Why The Holocaust Must Be Questioned

[Lovelynice]

Oh, the stupid medium of the BBC. How much more reliable the fine journalism of Fria Ord.

This is from judicial-inc.biz, a site that attempts to debunk Anne's composition of the diary. Here is their timeline; note what tops the list.

You would think that if someone wants you to believe a thing is false, they wouldn't posit it as part of their argument.

Good you agree that the "diary" is a fake.

According to the New York Supreme Court, it was a hoax.

According to the West German BKA in 1980, portions of the so-called "original" (that's the bits allegedly written prior to 1944) were written in ballpoint pen. The cartoon I posted stated this, and the BKA backed this up. It was not just a mere 2 slips of paper that had nothing to do with the alleged "diary" as Deborah Lipstadt misleadingly claimed.

So, you've got a timeline admitting that it was partly faked, but misleadingly claiming that the original diary was un-altered, when in fact it was (according to the BKA analysis).

Also, that timeline of yours doesn't mention that for most of those decades, the holocaust industry and holocaust propagandists pretended that the diary was entirely legitimate and real, when in fact it was mostly fictional.

You've also been unable to counter the inconsistencies in the "diary" which Faurisson pointed out. Of course they don't matter if we just accept that the alleged "diary" is mostly a fictional creation and a hoax.

 

[Lovelynice]

Lovelynice:
Little things that you just don't think of..like NO BALLPOINT PENS IN WW2. I remember when they first came out (AFTER THE WAR) Never thought about part of the Frank diaries being written with them. You have to realize that the Dutch are very resourceful peopl. They can make money off of anything.


They make a lot more money on the (Frank house?) than they can by putting up a Te Koop sign. It's all about a way to take more money from foolish American tourist who tear up just looking at the outside of the house which is no different from everyother house in Adam. I think they secretely laugh at them behind....no make that right in front of the fools.

Money is the main thing that keeps the Holocaust Propaganda industry going. Too many people's fortunes are riding on lies like this.

 

[Lovelynice]

Elie Wiesel reminds of you, he tells a lot of fibs and tall tales too.

His book "Night" is full of silliness as well.

 

[Lovelynice]

Yeah, according to Shamankiss, the logic is this;

If you gullibly believe all the Holocaust Propaganda myths, even the most stupid, insane, and ridiculous impossibilities, then you're right.

But if an historian or academic questions these dumb lies and garbage stories, he's ALWAYS WRONG.

- he's also a neo-nazi, jew-hater, anti-semite, etc..etc...etc...

Seriously flawed logic.

You have to BELIEVE or else.

They try to destroy the lives of anyone who questions any of the flaws in the Holocaust myths.

Just as another example;

In 1995, Werner Pfeifenberger, a German professor of political science published an essay called "Internationalism and Nationalism: a Never-Ending Mortal Enmity?" in a collection issued by Austria's Freedom Party (see AR, Dec. 1999, and March 2000). The German state of North Rhine-Westphalia dismissed Prof. Pfeifenberger from his teaching position, and a court in Vienna prepared a case against him under Austrian anti-Nazi laws. His lawyer explained that Prof. Pfeifenberger faced ten years in jail under the charges, and did not expect there would be a fair trial, On May 13, 2000, just a few weeks before the trail, Prof. Pfeifenberger committed suicide.

As in Germany and Switzerland, Austrian law does not permit a defendant to argue the veracity of his statements. Not even his lawyer can come into court to defend him, and the truth doesn't matter a damn.

As I mentioned before...

There are literally HUNDREDS of people imprisoned in Germany for stating that they do not believe in the Holocaust Myth. This includes many historians, teachers, and other academics.

Freedom of Speech isn't the only problem. Even producing scientific and verifiable evidence that reveals the lies of the Holocaust Propaganda can get people jailed in many European countries. In some countries courts have ruled that the facts are irrelevant, and that certain things must not be said whether they are true or false. In others, a defendant in court who even tries to explain or defend a forbidden view will be charged on the spot with a fresh offense. EVEN THE DEFENDANT'S LAWYER can be fined or go to jail just for trying to mount a defence.

They protect their LIES by hiding behind unjust laws, open discrimination, harrassments, abuse, and ruining the lives and reputations of anyone who publicly questions the holocaust.

If it were able to stand on it's own evidence, none of this would be necessary.

 

[phrodeau]

Gee, a lot of those arguments could be used against the Bible and organized religion as well.

