Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-11-07 07:44:01 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>>> Look at the picture AGAIN:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
>>>>>>
...
>> The photo itself is evidence enough.
>>
>> A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of
>> times.
>>
>> So: what is on the picture is on it.
>>
>> And I can see a blurry female hand in a position, where it should not
>> belong.
>
> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?

Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.

>>
>> This is a simple fact and can hardly be disputed.
>>
>>
>> TH
>
>

On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:

> Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>
>> [ … ]

>>
>> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
>
> Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.

No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
has seen your hand?

I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering it.

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

On 11/7/2023 2:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
>
>>>>> Look at the picture AGAIN:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
>>>>>
> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to
>>>>> assume,
>>>>
>>>> I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
>>> science without assumptions is not science.
>>>
>>>
>>> In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to
>>> make estimates about the possible solutions.
>>
>> No, not so. The closest is to have a hypothesis on how something
>> happens, but the hypothesis has no value until you perform an
>> observation or experiment which supports (or refutes) it.
>
> Sure, the hypothesis needs to fit to the observations.
>
> But 'to observe' would include to look at something, which was in this
> case a certain photography.
>
> Therefor, I made observations (looked at that picture) and have drawn
> conclusions from these observations.
>
> These conclusions are my hypothesis, which would fit to my observations
> and were presented here for discussion.

No you go off and assume this nonexistent hand belongs to some female
photograph manipulator, when there is no evidence of any sort of thing.
>
> My hypothesis could be, nevertheless, wrong.

It certainly is wrong.

> But until now it is a valid
> theory, unless somebody proves it wrong.

No, you have to prove it valid. You have not done so.
>
>>> Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are promising.
>>>
>>> Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best
>>> assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be evaluated.
>>
>> Yet you haven't done that. You have a crazy hypothesis of photographic
>> manipulation, which has no supporting evidence. All you have is an
>> imagined "hand".
>
>
> The photo itself is evidence enough.

OK, the photograph is evidence that there is no hand there. Because I
can see that there is no hand there.
>
> A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of
> times.
>
> So: what is on the picture is on it.

A book, piece of paper/another book set on a piece of furniture.
Probably the camera had a timer and placed on/near the furniture so that
everyone in the room could be in the photo when the timer went off and
snapped the picture.
>
> 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.

It is a fact that you see a hand? Sure. The human mind is "wired" to
recognize certain things that aren't there. Take a yellow circle with
two black dots in it and a curved black line. 🙂 Voila! A smiley face!
No, the mind is wired to recognize faces, it's just a yellow circle with
black marks. And you see a hand where there is no hand.

Anyway, that photo was taken before Hitler went on trial, so it's not
from any prison.

Thomas Heger wrote:

>>> 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.

you are fooling around. You said 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗶𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗼𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Also, facts are
rather events, which don't need explanation.

On 11/8/23 00:42, Thomas Heger wrote:
> That's why any idiot can collect facts, while it's not easy to
> recontruct the correct story from evidence.

It can give you a PhD in physics as well :)

Am 08.11.2023 um 12:49 schrieb Stanton Behoev:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>
>>>> 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.
>
> you are fooling around. You said 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀_𝘁𝗼_𝗳𝗶𝘁_𝘁𝗵𝗲_𝗼𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Also, facts are
> rather events, which don't need explanation.
>

Who cares, what you regard as necessary?

TH

Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>
>> Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>
>>>
>>> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
>>
>> Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
>
> No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
> has seen your hand?
>
> I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering
> it.
>
>

Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.

And my claim was:

I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
picture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg

This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
because you cannot see into my head.

