And then one day...

[_canpakes]

debunking Holocaustism ...

Oh, an 'ism'. You're one of those, too. ; )

...will be a death by a thousand cuts.

Well, this will take some time, then - given that you seem to be armed with a popsicle stick.

Every piece of evidence crumbles under scrutiny. Just look at what has happened to Anne Frank’s Diary™️, and that was just the first topic that came up.

What 'happened' to Anne Frank's diary? It has some minor notations on a page that you claim were written with a ball point pen invented after the diary was published? And you don't have proof of either this pen analysis or the time machine that allowed someone to add it after the book was published? Oh, my.

NPC, you need more 'crumble'.

There is much more, as I’m sure you’re starting to learn

Oh, good. The popcorn is almost ready!

I look forward to enlightening you and others lurking here, when I have the time and am not being censored.

Ah, here comes the "I'm being censorrrreddd!!1!" whine.

Snowflake, no one is censoring you. Your foolishness is on full display.

[_Res Ipsa]

I haven't asked for page numbers in a book.

You asked me to reference “diary” entries that contain ballpoint pen markings. You won’t tell me which “diary” you are referring to because you know there are many different versions, with a different amount of entries, and conflicting details. One example of the ballpoint pen marks is in the 1975 British Edition, but removed from the American Cardinal edition, so this is important but you continue to argue in bad faith.

First, you are quite intentionally misrepresenting what I asked. I asked you for one example of a diary entry written in ballpoint pen -- not entries that contain ball point pen markings. The distinction is critical to understanding why your ball point pen argument against authenticity of the diary is dishonest, misleading BS. Spare me the phony "you're arguing in bad faith" gambit. That's your go-to excuse for running away from folks who show just how dishonest and deceitful holocaust denial is.

Second, you know very well exactly what I was requesting, and versions have nothing to do with my request. I requested entries in Anne Frank's handwriting. And you know very well that there aren't many "versions" of the diary in Anne Frank's handwriting -- there are exactly two. All your whining about "you won't tell me which version" was tap dancing BS. And you knew from the very beginning -- when you posted your lying memes -- that none of the diary entries in either manuscript version are written in ball point pen. None. That's why you kept tap dancing around a simple, straightforward question. You knew the answer, but you just didn't want to admit that your original claim was full of crap.

There are only two versions written by Anne Frank. Both are handwritten. The first was the contemporaneous diary she kept from the date of her 13th birthday until her arrest over two years later. The entries are written in three bound notebooks. However, there is a gap in time, as if there was a fourth notebook that is missing. Assuming there were four and if we number the books chronologically, book number 2 is the missing one.

About three months before her 14th Birthday, Anne heard a radio address from a Dutch minister asking the Dutch people to retain any records that would document what had been happening during the German occupation. She decided that she wanted to publish her diary as a book, and so began to write a second draft or version, which she titled The Secret Annex. The Secret Annex was written on loose leaf pages rather than in bound notebooks. They are generally referred to as the loose pages. The collection of documents that includes the two manuscripts also includes other documents written by Anne.

The Secret Annex covers the time period that is missing from the original diary. But it is also not complete. It ends several months before Anne's arrest, indicating she hadn't completed the Secret Annex before she was arrested.

So, an editor who wants to publish a book that tells Anne's complete story has a couple of editorial decisions to make right off the bat. Does he use the original diary, but filling in the missing entries with the corresponding entries from The Secret Annex? Does he publish the Secret Annex manuscript, and fill in the missing entries from the end of the original diary? Or does he just publish one manuscript or the other, even though he knows he's telling an incomplete story?

Anne's father went an even different route, compiling a single account out of both of Anne's versions. That compilation, together with some of her short stories, was first published in the Netherlands in 1947 under the title The Secret Annex. The first English editions (one in the U.S. and one in England) were published in 1952.

