Did Martin Bormann survive the war?

[Kilroywashere]

The one example on record of Bormann using his birth name is with a Bank note of an account co owned by Juan Peron.

Please refer to the following: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... %202.1.htm
And the note itself is located on the same site at: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... n_bank.htm

Bormann used various aliases over the years, and this became overtly apparent after the capture of Eichmann.

Flowery explanations notwithstanding, you can believe what you want to believe. There is no proof which would stand up in a court of law confirming with any semblance of finality that Bormann died in 1945 (ask the Nuremberg judges who condemned the man to death in abstentia) , and quite the contrary, a great deal of evidence and eyewitness accounts which have stayed accurate throughout the years. This will always support the survival theory no matter how much we'd all like to fit every bit of history in a nice little box with a tie and say, "done Sheeple, we can all sing kumbuya now."

Although as mentioned earlier, I never believe in "crazy theories" unless I have found viable reasoning which purports the result as not "crazy", and with this, and abundance of material we cannot explain off as mere conjecture.

Information mind you, which is above and beyond that which the "sheeple" would rather follow as blind faith, or dare I say it, that the media told you happened based on very limited hearsay (Nazi eyewitnesses changing their minds and contradicting each other over the years, etc.) In this case, I agreed that the DNA proved it was Bormann's skeletal remains....so what. When looking at the preponderance of evidence surrounding how it was found, where it should have been, and why it is that nature wants to change a physical makeup of minerals found on said remains for the sake of shits and giggles (red clay when there wasn't any within miles no less than thousands of miles), including the stupidity of those who decided to overlook the dental work which couldn't have been done on the jawline before or even up to 1945, but years later as a procedure that had to be invented in order to use.....

One must wonder which "crazy theory" you and Sid allude to.

[Michael Kenny]

One must wonder which "crazy theory" you and Sid allude to.

No I take it back. If I were on the run and half the world was looking for me I too would keep using my own name and bore everyone with stories about the time I was second-in command in Berlin in 1945.
Anyway I am going to email Snowden and Assange and tell them all they have to do is move to South America and they wont even have to change their names.

[Michael Kenny]

Please refer to the following: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... %202.1.htm
And the note itself is located on the same site at: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/socio ... n_bank.htm

Here is a link to a high profile case of Documents that were found that 'proved' George Galloway was selling oil for Saddam.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2003/07/gall-j05.html


And here is George wiping the floor with the people who framed him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4LDQixpCa8&t=424s

Just to show how much store one should put in 'documents!

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael,

At the moment the "bank note" is purely a creature of the internet.

I have repeatedly asked kwh for a file number for the "document" so that it may be followed up, but answer came there none.

I have repeatedly asked kwh for who appointed Bormann "Vice Fuhrer", but again, answer came there none.

In fact kwh provides no traceable primary or secondary sources for his contentions at all, just the occasional blind-alley internet link.

But I live in hope.....if not expectation.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Gorque]

Hi Sid:

It took a while but I think I found the banknote.

[Blackadder2000]

The people from the TV-series "Hunting Hitler" are also convinced that Bormann fled to Argentina in 1945.

While I'm sceptical about everything I watch on television, I tend to believe their claim.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Blackadder,

Have you read this review of the book by some of the main contributors to "Hunting Hitler". It might change your views as to how trustworthy they are:

Shoddily researched, evidentially worthless, faux academic, pseudo-historical faction......., March 30, 2015

This review is from: Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler (Paperback)

Sometimes the 5-star rating system isn’t adequate. Sometimes a book does not simply add very little to the sum of historical knowledge, but rather it has a negative impact. This is such a book meriting not a star rating, but a black hole rating.

Why? Because the first half plunders many respectable books on WWII to provide itself with cover for a central premise in the second half – that Adolf Hitler escaped - that turns out to have absolutely no substance. There is a clear divide between the standards of evidence of some of the books the authors plunder for intellectual cover and their own standards of evidence in their own “researches”, which are abysmally low, on occasion almost to the point of culpable dishonesty.

