'Great Dictator').
the presence of Hitler in Landsberg is only 'prooven' by a photo, which violates all know facts about prisons and human anatomy:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
For instance:
how many prisons put flowers on the dining table of the inmates?
And why are the inmates allowed to wear their own private leather trousers?
And why did they wear them in the first place?
And how aboute lutes?
What kind of liberal punishment allows such intruments?
The other issue is the impossible position of all the heads.
They look all slightly off any possible position, that a human being
could hold the head.
they look all like glued in place, what they most likely are.
On 2023-10-28 05:38:49 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 27.10.2023 um 11:58 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, October 25, 2023 at 10:38:10?PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>
That makes total sense to me,
All along, I thought that you (and RichD) are JUST a couple of pathetic >>> imbeciles. Now, I realize that you are plain insane.
TH's theory posted here some time ago
that 'Mein Kampf' was really written by an Englishman
(one of the Huxleys) in English,
and that Hitler's version was a poor translation
wasn't enough to tip you off?
No, that was not my theory!
My theory was, that the German version was a relatively poor
translation from a text, which was origionally written in English.
How is that different from what Jan said?
This conclusion came from a side-by-side comparison of the four English versions and the German version.
Because I am a nativ speaker of German and speak English quite well (as
a second language) I could find subtle inconsitencies in the
translations, which only make sense, if one of the four English
versions would be the actual original.
Examples?
The Huxleys came in from a different inquiry:
there was a guy from New Sealand named Greg Hallet, who wrote a book 'Hitler was a British agent'.
Have a look at https://kingjohnthethird.uk/ to be convinced that Greg
Hallett is a crackpot.
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 sc
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while
the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
On October 30, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 sc
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while
the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
Look at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579629/Did-Adolf-Hitler-draw-Disney-characters.html
Any fan of the Seven Dwarfs can't be wholly bad -
PS Was Walt Disney maybe part of the conspiracy?
Am 31.10.2023 um 19:07 schrieb RichD:
On October 30, Thomas Heger wrote:Possibly.
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 sc
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while
the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
Look at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579629/Did-Adolf-Hitler-draw-Disney-characters.html
Any fan of the Seven Dwarfs can't be wholly bad -
PS Was Walt Disney maybe part of the conspiracy?
Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which covers
parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
As we can safely assume, that Hitler had a right leg, this something
does in fact cover the sight to that leg, which is therefore only
partially visible.
What we do see instead is a shadowy female left hand, which hovers
over/in front of that object.
For this observation exists an explanation, which could possibly involve Disney studios.
(I don't mean, that Disney was involved, but that such a possiblity
would exist)
My explanation for this rectangular object goes like this:
If this photo was in fact a montage, we need to skip back in time to
that era.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost exactly
100 years old.
The technology used in photomontage didn't use Photoshop(TM) or similar, because that era was long before the advent of computers.
Instead 'photoshopping' was done in real: cutouts, spray-painting, razor erasing and so forth.
And if you liked to cover a piece of a picture with unwanted details,
you need to paint something directly on it or on an extra sheet of
paper, which is possibly a photo itself.
This sheet was placed upon an underlying picture and the entire montage
was reproduced with a large specialised camera by a specialised and
skilled operator.
Now this woman (to which the shaddowy arm and hand belonged), was
apparently small and untrained, but opperated a professional machine,
like those used in animation studios.
As she wanted to release the shutter of that reproduction camera, she
placed her left hand on that cover sheet and pushed it, unintentionally,
a little upwards, because she was leaning on her left hand, while
adjusting the focus and releasing the shutter.
(This would only be an assumption, but is consistent with the evidence,
which is this particular photo.)
From the size of the hand we can draw a conclusion about the size of
the used machine, which had to be table-sized and belonged to the professional realm, that was used in animation studios.
But apparently the makers of this picture were not skilled enough to
keep their hand away from that table, were the montage rested while
being photographed.
So a female hand is vilible on a photograph from Landsberg prison (where
it should not belong), which is also held in a very akward angle,
supposed the person would sit in front of this set of people.
But the angle would be consistent with a person leaning on a table with
a montage, while doing something with the right hand (like e.g.
releasing the shutter).
TH
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago, Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
Den 01.11.2023 07:03, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 31.10.2023 um 19:07 schrieb RichD:
On October 30, Thomas Heger wrote:Possibly.
