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:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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'.

See here:

https://www.abebooks.de/9780473120733/Stalins-British-Training-Greg-Hallett-0473120739/plp
....

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 23.10.2023 um 09:37 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> 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
> exercis

not true. 𝗗𝗿._𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻 was a wonderful man, wanting good and prosperity to his
people. He won the war and made already Russia an industrial power.

however, amazing the impertinence at this 𝗦𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆. Most wondering how the
nazi from ukurina can be so stupid, not seeing what is going on.

𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆_𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝘆_𝘁𝗼_𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲_‘500_𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀_𝗮_𝗱𝗮𝘆’
The gay actor acting "president" has demanded daily progress in Kiev’s
lagging counteroffensive
https://r%74.com/ru%73%73ia/585649-ukraine-zelensky-counteroffensive-
daily-progress/

Soon Zelinski will shrink to his original form of an insect

Fair enough Coke head but umm... in what direction did you have in mind?

Is that what senile Joe demanded Smellensky??

Zelensky destroyed Ukraine. His success is measured in dollars.

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:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>> 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,

Jan

On 2023-10-24 16:44:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> 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:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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?

Unless I've missed it, there doesn't seem to have been a reply to this
question. Surely even Thomas Heger must know that Stalin and Mao were
two different people?
>>>
>>> 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>

I wondered that, but didn't care enough to follow it up.
>
>> 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,

Probably not so surprising. What has led you to expect deep and careful
thinking from Thomas Heger?

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

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"

--
Rich

Am 25.10.2023 um 23:49 schrieb RichD:
> 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, because Jenny Jerome (Winston's mother)
belonged to the harem of 'Bertie the swinger' (later King Edward VII).

Bertie was most likely father of tons of children and had to take care
for them in one way or the other.

In the case of Winston he had ordered a Lord Randolph Churchill to marry
Jenny Jerome.

Both of the parents had no real interest in young Winston, hence he
develeoped a very sinister view of life.

Sidney Street Siege as trainings ground for 'Koba' (Jossif Djugashvilli)
is possibly wrong.

But Greg Hallets books were base on the confessions of a dying MI6
top-level agent.

So, possibly the stories are wrong and invented.

But they are so full of details which make absolutely no sense inventing
them. That made me think, they are actually correct.

TH

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. <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?

He is downright different abled,

Jan
(if memory serves)

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 2:58:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 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,
> >
> >
> > 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?
>
> He is downright different abled,
>
> Jan
> (if memory serves)
Yes, I know, he's a closet nazi

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 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.
>
> 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

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Am 28.10.2023 um 09:13 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> 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?
Am 28.10.2023 um 09:13 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:> 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?

This comparison is difficult and annying, but let me do it once more
just for you:

(This is a random pick. but you could see the same pattern at all over
the place).

---------------------------------------------------

Vol II, Chapter I, German edition
Jeden Morgen begibt sich der Herr Volksvertreter in das Hohe Haus, und
wenn schon nicht ganz hinein, so doch wenigstens bis in den Vorraum, in
dem die Anwesenheitslisten auf liegen. Im angreifenden Dienste für das
Volk trägt er dort seinen Namen ein und nimmt als wohlverdienten Lohn
eine kleine Entschädigung für diese fortgesetzten zermürbenden
Anstrengungen entgegen.

Vol II, Chapter I, Page 268 Notide edition
Morning after morning the honourable deputy wends his way to the House,
and though he may not enter the Chamber itself he gets at least as far
as the front hall, where he will find the register on which the names of
the deputies in attendance have to be inscribed. As a part of his
onerous service to his constituents he enters his name, and in return
receives a small indemnity as a well-earned reward for his unceasing and
exhausting labours.

Paternoster Library edition page 147
Once the Elections are over the Member-who is elected for five years -
goes each morning to the House, not perhaps right inside, but at any
rate as far as the hall in which the attendance lists are placed.
His fatiguing service in the people’s cause leads him to sign his name,
and in return for this exhausting effort, daily repeated, he accepts a
small honorarium as his well-earned reward.

---------------------------------------------------------------

First: this describes a procedure unknown in Austria, but in the House
of Commons in England.

Second:. the paternoster library inserted ‚...elected for five years’,
which wasn’t present in the German version.

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'.

and so forth....
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Now it would not make sense to alter the German version in the sense of
'to beautify' it, because Germany was at that time the enemy in a way
and the author the leader of that enemy.

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!).

TH

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 2023-10-29 19:17:11 +0000, Volney said:

> 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.

I don't think Hitler's fame derived from his skill as a writer (not
even as a painter).

--
Athel cb

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.

TH

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.

TH

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
>
>
>
> 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.
>

This particular photo was such an extremely bad fake, because it shows
actual scissor cuts around the heads, where the photos of the heads were
cut out from other photos.

These cut-outs look like being glued to a picture, which was apparently
meant to depict typical Bavarian lifestyle.

That was blatant bullshit, because typical Bavarian lifestyle looked
certainly different than how life in prison looked like.

So, even if Landsberg prison was a 'better' one, it was still a prison
and not a hotel.

Therefore the inmates wore prison clothes, had no private dining rooms,
didn't have a lute, didn't have flowers and disk-cloth put on their
tables and so forth.

So: what did the creators of this nonsense actually want?

Well, apparently they were trying to serve a cliche about Germany and
kind of mock Bavarian lifestyle.

But this picture was used in 'My struggle' in the English versions.

This is bad for the assumption of authenticy of this book, because proof
of fakery in this photo inevitably destroys the credibility of this book.

TH

Am 31.10.2023 um 07:50 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> 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
>>

In case that anyone still had doubts about fakery in this picture: let
me give you some hints to convince you.

1) Look at the table.

2) Look at the left side of the table cloth, hanging down in front of
Hitler's knees.

3) Ask yourself the question, what actually blocks the sight below the
table to Hitler's legs ?

4) this is a rectangular object with strange features.

What actually is it?

To me it seems to be some kind of studio equipment, like a flat lens or
a filter.

Or just look a Hitler's head and ask yourself the question, where Hitler
had put his neck.

....

TH

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

I see a similar kind of person in another forum.
Whatever the stick is, he invariably and consistently manages
to get the wrong end of it.
Like our TH, he is quite reliable,
like a compass that always points away from the true North.
Wherever he points is the wrong way.

I don't know how he does it, but some people seem to have that talent,

Jan

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?

--
Rich

Am 31.10.2023 um 19:07 schrieb RichD:
> 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?
>
Possibly.

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

Den 01.11.2023 07:03, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am 31.10.2023 um 19:07 schrieb RichD:
>> 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?
>>
> Possibly.
>
>
> 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!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 01.11.2023 07:03, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> 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!

you can't see the dick??

𝗔𝗺𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘁𝘆_𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗳𝗼𝗿_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹-𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗮𝗿𝗺𝘀_𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗼
https://r%74.com/news/586372-amnesty-embargo-israel-gaza/

No one can control or stop the khazar goys in killing children!

BREAKING: ZIonist soldiers and US special forces picking up their dead and
wounded loaded them into chopper. Leaked by ideo on Nov, 1, 2023. Telegram
channels confirmed several dead and wounded from invading forces. Fierce
fighting ended with heavy losses inflicted by the Hamas guerillas: 26 dead
US Marines, 17 Zionists dead soldiers and 43 Zionist soldiers captured.

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.

Sylvia.

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:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>> Possibly.
>>
>>
>> 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.

TH