Further complicating the editor's job is that both Anne and her father made some edits on original manuscript pages. When the editing includes words or phrases, instead of just symbols or punctuation, their handwriting is identifiable and has been identified. There are also some editing marks written in what has been identified as ball-point pen on the loose manuscript pages for The Secret Annex. No ball point pen markings have been identified as being in Anne or Otto Frank's handwriting, and where words or phrases appear in ball point pen, handwriting experts have said that they were written by someone other than Anne Frank. So which, if any, editorial markings should an editor include? All? None? Only those clearly identifiable as in Anne's handwriting?

I'm not an editor, but I suspect different editors make different choices, which accounts for differences in published editions of Anne's writings. Just the translation process itself will cause differences in different editions.

Having dealt with the flat out dishonesty of holocaust deniers, I'm not taking your word for your claims about the two editions you mentioned. You need to provide evidence of your claims. As the ball point pen markings appear only in the manuscript of The Secret Annex, it could be as simple as one editor choosing to use the entry from the original diary and the other choosing to use the entry from The Secret Annex. You'd have to show me the two pages from the two editions that you are making claims about.

Another reason this is important, yet you argue in bad faith, is the “entry” for June 12 1942 does not appear in all editions. Why is this?

There you go again with your phony "bad faith claim." Is that entry written in ball point pen? If not, it has nothing to do with the ball point pen issue. That's just you trying to change the subject again.

If you are even sentient, you probably know there appears ballpoint pen in some of the “Diary™️“ and even if we continued on endlessly until you finally declared which Anne Frank Diary was written by Anne Frank, you will then squirm out of it by saying the markings are not an entire entry, or the markings do not purport to be written by Anne Frank, or it’s perfectly normal for ballpoint pen to appear where it does, etc.

Awesome example of the well poisoning fallacy. You've already dismissed my response to your claim before I even made it. That's what makes you a Holocaust Denier, as opposed to a skeptic. You dismiss out of hand anything an opponent might say without even listening to it, let alone making any attempt to refute it. Let me rephrase your description of what I am going to do: I am going to explain why your claims are BS, and you are not going to be able to refute my explanation.

[snip]

You want to change the subject from your ball point pen claim to a different claim because you don't want to discuss the actual evidence.

What was my claim, Fedora? Please articulate it without misrepresentation or pilpul

I thought your claim was pretty clear. viewtopic.php?f=5&t=52411&start=84#p1203130 Let me quote from your claim:

You know Anne Frank's diary was written with ball-point pen? Dey didn't even have dose yet.

Their [BKA's] analysis determined that "significant" portions of the work were written with a ballpoint pen. Since ballpoint pens were not available before 1951, portions of the work were added well after the war...."

And here: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=52411&start=105#p1203175

TUCKED AWAY ON pages 119 and 122 of the October 6 issue of Der Spiegel, a weekly German news magazine comparable to Time or Newsweek, was a news item of considerable significance: A scientific analysis of the manuscript purported to be the original diary of Anne Frank, a Jewish girl who died in a German concentration camp during the Second World War, has revealed that the manuscript could not have been written before 1951, six years after the end of the war. (ILLUSTRATION: Anne Frank. She died of typhus in 1945 — but she didn’t write a diary.)

Roemer appealed again, and this time the court asked for the technical services of the Federal Criminal Office (Bundeskriminalamt, similar to our FBI), which carried out a careful analysis of the original manuscript of the diary with microscope and ultraviolet illumination in order to confirm its authenticity — in particular, to determine when it was written.

The report of the technical experts was given to the court in April of this year, and it contained a bombshell: large portions of the alleged “diary” were written in ballpoint pen ink — which was not manufactured prior to 1951!

I'm letting you choose from every document in the world, as long as it meets my criteria.

I’m not going to walk through every page with you, and “meeting your criteria” is something I couldn’t care less about, because you are a Holopologist arguing in bad faith, however just for fun let’s start with the first page of what most people consider “the Diary”.

