Talk:Hunting Hitler

Is this now over?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

USA Today's story on new dental evidence just released through more access by the Russians to Hitler's remains has French scientist stating for certain that Hitler died in Berlin. Sounds like any follow-up or new season ought reasonably to start with that.--Achim Hering (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reception?

The reception notes a Variety article that alleges that the show exploits a theory without providing any evidence to support it. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that EXACTLY what the entirety of the show is trying to do? Agree or disagree with the theory, but the entirety of at least the first season is offering evidence to try and prove or disprove this theory. So truly, I don't understand this criticism nor do I think it has any place in the article. Pending discussion, I will either delete the (nonsensical IMO) Variety reception and swap-it out with something perhaps more valid. But, of course, if anyone has a different take, let's discuss. thx Blinkfan (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

- Yes, the whole show is about evidence, is geared towards finding evidence. There is really nothing else going on in the show.

While a major part of the show is the very process of simply looking for evidence, and there is much which need may or may not suggest anything much (sometimes anything at all!), I can say that a lot of suggestive, or circumstantial, evidence was presented. Obviously this is not a type of evidence which can prove anything true or false in itself from a few occasions of it, but it is a type of evidence, a serious and important form of evidence for example to historians and courts. It very much is. Courts can make and many times have made guilty verdicts based on an abundance of circumstantial evidence. Similarly, if it is possible to build it up very significantly, this type of evidence can be crucial to the development of a historical theory and its recognition as a very serious, distinct historical possibility. In certain areas, our understanding of history can also be founded upon both presenting such possibilities and the very process behind that.

So also, this very process of starting with a hypothesis and seeing if there can be a substantial enough amount of evidence of any type which may support it, is an important, recognised and serious process in its own right. (Usually it's hoped as a step within historical inquiry, but also areas of history may rely on it to have any awareness of what is likely otherwise to be completely unknown and unknowable.)

However, my point in replying is to say that I am unable to see what these facts have got to do with preventing the opinion expressed in Variety from being published on the 'Hunting Hitler' wiki page.

Variety's comment is actually an occurrence which can be seen as a really significant, salient fact in itself about the noted social reception of 'Hunting Hitler', and the social environments by attitudes in which the show arose and is then received in. It seems to me this is very relevant to a section on the reception of the show (especially with this type of non-mainstream historical inquiry). It actually has a more central relevance and significance than that to the show.

That Variety's criticism of the show is largely unfounded and so, really, in err as an assessment of the show, can be very important within what the erred criticism can tell us. It is important as it points to the contemporary (and maybe past) social contexts. Such a very partcular kind of 'non establishment' inquiry as the show's subject is even makes the show to large extents also centrally about this social environment, by default.

That is the historical social context of the subject and the contemporary context of the very process of making any such historical inquiry today. Neither can actually properly be fully separated from the very subject itself, and this defines the very nature of the subject of historical inquiry.

Sorry if that was over boring, but, in short, Variety's criticism of the show is not something to be obscured. They didn't like the show or didn't want to see a show with its subject, it seems. This is very relevant, particularly for the problem you have with their criticism - that the very criticism is factually in err itself. Perhaps it would be best if that would be pointed out in any inclusion of the Variety criticism in the article. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.66.236 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Caleta de Los Loros

Caleta de Los Loros was the place where Hitler's U-boats disembarked ([1]). The expedition crossed FBI documents, previous explorations of the Argentine Navy and ocular testimonies (like the one of Mrs Paesani), tracing an area which could be analyzed in the days.

Micle Trever used the magnetometer with which he had previously found the Titanic's remains at a depth of 3.300 meters. The documentary also mentions the Vigo port in Spain from which Germans extracted the tungsten, which was used for their tanks during the WWII. Some months after the end of WWII in 1945, a series of U-boats were seen in this area. It was also provided of a water ramp (not in the documentary: like the ones used for the first experimental launches of V-weapons untill the V7.Regards.