I've got a Bible with several pages printed with an inkjet cartridge. Would you consider this Bible to be a hoax?

 

[Lovelynice]

As I mentioned, Hayward has a website. On the home page, Hayward states that:

This website has not been updated or otherwise altered for several years and will not be updated in future.

It now survives on the internet only as a historical record of a long-faded controversy.

— Dr Joel Hayward, 2006

That's because they broke him. The Zionist attack on Hayward was merciless, and he couldn't hold up. It drove him to a nervous breakdown.

But, for everybody's education, here are a couple of links throughout his site.

Aspects of this controversy have not, of course, been only about my 1991 thesis. They have been about destroying me personally and professionally.

http://www.joelhayward.com/thoughtcrimes.htm

And as I mentioned before, Hayward was attacked by Richard J. Evans, the same academic who testified against Irving at his trial.

http://www.joelhayward.com/profevansversusdrhayward.htm

I looked up Evans entire bibliography. Evans spends as much time attacking other historians as he does writing his own books. Not just Revisionist historians either, but historians covering witchcraft in medieval Europe, and the like.

Evans has made destroying other historians one of his major career objectives, and his tactics are always the same. Humilate them, degrade them, and dismiss them. How did this asshole become a college professor?

Throughout Hayward's whole website there is an excellent education to be had regarding the degree to which the New Zealand Jewish Council was willing to go, not just to destroy Dr. Hayward but to subvert, twist and corrupt the entire process of academic investigation and thought in New Zealand.

It also leads me to some understanding of the animus that Woody and other kiwis here have towards Jews. If the New Zealand Jewish Council is trying to twist New Zealand academia to their own ends, and force them to bow to their will, there's more than enough reason for animus.

Overall, for Shaman and anybody else willing to go through the pages of Dr. Hayward's web page, you can get a clear idea of the ruthless, unprincipled and shameless savagery that both Richard Evans and the New Zealand Jewish Council displayed.

If Shaman, or anybody else gets through the whole thing, I think they'll agree that the myth of the Holocaust is maintained by one thing, and one thing only.

Terror. A terror campaign that even a maestro like Feliks Dzherzhinsky would stand in awe of, could he observe it.

If you don't believe a whole University can be intimidated and terrorized, check this out.

http://www.joelhayward.com/theweekendheraldarticle.htm

"This week, the thesis was back in the news after copies of a University of Canterbury journal containing an article describing the "witch hunt" of Dr Hayward were destroyed.

The university said it was potentially defamatory and inaccurate.

The author, Dr Thomas Fudge, resigned in disgust and the History Now editor, Associate Professor Ian Campbell, was effectively dumped."

"He [Dr. Hayward] started receiving emails "full of hatred", to which he replied that he had never intended to hurt anyone, and no longer agreed with its contents. He wrote an addendum admitting his errors. He also wrote a letter to the Jewish Chronicle apologising for the distress he had caused.

But the malicious calls and emails kept coming, and he has had death threats. "

Think of it. How many historians get death threats?

Dr. Hayward's site is full of choice nuggets of information, and will undoubtedly provide many a quote here.

The poor man...

All because of a thesis that he wrote as a student.

 

[Lovelynice]

Gee, a lot of those arguments could be used against the Bible and organized religion as well.

I've got a Bible with several pages printed with an inkjet cartridge. Would you consider this Bible to be a hoax?

Are you dumb?

You sure sound like it.

The West German BKA did an analysis of the so-called "original" diary of Anne Frank (you know - like the one supposedly written around 1942-1944), and it's that "original" that has portions written in ballpoint pen with an ink-paste that was NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL 1951.

Not just 2 slips of paper. Actual portions of the alleged original "diary" itself.

If the somebody called "Joe Blogs" brought out what he claimed were some original Bible scrolls and it was later discovered that most of it was written in ballpoint pen, what would most people think about the veracity of Joe Blog's claims about those scrolls being original? They'd know that the claims about them being "original" were nonsense and bullshit of course.

Oh, and as a little reminder. The claim that Anne Frank's diary was the true and legitimate thing unaltered, was blown apart back in 1959 by the New York Supreme Court. You have such a forgetful memory of these small details.

 

[phrodeau]

Are you dumb?

You sure sound like it.

The West German BKA did an analysis of the so-called "original" diary of Anne Frank, and it's that "original" that has portions written in ballpoint pen with an ink-paste that was NOT AVAILABLE UNTIL 1951.

