UBB.threads Forums Thread Like Summary - NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over

I have just returned from Pennsylvania, where I just purchased, directly from the family of the deceased veteran, a chained NSKK High Leader dagger with Hunlein inscription. I video'd about 1 hour of interviews with the family, and got a notarized statement from them, placing the dagger in the hands of the veteran in 1945. I've got photos, DD214s, sworn statements from the son of the veteran (who is a Vietnam veteran as well), as well as a lot of interesting video testimony. Dagger is in outstanding condition, and photos will be forthcoming. I will also be editing the video and posting it on my website in due course.

Opps, submitted too soon.

What I wanted to emphasize was that if these Huhnlein pieces had been known about for 50 years previously - as claimed by Ron - then why did they not appear in the earlier books? Certainly Atwood or Mollo would have known about them.

The fact that they do not show up until 1974 - about the same time as the accepted fakes first appear - does not inspire the belief that they were well known in the late 1950s.

It is all academic now, I think the case against the Huhnlein pieces has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

FJS

Houston,

I wasn't aware that I was violating any rules - but if I was then I apologise, no problem there.

Craig and I have exchanged some commentary about this dagger already - so he will know that I was having a little tease with him, concerning "outstanding condition" and "restoration". Craig actually told me he was having a loose portion of leather glued back into place. And yes, I agree that is the right thing to do in the circumstances.

My position regarding these "Huhnlein" pieces remains clear, and the same as it was before - I have my own researched evidence - but I am willing to receive with an open mind any new and viable information.

I am not worried about being "knocked off my pedestal" - if the truth is out there, then let it be seen and examined. All I ask is that it be confirmed to the same rigorous standards that are asked of myself.

I have no desire to disrupt Craig's thunder when he presents his new discovery. However, as he is brash enough to make the claim: "NSKK High Leader Debate Is Over", as he has done so in commencing this thread, then I expect to see it followed through with verifiable evidence. So far Craig presents no evidence.

Frederick J. Stephens

I've been watching this very interesting thread from the beginning. I have no stake in this discussion either way. I have no opinion as to its originality since it is beyond my expertise. And for the record, I have never even seen one of these daggers (in person).

I have friends on both sides of this dicsussion so I thought long and hard about this posting.

If I was to weigh the arguments put forth by both sides of this discussion, I would have to say that the "non-believers" have put forth the only solid evidence against this being a totally pre-1945 dagger. The "believers" have only put forth opinions based on experience for it being totally pre-1945. And you know what they say about "opinions"

One thing has been gnawing at me that no one else has raised. For Himmler and Rohm daggers to be accepted as being pre-1945, the dedication and signatures have to be identical to an accepted format. In other words, they can't vary. The Rohm and Himmler signatures are analyzed ad nauseum for even the tinyest of deviations. To me, that means that all manufacturers of these daggers had the same template to work with.

So why then do the Hunlein signatures seen so far vary so much from dagger to dagger and are accepted as pre-1945 by some? Like the Himmler and Rohm daggers, should the Hunlein signatures not all be identical on all daggers?

This is like the discussion on the Shroud of Turin.............