Comments by "bruno bond" (@mrunning10) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

  1. Stop confusing Pedophilia with Perversion with Pederast with grooming with all the modern-day neurosis placed upon this Problem. Get educated and not just from the intercoursing YouTube.
    16
  2.  @offbeatblackgerl8360  So glad you dusted-off your Read-the-thoughts-of-Dead-People Time Machine and stole a peek inside Dodgson's head. Can I borrow it? I want to hear what I have to say for myself. He He Ha Ha OMG so sarcastically funny!
    10
  3. Keeeee-rice, of course there was a connection, we're just arguing here just what that connection was, the second son was named Leopold, a pallbearer for the beloved sister Edith!
    9
  4. The full-frontal nude at the end of the show is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell. As to Ina's other photographs, Alice's granddaughter mentions it, she was self-conscious did not like to be photographed.
    7
  5. Childhood found and never lost! Amen.
    6
  6. YASFOS. The photo is NOT Alice's sister, Lorina Charlotte Liddell. Believe what you believe based on fantasy imagination if it makes one feel better.
    6
  7. ​ @amarketing8749  Dodgson was NOT "eliminated" from their lives, especially the sisters, who remained in contact with him until he died.
    6
  8. Alice "Liddell": you obviously have not watched the entire documentary and quite clearly have not listened to the Little you did watch.
    5
  9. Yah, well, Martha is from England and the BBC doesn't give much credit to France for anything.
    5
  10.  @LadyCoyKoi  Back then, NO it wasn't.
    5
  11. Very insightful. Amazing how many people watching this just are passive and don't LOOK, accepting everything coming across the screen. Yes, NOT Lorina Liddell. The eyes. These two experts were paid. Other experts who gave a differing opinion were not shown. The first expert gave an opinion of the technical aspects of the PHOTOGRAPH and not the CONTENT. “We can rule out that it is not a modern-day fake.” His part is done. When he mentions Dodgson, he is very specific and we all miss it, he says, "It's Dodgson's" he doesn't say "It was taken by Dodgson." He said this because it was part of Dodgson's collection, just as the dealer's inscription indicated. He had many purchased photographs in his collection. Why did they not compare with the Dodgson 1860 photograph of Lorina? The very same year of the full-frontal. Never mentioned in the documentary. Place them side by side. Wow, NOT the same! The epicanthal folds, consistent? Hum...why is not Facial Recognition on this subject NEVER mentioned? It is not Lorina Liddell that's why.
    4
  12. Dodgson was "exiled" from the Deanery because that is how the MOTHER responded to Dodgson's being offended at her suggestions; what those suggestions were, we are still guessing. There is a sequence here and it is important. So, what do we all think of this with our modern-day neurosis? That Dodgson was "caught" coping a feel with Alice? with Lorina? taking that nude photograph of Lorina? The full-frontal nude at the end is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell by the way. Like that one person (Will Self, brilliant observations) said "heavily repressed" Grab a dictionary, attempt to open and read it; Dodgson can't "act" on his feelings because he was not even aware of them.
    4
  13. Clearly? Internet Innuendo and zero research on your part and it becomes "clearly?" So, you turned on your Read-the-thoughts-of-Dead-People time machine and had a little peek?
    4
  14. So read Dodgson's mind, have we? with that Read-the-Thoughts-of-Dead-People Time Machine?? Can you tell me where you bought it? Amazon Prime? I want one too!
    4
  15. As any documentary on this subject goes, it's not too bad, certainly captures the wonder of the stories, especially Will Self. Please be aware, the full-frontal is NOT Lorina Liddell.
    4
  16. Except his comment is edited out of context, he was making comparison regarding the photographic technique, the paper, the type of camera, NOT FACIAL RECGONITION. The full-frontal nude photograph is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell.
    3
  17. Nailed It. And who are We to judge from OUR pornographic world?
    3
  18. Pedophile most likely, but "abuse?" Whom? and where? and when? and ANY evidence at all? or just plain 'ole internet conspiracy innuendo and speculation?
    3
  19. Because it's British sensationalistic TV programming. The photo at the end is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddle. Period. End of it.
    3
  20. The modern world could use a few more Charles Dodgson's.
    3
  21. Charles Dodgson (Not Lewis Carroll) never hurt, abused, molester, or hurt anyone ever his entire life. Any CHILD being shown and read to or in reading AAIW whom feels creepiness needs phycological counseling help and especially the parents who gave the child their own neurosis Pick it up read again. Re-discover childhood lost. It ain't too late.
