Funny Göring telegram sold for $ 55.000

[David Fettes]

Well its like this.

The telegram sold recently was said to have been found by U.S. Army Capt. Benjamin M. Bradin in 1945 and given to Dr. Robert Rieke (along with the other documents), by the son James W. Bradin, around 1958 for examination and translation.

The Irvine telegram was said to have been found by U.S. Army Capt. Benjamin M. Bradin in 1945 and given to Dr. Robert Rieke, by the son James W. Bradin, around 1958 for examination and translation. David Irving even cited Bradin as being the source after being allowed access to the documents.

Neither Dr. Robert Rieke or David irvine has said there were two copies of the telegram.

Either they are both genuine, fake or at least one of them is a forgery.

When you think that an entire Knights Cross document has been faked to a very high standard, this telegram is a very easy item to duplicate.

If they are both genuine, one has been sold, so where is the other one? The exsistance of another copy devalues the first by a huge amount.



.

[alexanderautogr]

I demand an explanation as to why David Fettes chose to alter the original image of the "Goring telegram" to make it appear as if there was a "double strike".

This type of behavior, a pre-planned sabotage of a legitimate item using altered images, is absolutely unacceptable.

I told moderator Simon O., who infracted me for suggesting that Davis Fettes was far-sighted, that I was done with WAF. Well, just about, until I saw this egregious, near-criminal act. Clearly, some people here are trying to get their "15 minutes of fame" through any means possible, including apparently fraud, manipulation, innuendo, character assassination, etc.

Explanation NOW, please!

BTW It is David IRVING, not David IRVINE. An astute researcher such as yourself should at least credit the right parties.

[Jean-Loup]

Strange indeed...

[Simon O.]

It's not pre-planned or some kind of hamfisted attempt to deliberately alter the scans. How can it be when multiple example of the scan and examples of it on the auction site are still there. Nobody is that dumb.

However, look at the resolution quality of the 'altered' image. it's very poor and that, i believe is what we're seeing, a poor resolution becoming fuzzy and the original poster seeing things that aren't there.

[Brian R]

I'm still totally confused about the Geheim stamp. Is it two different documents? The flipping of the stamp could be the result of scanning? I'm not making any statement about originality, I just feeling I'm missing something.

[alexanderautogr]

It's not pre-planned or some kind of hamfisted attempt to deliberately alter the scans. How can it be when multiple example of the scan and examples of it on the auction site are still there. Nobody is that dumb.

However, look at the resolution quality of the 'altered' image. it's very poor and that, i believe is what we're seeing, a poor resolution becoming fuzzy and the original poster seeing things that aren't there.

I see. And that gross carelessness is so easily written-off when used in an attempt to ruin someone's reputation and denigrate his material?

I'm sure David Fettes can explain this for himself, can't he? Maybe right after he gives me an apology, as I have been "personally insulted".

And I don't think he needs an apologist. I'm sure his vision is good enough to allow him to type the message himself. I'll leave Wikipedia definitions out of it.

Adieu.

[David Fettes]

I demand an explanation as to why David Fettes chose to alter the original image of the "Goring telegram" to make it appear as if there was a "double strike".

I havent altered the image to show a double strike, I am not a complete idiot. However I will have a look at other copies of the telegram available online and update my files.

I told moderator Simon O., who infracted me for suggesting that Davis Fettes was far-sighted, that I was done with WAF. Well, just about, until I saw this egregious, near-criminal act. Clearly, some people here are trying to get their "15 minutes of fame" through any means possible, including apparently fraud, manipulation, innuendo, character assassination, etc.

Not be me, some people yes, but I always try to be as polite as possible.

Explanation NOW, please!

See above, please explain why there are at least two copies of this document.

BTW It is David IRVING, not David IRVINE. An astute researcher such as yourself should at least credit the right parties.

Typos are an issue sometimes, oh and my name is David not Davis

suggesting that Davis Fettes was far-sighted.

An astute researcher such as yourself should at least credit the right parties.





.

[alexanderautogr]

Oh, by all means...please "update your files". Then send me an apology.

Maybe your associates Eric and "Wewel" can "update" their files as well.

[Brian R]

I'm still totally confused about the Geheim stamp. Is it two different documents? The flipping of the stamp could be the result of scanning? I'm not making any statement about originality, I just feeling I'm missing something.

Got it now after reading the whole thing a third time. Thanks.

[David Fettes]

Oh, by all means...please "update your files". Then send me an apology.

By all means I will do that once I have had a good scan round the web.

Maybe your associates Eric and "Wewel" can "update" their files as well.

Nothing to do with me, never meet the fellows.

[alexanderautogr]

By all means I will do that once I have had a good scan round the web.

There is nothing left to "scan around the web", chum. What's left is for you to admit to shoddy practices at my expense in order to boost your ego and your perceived standing among your peers...a task in which you have epically failed.

Surely you can find more fulfilling pursuits than spending days on end trying to tear down others with fabricated evidence or, being generous, grossly negligent "investigations". Get a life.

[Diaspora]

Your doing an excellent job ruining your own reputation, Bill....

I see. And that gross carelessness is so easily written-off when used in an attempt to ruin someone's reputation and denigrate his material?

I'm sure David Fettes can explain this for himself, can't he? Maybe right after he gives me an apology, as I have been "personally insulted".

And I don't think he needs an apologist. I'm sure his vision is good enough to allow him to type the message himself. I'll leave Wikipedia definitions out of it.

Adieu.

[alexanderautogr]

Your doing an excellent job ruining your own reputation, Bill....

Thanks for your concern, but if one doesn't stand up for his principles, he should should shut up and sit down.

I'm done with this thread. Nasty, mean-spirited posts from the start, ie: DF's comment: "Looks like $55k worth of rubbish to me."

No wonder WAF has lost so many talented contributors.

[David Fettes]

Right I have had a real good look and the double strike I mentioned does not exsist.

Either I pulled a picture from some odd webpage or my pc was having a moment.

Therefore I retract my statement regarding the double strike and offer my most sincere appologies to Mr Panagopulos.

I will add however that at no time have I suggested that Mr Panagopulos has done anything wrong or fraudulant, he is after all the auction house which these items were consigned to, and not the owner of the documents.



.

[Weweslburg]

.....It seems "Wewelsburg" is unfamiliar with the process and his initial arguments are therefore "null and void.".... Good joke man ! I have "thousands" of third Reich documents in my stock and I deal with third Reich docs since more than 10 years. In all the years I had thousand and thousands of docs in my hands and I know what I am talking about.....believe me !

Gentlemen,-

Only to clarify

This is NOT a Telegramm, nor a Fernschrift (= "Hell-Schreiber").

It is a "F"-unkspruch, a radio message !!!

Said message is sent by a radio operator in origin and received by a radio operator in destination and noted down by hand (later machine) the moment it's received.

Once written down, it is taken and handed over to the recipient.

There are no post-stamps, no signatures, nor anything else involved and the paper is not necessarily transported over long distances to its recipient.

It seems "Wewelsburg" is unfamiliar with the process and his initial arguments are therefore "null and void."

Just wanted to point this out.

Cheers,
Markus