4 ms·
This is particular evidence is relatively old news, the discovery was made during a History Channel special. There is currently a show running on the History C
by bstar77 11y ago
This is particular evidence is relatively old news, the discovery was made during a History Channel special. There is currently a show running on the History Channel called Hunting Hitler that goes into much more depth on this topic and expands on the evidence (there is also a book from several years ago with the same namesake).
I agree that this information is not enough to say he escaped, but there is a plethora of other information that makes the case he escaped very compelling.
Some points the show makes:
- testimony from supposed eye witnesses in the bunker has been unreliable and inconsistent
- underground escape routes existed with possible tunnels (that have since been sealed) that lead directly to the templehof airport
- safe houses have been identfied that housed nazis after the war in spain and the canary islands
- eye witness uboat activity around argentina after the war ended
- various safe houses discovered in Argentina that housed Nazis
- ruins of a compound in remote Argentina that have nazi paraphernalia including medicines Hitler would have needed
- locations in nearby brazil that have nazi sitings after the war
There's a ton of new evidence, I really think there's enough to take these claims seriously. The only thing that I'm not sure about is the dental records that were verified in 1945. I'm not sure how well that was handled being that Hitler's personal dentist did the verifications.
http://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Hitler-Scientific-Evidence-Escaped/dp/1626361711/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1449388005&sr=8-2&keywords=hunting+hitler http://www.amazon.com/Hunting-Hitler-Scientific-Evidence-Esc...
http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunt-Begins/dp/B017WZWN7S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1449388005&sr=8-1&keywords=hunting+hitler http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunt-Begins/dp/B017WZWN7S/ref=sr_1...
- zipwitch 11y agoThis is all the same sort of thing that the folks who keep "finding" Amelia Earhart do, and it's all completely backwards. They are not finding bits of evidence, investigating them at length, and then reaching a conclusion about Hitler. They're finding "evidence" and then asking "how can this prove my theory about Hitler"? It's the reverse of a real investigation, because it starts with a conclusion and then looks for evidence to support it.
- bstar77 11y agoAs far as the show is concerned, I don't think this is true. They approach it forensically, first determining if they should even cast doubt on the historical assumptions. I know this is mostly dramatized tv, but it coming up with some great results using technology where it's never been used before. Of course a show needs a narative, and that's a bit dangerous, but it doesn't mean the new evidence is invalid. Funding archeology and investigations like this can only come though tv sadly. I hope some historians review the new material and give their feedback because I really don't want to have to rely on the History Channels accounts of these events.
- nitrogen 11y agoForensic science is also highly prone to confirmation bias. It's a rather low bar to say something was investigated forensically. Unfortunately, this means that even valid discoveries funded by someone with a story already in mind can't be given much weight, because there's no way of knowing what discoveries their preexisting bias prevented them from finding or acknowledging.
- FushYumeng 11y agoReview this document, and decide for yourself: http://www.nl-aid.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sognnaes.pdf http://www.nl-aid.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Sognnaes.pd...