I didn't ask you to walk me through every page. I asked you to find just one diary entry that purports to be in Anne Frank's handwriting that is actually written in ball point pen. If your claims are true -- that "large portions of the alleged "diary" were written in ballpoint pen ink" or that ""significant" portions of the work were written with a ballpoint pen" or that "Anne Frank's diary was written with ball-point pen." If your claims were true, it would be very simple to come up with at least one diary entry in Anne Frank's handwriting that is written in ball point pen. In fact, you'd have to come up with lots more than one to make your claims true. Because if what is on the original manuscript pages is diary entries made in Anne Frank's handwriting using fountain pen, plus corrections and editing marks, some of which are in ball point pen, then your bottom line claim -- the manuscript could not have been written before 1951 -- is a deliberate and malicious lie. Why? Because, by definition, editing marks are added after the original text. Which means they could have been added at any time after Anne Frank wrote the diary entries. The dates on which editing marks were added tells us nothing about when the original text was written.

There is ballpoint pen markings on the very first entry. Page 64, volume 1 of the 1965 Zurich edition. Do I need to post another example or will you finally stop arguing in bad faith?

Well, what do we have here? Actually, we don't know. We know what you claim it is, but your claim isn't evidence. All you've given me is a scanned image of something. The image includes some pointers or arrows. Were they part of the original, or were they added? Was anything else added or changed from the original? You claim that the arrows point to edit markings made in ball-point pen. Who determined that? Where is your evidence that those edit markings are, in fact, in ball point pen.

The text purports to be from 1942. When were the edit markings made? How do you know? Was the text written before or after the edit markings? Is 1942 before or after 1951?

Even if all of the editing marks that the arrows are pointing at were added after 1951, that says absolutely nothing about when the text of the entries was written. You haven't backed up your claims with evidence at all. In fact, unless you can come up with actual diary entries written in ball point pen, you've outright lied about the evidence. And both of us know that there are no diary entries written in ball point pen.

One more thing that Holocaust deniers overlook. They use the date 1951 for ball point pen availability, even though the history of the ball point pen is lots more complicated than that. But it's great for the deniers, because the first edition was published in 1952. Or, err, the first English edition. The first edition was published in Dutch five years earlier. And it is a compilation of the two original manuscripts. Meaning Anne wrote the original manuscripts before there were ball point pens. Oops.

And we can discuss it, after we finish the ball point pen. Or do you want to do more Anne Frank's diary next. Or the swimming pool. You pick.

I’m not on your schedule, faggot. That being said, debunking Holocaustism will be a death by a thousand cuts. Every piece of evidence crumbles under scrutiny. Just look at what has happened to Anne Frank’s Diary™️, and that was just the first topic that came up. There is much more, as I’m sure you’re starting to learn. I look forward to enlightening you and others lurking here, when I have the time and am not being censored.

You know, it's kinda cute how you believe that your are presenting new information.

I'm fine with being done with your ball point pen claims at this point. Your claims are lies. The ball point pen markings that appear on the manuscript pages do not detract from the authenticity of the diary entry text in any way, shape or form.

Death by a thousand cuts? Yer killing me here. What you're doing is cutting a pasting a ton of crap from other deniers, claiming that the sheer number of claims means something. It doesn't. Right now, you're zero for one on the one claim we've looked at closely enough to evaluate it. A thousand zeroes is still zero. Before you start claiming death by a thousand cuts, you have to make at least one cut to start.

Which one do you want to investigate next, Smokey? Or is this the point where you whine about bad faith and throw me on your ignore list?

And who's censoring you?

[_Smokey]

Even if all of the editing marks...

Wait a minute. Who said anything about “editing marks”? Do you have a source that mentions these “editing marks”? Who was making editing marks, and why? How much of the “Diary” was edited by someone using a ballpoint pen? Did Anne approve these edits?

The ball point pen markings that appear on the manuscript pages do not detract from the authenticity of the diary entry text in any way, shape or form.

This is what arguing in bad faith looks like. How many pages of this thread did you spend demanding proof that there was ballpoint pen in the Diary? Any page, you said, any entry, any manuscript, just one example, you called for, arguing in bad faith while already knowing there exists ballpoint pen marks in the Diary. It’s ok, though, because most people didn’t know how complex this issue of the Diary™️ is and now you and I have helped to explain it.

