Am 02.11.2023 um 02:09 schrieb Sylvia Else:
> 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.

Some people actually do.

I have recently seen a YouTube video, which claimed, that the theory of
Pythogoras stemmed actually from India and was several thousand years
older than that ancient Greece, to which Pythagoras belonged.

TH

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:
>>>>> 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.
>

I found another detail, which would raise doubts about this picture:

The person on the right of the picture smoked and wore a wedding ring.
(As far as I know, rings were taken away from inmates, when they entered
a prison).

That person looks also very unconvincing, because the head does not fit
to the body in size and direction of view.

Also these Bavarian socks, a leather trouser and a 'Janker' (traditional
Bavarian jacket) do not really fit to a prison.

Hess was sitting on something unknown. That could be a bar stool or
possibly on the knees of the fat man to the right.

Over all, the picture looks like a collage, that was made by free-time
artists or a group of students in a course called 'creativity training'.

TH

Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

> 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.

Sure. And no one ever claimed that Pythagoras
'discovered' the 'Pythagorean theorem' to begin with.
The best that may be attributed to him (perhaps)
is the discovery of the first general proof.
(perhaps the 'Euclidean proof' of Pythagoras, by direct subdivision)

And more importantly, Pythagoras may be the inventor
of the whole idea of formal axiomatic proof.
(which is certainly not Indian or Babylonian)

Jan

--
https://central.edu/writing-anthology/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2019/02/18WritingAnthology-23-268x300.png

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.
>
> 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.

Looks like the translator took many liberties as well as trying to make
it more sane.
>
> 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'??

As I said, the translator apparently took liberties. The English
translations were 10 or more years after initial publication as well.
>
> This would not be possible at all, if it were in fact a translation of
> the German version!

So we agree the translator took liberties.
>
>
> 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 German to English translator was skilled, yes, but not faithful to
the German.
>
> The comrades in Landsberg translated the text (possibly with the aid of
> Hitler) into German and typed it into their maschine.

But it was available in German for 10 years before the English versions.
>
> they added a few parts, which were therefor not present in the English
> version.

For that to happen (in addition to the time travel) they'd have to add
the gibbering nonsense.
>
> 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.

Hard to read because Hitler and the early editors wrote a lot of gibberish.

On 11/2/2023 3:49 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>> 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.

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.

[snip rest as now irrelevant]

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.

The setup would be_

a montage was made, where the heads of Hitler and comrades were placed
on a large silver-gelatine print of something assumed to be typical German.

(what was in fact not typical German, but typical Bavarian).

The montage was table sized and reproduced with a reproduction camera
like those used in animation studios to generate the final product.

As the pieces were not glued together, the operator slid a piece of the
montage (unintentionally) a littel upwards when leaning on the left hand
and made the additional error to photograph the own 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.

From the amount of blur we need to consider something huge and a place
of that hand near the camera and a distant scene (photographed with a
tele-lens).

But that would conflict with the size of the knees and the hands of the
man to the right of the picture, which are totally in focus, because
being e.g. half the distance to the camera would require four times the
size of the blurred hand compared to the sharp lower legs of the man,
what isn't the case.

So the hand cannot be photographed together with the Bavarian scene.

TH

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.

This translation was extended a little bit, hence had more content than
the origional one.

It also didn't have the style and liguistic quality of it and was
therefore hard to read.

From that German version three different English translations were made.

So, overall four English versions were written, while one was the
origional, from which the German version was derived.

Why the British had published the origional is actually beyond me.

I can only explain it by hybris.

....

TH

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]

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.

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

Am 03.11.2023 um 18:07 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> 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.
>
>
I certainly know how Stalin and Lenin looked like, even if they are long
dead.

But Stalin was also involved in fakery at his own time and got opponents
removed from certain photos.

Lenin was earlier, but certainly his pictures were doctored, too.

But I was talking about the German dictator known as 'Hitler'.

I personally don't think, that guy was really Hitler, but a British spy
with the real name Noel Trevenen Huxley.

Among the many reasons was one photo made of Hitler in 1st of August
1914, when Hitler attended the 'celebration' of WWI on the Odeons Square
in Munich.

That was an obvious fake, because the real Hitler had very long beard
tips a few weeks later, while the guy in Munich had his typical square
moustache.

So; who faked and what????

Hitlers friend Heinrich Hoffman was his photographer and known to have
faked a lot of pictures, including the one from Odeons Platz.

But possibly this picture was authentic and the person itself was a fake.