The book is well enough written. It should be – it is largely composed by a journalist - Williams. However, sadly, the standards of evidence required of journalism, the “first draft of history” are much lower than those demanded of historians, who write later, more considered drafts of history. There is a reason why newspapers are dumped in tomorrow’s recycling, but books, especially non-fiction, tend to find themselves preserved on shelves. Williams is emphatically no historian. A number of his more important sources are fellow journalists with similar limitations.

Co-author, Dunstan, previously had a solid, though hardly high-powered, publishing record in the completely unrelated subject of armoured fighting vehicles. However, he is completely out of his depth here. Indeed, the appallingly low standards of evidence apparently accepted by Dunstan in this book put his previously respectable reputation as an AFV researcher into serious question.

The book is well illustrated with professional-looking line drawings and maps. However, their capable execution tends to mask the fact that they add absolutely nothing to the central premise of the book – that Adolf Hitler escaped.

There are also photos, but they are largely stock pictures of prominent figures or the authors’ holiday snaps from Argentina. If you are looking for even so much as a blurred, distant photo of Hitler’s shadow while in purported post-1945 exile in Argentina, you will be disappointed.

Likewise, a large bibliography, numerous footnotes and a considerable index add the appearance of professionalism to the book’s construction, without adding significant substance to its dubious text. It is extremely difficult to trace the input of most of those credited with having provided interviews (see below). The authors also list their visits to named sites in Argentina. I am happy that they got to see this often beautiful country, but this just serves to add a little padding to the bibliography and a fair amount of irrelevant descriptive prose and holiday snaps without evidential significance to the text.

The authors are not deterred by lack of evidence and employ an interesting device to paper over other holes in their leaky story. A considerable amount of the text about Hitler’s flight is in Italic lettering. They “….. are used in the following section to identify conclusions based on deductive research”! Or to put it another way, in the absence of hard facts or sources, these parts of the text are largely made up on the basis of the authors’ own largely unsupported personal opinions. The authors appear to be covering themselves against critical scrutiny by ‘fessing up’ in advance. Apparent candidness and the use of italicized “faction” here is covering for absence of evidence. And this is significant, for these italic sections deal only with the selling point of this book - “The Escape of Adolf Hitler”.

The six reviews quoted on the back of the book (presumably the best available) are fascinating for what they do not say. Not one of them supports the central premise – “The Escape of Adolf Hitler” of the book’s subtitle. Indeed, only one of them even mentions it, and I am not at all sure the South China Morning post is best positioned to offer an informed opinion!

Basically, the first half of the book is mostly a plundering of other authors’ researches. Some are designed to give Grey Wolf a shield of respectability behind which to advance the extremely vulnerable claim that Adolf Hitler escaped. Others are obscure, esoteric silliness in related areas. The latter tend to pad out the bibliography without leaving traceable sources.

This selective plundering of others’ researches covers a wide range of the more esoteric subjects in recent books on WWII incorporating many of the buzz words that give publishers an adrenalin rush – Martin Bormann, Nazi money forgery, Ian Fleming, secret weapons, art theft, the Russian deception tactic of “maskirovka”, Hitler’s French “daughter”, Eva Braun’s love child by Hitler, Che Guevara, Josef Mengele, Operation Valkyrie, Kristallnacht, Hitler doubles, Hana Reitsch, plundered Nazi gold and art works, the German atomic bomb, rare prototype aircraft, V-missiles on New York, Enigma and Bletchley Park, the Fuhrerbunker, endkampf in Berlin, KG200, German special forces, Admiral Canaris, Reinhard Gehlen, Werner von Braun, IBM and other US subsidiaries in Germany, Eva Braun, Blondi, Eva Peron, Aristotle Onassis, Siemens & Haske T43 encryption machine, etc., etc., etc.. Most are irrelevant to the premise of this book and merely there to “sex it up” or provide a thick smokescreen that obscures the fact that the basic premise of the book – The escape of Adolf Hitler – has almost no substance.