I would not argue in bad faith and call you a liar, but clearly you are also un/mis-informed about there being only two manuscripts (and why there were would need to be two manuscripts of a Diary is a whole other problem for Holopologists).

The supposed German "translation" of the Diary is nothing of the sort, but another book altogether. It was written prior to 1950, when the Dutch version (1947) seemed that it was never going to be a success. There are even two German versions, with slight differences between one and the other. Unless Anne Frank has risen from the dead to transform and alter the text of her Diary, then we must conclude that her father has been the author all along.

[_canpakes]

Even if all of the editing marks...

Wait a minute. Who said anything about “editing marks”? Do you have a source that mentions these “editing marks”? Who was making editing marks, and why? How much of the “Diary” was edited by someone using a ballpoint pen? Did Anne approve these edits?

Your image has those cute arrows pointing to what appear to be editing marks.

Now, you're pretending that you have no idea where the alleged ball point pen is being used.

Next, you'll probably use the existence of the arrows to claim that Anne never put the arrows there, so the diary was never written by her. Maybe that, too, happened after the diary had already been published!

My, my. Is this the best that mommychanners can do? Lol.

Let's recap.

You claim that Anne Frank's diary has been edited, but you can't identify where,

You cannot explain what any of the edits did to change any facts within the diary,

You claim that edits were done with a particular type of ball point pen that wasn't invented until after the diary had already been published.

Right? ; )

[_Res Ipsa]

Even if all of the editing marks...

Wait a minute. Who said anything about “editing marks”? Do you have a source that mentions these “editing marks”? Who was making editing marks, and why? How much of the “Diary” was edited by someone using a ballpoint pen? Did Anne approve these edits?

The ball point pen markings that appear on the manuscript pages do not detract from the authenticity of the diary entry text in any way, shape or form.

This is what arguing in bad faith looks like. How many pages of this thread did you spend demanding proof that there was ballpoint pen in the Diary? Any page, you said, any entry, any manuscript, just one example, you called for, arguing in bad faith while already knowing there exists ballpoint pen marks in the Diary. It’s ok, though, because most people didn’t know how complex this issue of the Diary™️ is and now you and I have helped to explain it.

I would not argue in bad faith and call you a liar, but clearly you are also un/mis-informed about there being only two manuscripts (and why there were would need to be two manuscripts of a Diary is a whole other problem for Holopologists).

The supposed German "translation" of the Diary is nothing of the sort, but another book altogether. It was written prior to 1950, when the Dutch version (1947) seemed that it was never going to be a success. There are even two German versions, with slight differences between one and the other. Unless Anne Frank has risen from the dead to transform and alter the text of her Diary, then we must conclude that her father has been the author all along.

I have no problem at all calling you a liar, because you just lied yet again. I never demanded proof that “there was ball point pen in the diary.” I made a very precise, defined request precisely to show how intentionally deceptive the ball point pen lie is. And you still haven’t met my request. None of the alleged ball point in the image you posted is a diary entry that purports to be in Anne Frank’s handwriting. All of them are marks that edit the diary entry that is in Anne Frank’s handwriting. Anyone can edit a manuscript at anytime after the text has been written. If there are ball point pen marks on the page, all that that tells us is that someone after 1951 did some minor edits to the original manuscript. And marking edits on first, second, third, fifth or even tenth drafts is an entirely normal and usual practice.

I don’t need a “source” that talks about editing marks. What the arrows point to on that image you posted are editing marks. What the page shows is the text of Anne’s original handwritten entry with later added markings that appear to correct spelling, punctuation, and change a word or two. But none of that supports your original lie: that Anne Frank could not have been the author.

The rest of your bleating is just you desperately trying to run away from your original lies. You are deliberately conflating what Anne wrote herself in her own handwriting, the original diary and the original Manuscript for The Secret Annex, with printed editions published after she died. And your’re trying to distract from your failure to provide any evidence that the image you posted actually contains ball point pen.