TH

Am 08.11.2023 um 08:48 schrieb Volney:
> On 11/7/2023 2:44 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 06.11.2023 um 21:09 schrieb Volney:
>>
>>>>>> Look at the picture AGAIN:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need to try to locate that hand in the scence, by trying to
>>>>>> assume,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not going to assume anything. I need to see it. There is no hand.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assumptions are a very important part of the scientific method and
>>>> science without assumptions is not science.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any situation, where you try to find out something, you need to
>>>> make estimates about the possible solutions.
>>>
>>> No, not so. The closest is to have a hypothesis on how something
>>> happens, but the hypothesis has no value until you perform an
>>> observation or experiment which supports (or refutes) it.
>>
>> Sure, the hypothesis needs to fit to the observations.
>>
>> But 'to observe' would include to look at something, which was in this
>> case a certain photography.
>>
>> Therefor, I made observations (looked at that picture) and have drawn
>> conclusions from these observations.
>>
>> These conclusions are my hypothesis, which would fit to my
>> observations and were presented here for discussion.
>
> No you go off and assume this nonexistent hand belongs to some female
> photograph manipulator, when there is no evidence of any sort of thing.
>>
>> My hypothesis could be, nevertheless, wrong.
>
> It certainly is wrong.
>
>> But until now it is a valid theory, unless somebody proves it wrong.
>
> No, you have to prove it valid. You have not done so.
>>
>>>> Then you examine your assumptions and select those, which are
>>>> promising.
>>>>
>>>> Then you redo the step of factfinding on the background of your best
>>>> assumptions and derive new assumptions, which could aqgain be
>>>> evaluated.
>>>
>>> Yet you haven't done that. You have a crazy hypothesis of photographic
>>> manipulation, which has no supporting evidence. All you have is an
>>> imagined "hand".
>>
>>
>> The photo itself is evidence enough.
>
> OK, the photograph is evidence that there is no hand there. Because I
> can see that there is no hand there.
>>
>> A published picture is irrevocable, because it is printed thousands of
>> times.
>>
>> So: what is on the picture is on it.
>
> A book, piece of paper/another book set on a piece of furniture.
> Probably the camera had a timer and placed on/near the furniture so that
> everyone in the room could be in the photo when the timer went off and
> snapped the picture.

No.

For almost all of my life I had photography as a hobby. I had a
darkroom, own numerous cameras and had a few exhibitions of my pictures.

I have a lot of training in this realm and can certainly see, how a
picture was made.

Here I assumed a montage, because the content of the picture is total
nonsense to beginn with.

Also the montage itself is visible. E.g. the head and the body allegedly
depicting Hitler do not fit together and you can see a thin white rim
around the head.

This alone would be evidence enough, but actually there is much more.

This hand shows now tremendous stupidity of the fakers of this picture,
because to photograph the own hand in the reproduction of a montage
requires just that.

....

TH

On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>> On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>
>>> Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>
>>>> [ … ]
>>
>>>>
>>>> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
>>>
>>> Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
>>
>> No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
>> has seen your hand?
>>
>> I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering
>> it.
>>
>>
>
> Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
>
> And my claim was:
>
> I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
> picture:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
>
> This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
> because you cannot see into my head.
>
Yes, that is so. And Joe Schizophrenic hears voices which nobody can
dispute, since nobody can see into Joe's schizophrenic head. What we can
dispute is whether the voices, or hand, are real or not, one way is
seeing whether anyone else can hear the voices or see the hand. So far,
nobody other than yourself sees the hand.

(I don't think you are schizophrenic, of course, you just have an
overactive imagination and leap onto conspiracy theories)

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 19:19:25 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >> On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
> >>
> >>> Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
> >>>>
> >>>> [ … ]
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
> >>>
> >>> Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
> >>
> >> No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
> >> has seen your hand?
> >>
> >> I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering
> >> it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
> >
> > And my claim was:
> >
> > I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
> > picture:
> >
> > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924..jpg
> >
> > This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
> > because you cannot see into my head.
> >
> Yes, that is so. And Joe Schizophrenic hears voices which nobody can
> dispute,

Are those the ones telling him that setting to 9 192 631 774
is setting to 9 192 631 770?

Am 09.11.2023 um 19:19 schrieb Volney:
> On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>> On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>
>>>> Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
>>>>
>>>> Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
>>>
>>> No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
>>> has seen your hand?
>>>
>>> I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck answering
>>> it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
>>
>> And my claim was:
>>
>> I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
>> picture:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
>>
>>
>> This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
>> because you cannot see into my head.
>>
...
I CAN SEE a hand there!!!

You need to look yourself.

The hand has a very strange angle, as if a person (standing
perpendicular to the picture, hence has a body-axis pointing towards the
lower left) would lean on the montage, but a little above on a glass
plate (that's why it is blurry).