However, these buzz words do reveal the target audience - under informed conspiracy theorists attracted by the oddities of history, more than its more mundane substance, and not too worried about the quality of research and sourcing. (One only has to analyse the purchasing history of those giving the book 5 stars on Amazon to realize that the book’s success depends on the gullibility of readers whose specialization is not history!)

Let us look at just some of the evidence advanced to support key parts of the book – the supposed aerial flight from Berlin, the U-boat escape across the Atlantic and exile in Argentina:

The claimed aerial escape from Berlin.

Peter Erich Baumgart supposedly flew Hitler from Berlin to Tonder in Denmark sometime after 0300 on 28 April. He claimed that he flew via Magdeburg and reached Tonder on 29 April. However, Braumbach also claimed to have shot down 128 Allied planes, but no trace exists of this in any of several lists of German aces consulted by this reviewer. (The authors do not mention this significant question mark over Baumgart’s fundamental credibility in their text, but they do leave the victory claim buried in a photostat of a cutting from a provincial US newspaper, thereby covering themselves from an accusation of actually covering up unhelpful evidence.) Their source is Associated Press reportage of Baumgart’s trial in Poland for activities in the SS. At this trial he had to be assessed for his sanity (which again, is not in the body of the book, but “hidden in plain sight” in an unnumbered footnote.). After his release in 1951, “nothing is heard from him again”. Judge for yourself if Baumgart was a credible witness.

As head of KG200, the Luftwaffe’s special operations unit, Werner Baumbach supposedly organized Hitler’s flight from Tonder to Spain. Apparently “Baumbach never explains why he was at Travemunde on 29 April, but his diary notes speak for themselves”. Unfortunately, there is no reference to the authors’ having seen this diary, so their assertion (which conspicuously does not mention Hitler) is uncheckable. Perhaps they mean the book under Baumbach’s name in the bibliography? If so, why not just say so instead of leaving the impression they may have seen original diary notes that they have not? Shifty.

Friederich von Angelotty-Mackensen was supposedly put on one of the last medical evacuation flights from Berlin after being wounded on 27 April. He reportedly saw Hitler at Tonder airfield in Denmark on 27 April. However, Angelotty-Mackensen was apparently “running a fever and slipping in and out of delirium”. According to the authors “he repeatedly confused dates” p.309. He, too, “…..seems to have vanished from sight after the war”. Credible witness?

If one removes any one of Baumgart, Baumbach and Angelotty-Mackensen from the story it blows a significant hole in the tale of Hitler’s supposed escape from Berlin. However, as the stories of all three are highly suspect, this leaves absolutely no credible air link out of Berlin for Hitler at all!

The purported U-boat escape across the Atlantic.

The escape to Argentina supposedly took place in three U-boats – U-1235, U-880 and U-518, the latter carrying Hitler himself. The US Navy claimed to have sunk all three in the deep Atlantic, but, according to the authors (p.181), they left no surface wreckage as evidence. However, this is apparently not true of U-1235, which, after a massive underwater explosion, left “…..a slick of oil, wood and personal effects on the surface” and U-880, which reportedly left “…..scraps of paper, shattered wood, and two shattered wooden boxes…” The third, U-518, apparently did leave no recorded surface wreckage, but its explosion-hammered hull’s descent far below the depths at which it would have been crushed by water pressure was followed on US SONAR. Why, one wonders, did the authors omit such information? (A rhetorical question – I think we can guess the answer!)

Supposed exile in Argentina.

The authors claim (p.55) that Martin Bormann “acquired his own airline…”. No he didn’t. LATI was, as the authors later mention, an Italian company. The celebrity interest in it came from Mussolini’s son Bruno. Furthermore, the authors fail to mention the significant fact that LATI stopped trans-Atlantic operations in December 1941, at a time when the Axis powers were still approaching their high water mark. LATI had ceased to operate well before the Nazi leadership needed to consider hoarding wealth for an escape plan.