Here I had the picture from the Landsberg prison, which was used in some
versions of 'My Struggle' (allegedly written in Landsberg by that person).

But I wanted to prove, that Hitler could not possibly have written these
books, because they look like a translation from the English language.

They are also way to complicated from its content, because the real
Hitler was a school dropout and lived in an homeless shelter, until he
went to war in WWI.

After that he recovered in Beelitz Heilstätten and another hospital in
Brandenburg from mustard gas injury.

But when did he read Spinoza and the other philosophers, which he needed
to write these books (which are also a little too long for the six month
in prison he had allegedly been there)???

So we have reasons to believe, the picture of Hitler in Landsberg were
all faked and he had never been there for a day.

(btw: the pictures from Beelitz Heilstätten look staged, too, because
one of his comrades from Munich prior to the war show up after the war
on that picture in the same hospital as Hitler. That is highly unlikely,
because the usual survival time for soldiers at the western front was
only two weeks and between beginn and end of WW I were four years).

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.

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

> But I was talking about the German dictator known as 'Hitler'.
> I personally don't think, that guy was really Hitler, but a British spy
> with the real name Noel Trevenen Huxley.

what spy, the english pigs monarchy is german. Read their real names,
fucking stupid. They were strong allies to kill Russia those days too. 𝗧𝗵𝗲
𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻.

Am 04.11.2023 um 10:41 schrieb Phong Abulmambetoff:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>> But I was talking about the German dictator known as 'Hitler'.
>> I personally don't think, that guy was not really Hitler, but a British spy
>> with the real name Noel Trevenen Huxley.
>
> what spy, the english pigs monarchy is german. Read their real names,

Well, possibly some of the ancestors of the aristocrats in the UK stem
partially from Germany (or better: from the ancestors of Germany), but
still the UK is a different country.

So: an agent from one country, who illegally operates in a different
country, is called 'spy', where ever he or she had ethnic roots.

> fucking stupid. They were strong allies to kill Russia those days too. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱
𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻.
Here I would agree to some extent. Especially some planes (e.g. Ju 87
and F109 'Stuka') look too similar to certain planes, which the US had
used on their carriers in the 30th and 40th, even if Germany had never
any carrier.

TH

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.

TH

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,
at which location in space that hand was placed.

Now you cannot, because the size, lighting, shadow and blur cannot be
put into a consistent location within your mental representation of the
scene.

This causes a certain mental state called 'cognitive dissonance',
because the brain tries to make sense out of some parts of a picture,
which do not make sense.

This very feeling is a hint by the brain, that something is wrong.

Now think about this emotion and its possible roots.

You will find:

the hand is too blurry for the apparent position.

So you need to tell your brain: that background scene is flat and
two-dimensional and the hand is hovering above something lying flat on a
table.

Than you can actually see the reproduction machine in operation.
(which is very similar to these 3D-pictures, which consist of apparently
random patterns)

TH

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻.
> Here I would agree to some extent. Especially some planes (e.g. Ju 87
> and F109 'Stuka') look too similar to certain planes, which the US had
> used on their carriers in the 30th and 40th, even if Germany had never
> any carrier.

absolutely, plus many other things, money, raw materials, petrol etc. Here
you have another 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆 which should be arrested, send back
to 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮.

𝗡𝘂𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗶𝘀_𝗮_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_–_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_
https://r%74.com/news/586623-nuking-gaza-possibility-israel/

these 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 are evil like shit mental retarded. There's something
terribly wrong with these despicable 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻.
> Here I would agree to some extent. Especially some planes (e.g. Ju 87
> and F109 'Stuka') look too similar to certain planes, which the US had
> used on their carriers in the 30th and 40th, even if Germany had never
> any carrier.

absolutely, plus many other things, money, raw materials, petrol etc. Here
you have another 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝗰𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆 which should be arrested, send
back to 𝗳𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮. Take a look at his ugly face of 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆, so you
remember.

𝗡𝘂𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴_𝗚𝗮𝘇𝗮_𝗶𝘀_𝗮_𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆_–_𝗜𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗲𝗹𝗶_𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿_
https://r%74.com/news/586623-nuking-gaza-possibility-israel/

these 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 are evil like shit mental retarded. There's something
terribly wrong with these despicable 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿 𝗴𝗼𝘆𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗮.

When Blinken asked the Israelis to avoid killing civilians, their response
was: you killed a lot of Japanese civilians when you dropped the atomic
bomb, so it's doable.

I thought nobody can be more psychopath than Netanyahu, but there we go.

