Originally posted by svetlana84
Can you show me any evidence that cloning technique was available in 1964 ?
Nothing against your story, it's great fiction, but without evidence - fiction
Thanks for taking time to post your reply. You are quite correct, anything which we cannot believe as possibly being true requires evidence,
otherwise it remains purely fiction. This is in fact true for everything, we need some form of mental trigger before we accept an idea and let it
influence our thinking, fortunately. Yet in this story the case can easily be reversed. You will note that not unlike yourself, I like to further
investigate matters before believing anything I'm told.
How do we know that Hitler died? Burnt remains that could hardly be identified as the true Hitler especially as he had several known
doubles, wasn't the suicidal sort, and also the body was discovered by the Russians whereby Stalin testified several times to the allies that he was
convinced that he survived had fled to Argentina. Furthermore only a few short years ago his alleged skull was examined and found to be that of a
woman. Assuming Hitler died in the bunker means that you are ready to accept conjecture and fantasy of a staged death story as truth. I call that
fiction. The case for Hitler's survival is at least as valid as that of his death, as can be read about here further starting at this posting:
Hitler's FBI files saying he was not dead and was hiding in Argentina
Who was Judge Roll's father? Well, we don't exactly have any information substantiating any paternity. His Wikipedia page, and this
despite his highly visible public profile and recent surge in notoriety, has a Personal Background section stating "This section requires
expansion." and with a very short line pulled from a recent newspaper article based upon one journalist's statement.
 Swaine, Jon (January 9, 2011). "Arizona shooting dead: Judge John Roll". The Telegraph.
Retrieved January 9, 2011.
Can we believe a single word that this War Correspondent, as a single unverified source without cross-referencing, has to say about this case - when
we learn on Jon Swain's Wikipedia page that "French journalist Denis Robert, who unveiled the "Clearstream affair", wrote in 2006 in his book
"Clearstream, l'enquête" that he believes Jon Swain was working in 2005 for Hakluyt & Company Limited, a private intelligence firm based in London
with close links to MI6."
Wikipedia: Jon Swain
We have no idea of who his father was, and only indirect reference that his mother's maiden name might have been McCarthy, of whom we know strictly
No information = nothing to believe.
Given the very unusual void in John Roll's paternity, this opens up the left field wide for speculation, at least until we learn something
substantial and verifiable. Little is known about his wife Maureen, not a maiden name, only slim references to their marriage 4 decades earlier which
should have left more traces. Do the alleged 3 sons and 5 grandchildren really exist? Who knows when the only person affirming this is perhaps an
MI6 agent of deception.
It was never said by anyone that "Hitler received a son in Pittsburgh". Such is a supposition based upon interpretation, given that any
number of sons are born without the presence or reception by their father, and it even happens that sons may born without the knowledge of their
father. Also we know of his birth only from his Wikipedia page, and we all know how this can be a sticky matter subject to falsification, if we keep
up on current events and notice that even in the case of the current President of the United States of America we find that Donald Trump refuses to
accept as evidence the dubious documents provided and is undertaking a full investigation into Barack Obama's poorly documented birth as Barry
The only way to know whether John Roll is actually genetically related to anyone, whether it be Adolf Hitler whom he closely resembles or
some other potential parent, would be by DNA analysis in double blind fully controlled and reproducible lab testing, something which isn't about to
happen, leaving here again the entire left field open to speculation versus accepting as fact whatever unverified reports are found "in print".
Was human cloning feasible back in 1964? Or even earlier for that matter? Here again it depends upon what you are prepared to envisage.
For example, many people here at ATS will agree that there is considerable testimony from reliable sources that much of the most advanced high
technology is kept secret in government labs, to be experimented with and used for defense purposes long before it ever becomes public and has any
civilian applications. When this pertains to rocket science, propulsion systems, artificial intelligence, anti-gravity or nuclear fusion everyone
agrees that this is most certainly logical and highly likely.
But as soon as we consider biology, it appears that only biological warfare is granted that logic, anything pertaining to genetics is not considered
imaginable as being kept secret from the general public. Yet there is much testimony of various programs designed to create the perfect soldier, a
superior fighter with greater capabilities, higher mental skills and a stronger physique. We all know that such goals would be best met using genetic
engineering or gene therapy. And we accept that the former is acceptable to prevent disease in our future newborn children, that the latter can be
used to treat patients in hospitals, that all such technology should and does exist at the service of the general public, yet that no government
agency has ever explored such domains?
Furthermore, we know full well with extensive documentation that the Nazis during World War Two had a very large genetic research project with labs in
various concentration camps and unwilling subjects in the thousands to experiment upon. They were obsessed with identical twins and with what they
referred to as "twinning" which means "human cloning" some 70 years ago. We also know that most of these scientists were imported to the United
States at the end of WWII and that they went on to work on their former projects in different capacities leading research teams for government task
forces in their respective realms.
For one, Carl Clauberg who was notorious for having invented artificial insemination was brought over during Operation Paperclip to continue his work,
and he can be seen to the right of this photograph found at the Wikipedia page on that subject marked by the number 18
Click on him at the far right of this
This means that there is every likelihood that US Government Agencies or their corporate shell companies conducted advanced research and experimented
with "twinning" - given that the same Nazis who had done so earlier were given "carte blanche" to pursue their research unhampered and with lavish
While this grants no measure of certainty or any hard evidence that this was accomplished at that date, we can nonetheless speculate that Human
Cloning might have been successfully done at a much early date that we have been led to believe. One indication of this can be found in recent
scientific evidence that it is far easier to clone Humans than other mammals, due to specific characteristics found only in human DNA which make
humans far less likely to be subject to genetic deficiencies when cloned. So why are we told today that we still cannot clone people?
Given that we have all been told that Dolly the sheep, a more difficult mammal to clone than a human, was successfully created some years back, we can
assume that a crack team of the leading cloning specialists with all the resources of the United States government would probably have been able to
achieve similar results with humans at a much earlier date.
So there you have it. I am not suggesting that any of this should be taken as solid fact or tangible evidence of anything. As conspiracy theorists
we are forced to question everything and to project multiple threads of logic until plausible theories can be explored, to be either proven false or
considered as "maybe possible" until we some day find further fact to support or deny their validity.
My analysis points to an array of converging probabilities which, when taken together, can grant the illusion of reality. This of course doesn't
make them so, but it does offer an option for interpreting events which I intend to explore in their various implications, in case there might be some
underlying truth. I hope this answers your concerns.