The authors make much of the three-fold increase in Argentine gold reserves during the war. However, they fail even to mention the fact that Argentina profited enormously from supplying beef, leather and other materials to the Allies, especially the British, and were able to secure very favourable terms. Nor do they mention that Argentina repatriated gold reserves from the USA during the war. The authors contend that much of the gold was from plundered Nazi sources, but fail to detail what U-boats passed it through the British blockade and when. Nor do they mention that from 1942 the German Navy had a ban on U-boats operating south of Rio Grande do Sul in southern Brazil for fear of accidental sinkings of Uruguayan, Chilean and Argentine ships that might undermine their useful neutrality.

Juan and Eva Peron, whose regime supposedly sheltered Hitler, receive a reputational assassination that apparently relies entirely on the evidence of one Silvano Santander, a political opponent of the Perons backed in exile by a hostile USA.. The authors try to use the USA connection to give credibility to Santander’s accusations that Juan and Eva Peron were companions from 1941 and paid employees of the Nazis. (In fact, according to “accepted history” the Perons first met in early 1944 and there is absolutely no evidence that either was ever in German pay, though Juan was undoubtedly an admirer of Mussolini’s politics and the German armed force).

Moreover, the authors do not mention that the CIA was almost throughout Peron’s tenure of office running a disinformation campaign against him, because his Argentina was the only country south of the Rio Grande pursuing a significantly independent foreign policy to the USA. Nor do they mention that Santander was, at the least, suspected of working for the CIA. Santander’s close US connections, far from reinforcing his credibility, tend to undermine it.

Besides, where are the German documents Santander reportedly consulted in Europe with US imprimature? They are untraceable through his books and they do not seem to have surfaced elsewhere. They were apparently not consulted by Dunstan and Williams. So why do they place such store by them? Hmmm…….

So, what are we left with to support the proposition that Adolf Hitler escaped? A few unrepeatable interviews, mostly with some very old or now dead Argentines. Most of these are self evidently of dubious reliability:

Original interviews.

Jorge Luis Bernelli – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Jorge Colotto – Peron’s bodyguard whose records supposedly consist of 6,200 small pieces of paper stored in a can and who hopes to write an English-language book himself. (The original material, however, was not apparently seen by the authors). Makes no reference to Hitler.
Ida Eichorn’s great nephew – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Jorge Elbaum – Not in index.. Relevance unclear.
Ernesto Bernardo Feicher – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Anibal Domingo Fernandez – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
David Fletcher – Distinguished armour historian in UK. His relevance is unclear, beyond adding a little gravitas and respectability to the bibliography.
Innes McCartney – Not in index. U-boat specialist. Relevance unclear.
Capt. Manuel G. Monasterio - Supposedly had the “Lehmann” papers but they “were unfortunately lost during many house moves over a long life”! On p.XXIII the authors say he admitted making part of the story up!
Cuini Amelio Ortiz – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Juan Angel Serra – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Dr. Floreal Vajlis – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Isabel Winter – Not in index. Relevance unclear.

Original Commissioned Research: (These were not done by the authors, but by third parties.)

Omar Contreras – pp.253-4 . No mention of Hitler at all.
Claudio Correa – Not in index. Relevance unclear.
Araceli Mendez – p.280 – No mention of Hitler at all.
Mrs. M. - Who?
Alicia Olivera – Not in index. Relevance unclear.