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 sc
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while >>>> the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
Look at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579629/Did-Adolf-Hitler-draw-Disney-characters.html
Any fan of the Seven Dwarfs can't be wholly bad -
PS Was Walt Disney maybe part of the conspiracy?
Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which covers
parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
As we can safely assume, that Hitler had a right leg, this something
does in fact cover the sight to that leg, which is therefore only
partially visible.
What we do see instead is a shadowy female left hand, which hovers
over/in front of that object.
For this observation exists an explanation, which could possibly
involve Disney studios.
(I don't mean, that Disney was involved, but that such a possiblity
would exist)
My explanation for this rectangular object goes like this:
If this photo was in fact a montage, we need to skip back in time to
that era.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost
exactly 100 years old.
The technology used in photomontage didn't use Photoshop(TM) or
similar, because that era was long before the advent of computers.
Instead 'photoshopping' was done in real: cutouts, spray-painting,
razor erasing and so forth.
And if you liked to cover a piece of a picture with unwanted details,
you need to paint something directly on it or on an extra sheet of
paper, which is possibly a photo itself.
This sheet was placed upon an underlying picture and the entire
montage was reproduced with a large specialised camera by a
specialised and skilled operator.
Now this woman (to which the shaddowy arm and hand belonged), was
apparently small and untrained, but opperated a professional machine,
like those used in animation studios.
As she wanted to release the shutter of that reproduction camera, she
placed her left hand on that cover sheet and pushed it,
unintentionally, a little upwards, because she was leaning on her left
hand, while adjusting the focus and releasing the shutter.
(This would only be an assumption, but is consistent with the
evidence, which is this particular photo.)
From the size of the hand we can draw a conclusion about the size of
the used machine, which had to be table-sized and belonged to the
professional realm, that was used in animation studios.
But apparently the makers of this picture were not skilled enough to
keep their hand away from that table, were the montage rested while
being photographed.
So a female hand is vilible on a photograph from Landsberg prison
(where it should not belong), which is also held in a very akward
angle, supposed the person would sit in front of this set of people.
But the angle would be consistent with a person leaning on a table
with a montage, while doing something with the right hand (like e.g.
releasing the shutter).
TH
Can you see the colour of the woman's eyes?
Her ethnicity is important!
On 06-Oct-23 10:55 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago,
Pythagoras
took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization to
plagiarize an
entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
You still seem to be labouring under the impression that people care
about exactly who was responsible for which discovery.
Am 01.11.2023 um 10:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 01.11.2023 07:03, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 31.10.2023 um 19:07 schrieb RichD:
On October 30, Thomas Heger wrote:Possibly.
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 sc
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer', while >>>>> the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
Look at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579629/Did-Adolf-Hitler-draw-Disney-characters.html
Any fan of the Seven Dwarfs can't be wholly bad -
PS Was Walt Disney maybe part of the conspiracy?
Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which covers
parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
As we can safely assume, that Hitler had a right leg, this something
does in fact cover the sight to that leg, which is therefore only
partially visible.
What we do see instead is a shadowy female left hand, which hovers
over/in front of that object.
For this observation exists an explanation, which could possibly
involve Disney studios.
(I don't mean, that Disney was involved, but that such a possiblity
would exist)
My explanation for this rectangular object goes like this:
If this photo was in fact a montage, we need to skip back in time to
that era.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost
exactly 100 years old.
The technology used in photomontage didn't use Photoshop(TM) or
similar, because that era was long before the advent of computers.
Instead 'photoshopping' was done in real: cutouts, spray-painting,
razor erasing and so forth.
And if you liked to cover a piece of a picture with unwanted details,
you need to paint something directly on it or on an extra sheet of
paper, which is possibly a photo itself.
This sheet was placed upon an underlying picture and the entire
montage was reproduced with a large specialised camera by a
specialised and skilled operator.
Now this woman (to which the shaddowy arm and hand belonged), was
apparently small and untrained, but opperated a professional machine,
like those used in animation studios.
As she wanted to release the shutter of that reproduction camera, she
placed her left hand on that cover sheet and pushed it,
unintentionally, a little upwards, because she was leaning on her left
hand, while adjusting the focus and releasing the shutter.
(This would only be an assumption, but is consistent with the
evidence, which is this particular photo.)
From the size of the hand we can draw a conclusion about the size of
the used machine, which had to be table-sized and belonged to the
professional realm, that was used in animation studios.