Not just 2 slips of paper. Actual portions of the alleged original "diary" itself.

If the somebody brought out what they claimed were the original Bible scrolls and it was later discovered that most of it was written in ballpoint pen, what do think the veracity of their claims about those scrolls being original would look like? Nonsense and bullshit of course.

Look, you haven't seen it; I haven't seen it. And I'm sure that the West German BKA and Der Spiegel are as least as reliable as the CIA and the New York Times.

What proof do you have that Anne Frank did not have a ballpoint pen, anyway? They were scarce, but they did exist before 1951.

And why do you think that an original document is the same thing as a first draft?

 

[krastner]

The poor man...

All because of a thesis that he wrote as a student


QUOTE=Lovelynice]Are you dumb?

You sure sound like it.

Yes Lovelynice...because of a thesis he wrote when he was a student. Now I am sure that many people have challenged the Israeli version of the holocaust, but the ones that have been imprisoned or otherwise harassed are the ones that hit the nail on the head...or close.. What ever you say make sure that it doesn't approach the truth ...or off with your head...Oi Vey Oi Vey...


And yes it is dumb. What can you expect from a censoring little tattle tail...

 

[Lovelynice]

Look, you haven't seen it; I haven't seen it. And I'm sure that the West German BKA and Der Spiegel are as least as reliable as the CIA and the New York Times.

What proof do you have that Anne Frank did not have a ballpoint pen, anyway? They were scarce, but they did exist before 1951.

And why do you think that an original document is the same thing as a first draft?

Um, dumb-boy. It isn't just about the ballpoint pen. It's the ink-paste that was used by said ballpoint pen. It simply was NOT AVAILABLE, or even being produced before 1951.



It was analysis of the "original" diary that is the problem. Otto Frank (Anne's daddy) altered the diary, and added to it. Not the first draft, the "diary" itself, and then pretended that his daughter wrote the whole thing unaltered. That's the hoax that was blown by the BKA analysis.

Where are you getting your arguments from? Nizkor? That dumb site. Do your own research and do it properly next time.

 

[phrodeau]

I search for the word "paste" in your articles, and it's not there.

The ballpoint pen was invented in 1938. The diary was first written in 1944. To put that in another context, the iPod was introduced in 2001.

I don't know who Nizkor is. Is he a cartoonist?

 

[krastner]

phrodeau
This message is hidden because phrodeau is on your ignore list.


Yes Lovely it is getting it's info from www.dumbsite.ignorant.

 

[Lovelynice]

I search for the word "paste" in your articles, and it's not there.

The ballpoint pen was invented in 1938. The diary was first written in 1944. To put that in another context, the iPod was introduced in 2001.

The ballpoint itself was not a readily available item in Germany anyway. But it doesn't matter does it? Since the particular ink-paste used by that ballpoint pen in the so-called original "diary" was not invented until 1951. As I said....

It isn't just about the ballpoint pen. It's the ink-paste that was used by said ballpoint pen. It simply was NOT AVAILABLE, or even being produced before 1951.

Look up ink-paste in relevance to the BKA. Use German name for the BKA. It'll take awhile probably as this particular detail is not well reported.

 

[Lovelynice]

phrodeau
This message is hidden because phrodeau is on your ignore list.


Yes Lovely it is getting it's info from www.dumbsite.ignorant.

I mentioned the Nizkor site because it's a favourite of holocaust propagandists, but they get caught out lying so regularly and so easily that they're becoming a laughing stock. The Wiesenthal site is similar; often they copy the same lies from each other, but Wiesenthal goes a step worse with photo forgery as well.

Of course, that's only to be expected since old Wiesenthal himself told lots of fantastic whoppers too.

 

[Lovelynice]

Remember how the Treblinka story about mass graves isn't standing too well since those two Australian research teams discovered with the GPR scanners that the ground around Treblinka hadn't been dug up since the last Ice Age? (one trip in 1999, another in 2001 was larger)

Here's another silly detail...about the "barber shop" INSIDE the gas chambers

These days, they claim it took 30 minutes with high-speed fans to change the air (of course, in the relevant court case, nobody could show one of these fans), but still...this "five minutes" between gassings business only shows how ridiculous many of the claims were.