Video interviews not done or commissioned by the authors:

Hernan Ancin – A carpenter who supposedly recognized Hitler, even though “Hitler’s appearance had changed”, during five or six visits to a building site owned by the former Croat leader Pavelic in 1953-54..
Jorge Batinic – A bank manager whose mother had reportedly worked in France in the summer of 1940 as a nurse and had “on several occasions seen Hitler at close quarters visiting wounded Wehrmacht soldiers.” Claimed to have recognized Hitler at an Argentine hospital in 1951. Hitler made several visits to France in mid 1940, all to different places, but this reviewer can find no evidence he visited wounded during them. Even if he did visit hospitals, there is little likelihood that a single nurse would encounter him more than once.
Catalina Gomero – Maid who supposedly left food at Hitler’s door for three days in 1949 and “recognized him” even though he had shaved off his moustache andshe had never seen him before. This source was interviewed 59 years later.
Rochus Misch – Telephone operator at the Fuhrerbunker. Interviewed by “Barking Mad Productions”!
Ingeborg Schaeffer – Widow of the commander of a U-boat (U-977) that really did surrender in Argentina in 1945. Interviewed in 2008. Stops short of claiming U-boats carried Hitler to Argentina.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The authors often seem to be intellectually dishonest or incompetent. Having found a piece of information that falls in with their case, they often appear to make little effort to check its credibility further, perhaps for fear it won’t stand up to closer scrutiny.

It is difficult for this reviewer to express quite how much he despises the faux academic methodology used by Dunstan and Williams in order to get this worthless piece of money-making pap into print and to fleece the gullible public of their earnings with a mish-mash of pseudo-history and faction.

The sound bits of this book are almost all plundered from the researches of others. The bad bits, which particularly relate to selling point of the book - the escape of Hitler - seem to be largely down to their own questionable “research” efforts. Indeed, this book is so devious in its composition that it calls into question the integrity of previous work by these authors.

So, who should buy this book? Certainly nobody with a genuine interest in actual history with solid sourcing. However, if you want to write your own conspiracy theory book, this work provides a very useful template for its construction and for plausible deniability of intellectual dishonesty by an author!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

.....or this one:

Multiple culpable misrepresentation, falsification and omission from just one key source alone!

I found that I have one of the obscure books referenced by the Dunstan and Williams, "Broken Swastika" by Werner Baumbach, already in my possession, so I decided to compare this with what they write in "Grey Wolf". I was more than a little shocked at the discrepancies between the two books and Dunstan and Williams’ misrepresentations, falsifications and omissions in "Grey Wolf".

Werner Baumbach is important to "Grey Wolf" because he supposedly organized Hitler’s escape by air to Spain. If his story does not stand up, then the entire premise of "Grey Wolf" falls. In fact, it does not so much fall, as plummet at high velocity from a great height!

1). The first thing to say is that, according to the index of "Broken Swastika", Baumbach makes no contemporary reference to Hitler at all in Chapter XIX, which deals with the period after 21 April 1945, though he does note on p.199 for 30 April, “The Fuhrer is dead. Long live the Fuhrer!” Given that the basic premise of "Grey Wolf" is that Hitler escaped, and Baumbach is being called in evidence by them, Dunstan and Williams’ omission of this is incredibly telling as to their own questionable integrity.

2). On p.168 of "Grey Wolf", immediately after writing, in their own words, “As the (Hitler’s) aircraft rolled down the runway and took off (from Travenmunde), he (Baumbach) felt great relief”, the authors quote the following directly from the English-language translation of "Broken Swastika":

“Thank God that’s over. I would rather leave some things unsaid, but it occurs to me that these diary notes may one day shed a little light on the strains, the desperate situation and maddening hurry of the last few days. At that time I had almost decided to make my own escape. The aircraft stood ready to take off. We were supplied with everything we needed for six months. And then I found I could not do it. Could I bolt at the last moment, deserting Germany and leaving in the lurch men who had always stood by me? I must stay with my men”

The only problem with this is that it is not, as presented by the authors, a single, unbroken paragraph. It is from two different paragraphs widely separated on p.195 of "Broken Swastika" by four other paragraphs that put a completely different complexion on these words. The break is between “….,last few days.” and “At that time…..”

So, what do the missing paragraphs of "Broken Swastika" reveal?