But apparently the makers of this picture were not skilled enough to
keep their hand away from that table, were the montage rested while
being photographed.
So a female hand is vilible on a photograph from Landsberg prison
(where it should not belong), which is also held in a very akward
angle, supposed the person would sit in front of this set of people.
But the angle would be consistent with a person leaning on a table
with a montage, while doing something with the right hand (like e.g.
releasing the shutter).
TH
Can you see the colour of the woman's eyes?
Her ethnicity is important!
No, not really, because that era didn't have color photography.
The picture in question is therefore only black and white.
The detail under consideration (something in the lower left corner)
didn't contain the eyes, neither.
So, no colors of any eyes are visible in this piece of evidence.
Ethnicity of that person isn't of any importance here, thou possibly interesting.
We need to skip these questions therefore, because the photos cannot
answer them.
But what we can actually do is this: ask ourself the question, how this
hand came into the picture and what was actually depicted.
Other assumptions are certainly also possible.
E.g. the hand could have belonged to a waitress, who brought a tray with beaverages or a skript girl, who was holding a book.
Actually I don't know.
Eventually the girl with the make-up had her fingers in the picture.
But female hands with a script or a waitress with drinks do not really
belong to a prison for male inmates, anyhow.
I personally like the idea with a montage, because Hitler and his
comrades had no (or twisted) necks.
So my own bet would be, that an untrained (young and female) user of a professional repro-camera forgot to remove the left hand from the montage-table, while taking a reproduction picture.
But that is only a guess.
On 06-Oct-23 10:55 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
Cretin relativists should learn from this topic. 2500 years ago,
Pythagoras took advantage of his position in ancient greek civilization
to plagiarize an entire body of mathematics developed 1,000 years before his birth.
You still seem to be labouring under the impression that people care
about exactly who was responsible for which discovery.
Am 29.10.2023 um 22:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not even
as a painter).
The German version is VERY hard to read.
This is in parts caused by its sinister content, but mainly because of
its bad German language.
Its so hard to read, because it contains many 'twisted' expressions,
which are unusual and difficult to interpret.
Therefore, after a few page you fall asleep, if you try to read this book.
The English version of Paternoster Library is far better written and has
a high degree of linguistic quality.
The text is also shorter than the German version and has slight
differences in the content.
Now my question:
how could the publisher 'beautify' the text, while leaving out longish passages and adding a few parts, which were not present in the German version'??
This would not be possible at all, if it were in fact a translation of
the German version!
So, how about the opposite direction?
That would in fact be possible, because in this case all pieces of the
puzzle would have an explanation:
the text itself originated from unknows source, but was written in
English by a skilled writer.
The comrades in Landsberg translated the text (possibly with the aid of Hitler) into German and typed it into their maschine.
they added a few parts, which were therefor not present in the English version.
And since style and humor of a sophisticated English text are hard to translate into German, the text in German is so hard to read.
Am 02.11.2023 um 07:59 schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 01.11.2023 um 10:50 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 01.11.2023 07:03, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am 31.10.2023 um 19:07 schrieb RichD:
On October 30, Thomas Heger wrote:Possibly.
Am 29.10.2023 um 20:17 sc
Sure, because the 'Fuehrer' was actually not Hitler.
My assumption was, that Noel Trevenen Huxley posed as 'Fuehrer',
while
the Brits faked his suicide (to make his disapperance plausible).
Look at:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1579629/Did-Adolf-Hitler-draw-Disney-characters.html
Any fan of the Seven Dwarfs can't be wholly bad -
PS Was Walt Disney maybe part of the conspiracy?
Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which covers >>>> parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
As we can safely assume, that Hitler had a right leg, this something
does in fact cover the sight to that leg, which is therefore only
partially visible.
What we do see instead is a shadowy female left hand, which hovers
over/in front of that object.
For this observation exists an explanation, which could possibly
involve Disney studios.
(I don't mean, that Disney was involved, but that such a possiblity
would exist)
My explanation for this rectangular object goes like this:
If this photo was in fact a montage, we need to skip back in time to
that era.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost
exactly 100 years old.
...Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which covers >>>>> parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost
exactly 100 years old.
That picture was taken in January 1924. Hitler didn't go on trial for
the Putsch until February, 1924. So no prisons here.
And there is no woman's hand to be seen.
On 10/30/2023 3:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.10.2023 um 22:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make >>>>> the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't). >>>>>
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the >>>>> worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not even >>> as a painter).
