The fact remains that "you" want Hitler to have attained a personal victory, escaping scot free from his crimes against humanity.
(Emphasis added to highlight your baseless claim as to my motivation.)
How did you establish that "fact"? You did not and you cannot. Your tactic seems to be to twist words to fit your straw man argument just to provoke arguments, and hence, my reaction to your provocation. On second thought, apology NOT accepted.
I used quotation marks to designate what seemed to be a broad following of that point of view, not you specifically. A poor way to phrase that, I will agree. But that is the only understanding possible concerning an avid desire to prove that Hitler survived, since the desire is providing the bias for which all this is grist. There are no facts establishing Hitler survived, so supposition is accepted as fact, because it is so crucial (in some sense) that he did.
Play the other game: Hitler survived...but now he is dead. How would that prove anything? It would not prove that anyone knew he was alive. It would not prove that anyone was colluding with his survival. It would not prove that someone was holding back information. Then you would have a search for his grave. If found, you would have a demand for exhumation for forensic identification. And if the results were indeterminate? Don't you see that this all leads nowhere?
Hitler surviving is bad enough, without also bringing flying saucers, antarctic bases, "vril", and a hollow Earth into the mythology. This is all tabloid sensationalism, and I'm not saying you are good with it...but it clings. Where do you draw the line?
Nobody accused me of being a Hitler fan. That would be quite humorous.
Don't play stupid. Do you deny writing this?
(Emphasis added to highlight your baseless claim as to my motivation.)
How did you establish that "fact"? You did not and you cannot. Your tactic seems to be to twist words to fit your straw man argument just to provoke arguments, and hence, my reaction to your provocation. On second thought, apology NOT accepted.
I used quotation marks to designate what seemed to be a broad following of that point of view, not you specifically. A poor way to phrase that, I will agree. But that is the only understanding possible concerning an avid desire to prove that Hitler survived, since the desire is providing the bias for which all this is grist. There are no facts establishing Hitler survived, so supposition is accepted as fact, because it is so crucial (in some sense) that he did.
Play the other game: Hitler survived...but now he is dead. How would that prove anything? It would not prove that anyone knew he was alive. It would not prove that anyone was colluding with his survival. It would not prove that someone was holding back information. Then you would have a search for his grave. If found, you would have a demand for exhumation for forensic identification. And if the results were indeterminate? Don't you see that this all leads nowhere?
Hitler surviving is bad enough, without also bringing flying saucers, antarctic bases, "vril", and a hollow Earth into the mythology. This is all tabloid sensationalism, and I'm not saying you are good with it...but it clings. Where do you draw the line?