4
5

Anne frank diary a Hoax ? (self.holocaust)

avgguy33 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]ANP06 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (12子コメント)

Heres your answer: no part of her diary was written in ballpoint ink.

[–]foooowFaurissonian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (11子コメント)

I think this is true. There is no way that she would have had access to ballpoint pens.

This does not mean that there is no ink from a ballpoint pen on the loose pages that compose her ''diary''.

In 1980, Pierre Vidal-Naquet, in whose eyes I am nothing but an "assassin of remembrance" (Jewish remembrance, it is understood), nonetheless wrote:

It sometimes happens that Faurisson is right. I have said publicly, and repeat here, that when he shows that the Anne Frank diary is a doctored text, he may not be right in all details, [but] he is certainly right overall and an expert examination made for the Hamburg court has just shown that, in effect, this text was at the very least revised after the war, since [it was written] using ballpoint pens which appeared only in 1951. That is plain, clear and precise (2).

http://vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/RF0006xx.html

this is confirmed by the Anne Frank Museum site

The origin of the "ballpoint myth" is t he four-page report that the Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden, which was published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war.

http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.pdf

[–]ANP06 -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The only people to ever make that claim in face of scientific proof stating otherwise are anti semites...

"The origin of the "ballpoint myth" is the four-page report that the Federal Criminal Police Office (the Bundeskriminalamt or BKA) in Wiesbaden, which was published in 1980. In this investigation into the types of paper and ink used in the diary of Anne Frank it is stated that "ballpoint corrections" had been made on some loose sheets. The BKA’s task was to report on all the texts found among the diaries of Anne Frank, and therefore also on the annotations that were made in Anne’s manuscripts after the war. However, the Dutch investigation by the Forensic Institute in the mid-1980’s shows that writing in ballpoint is only found on two loose pages of annotations, and that these annotations are of no significance for the actual content of the diary. They were clearly placed between the other pages later. The researchers of the Forensic Institute also concluded that the handwriting on these two annotation sheets differs from the writing in the diary "to a far-reaching degree." Photos of these loose annotation sheets are included in the NIOD’s publication (see The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, 2003, pages 168 and 170). In 1987, a Mr Ockelmann from Hamburg wrote that his mother had written the annotation sheets in question. Mrs Ockelmann was a member of the team that carried out the graphological investigation into the writings of Anne Frank around 1960."

http://www.annefrank.org/ImageVaultFiles/id_14671/cf_21/tenquestions_en.pdf

[–]ANP06 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Try and give some context buddy...you cant just pull one line without finishing it. The article goes on...

A life of its own In short: the "ballpoint myth" is easy to disprove. The careless wording of the BKA report from 1980 – a report that for the rest in no way challenges the authenticity of the diary – or at any rate its openness to several interpretations, has taken on a life of its own in extreme right-wing circles. The "ballpoint myth" is based on the simple fact that, around 1960, two annotation sheets with ballpoint writing were inserted between the original pages. These texts were written by a graphological researcher, and are not included in any edition of the diary (apart from the Critical Edition, where photos of the annotation sheets are reproduced). In July 2006, the BKA found it necessary to state in a press release that the 1980 investigation cannot be used to call the authenticity of the diary into doubt.

[–]foooowFaurissonian 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Why do you call the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) anti semitic? They clearly said that there was ball point ink all over the "official diary" with two extra pages of annotations written in the same ink.

The reason people think that Anne Frank herself wrote in ball point pen is just a misunderstanding. I bet you had no idea until I gave you those links.

It is misleading to call this a "ballpoint myth" since there is actually ball point ink... the only "myth" is that Anna wrote with such a pen.

[–]ANP06 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I dont, I call those who fully deny she wrote the diary or that the diary as we know it isnt what she wrote, anti semitic. Those tend to be the same people who deny aspects of the holocaust that are backed up by immense amount of proof. I say that because the person who created this post clearly is doubting authenticity which is a joke.

[–]TTrnsThe genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I call those who fully deny she wrote the diary or that the diary as we know it isnt what she wrote, anti semitic.

Why? How does that work, in your mind? Because to me, this seems to be a logical non sequitur.

Those tend to be the same people who deny aspects of the holocaust that are backed up by immense amount of proof.

Ah. Well, here's the thing...

  • "I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling." - Justice Gray (judgement 13:71)

  • "Ninety-nine per cent of what we know we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove" - van Pelt (The Canadian Star, 27 December 2009)

  • Pressac, regarding his 1989 anti-revisionist book, said that it "... demonstrates the complete bankruptcy of traditional history, a history based for the most part on testimonies, assembled according to the mood of the moment, truncated to fit an arbitrary truth and sprinkled with a few German documents of uneven value and without any connection with one and another."

[–]ANP06 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

My uncle was in several camps and liberated from Dachau. Three days before liberation he witnessed his father and brother killed in front of him in an attempt to kill the remaining jews. A week after liberation he went back and dug up their bodies out of a mass grave and reburied them in Germany. He took pictures of everything. I guess those were doctored in addition to all the other evidence out there. I also guess millions of people have made up stories of horrible atrocities because hey...who doesnt like making up stories of genocide.

I suggest you actually visit the camps before you start mouthing off. No respected academic supports any of the bullshit people like you try and spew.

[–]TTrnsThe genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So... we're done with the doctored Frank dairy... and on to some photos your uncle took, which prove? Who knows.

Perhaps you could post the photos if they exist.

You might not even realize that Dachau wasn't an "extermination" camp, according to "respected" establishment historians.

Witnesses and "Nazi confessors" both swore that at least 10 camps in the Old Reich were the site of gassings, but in the 60's, mainstream historians proved them to be liars by saying no gassings actually happened there (see Broszat). Weird, huh?

The remaining 6 sites of "gassings" were in the Soviet zone and were not open for outside inspection.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with even the most basic historiography before you "start mouthing off" and appealing to the "respect" of chosen academics rather than the purported evidence.

[–]ANP06 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's funny...the crematorium at aushwitz seemed pretty real as I stood in it...enjoy living a life of ignorance.

[–]TTrnsThe genie is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do you realize the "gas chamber" in Krema I -- the one shown to tourists -- is a "reproduction" (i.e. fake) and this has been admitted?

Surely a genius such as yourself noted the lack of soot inside the crematorium retorts. Or the wooden, non-airtight door with glass pane, etc. Or -- behind the morgue ("gas chamber") -- a chimney the Soviets built in 1947, which isn't even attached to the building.

You've seen a room at a theme park. Congrats. That you think this is evidence of anything more is proof of your ignorance.

[–]Strich-9 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

shots fired