 

[phrodeau]

The ballpoint itself was not a readily available item in Germany anyway. But it doesn't matter does it? Since the particular ink-paste used by that ballpoint pen in the so-called original "diary" was not invented until 1951. As I said....



Look up ink-paste in relevance to the BKA. Use German name for the BKA. It'll take awhile probably as this particular detail is not well reported.

Too bad that there isn't much reportage of the facts you pull out of your butt.

How many ballpoint pens does it take to write a diary? Um, one.

 

[krastner]

Remember how the Treblinka story about mass graves isn't standing too well since those two Australian research teams discovered with the GPR scanners that the ground around Treblinka hadn't been dug up since the last Ice Age? (one trip in 1999, another in 2001 was larger)

Here's another silly detail...about the "barber shop" INSIDE the gas chambers

These days, they claim it took 30 minutes with high-speed fans to change the air (of course, in the relevant court case, nobody could show one of these fans), but still...this "five minutes" between gassings business only shows how ridiculous many of the claims were.

You know Lovelynoce...when I was a kid I told some whoppers. My mom had a remerke she made to me when I told a lie and that was " Now tell another one to back it up." Mom had a lot of wisdom.

It seems that is exactly what the zionist Israelis are dooing . They keep telling lies to back the first one up and their stories get more and more in the twilight zone...But you know what I grew up...looks llike the Zionist didn't ..

 

[Lovelynice]

How many ballpoint pens does it take to write a diary? Um, one.

So are you now trying to say that Anne Frank's alleged "diary" was totally written with one ballpoint pen, but using ink that didn't exist until 1951 ?

Weird. Where does your time machine come from?


Anyway, that isn't what the West German Bundeskriminalamt analysis showed. It said - PORTIONS - of the "diary" were written in ballpoint pen that did not exist until 1951. Not a ballpoint from 1938. No this ballpoint pen was from the FUTURE if we are to believe that the entire original "diary" was unaltered and written only by little poor Anne Frank.

Of course it doesn't work like that, and we know Anne's daddy decided to make lots of cash from his poor daughter by selling off her secret writings, but since they were so boring and nothing more special than what would be expected from any other 12-14 year old girl, daddy wrote in some extra bits to spice up the story with his 1951 ballpoint pen with it's 1951 ballpoint pen ink-paste, with a little help from some hired writers. Then daddy decided to lie about it, and say "This diary has not been altered, it's the original diary".

The New York Supreme Court proved he was lying.

The BKA proved he was lying too.

It seems that you must be one of the stubborn believers around because these facts haven't sunk in yet.

 

[krastner]

So are you now trying to say that Anne Frank's alleged "diary" was totally written with one ballpoint pen, but using ink that didn't exist until 1951 ?

Weird. Where does your time machine come from?


Anyway, that isn't what the West German Bundeskriminalamt analysis showed. It said - PORTIONS - of the "diary" were written in ballpoint pen that did not exist until 1951. Not a ballpoint from 1938. No this ballpoint pen was from the FUTURE if we are to believe that the entire original "diary" was unaltered and written only by little poor Anne Frank.

Of course it doesn't work like that, and we know Anne's daddy decided to make lots of cash from his poor daughter by selling off her secret writings, but since they were so boring and nothing more special than what would be expected from any other 12-14 year old girl, daddy wrote in some extra bits to spice up the story with his 1951 ballpoint pen with it's 1951 ballpoint pen ink-paste, with a little help from some hired writers. Then daddy decided to lie about it, and say "This diary has not been altered, it's the original diary".

The New York Supreme Court proved he was lying.

The BKA proved he was lying too.

It seems that you must be one of the stubborn believers around because these facts haven't sunk in yet.

I told you it was a dumb ass Lovelynice

 

[Lovelynice]

I told you it was a dumb ass Lovelynice

Sadly, I'm beginning to agree....

 

[Drinking Cap]

Death to the Christ-killers!

Sorry, I just wanted to fit in.

 

[phrodeau]

Your ink argument is worthless, because you have nothing but a cartoon to support it. If you want to believe that a certain ink-paste couldn't have existed before a certain date, that's fine with me. You should know that inks are not all that difficult to make.

The Franks were fairly wealthy people. There's no proof Anne couldn't have used a ballpoint pen.

So do you agree that Anne Frank actually did write a diary that was eventually published and sold worldwide? Or do you agree with that cartoon, which implies that it wasn't possible? You seem to be on the fence here.