3). Although, according to Baumbach, the words were written in his diary for 28-29 April, when he writes “At that time….” he actually appears to be referring to the period between “20th April” and “…..the very time when Hitler was giving Speer his last photograph…..”. Other sources tell us that Speer’s last meeting with Hitler 23-24 April 1945. These are the only two establishable dates in the intervening text that Dunstan and Williams omit.

4). What is more, the intervening paragraphs also contain, “….I was not at all surprised when I had confirmation that we were to be arrested.” This was apparently conveyed by Governor General Frank to one of Baumbach’s officers. It was this that seems to have provoked Baumbach into writing “At that time I had almost decided to make my own escape……”.

So, far from still being in Hitler’s confidence, it appears Baumbach was actually in fear of arrest!

5). Furthermore, in writing “Thank God that’s over….” Baumbach was not referring to the supposed take off of any supposed aircraft supposedly carrying Hitler, but to an interview he had with Himmler sometime in the second half of 28 April, which he recounts over pp.196-199.

6). In an unnumbered note on p.309 of "Grey Wolf" Dunstan and Williams write, “Baumbach never explains why he was at Travenmunde on April 29……”

Well, actually he does, on p.198 of "Broken Swastika", “I told him (Himmler) he can find me at Travenmunde airfield where part of my command is situated.”

Conclusion:

Virtually everything of significance to the premise of "Grey Wolf" that Dunstan and Williams write concerning Baumbach is demonstrably untrue, doctored or misrepresented, if one only bothers to look at what Baumbach writes himself in the book they use as their reference.

This can hardly be an accident. Both authors have apparently written a lot of of non-fiction on unrelated subjects before. Dunstan and/or Williams therefore must have been fully aware that they were misrepresenting what Baumbach wrote.

One dreads to think what else they may have misrepresented in their unprincipled volume.

This one example undermines both the premise of "Grey Wolf" that Hitler escaped and the professional integrity of Dunstan and/or Williams. Perhaps it is time to start looking at the credibility and integrity of their earlier work?

One also has to question whether the publishers, Sterling, have any editorial quality control or peer review mechanisms at all, given that they published the patently intellectually fraudulent "Grey Wolf" under the category of “History”.

Perhaps all concerned were more interested in the money than the facts?

[Wordsworth]

I stopped watching Hunting Hitler after three episode when I just couldn't stand it anymore. I couldn't get past the notion that these guys just wanted to investigate German communities in South America, couldn't get History to okay it so they decided to say,"Hey, let's look for Hitler while we're at it!".

In episode 1, they are clearly aware of the Monsano interviews, yet still came away with the belief that no one saw Hitler's body, even though it's been long established that Linge, Gunsche and, probably, Misch, saw the bodies of both Hitler and Eva. I should've turned the channel then, but kept going until they went to bother one of Eva's relatives hoping to do a DNA test on a female skull with a bullet hole in it that they thought was hers. They made a big deal about this because they felt a bullet hole meant that Hitler shot Eva instead of her taking poison. At no time did they even consider that the skull could have been someone else's...like Magda Geobbels' for instance who was reported to have been shot by her husband before he turned the gun on himself. The skull is apparently that of a woman around Magda's age and, I would imagine, all those bones got mixed together while the Soviets were holding them.

I just can't take them seriously when they overlook evidence that most of us have access to and when they go on wild goose chases.

Hitler was in no physical, emotional or psychological condition to flee Berlin at the end of the war. He was terrified of being captured. Traudl Junge even asked him if he couldn't just go out fighting with his troops if he was going to die anyway. He told her he couldn't risk being captured and degraded by the Russians. I don't see him risking leaving the bunker to just go be a nobody in South America. Doubtlessly, there were facilities there in the event the Nazi leadership needed to flee, but there's no real evidence that anyone significant like Hitler or Bormann ever made it there.