These lunatic people should be locked up for good

Eliyahu said arguing that “we wouldn’t hand the Nazis humanitarian aid,”
Then why are you sending aid to Ukraine ? why were Israeli mercenaries
there and if you did not know they were there then why did Netanyahu
recall them ???.

There were Irish, English, Scottish mercenaries there as well.

After murdering 4000 children, not sure they're that worried about their
"international standing".

Now they've admitted they're in possession of nukes and are insane enough
to use it, sanctions anyone?

He wasn't supposed to say it in an interview but that's what the Israeli
government really think.

Zionism is a terminal cancer cyst on the World as a whole and nothing will
survive less it is removed.

Pure. Evil, barbaric slime bags.. He is just speaking out his mind unlike
the rest of them who r still trying to put on a show for the world.

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.

[snip crap]

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.

You would have to assume the English version was written before WW1
(were the translators/"authors" old enough then?), then hidden away
completely, except once, when translated into German around 1924, before
being revealed in the 1930s. Fails Occam's Razor.
>
> My reason to think so: WWI was mentioned, but the text was VERY wage
> with historical details.

How vague(?) was it? Did it get the belligerents, locations correct?
>
> I personally would have had the text written with as much historical
> details as possible, like places, people, events and names.

But you are not Hitler.
>
> 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.
>
Hitler was not an ordinary person.

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.

Now you iterate seeveral times this process and will inevitably find out
something valid.

TH

On 11/6/2023 3:03 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

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".

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.

TH

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
>>>>>
>>>>>
> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.

A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
>
> This is a simple fact and can hardly be disputed.
>
>
> TH

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

Thomas Heger wrote:

>> 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.

you don't need obs to have a hypothesis. That's why you have hypothesis
and not facts.

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽_𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗭𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗸𝘆’𝘀_𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻_𝘁𝗼_𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲_–_𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮
The former US president has reportedly turned down the Ukrainian leader’s
offer of a meeting in Kiev
https://r%74.com/news/586717-trump-declines-zelensky-invitation/

Oh, so Trump has a great respect for the gay actor "President" Zelensky,
the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆?? Now, why am I not surprised? Because, as I have said
before, Donald Trump is arguably the most pro_𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 president in U.S.
history. Donald Trump grew up with 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆s, associated with them, gave
money to their causes, and employed them.

Trump’s daughter Ivanka converted to 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ism in 2008 before marrying
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish real estate developer Jared Kushner. She married an Orthodox
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆. They now have three children. Kushner was also part of a group
that bought 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 insurer Phoenix for $500 million.

Donald Trump speaks with pride concerning his 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish grandchildren.
Ivanka is said to contribute to Chabad, to 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish Ritual Baths
[mikvaoth], and to 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish Medical Emergency Aid services.
Ivanka observes the Sabbath and the dietary laws.

The eldest son of Donald is Donald Trump Jr. He married model Vanessa Kay
Haydon who is reported to be of 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish and Danish descent. They have
5 children.

Another son of Donald, Eric Frederick Trump, married Lara Lea Yunaska
under a "crystal-embellished chuppah" i.e., a 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish marriage
canopy.

Lara Lea is also reported to be 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish and worked for a 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish
news service.

Donald Trump continued the family tradition of investing in 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish
causes but extended it to Palestine as well. In the 1980s the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆ish
residents of Northern Sinai were forced to relocate as a result of the
peace agreement with Egypt. Trump donated to their resettlement, and also
gave generously to the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆s expelled from Gush Katif in 2005. More
controversially, Trump donated $10,000 to American Friends of Beit El
Institutions, a fund for religious institutions in Samaria, effectively
taking sides in the political dispute in Palestine regarding the
legitimacy of 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆’s settlements in Palestine and Samaria.

It is also well-known that Donald Trump has been a long-time friend of
𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 polaker Prime Minister 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗷𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗻_𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂 , but it is less known
that this friendship began with Fred Trump, the president’s father, who
befriended 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗮𝗵𝘂 while he was the 𝗸𝗵𝗮𝘇𝗮𝗿_𝗴𝗼𝘆 polaker Ambassador to the
United Nations in Manhattan.

Am 07.11.2023 um 12:23 schrieb Randolph Tchekomasov:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> you don't need obs to have a hypothesis. That's why you have hypothesis
> and not facts.
>

The facts are, what you observe, while the hypothesis is the
explanaition for these facts, by which you explain how these facts came
into existence.

The hypothesis requires some kind of creativity and the facts don't.

That's why any idiot can collect facts, while it's not easy to
recontruct the correct story from evidence.

TH

....