 

[Lovelynice]

Your ink argument is worthless, because you have nothing but a cartoon to support it. If you want to believe that a certain ink-paste couldn't have existed before a certain date, that's fine with me. You should know that inks are not all that difficult to make.

You seem to be missing the point here (why am I not surprised) - the particular INK-PASTE in question DID NOT EXIST until 1951.

So are you now trying to claim that Otto Frank INVENTED a futuristic ink to use in his futuristic ballpoint pen?

The Franks were fairly wealthy people. There's no proof Anne couldn't have used a ballpoint pen.

From the FUTURE? With INK from the FUTURE as well???

I don't believe they were wealthy enough to afford a time-machine.

Does Bill Gates have a time-machine? He's rich, how come he hasn't got a time-machine? Do you have a time-machine? Damn I don't believe anyone has even INVENTED time-travel yet! Oh, maybe the Franks long distant futuristic descendants built a time-machine and flew in back in time just to give Anne Frank her 1951 ballpoint pen with it's 1951 ink-paste to go with it!

WOW! You should be making movies with bullshit excuses like that one!

So do you agree that Anne Frank actually did write a diary that was eventually published and sold worldwide?

No, I agree that Anne Frank wrote part of a diary, didn't finish it, and her daddy came along and added some nice spicy bits after that, plus some editing and then LIED ABOUT IT so that he could make lots of money by PRETENDING that the whole diary was an unaltered and original work of his daughter's only. The "diary" of Anne Frank is a hoax, as has already been proven - LEGALLY - by the New York Supreme Court, and by the West German Bundeskriminalamt, and accpted by the Hamburg District Court of Justice.

Or do you agree with that cartoon, which implies that it wasn't possible?

I agree with the FACTS which the cartoon is only presenting in an easy form suitable for an eight-year-old to understand. Is this a little too advanced for you? You appear to be having some trouble understanding it.

You seem to be on the fence here.

No, I'm sitting on a chair at home...and I'm not there where you are. The "fence" and me being where you are must be one of your fantastic delusions again, like the one about it being reasonable for Anne Frank to be using a ballpoint pen from 1951 with ballpoint ink-paste from 1951.

 

[zipman]

So now Anne Frank's Diary is a forgery?

LMAO!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Publicity about Anne Frank and her Diary
Denial of the authenticity of the diary
Teresien da Silva - Anne Frank Stichting, 1999

For decades now, so-called "revisionists" have been casting doubt on the authenticity of the diary of Anne Frank. Because of her diary, Anne Frank has become an import symbol of the Holocaust. For many right-wing extremists she proves to be an obstacle. Her personal testimony of the persecution of the Jews and her death in a concentration camp are blocking the way to a rehabiliation of national-socialism.

The Stielau case
One of the earliest attacks on the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary that appeared in print was published in the late 1950's. The German teacher Lothar Stielau wrote in a school magazine in 1958: "The forged diaries of Eva Braun, of the Queen of England and the no more genuine diary of Anne Frank have yielded those who profit from Germany's defeat millions, while these have been extremely damaging to us." In Germany in the thirties, Stielau was involved in leading the Hitler Youth and after the war was an active member of the Deutsche Reichspartei, a Nazi organization. This 1958 publication was the first time doubts about the authenticity of the diary received extensive media coverage.

In early 1959, Otto Frank filed a suit against Stielau. After exhaustive and authoritative research into the authenticity of Anne Frank's handwriting the court in Lübeck ruled in 1960 that the diary was authentic. This was sufficient grounds for the court in 1961 to initiate proceedings. It never came to this. Stielau declared that based on the examination he was convinced that the diary was genuine and withdrew his allegations. Later on Otto Frank regretted that he had not proceeded with the case and that he had agreed to settling: "If I had known that there were people for whom a settlement would not serve as sufficient proof, I would have continued the case."

Anne Frank's Diary - a forgery?
Perhaps it would have been better if Otto Frank had persisted given the fact that the allegations continued. During the 1960's and 1970's the authenticity of the diary was attacked in a variety of publications without any legal action being taken until 1976. That year the Diary of Anne Frank became the subject of a lawsuit in Frankfurt.