The German version is VERY hard to read.
This is in parts caused by its sinister content, but mainly because of
its bad German language.
Its so hard to read, because it contains many 'twisted' expressions,
which are unusual and difficult to interpret.
Therefore, after a few page you fall asleep, if you try to read this
book.
Translators have commented that translating the German was like driving
them insane.
So Hitler and those who wrote it down/initially edited used poor German.
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:03 schrieb Volney:
On 10/30/2023 3:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.10.2023 um 22:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make >>>>>> the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't). >>>>>>
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities) >>>>>> version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the >>>>>> worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not
even
as a painter).
The German version is VERY hard to read.
This is in parts caused by its sinister content, but mainly because of
its bad German language.
Its so hard to read, because it contains many 'twisted' expressions,
which are unusual and difficult to interpret.
Therefore, after a few page you fall asleep, if you try to read this
book.
Translators have commented that translating the German was like driving
them insane.
So Hitler and those who wrote it down/initially edited used poor German.
My assumption was, that the text published by Paternoster Library was
the actual original, while the German version was a poor translation
from that.
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:06 schrieb Volney:
...Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which
covers
parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost
exactly 100 years old.
That picture was taken in January 1924. Hitler didn't go on trial for
the Putsch until February, 1924. So no prisons here.
Interesting detail!
But if I 'google' for 'Hitler in Landsberg prison' this picture pops up
tons of times.
So, if it was photographed prior to his trial, then why it is all the
time attributed to Landsberg prison?
And where in fact was it taken instead and for what reason?
And there is no woman's hand to be seen.
Well, possibly the hand belonged to a male.
I do not really insist on 'female', but the hand looks like a female
hand for me.
Look carefully yourself and try to figure out, what that is, that was photographed in the lower left corner of the picture.
To me it looks like the left hand of a (very!) stupid female operator of
a professional reproduction camera, who unitentionally photographed her
left hand, while releasing the shutter with the right hand.
Another hint could be the blur, which means usually a difference in
focus or a movement within exposure time. >
Here the blur suggests a significant difference in distance between
blurred objects and focussed objects.
On 11/3/2023 3:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:06 schrieb Volney:
...Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which covers >>>>>>> parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost >>>>>>> exactly 100 years old.
That picture was taken in January 1924. Hitler didn't go on trial for
the Putsch until February, 1924. So no prisons here.
Interesting detail!
Yes, and it rules out the idea it was taken in prison after his conviction.
But if I 'google' for 'Hitler in Landsberg prison' this picture pops up
tons of times.
So, if it was photographed prior to his trial, then why it is all the
time attributed to Landsberg prison?
Do you even know how Google works? All that means is that articles
discussing Hitler's imprisonment, the Putsch or Hitler in general (such
as Wikipedia) also used that photograph, and since it was taken shortly before the trial it was probably close to the text about imprisonment.
That's all it means.
And where in fact was it taken instead and for what reason?
I'm sure the reason was that Hitler and his buddies wanted a group photograph. Where? I think it is very safe to say it was not in a
prison. Likely one of the homes of those in the photograph.
And there is no woman's hand to be seen.
Well, possibly the hand belonged to a male.
I do not really insist on 'female', but the hand looks like a female
hand for me.
There is no hand, male or female, to be seen! Other than those seated
at the table, of course.
Look carefully yourself and try to figure out, what that is, that was
photographed in the lower left corner of the picture.
It's blurry but appears to be a table or similar, with a blurry book on
the left and the corner of a sheet of paper or another book at the
bottom.
To me it looks like the left hand of a (very!) stupid female operator
of a professional reproduction camera, who unitentionally photographed
her left hand, while releasing the shutter with the right hand.
What have you been smoking?
Another hint could be the blur, which means usually a difference in
focus or a movement within exposure time. >
Here the blur suggests a significant difference in distance between
blurred objects and focussed objects.
Yes the table and books were in the foreground, so blurred.
On 2023-11-03 16:07:51 +0000, Volney said:
On 11/3/2023 3:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:06 schrieb Volney:
...Look at this picture again:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
In the lower left corner we can see a rectangular object, which >>>>>>>> covers
parts of Hitler's right leg and parts of the table cloth.
This picture was made in 1923 (or nearby) and is therefor almost >>>>>>>> exactly 100 years old.
That picture was taken in January 1924. Hitler didn't go on trial for
the Putsch until February, 1924. So no prisons here.