This would be consistent with a really stupid female operator, who made
a reproduction of a montage, which was very large (table sized) and
reproduced it with a professional repro system, similar to those used in
animation studios.

This would be my interpretation of the picture and its origin.

If you don't agree, than please tell me yours.

> (I don't think you are schizophrenic, of course, you just have an
> overactive imagination and leap onto conspiracy theories)

Well, that's actually true to some extent, because I have created dozens
of 'conspiracy theories'.

Usualy I prefer terms like 'musings about the activities of spooks',
but 'conspiracy theories' is more often used.

TH

On 11/10/2023 3:08 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 09.11.2023 um 19:19 schrieb Volney:
>> On 11/9/2023 1:42 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 08.11.2023 um 08:45 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>> On 2023-11-08 06:43:21 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.11.2023 um 09:11 schrieb Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [ … ]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A hand that only you can see. Has anyone else seen it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, possibly you are 'hand-blind'.
>>>>
>>>> No answer to the question, so I ask again: can you cite anyone else who
>>>> has seen your hand?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that the answer is no, and that that is why you duck
>>>> answering
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, seeing is a quite subjective experience.
>>>
>>> And my claim was:
>>>
>>> I can see a blurry female left hand in the lower left corner of this
>>> picture:
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg/786px-Hitler%2C_Maurice%2C_Kriebel%2C_Hess%2C_Weber%2C_prison_de_Landsberg_en_1924.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a personal impression, which you cannot possibly dispute,
>>> because you cannot see into my head.
>>>
> ..
> I CAN SEE a hand there!!!

Yes, you see a hand there.

Nobody else does, so far.
>
> You need to look yourself.

I did. There is no hand there.
>
> The hand has a very strange angle, as if a person (standing
> perpendicular to the picture, hence has a body-axis pointing towards the
> lower left)  would lean on the montage, but a little above on a glass
> plate (that's why it is blurry).
>
> This would be consistent with a really stupid female operator, who made
> a reproduction of a montage, which was very large (table sized) and
> reproduced it with a professional repro system, similar to those used in
> animation studios.

All that nonsense about the reproduction of a large montage is just
made-up nonsense, and does not follow, even if you allow for the
imagined hand.
>
>
> This would be my interpretation of the picture and its origin.

And the origin is just made up, there are many other explanations, even
if there was a hand present.
>
> If you don't agree, than please tell me yours.

I already told you. It is likely a piece of furniture with a book and
either a sheet of paper or a second book in the extreme foreground
(hence blurry), perhaps it was a camera with a timer on the furniture,
to allow a picture to be taken with everyone present in the picture
(nobody pressing the button).
>
>
>> (I don't think you are schizophrenic, of course, you just have an
>> overactive imagination and leap onto conspiracy theories)
>
>
> Well, that's actually true to some extent, because I have created dozens
> of 'conspiracy theories'.
>
> Usualy I prefer terms like  'musings about the activities of spooks',
> but 'conspiracy theories' is more often used.
>
You need to be more careful about what to believe with little evidence.

Am 12.11.2023 um 07:16 schrieb Volney:

>>
>> Well, that's actually true to some extent, because I have created
>> dozens of 'conspiracy theories'.
>>
>> Usualy I prefer terms like 'musings about the activities of spooks',
>> but 'conspiracy theories' is more often used.
>>
> You need to be more careful about what to believe with little evidence.

Spooks always deny everything!

They will NEVER admit ANYTHING, even if you have proof enough to bring
two dozen usual criminals to justice.

They also try to remove all traces, hence you need to look for evidence
which the 'cleaner teams' had overlooked.

That's why it's a little difficult and you need to look very carefully.

TH

Am 05.11.2023 um 16:52 schrieb Volney:
> 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.

Sure.

But assumptions are part of the scientific method.

this method starts with examining evidence (which in this case were the
translations and the origional of the book ',my struggle').

Then you make up you mind and formulate a hypothesis, which could
eventually fit to the evidence.

This could be repeated several times, with creation of several different
hypthesises.

Then you sort out and chose the best finding and present that to the public.

Then others could attack your assumption.

And the remainder of your assumptions, which nobody could defeat is
called a theory.

Therefor the creation of assumptions is a very important part of science.

Without an idea, where to look and what to do, you can't do nothing.

....

TH