Since 1975, Heinz Roth had been publishing, with his own company, brochures and pamphlets with titles such as Anne Frank's Tagebuch -- eine Fälschung (Anne Frank's Diary: A Forgery) and Anne Frank's Tagebuch - Der Grosse Schwindel (Anne Frank's Diary: The Big Fraud). Otto Frank took Roth to court in 1976 to stop distribution of the pamphlet Das Tagebuch der Anne Frank - Warheit oder Fälschung? (The Diary of Anne Frank: Truth or Forgery?). The Anne Frank House was involved as co-complainant in this case. Two years later the judge handed down a ruling prohibiting Roth from publicly expressing such ideas about the Diary of Anne Frank under penalty of a maximum 500,000-DM fine or a maximum jail term of six months. At the appeal, Roth produced a report by Robert Faurisson who he had asked to extensively examine the diary's authenticity. The report failed to convince the court and the appeal was rejected in July 1979. In 1980, Faurisson published in French the results of his research under the title Le journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique? (The Diary of Anne Frank: Is It Authentic?). In 1985, in Belgium, a Dutch translation appeared - Het dagboek van Anne Frank: een vervalsing (The Diary of Anne Frank: A Forgery) - this time without the question mark.

There have been two court cases concerning the authenticity of the diary dismissed on the grounds of freedom of speech. Both cases occurred in Germany in 1979. The first case concerned the distribution of pamphlets by the right-wing extremist Erwin Schönborn in 1978 in Frankfurt. The publication claimed the Diary of Anne Frank to be a "forgery and the product of Jewish anti-German atrocity-propaganda to support the lie of six million gassed Jews and to finance the State of Israel." In the second case, in Stuttgart, the Nazi Werner Kuhnt was accused of publicly inciting racial hatred and slandering the memory of a deceased person. Kuhnt wrote in an extreme right-wing monthly that the diary was "a forgery" and "a fraud" . In both cases the court ruled that if the complaint was actually filed by one of the injured parties then a conviction for slander could still follow. These dismissals created a major stir in the media.

Ballpoint corrections
On March 19, 1993, after many years, another case in Hamburg also came to an end. The authenticity of Anne Frank's diary was also in question here. It began in 1976 when, following performances of the play based on the diary, Ernst Römer distributed pamphlets titled "Best-Seller - ein Schwindel" which claimed that the diary was a forgery. The Public Prosecutor decided to proceed against Römer. Otto Frank was a co-complainant in this case. In 1977 the district court fined Römer 1500-DM. During the appeal stage a fellow right-winger Edgar Geiss distributed pamphlets in the courtroom alleging that the diary was a complete forgery. Geiss was also brought before the court and received a six-month jail sentence. He also filed an appeal and the Römer and Geiss cases were combined. The German Criminal Court Laboratory, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) was asked to examine the kind of paper and the types of ink used in the manuscript of Anne Frank's diary. Results showed that the paper and the ink concerned had been in use during the war and for some years afterwards. Remarkably, the BKA concluded that "the later corrections made on the loose-leaf pages were written in part in black, green and blue ballpoint pen." Verifying the findings of the BKA proved to be impossi-ble since there was no mention of the exact place, nature and extent of these ballpoint corrections. During the Stielau case, twenty years earlier, it had been established, also by handwriting experts, that the work had been written entirely by Anne Frank herself. The BKA report appeared to cast doubt on this ruling. In 1980 the German magazine Der Spiegel published a rather inaccurate article about the findings of the BKA report. The message of this article was: "this undermines the authenticity of the document even further," and it caused an enormous commotion both at home and abroad.

The critical edition
In August 1980 Otto Frank died. His daughter's manuscripts were left to the Dutch State, which deposited the documents with the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie (Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, or NIOD). Otto Frank appointed as his heir the Anne Frank Fund in Basel, which therefore also inherited the copyright of the book. The NIOD decided to publish the complete diaries of Anne Frank in an annotated version, in part as an answer to the continuing attacks on the book's authenticity. The "Gerechtelijk Laboratorium" (State Forensic Science Laboratory) in Rijswijk was asked to conduct an extensive examination of the manuscript with regard to her handwriting and other technical aspects. The BKA was invited by the "Gerechtelijk Laboratorium" to indicate where on the loose-leaf pages they had found the ballpoint ink. The BKA was unable to point out a single alleged correction in ballpoint ink. The court in Hamburg had decided to wait for the results of the RIOD investigation. In 1986 the complete diaries of Anne Frank and the positive results of the laboratory research were published under the title "De dagboeken van Anne Frank" (The diaries of Anne Frank). The German translation of 1988 was used as evidence by the court in Hamburg. After all these years, the case was resumed in 1990. At his appeal, Geiss was now sentenced to a 6000-DM fine. Römer had died by then. Geiss's defense appealed in 1991 for a review of the conviction based on the fact that the statute of limitations on the offence had lapsed. On March 19, 1993 the verdict was indeed set aside because of the time lapse and the case came to a definitive end.