Interesting detail!
Yes, and it rules out the idea it was taken in prison after his
conviction.
But if I 'google' for 'Hitler in Landsberg prison' this picture pops
up tons of times.
So, if it was photographed prior to his trial, then why it is all the
time attributed to Landsberg prison?
Do you even know how Google works? All that means is that articles
discussing Hitler's imprisonment, the Putsch or Hitler in general
(such as Wikipedia) also used that photograph, and since it was taken
shortly before the trial it was probably close to the text about
imprisonment. That's all it means.
And where in fact was it taken instead and for what reason?
I'm sure the reason was that Hitler and his buddies wanted a group
photograph. Where? I think it is very safe to say it was not in a
prison. Likely one of the homes of those in the photograph.
And there is no woman's hand to be seen.
Well, possibly the hand belonged to a male.
I do not really insist on 'female', but the hand looks like a female
hand for me.
There is no hand, male or female, to be seen! Other than those seated
at the table, of course.
Look carefully yourself and try to figure out, what that is, that was
photographed in the lower left corner of the picture.
It's blurry but appears to be a table or similar, with a blurry book
on the left and the corner of a sheet of paper or another book at the
bottom.
To me it looks like the left hand of a (very!) stupid female operator
of a professional reproduction camera, who unitentionally
photographed her left hand, while releasing the shutter with the
right hand.
What have you been smoking?
Another hint could be the blur, which means usually a difference in
focus or a movement within exposure time. >
Here the blur suggests a significant difference in distance between
blurred objects and focussed objects.
Yes the table and books were in the foreground, so blurred.
Photoshopping hadn't been invented in 1924, and doctoring photos has
come a very long way since then. Consider this one, from the same
decade, where the fakery is embarrassingly obvious:
https://www.nj.com/entertainment/arts/2012/09/as_the_art_market_remains_on_a.html
Notice that although the two men appear to be sitting on the same bench,
the bits they're sitting on are completely different. As Thomas Heger
appears to be confused about it, I should point out that the chap on the right is Stalin, not Mao Tse Tung.
So, look at the picture again and lets find out, what is evidence for
fakery and possibly who had made it.
I personally think, the blurry hand is resting on a glass sheet, which
is used in animation film production to place cutouts above the
animation drawings.
The animation itself is flat and in focus, while the camara takes
pictures through one or more layers of glass, where foreground objects
are usually placed.
Therefore the person touched a rectangular forground layer object, which
was meant to cover the floor (thats why it contains a piece of the
pattern of the table cloth).
This layer is closer to the camera, hence blurry.
In a real picture, where a scene is taken in one exposure, the
blurryness bilds a continum, which corresponds which distance to the
camera (more close means: more blurry) and has to do with lense type and apperture.
But we have a continously sharp scene, which is therefor made with a
wide angle lense and closed apperture, while the reproduction camera had
a long focal length and a wide apperture.
So the blur of the hand would suggest, that two different lenses were involved, hence would prove a montage.
On 11/3/2023 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:03 schrieb Volney:
On 10/30/2023 3:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.10.2023 um 22:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to make >>>>>>> the origional version better than it actuially was (better: wasn't). >>>>>>>
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities) >>>>>>> version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and the >>>>>>> worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not
even
as a painter).
The German version is VERY hard to read.
This is in parts caused by its sinister content, but mainly because of >>>> its bad German language.
Its so hard to read, because it contains many 'twisted' expressions,
which are unusual and difficult to interpret.
Therefore, after a few page you fall asleep, if you try to read this
book.
Translators have commented that translating the German was like driving
them insane.
So Hitler and those who wrote it down/initially edited used poor German.
My assumption was, that the text published by Paternoster Library was
the actual original, while the German version was a poor translation
from that.
I think the nonexistence of time travel rules that out completely.
[snip rest as irrelevant]
Am 03.11.2023 um 16:50 schrieb Volney:
On 11/3/2023 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:03 schrieb Volney:
On 10/30/2023 3:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.10.2023 um 22:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to >>>>>>>> make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better:
wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic qualities) >>>>>>>> version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, and >>>>>>>> the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not >>>>>> even
as a painter).
The German version is VERY hard to read.
This is in parts caused by its sinister content, but mainly because of >>>>> its bad German language.
Its so hard to read, because it contains many 'twisted' expressions, >>>>> which are unusual and difficult to interpret.