Bormann either committed suicide because he knew he'd be in big trouble if he were captured or he was killed during his escape, something not impossible in the middle of intense urban shelling and fighting.

[Troy Tempest]

If I hear one more lamebrain stating Martin Bormann escaped Berlin I'll scream

[gebhk]

In the end - who cares? Not a moment too soon, these people disappeared from the world stage and were never heard from again. Anything beyond that is too trivial for words.

[Lobscouse]

Reinhardt Gehlen was quite convinced that Bormann was a Soviet agent and, that he had been
spirited out of Berlin, at the fall of that city. In private conversations with Admiral Canaris, both men
agreed that Bormann was a traitor but, taking their suspicions to a higher level was one step thhey
considered too dangerous.

As for his DNA being found in post war Berlin, perhaps Stalin arranged it, after his murder.

[DrRob]

The whole problem with the "Bormann survived and reburied" theory is that the body found in Berlin was that of a 45 year old man !! Bormann was 45 in 1945 !! So if he did make it out of Berlin and died -- then he died real quick in 1945 !! The body was of a 45 year old man with Bormann's DNA -- what more does one need ????? Or do the conspiracy theorists think the body is of someone else with Bormann's teeth??? Get Real -- he died on May 2, 1945 end of story.

Mark Costa

Let’s start off by saying that I just discovered this forum and greatly appreciate the opportunity to read and discuss topics of this subject matter with all of you. I am humbled by the wealth of knowledge on this site. I became interested in WW2 after finishing Med school as it was a topic only briefly touched on in my schooling. I became more intrigued by many figures in the Nazi party after I learned that my medical assistant was a relative of Himmlers.

I apologize if this has been discussed or refuted elsewhere in another thread. I am not aware of any anthropological exam stating the remains were that of a 45 year old man. I am aware of the facts being that the mitochondrial DNA analysis in 98’ proved the remains were that of Bormann however that does not prove that he died in 45’. Of course we know that Bormann in 1945 was 45 yrs old it I’m unaware of the forensics report aging the skeletal remains. The red clay finding on the remains is interesting and raises suspicion considering the same type of red clay is found indigenous to areas in Paraguay where he was rumored to have been. I came across an article online which reported Bormann died in Paraguay in 1959 from Stomach CA. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the red clay myth it’s hearsay as any proof of its existence has been destroyed making any particle analysis impossible.
https://www.jta.org/1993/02/26/archive/ ... re-in-1959

What I find more compelling is the former chief of Argentinian federal police, Jorge Silvio Colotto, giving an interview and indicating he met Bormann on several accounts in BsAs in 1950’s while Bormann stayed at the Plaza hotel.

Again, respectfully writing for light discussion and hope my post is received as such.

[DrRob]

If I hear one more lamebrain stating Martin Bormann escaped Berlin I'll scream

This is light discussion not intended to offend anyone. I’ve been fascinated by this subject matter since I finished Med school and am glad to have stumbled across this site. I thought I knew it all therebwas to know on Bormann but this thread has taught me otherwise. Thanks. I enjoy the discussion as I’vSeems as though much of the debate could be stifled if the relatives of Bormann in the other thread coordinate an encpunter to match DNA of known Bormann relatives to the suspected progeny of his born in South America after 45’.

Though it belongs in another thread I’ve had similar discussions with one of my patients with regards to Hitler’s end. My patient is 104 and retired FBI. Hired personally by J Edgar Hoover. Pretty interesting.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi DrRob,

For a very old man, Colotto was rather impressive in his interview.

However, he was also measured in his replies. He never says he recognized Bormann, only that he was told it was Bormann and that, in his opinion, only two men, one of them Peron, could have known if this was the case.

By contrast, the interviewer is less measured and in her questions repeatedly asks about this figure as if it certainly was Bormann. Colotto is being led by her but does not confirm it was Bormann, just that he was told it was.

So, basically, Colotto adds nothing substantive by way of hard facts.

Cheers,

Sid.