I have a hypothesis. I think what you posted is in fact someone’s illustration of edits to Anne’s original manuscript of The Secret Annex, but those edits are not in ball point pen. So I’m asking again: who put the arrows on the image and who identified the marks as being in ball point pen? If that image shows what you claim it does, you should have no hesitation about posting the link to where you found that image.

[_Smokey]

The ball point pen markings that appear on the manuscript pages...

I never demanded proof that “there was ball point pen in the diary.”

I don’t need a “source” that talks about editing marks. What the arrows point to on that image you posted are editing marks. What the page shows is the text of Anne’s original handwritten entry with later added markings that appear to correct spelling, punctuation, and change a word or two.

This is what arguing in bad faith looks like. This is apologia.

But none of that supports your original lie: that Anne Frank could not have been the author.

Anne Frank was clearly not the author of the Anne Frank Diary.

I’m not going to quote the rest of your emotional outburst in case you want to go back and edit it later after you’ve calmed down. It can be uncomfortable to learn that a strictly held dogma is not true. The irony is your dealing with it here on a support group board of people who learned that their strictly held dogma is not true.

[_Res Ipsa]

LOL. You’re such a classic denier. As I predicted, you can’t refute my argument, so you resort to phony bad faith accusations and ad hominem attacks. What you don’t do is present any rational, coherent argument that the ball point pen markings on the original manuscript pages are evidence of any sort that Anne Frank did not write the original handwritten entries on the original manuscripts.

Where’s the link to your image?

[Guest]

Your Holopologist argument has changed so many times it’s hard to keep track of it. There have been a lot of posts made since you started arguing in bad faith to “show one example of ballpoint pen” and you seem to shift the goal posts as you learn more about the issue. I suppose it’s a good thing that at least you’re learning about this issue.

You’ve ignored all other points I’ve made about the fraudulent Diary besides the ballpoint pen issue because you wanted an example. Any example you said, not knowing it exists on the very first page! LOL!

If you are now admitting that there is ballpoint pen in the original Anne Frank Diary I am in agreement and have no refutation to offer.

Your ad hoc explanation for the presence of ballpoint pen does not seem to be anything more than just that, especially with you refusing to provide a source that explains them.

I wonder what is more likely to be an authentic historical document. The Book of Mormon, or the Anne Frank Diary™️...

[_canpakes]

Anne Frank was clearly not the author of the Anne Frank Diary.

Unsaid Smokey: " ... but I have no idea why I say so because I have presented no information that would support my claim".

You’ve ignored all other points I’ve made about the fraudulent Diary ...

NPC, you've made no 'points'.

You've identified no portions written in a ball point pen.
You've presented no analysis that supports use of a ball point pen for any entry.
You've offered no examination of content that would indicate that Anne Frank wasn't the author.
You can't even bring yourself to commit to stating what happened to Anne Frank.

Seriously, what even is your argument? That the depth of your intellectual capacity is measured in badly constructed memes? : )

I wonder what is more likely to be an authentic historical document. The Book of Mormon, or the Anne Frank Diary™️...

The latter. We actually have the source material for it.

But it's ironic that in your quest to remove a people from the historical record, you'd compare it to another book that does the same, seeing as how the Book of Mormon attempts to replace the actual history of Native Americans with a fantasy tale intended to make the author famous.

And how about those Pacific Islanders, too? ; )

[_Smokey]

I wonder what is more likely to be an authentic historical document. The Book of Mormon, or the Anne Frank Diary™️...

The latter. We actually have the source material for it.

LOL! We don’t, though. We have only several “manuscripts” and translations of manuscripts that are very different and sometimes even contradict each other. What an uneducated boner!

But it's ironic that in your quest to remove a people from the historical record

Oh Vey! Criticism of A J__ is literally genocide!

How interesting this thread as turned out to be. Some people probably believed, before reading this, that The Anne Frank Diary was a simple translation of a real girl’s real diary. This board can be very educational!