Therefore, after a few page you fall asleep, if you try to read this >>>>> book.
Translators have commented that translating the German was like driving >>>> them insane.
So Hitler and those who wrote it down/initially edited used poor
German.
My assumption was, that the text published by Paternoster Library was
the actual original, while the German version was a poor translation
from that.
I think the nonexistence of time travel rules that out completely.
[snip rest as irrelevant]
I have no idea, where timetravel was needed for my assumption.
The version of Paternoster Library was printed in the early 1930th.
But this would not require at all, that the text was written in the 30th.
More likely is, that it was way older and written prior or within WWI.
My reason to think so: WWI was mentioned, but the text was VERY wage
with historical details.
I personally would have had the text written with as much historical
details as possible, like places, people, events and names.
But the descriptions of war in 'My Struggle' were very wage and hardly
any detail was mentioned.
This is extremely dubious, because that's just not how people write
about personal experiences.
Am 04.11.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Thomas Heger:
So, look at the picture again and lets find out, what is evidence for
fakery and possibly who had made it.
I personally think, the blurry hand is resting on a glass sheet, which
is used in animation film production to place cutouts above the
animation drawings.
The animation itself is flat and in focus, while the camara takes
pictures through one or more layers of glass, where foreground objects
are usually placed.
Therefore the person touched a rectangular forground layer object, which
was meant to cover the floor (thats why it contains a piece of the
pattern of the table cloth).
This layer is closer to the camera, hence blurry.
In a real picture, where a scene is taken in one exposure, the
blurryness bilds a continum, which corresponds which distance to the
camera (more close means: more blurry) and has to do with lense type and
apperture.
But we have a continously sharp scene, which is therefor made with a
wide angle lense and closed apperture, while the reproduction camera had
a long focal length and a wide apperture.
So the blur of the hand would suggest, that two different lenses were
involved, hence would prove a montage.
Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
Look at the lower left corner and the blurry hand, which is holding something.
Now this hand is actually a PROOF, that this picture is 'doctored'.
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to assume,
On 11/5/2023 2:03 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 04.11.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Thomas Heger:
So, look at the picture again and lets find out, what is evidence for
fakery and possibly who had made it.
I personally think, the blurry hand is resting on a glass sheet, which
is used in animation film production to place cutouts above the
animation drawings.
The animation itself is flat and in focus, while the camara takes
pictures through one or more layers of glass, where foreground objects
are usually placed.
Therefore the person touched a rectangular forground layer object, which >>> was meant to cover the floor (thats why it contains a piece of the
pattern of the table cloth).
This layer is closer to the camera, hence blurry.
In a real picture, where a scene is taken in one exposure, the
blurryness bilds a continum, which corresponds which distance to the
camera (more close means: more blurry) and has to do with lense type and >>> apperture.
But we have a continously sharp scene, which is therefor made with a
wide angle lense and closed apperture, while the reproduction camera had >>> a long focal length and a wide apperture.
So the blur of the hand would suggest, that two different lenses were
involved, hence would prove a montage.
Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
Look at the lower left corner and the blurry hand, which is holding
something.
There. Is. No. Hand. In. The. Corner.
Now this hand is actually a PROOF, that this picture is 'doctored'.
There. Is. No. Hand. In. The. Corner.
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to assume,
I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand.
Am 05.11.2023 um 16:41 schrieb Volney:
On 11/5/2023 2:03 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 04.11.2023 um 08:41 schrieb Thomas Heger:
So, look at the picture again and lets find out, what is evidence for
fakery and possibly who had made it.
I personally think, the blurry hand is resting on a glass sheet, which >>>> is used in animation film production to place cutouts above the
animation drawings.
The animation itself is flat and in focus, while the camara takes
pictures through one or more layers of glass, where foreground objects >>>> are usually placed.
Therefore the person touched a rectangular forground layer object,
which
was meant to cover the floor (thats why it contains a piece of the
pattern of the table cloth).
This layer is closer to the camera, hence blurry.
In a real picture, where a scene is taken in one exposure, the
blurryness bilds a continum, which corresponds which distance to the
camera (more close means: more blurry) and has to do with lense type
and
apperture.
But we have a continously sharp scene, which is therefor made with a
wide angle lense and closed apperture, while the reproduction camera
had
a long focal length and a wide apperture.
So the blur of the hand would suggest, that two different lenses were
involved, hence would prove a montage.
Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
Look at the lower left corner and the blurry hand, which is holding
something.
There. Is. No. Hand. In. The. Corner.
Now this hand is actually a PROOF, that this picture is 'doctored'.
There. Is. No. Hand. In. The. Corner.
Well, the shape is imho that of a female left hand.
You can see this at the relatively steep angle between arm and hand,
what males cannot do.
Wemen have the ability to stretch their joints further than males can,
hence the hand should belong to a women.
Also the fingers are quite slim and longish.
The view is on the left hand from the side, where you can see the thumb
and a stretched out forefinger.
But eventually the shape belongs to some other object.
That is a question of debate. But I see a female left hand.
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to assume,
I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand.
Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
science without assumptions is not science.
In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to make estimates about the possible solutions.
Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are promising.
Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be evaluated.
Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
...Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand. >>>>
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to assume, >>>>
Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
science without assumptions is not science.
In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to
make estimates about the possible solutions.
No, not so. The closest is to have a hypothesis on how something
happens, but the hypothesis has no value until you perform an
observation or experiment which supports (or refutes) it.
Sure, the hypothesis needs to fit to the observations.
But 'to observe' would include to look at something, which was in this
case a certain photography.
Therefor, I made observations (looked at that picture) and have drawn conclusions from these observations.
These conclusions are my hypothesis, which would fit to my observations
and were presented here for discussion.
My hypothesis could be, nevertheless, wrong. But until now it is a
valid theory, unless somebody proves it wrong.
Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are promising. >>>
Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best
assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be evaluated.
Yet you haven't done that. You have a crazy hypothesis of photographic
manipulation, which has no supporting evidence. All you have is an
imagined "hand".
The photo itself is evidence enough.
A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of times.
So: what is on the picture is on it.
And I can see a blurry female hand in a position, where it should not belong.
This is a simple fact and can hardly be disputed.
TH
...Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand.
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to assume, >>>
Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
science without assumptions is not science.
In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to
make estimates about the possible solutions.
No, not so. The closest is to have a hypothesis on how something
happens, but the hypothesis has no value until you perform an
observation or experiment which supports (or refutes) it.
Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are promising.
Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best
assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be evaluated.
Yet you haven't done that. You have a crazy hypothesis of photographic manipulation, which has no supporting evidence. All you have is an
imagined "hand".
On 2023-11-07 07:44:01 +0000, Thomas Heger said:..
Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
The photo itself is evidence enough.
A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of
times.
So: what is on the picture is on it.
And I can see a blurry female hand in a position, where it should not
belong.
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
This is a simple fact and can hardly be disputed.
TH
Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[ … ]
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
...Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to
assume,
I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand. >>>>
Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
science without assumptions is not science.
In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to
make estimates about the possible solutions.
No, not so. The closest is to have a hypothesis on how something
happens, but the hypothesis has no value until you perform an
observation or experiment which supports (or refutes) it.
Sure, the hypothesis needs to fit to the observations.
But 'to observe' would include to look at something, which was in this
case a certain photography.
Therefor, I made observations (looked at that picture) and have drawn conclusions from these observations.
These conclusions are my hypothesis, which would fit to my observations
and were presented here for discussion.
My hypothesis could be, nevertheless, wrong.
But until now it is a valid
theory, unless somebody proves it wrong.
Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are promising. >>>
Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best
assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be evaluated.
Yet you haven't done that. You have a crazy hypothesis of photographic
manipulation, which has no supporting evidence. All you have is an
imagined "hand".
The photo itself is evidence enough.
A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of
times.
So: what is on the picture is on it.
And I can see a blurry female hand in a position, where it should not
belong.
This is a simple fact and can hardly be disputed.
On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[ … ]
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
has seen your hand?
I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering
it.
On 11/7/2023 2:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
...Look at the picture AGAIN:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to
assume,
I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand. >>>>>
Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
science without assumptions is not science.
In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to
make estimates about the possible solutions.
No, not so. The closest is to have a hypothesis on how something
happens, but the hypothesis has no value until you perform an
observation or experiment which supports (or refutes) it.
Sure, the hypothesis needs to fit to the observations.
But 'to observe' would include to look at something, which was in this
case a certain photography.
Therefor, I made observations (looked at that picture) and have drawn
conclusions from these observations.
These conclusions are my hypothesis, which would fit to my
observations and were presented here for discussion.
No you go off and assume this nonexistent hand belongs to some female photograph manipulator, when there is no evidence of any sort of thing.