"Free Historical Research"
Nevertheless, it did not stop the attacks on the authenticity of the Diary. In 1991, the revisionist Belgian group "Vrij Historisch Onderzoek" ("Free Historical Research") published a booklet denying the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank, entitled Het dagboek van Anne Frank: een kritische benadering (The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach). In the Fall of 1992, this publication was sent unsolicited to public libraries in the Netherlands. The defendants in this case are the authors, the Frenchman Robert Faurisson and the Belgian Siegfried Verbeke. They are spokespersons of an international movement called "historical revisionism", which denies the systematic mass destruction of Jews during World War II by the Nazi's ever took place. The authors of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach claim that it was Otto Frank who wrote the Diary after the war. They are of the opinion that the Diary contains several contradictions, that hiding in the Secret Annex must have been impossible and that the style and handwriting of Anne Frank are not those of a teenager.

In December 1993, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle instigated a civil law suit in order to prohibited the further distribution of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach in the Netherlands.

Five years later, on December 9, 1998, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants and forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect. The court imposed a penalty of 25,000 Dutch guilders per infringement. Although this was a victory for the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Fonds, it unforunately does not mean that attacks on the authencitity of Anne's diary will cease.

http://www.annefrank.org/content.asp?PID=426&LID=2

 

[Lovelynice]

The German Criminal Court Laboratory, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) was asked to examine the kind of paper and the types of ink used in the manuscript of Anne Frank's diary. Results showed that the paper and the ink concerned had been in use during the war and for some years afterwards.

Funny, so they contradicted themselves.

Back in 1980, the BKA analysis showed that the ink-paste used was from a 1951 ballpoint pen using a glycol solvent. According to this German forensics science report, glycol-solvents in ballpoint pen inks were not in use, and had not been invented until 1951.
http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2006/2669/pdf/WeyermannCeline-2005-23-09.pdf

Remarkably, the BKA concluded that "the later corrections made on the loose-leaf pages were written in part in black, green and blue ballpoint pen." Verifying the findings of the BKA proved to be impossible since there was no mention of the exact place, nature and extent of these ballpoint corrections.

Sounds like they were waffling a bit to avoid mentioning that most of it was written with an ink-paste that wasn't available before 1951, or maybe because they would also have to mention their other analysis which showed those loose-leaf pages weren't around back in 1944 either. It was a different type of paper.

During the Stielau case, twenty years earlier, it had been established, also by handwriting experts, that the work had been written entirely by Anne Frank herself.

Actually that's misleading. They only concluded that the handwriting was from the SAME PERSON. Not necessarily Anne Frank.

The handwriting also doesn't match the handwriting on the postcards written by Anne Frank.

The BKA report appeared to cast doubt on this ruling. In 1980 the German magazine Der Spiegel published a rather inaccurate article about the findings of the BKA report. The message of this article was: "this undermines the authenticity of the document even further," and it caused an enormous commotion both at home and abroad.

Yes, they forgot to mention the glycol solvent which was the tell-tale about the ink-paste being from 1951 or later.

The "Gerechtelijk Laboratorium" (State Forensic Science Laboratory) in Rijswijk was asked to conduct an extensive examination of the manuscript with regard to her handwriting and other technical aspects. The BKA was invited by the "Gerechtelijk Laboratorium" to indicate where on the loose-leaf pages they had found the ballpoint ink. The BKA was unable to point out a single alleged correction in ballpoint ink.

That's because none of those sheets were the originals anyway. They were transciripts. Rewritten copies as Phrodeau has mentioned in a previous post on that timeline. They wouldn't have any "corrections", they'd all be in the same handwriting, in the same ballpoint ink.

In 1986 the complete diaries of Anne Frank and the positive results of the laboratory research were published under the title "De dagboeken van Anne Frank" (The diaries of Anne Frank).

Yes, those results of laboratory research which showed that there were no corrections, and it was the same handwriting. Not the ones from the BKA analysis reporting the glycol solvent ink-paste which did not exist until 1951, and no mention of the fact that the "diaries" handwriting didn't match that of Anne Frank's letters and post cards.