    3
  22. You have no brain in the race either. Tolkien?
    3
  23. GFY you ignoramus. No he isn't a pedophile. How 'bout yourself?
    3
  24. He loved Alice, and that sums it up. So much of the innuendo in this documentary is just that, innuendo.
    3
  25. Not only invited him again but the daughters remained in social contact all his life.
    3
  26. What "piles on?" What? The photograph of the nude teenager is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell. Simple as that. Seeing it NOW is pure BBC sensationalism.
    3
  27. What evidence is there? None. The naked girl photo is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell. Dodgson never hurt harmed groomed stalked fondled any one ever his entire life. That is the EVIDENCE known. You got some other?
    2
  28. You are internet clickbait victim. Lots of things not mentioned in this BBC documentary, like for example, Dodgson was NEVER "alone" with any of the Liddell children. Duh.
    2
  29. It was clear it was not Dodgson's handwriting; the documentary just did not include that explicitly; it was implied from the first expert "a dealer's inscription." col = collection, so a third party who may have gotten it totally wrong and did. The full-frontal is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell.
    2
  30. And the question was way out of line, and he was out of line in answering it this way. This first expert could speak to the photograph not being "a modern fake." That's it. Not the content, not the to the facial comparison. The photograph of the full-frontal nude is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell, so many details not mentioned that would change a viewers impression.
    2
  31. the photo at the end is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell by the way.
    2
  32. We are obsessed about Alice, not Dodgson, he simply was in love.
    2
  33. BINGO. And if this documentary had compared the known Dodgson 1860 photograph of Lorina there would be no argument, but the BBC producers did not do that. Why?
    2
  34. get some learning please, yes it was.
    2
  35. NOT Lorina Liddell. The full-frontal "nude picture" is not Lorina Liddell. Now what? Because as Will Self says he most likely WAS a pedophile. But great art comes from great pain. Read the books again, why have they changed for you by now knowing this about Dodgson? Have they changed?
    2
  36. You are INSANE. Try to get a grip please.
    2
  37. Yes! Insight! Yes, the connection between Henry Liddell and Charles Dodgson plays into this but is rarely commented upon. Henry gave Dodgson a pass on taking his Holy Orders and let remain at Christ Church, not a minor thing. (and just in passing the full-frontal is NOT Henry's Daughter, Lorina Charlotte Liddell)
    2
  38. Dodgson I'm sure don't like YOU either.
    2
  39. Go back listen again to Lorina's letter, the last line, "...as one had to give some reason for all manner of intercourse to cease...." Written as if to ensure both sisters are on the same frequency of a lie. Yes, so the supposed Dodgson interest in Alice is the lie. (But also that scrape of paper found in the 90's explaining the cut diary pages, wonder if it is a fake? has anyone examined it? technically that is? the ink? the paper itself? true to the era? ~ 1900s)
    2
  40. Spot On. Especially if comparing it to a known Lorina photograph from the same year 1860. Not the same girl. But it was most likely from the "Lewis Carrol Collection" Inscription most likely NOT done by the nieces who were the executors of his estate and who DID destroy many "inappropriate" photographs per Dodgson's instructions. (and others that were simply "private" photos not meant for anyone else other than the family of his subjects). It is estimated that about a third of his collection was purchased, not his own work.  @mariemorgan7759 
    2
  41.  @melissasaint3283  The full-frontal at the end is NOT Lorina Charlotte Liddell.
    2
  42. OGL. Read up on the wet collodion process and technique before making idiotic comments please.
    2
  43. He MET Alice when she was 6 you idiot. Fell in love much later you idiot. Mum said "no." And that was the end of it you idiot. What is some damn difficult to understand you idiot?
    2
  44. YOU are sick. Go visit a clinical phycologist soon to remove the demons from YOUR neurotic mind.
    2
  45. Dodgson was in love with Alice, and WE don't know how to deal with that fact other than to say "pervert!" WE are the sick ones.
    2
  46. took a look inside his thoughts with your read the minds of dead people? monster? look in your mirror. Dodgson never hurt harmed groomed abused threatened anyone ever.
    2
  47. OK, now what? Did it change the book for you? Have you lost your childhood now because of this revelation? YOUR revelation, not history, as they knew what Dodgson was doing when he was doing it.
    2
  48. Wow, you DID do some research. Kudos! The understanding was the photographs were private, given to the families, and even displayed in their homes occasionally. Just doesn't make sense in our cellphone camera world snappic our brains out and post to the world world does it?
    2
  49. Dodgson loved Alice; the longing came out in the form of a book. No warning to Alice in the book; go back listen to Will Self.
    2
  50. There are no "grimy details" just internet inuendo and neurotic phycological horsecrap.
    2