My hypothesis could be, nevertheless, wrong.
It certainly is wrong.
But until now it is a valid theory, unless somebody proves it wrong.
No, you have to prove it valid. You have not done so.
Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are
promising.
Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best
assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be
evaluated.
Yet you haven't done that. You have a crazy hypothesis of photographic
manipulation, which has no supporting evidence. All you have is an
imagined "hand".
The photo itself is evidence enough.
OK, the photograph is evidence that there is no hand there. Because I
can see that there is no hand there.
A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of
times.
So: what is on the picture is on it.
A book, piece of paper/another book set on a piece of furniture.
Probably the camera had a timer and placed on/near the furniture so that everyone in the room could be in the photo when the timer went off and snapped the picture.
Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[ … ]
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
has seen your hand?
I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering
it.
Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
And my claim was:
I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
because you cannot see into my head.
On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[ … ]
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who >> has seen your hand?
I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering >> it.
Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
And my claim was:
I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
because you cannot see into my head.
Yes, that is so. And Joe Schizophrenic hears voices which nobody can dispute,
On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:..
Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[ … ]
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
has seen your hand?
I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering >>> it.
Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
And my claim was:
I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
because you cannot see into my head.
(I don't think you are schizophrenic, of course, you just have an
overactive imagination and leap onto conspiracy theories)
Am 09.11.2023 um 19:19 schrieb Volney:
On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:..
Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[ … ]
A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who >>>> has seen your hand?
I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck
answering
it.
Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
And my claim was:
I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
picture:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
because you cannot see into my head.
I CAN SEE a hand there!!!
You need to look yourself.
The hand has a very strange angle, as if a person (standing
perpendicular to the picture, hence has a body-axis pointing towards the lower left) would lean on the montage, but a little above on a glass
plate (that's why it is blurry).
This would be consistent with a really stupid female operator, who made
a reproduction of a montage, which was very large (table sized) and reproduced it with a professional repro system, similar to those used in animation studios.
This would be my interpretation of the picture and its origin.
If you don't agree, than please tell me yours.
(I don't think you are schizophrenic, of course, you just have an
overactive imagination and leap onto conspiracy theories)
Well, that's actually true to some extent, because I have created dozens
of 'conspiracy theories'.
Usualy I prefer terms like 'musings about the activities of spooks',
but 'conspiracy theories' is more often used.
You need to be more careful about what to believe with little evidence.
Well, that's actually true to some extent, because I have created
dozens of 'conspiracy theories'.
Usualy I prefer terms like 'musings about the activities of spooks',
but 'conspiracy theories' is more often used.
On 11/5/2023 1:48 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.11.2023 um 16:50 schrieb Volney:
On 11/3/2023 3:53 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.11.2023 um 06:03 schrieb Volney:
On 10/30/2023 3:25 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 29.10.2023 um 22:03 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
[...]
So, it would not make much sense, if a translation attempted to >>>>>>>>> make
the origional version better than it actuially was (better:
wasn't).
This enables to take the best (in the sense of liguistic
qualities)
version as source, which was the one of Paternoster Library, >>>>>>>>> and the
worst as translation (which was the German one - by far!).
...or Hitler just wasn't very good at German grammar.
I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not >>>>>>> even
as a painter).
The German version is VERY hard to read.
This is in parts caused by its sinister content, but mainly
because of
its bad German language.
Its so hard to read, because it contains many 'twisted' expressions, >>>>>> which are unusual and difficult to interpret.
Therefore, after a few page you fall asleep, if you try to read this >>>>>> book.
Translators have commented that translating the German was like
driving
them insane.
So Hitler and those who wrote it down/initially edited used poor
German.
My assumption was, that the text published by Paternoster Library was
the actual original, while the German version was a poor translation
from that.
I think the nonexistence of time travel rules that out completely.
[snip rest as irrelevant]
I have no idea, where timetravel was needed for my assumption.
The version of Paternoster Library was printed in the early 1930th.
And the German version was published in the mid 1920s.
But this would not require at all, that the text was written in the 30th.
More likely is, that it was way older and written prior or within WWI.
No, you are ASSUMING that. Assumptions are not evidence.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 401 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 10:25:48 |
| Calls: | 8,391 |
| Calls today: | 17 |
| Files: | 13,168 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (46K bytes) |
| Messages: | 5,901,857 |
| Posted today: | 2 |