Nevertheless, it did not stop the attacks on the authenticity of the Diary.

Of course it didn't. Afterall, even the New York Supreme Court back in 1959 recognized that it was a hoax. And you still haven't explained about the time-travelling futuristic ink-paste from 1951.

In 1991, the revisionist Belgian group "Vrij Historisch Onderzoek" ("Free Historical Research") published a booklet denying the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank, entitled Het dagboek van Anne Frank: een kritische benadering (The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach).

Good on them. Bet it annoyed the publishers and owners of the Anne Frank "diaries" who keep trying to pretend it's entirely real, and not a hoax.

The defendants in this case are the authors, the Frenchman Robert Faurisson and the Belgian Siegfried Verbeke.

Yes, highly qualified academics. Faurisson asks extremly good questions too.

They are spokespersons of an international movement called "historical revisionism", which denies the systematic mass destruction of Jews during World War II by the Nazi's ever took place.

Actually that's a misleading statement. Some revisionists only question the numbers claimed (like the magic voodoo SIX MILLION) as being held rather too religiously in spite of the facts. Since no matter how the deathtolls from the various alleged "death camps" have dropped over the years, this has had no effect on the constant holy chant of six million, six million, six million...

Others question about where all the solid evidence is, like for example the lack of vast mass graves around Treblinka (as discovered by two teams of researchers using Ground Penetrating Radar who found that the ground hadn't been dug up in over 11,00 years and there was not a sign of a large mass grave to be found).

Others queston the TOTAL ABSENCE of ORIGINAL German wartime documents to support the systematic genocide claims.

Others question the TOTAL ABSENCE of autopsy reports on thousands of cyanide-gassed victims from any mass grave at all.

Others question how allegedly murderous Diesel Engined "gas vans" could kill with carbon monoxide poisoning inside of the alleged 15 minutes when so many scientific studies have shown that such a thing is IMPOSSIBLE because Diesel exhaust produces only tiny amounts of CO, pumps in more oxygen, and actual laboratory studies proved that it took HOURS AND HOURS to kill with Diesel exhaust. On top of which, the Diesel engines would make the "gas vans" (as described) blow up, explode, make BOOMS, other displays of wonderful destruction. And that goes for the majority of alleged "death camps" which were alleged to have used "Diesel gas chambers" - which would also fail to kill anyone with CO, and would blow up the buildings SKY HIGH long before then.

I mean, seriously, it's only rational to question such bizarre and unscientific claims about these sorts of things.

Or do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too?

The authors of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach claim that it was Otto Frank who wrote the Diary after the war. They are of the opinion that the Diary contains several contradictions, that hiding in the Secret Annex must have been impossible and that the style and handwriting of Anne Frank are not those of a teenager.

Damn right they are too.

Oh, the "secret annex" wasn't that secret. You should read the "diary". They were running vacuum cleaners, had the radio on all the time. Very noisy. The neighbours would surely have heard all the racket.

In December 1993, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle instigated a civil law suit in order to prohibited the further distribution of The Diary of Anne Frank: A Critical Approach in the Netherlands.

Yeah, must've been making a dent in their business. Why let anyone know that your product is a just another hoax. I'm sure they hated people to know that the New York Supreme Court had legally proven it wasn't written by Anne Frank, and that people might read about that 1951 ballpoint ink with the glycol solvent.

Five years later, on December 9, 1998, the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants and forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the Diary of Anne Frank

Typical tactic. Bit like the way the tobacco industry in the USA used to have legal suits all the time to stop people learning that their product was killing people.

The court imposed a penalty of 25,000 Dutch guilders per infringement. Although this was a victory for the Anne Frank House and the Anne Frank Fonds, it unfortunately does not mean that attacks on the authencitity of Anne's diary will cease.

Of course it won't.

They want to continue the money-spinning hoax, and other people will keep pointing out that it is a hoax. Just as the New York Supreme Court legally proved back in 1959.

You can continue to believe in magic ballpoint pens from the future being reasonable if you like, but I won't.

Maybe you and Phrodeau can get together and discuss how to invent a time-machine so you can go back in time to 1944, and give Anne Frank a 1951 ballpoint pen with a glycol solvent ink-paste. Old Otto could patent the ink and get rich in the futuristic ballpoint pen business.