And then one day...

[_Smokey]

Surely you can point me to at least one diary entry in what is claimed to be Anne Frank’s handwriting that was written in ball point pen. Just one.

page 64, volume 1, of the Zurich edition.

[_canpakes]

Surely you can point me to at least one diary entry in what is claimed to be Anne Frank’s handwriting that was written in ball point pen. Just one.

page 64, volume 1, of the Zurich edition.

Which part(s) of this, NPC Smokey?

Cat got your tongue?

[_canpakes]

NPC Smokey, your life is a lie. What a shame.

The diary was first published in 1947, so you're already in trouble with your claim.

Now, what of that claim about editing and entries committed with ink or writing instruments available only after 1951? Let's look at that. From the source referenced further below:

In 1977 charges were again brought against two men in the West German Courts for distributing pamphlets charging that the diary was a hoax. The Bundeskriminalamt (The BKA, or Federal Crime Investigation Bureau) was asked to prepare a report as to whether the paper and writing material used in the diary were available between 1941 and 1944. The BKA report, which ran just 4 pages in length, did not deal with the authenticity of the diary itself. It found that the materials had all been manufactured prior to 1950-1951 and consequently could have been used by Anne. It also observed, almost parenthetically, that emendations had been made in ballpoint pen on loose pages found within the diary. The ink used to make them had only been on the market since 1951 [50]. (The BKA did not address itself to the substance of the emendations, nor did it publish any data explaining how it had reached this conclusion. When the editors of the critical edition of the diary asked for the data they were told by the BKA that they had none [51]).

Emendations. That will be revisited in a few more paragraphs. Continuing:

Given the history of the editing of the diary it is not surprising that these kinds of corrections were made. This did not prevent Der Spiegel from publishing a sensationalistic article on the diary which began with the following boldface paragraph: "'The Diary of Anne Frank was edited at a later date. Further doubt is therefore cast on the authenticity of that document." The author of the article did not question whether these corrections had been substantive or grammatical, whether they had been incorporated into the printed text, or when they had been made. Nor did he refer to them as corrections as the BKA had. He referred to the possibility of an imposter at work and charged that the diary had been subject to countless "manipulations".

These sensationalistic observations notwithstanding, Der Spiegel dismissed the charge made by David Irving and other deniers that Levin wrote the diary as an "oft-repeated legend." It also stressed that those who wished to shed doubt on the diary were the same types who wished to end "gas chamber fraud." [52]

On Otto Frank's death in 1980, the diary was given to the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation. By that time the attacks on it had become so frequent and vehement - though the charges that were made were all essentially the same - that the institute felt obliged to subject the diary, as well as the paper on which it was written, glue that bound it together, and ink to a myriad of scientific tests in order to determine whether they were authentic. They also tested postage stamps, postmarks, and censorship stamps on postcards, letters and greeting cards sent by Anne and her family during this period (in addition to the diary the institute examined twenty-two different documents containing writings by Anne and her family). Forensic science experts analyzed Anne's handwriting, paying particular attention to the two different scripts, and produced a 250-page highly technical report of their findings.

The reports found that the paper, glue, fibers in the binding, and ink were all in use in the 1940's. The ink contained iron, which was standard for ink used prior to 1950. (After that date ink with no, or a much lower, iron content was used.) The conclusions of the forensic experts were unequivocal: The diaries were written by one person during the period in question. The emendations were of a limited nature and varied from a single letter to three words. They did not in any way alter the meaning of the text when compared to the earlier version. [51] The institute determined that the different handwriting styles were indicative of normal development in a child and left no doubt that it was convinced that it had all been written in the same hand that wrote the letters and cards Anne had sent to classmates in previous years.

The final result of the institute's investigation was a 712 page critical edition of the diary containing the original version, Anne's edited copy, and the published version as well as the experts' findings.

"The emendations were of a limited nature and varied from a single letter to three words"

Game over for your lack of sourcing. Best that you can do is to keep posting the same dumbarse memes, after which this same information will be repeated. You'll be advertising the weakness of the denier case.

From:

Anne Frank's The Diary of Anne Frank, edited by Harold Bloom

References:
[50] Opinion of Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau, May 28 1980; Hamburg, Landgericht, Romer/Geiss dossier, cited in Barnouw, "Attacks on the Authenticity," pp. 97-98
[51] Barnouw, "Attacks on the Authenticity," p. 99
[52] Der Spiegel, Oct. 6 1980, cited in ibid., p. 98

[_Res Ipsa]

Surely you can point me to at least one diary entry in what is claimed to be Anne Frank’s handwriting that was written in ball point pen. Just one.

page 64, volume 1, of the Zurich edition.

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't magically make it true. What you posted is an image with arrows pointing to some edits. You keep claiming that something on this page is written in ball point pen, but you fail over and over to provide any evidence of that. I found your image, together with what appears to be the basis for some of your other claims, posted at radio-islam.net of all places. https://www.islam-radio.net/annefrank/handwriting.htm

Here's the questions posted under the picture:

look at the corrections and alterations in another handwriting. Whose is it? Why were these corrections made?

Nothing about ball point pen on the page. Can't help but conclude Smokey has no evidence whatsoever that anything on this page is written in ball point pen.

I had to laugh at Smokey's fuss over a short line that appears in one edition and not the other.

[_canpakes]

I found your image, together with what appears to be the basis for some of your other claims, posted at radio-islam.net of all places. https://www.islam-radio.net/annefrank/handwriting.htm

Lol. Smokey, the ISIS troll. : D

[_Smokey]

Surely you can point me to at least one diary entry in what is claimed to be Anne Frank’s handwriting that was written in ball point pen. Just one.

page 64, volume 1, of the Zurich edition.

<snip Holopologist bad faith accusations>
What you posted is an image with arrows pointing to some edits.

No, it is not an image with arrows pointing to some edits. It is an image with arrows pointing to edits made in ballpoint pen. There are edits all throughout the ~7 different manuscripts and translations, I’m not aware of the type of instrument all the changes were made in. The original documents don’t exist and are not open for examination, conveniently.

You’ve conceded this point already about the ballpoint pen, you have an ad hoc Holopologist explanation that they are merely edits but refuse to provide a source for that. A source doesn’t exist, as you know, because the Diary never claimed to be edited. This is apologia.

You want to just ignore the fact that there are edits and contradictions, missing and extra entries, different types of handwriting, AND ballpoint pen in what is supposed to be an authentic diary that was translated into The Anne Frank Diary.

Do you admit or deny that the Anne Frank Diary is a translation of a young girl named Anne Frank’s actual writings in a journal while in hiding from Nazis in the early 1940s?

I found your image, together with what appears to be the basis for some of your other claims, posted at radio-islam.net of all places. https://www.islam-radio.net/annefrank/handwriting.htm

Wow, this is some arguing in bad faith levels that I’ve never seen before. First of all, I’m not clicking that crap and I hope you were using a VPN, so I’ll have to take your word for it. If it has arguments skeptical of Holocaustism, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it’s shoahed from the Internet too. As you know, I’ve never used such a website and as you so often do, are arguing in bad faith attempting to poison the well.

As you’ve conceded, these are not new arguments or information. The Anne Frank “Diary” hoax was debunked 40+ years ago. The amazing thing is, it was debunked in real-time. There are correspondences with Otto Frank that people should read, lawsuits, reports, studies, criminal trials of people jailed for questioning the Soviet Union narrative. Even J____ people that aren’t Zionist or Soviet Union sympathizers have debunked this hoax.

Your autistic focus on the ballpoint pen issue, which was an argument in bad faith because you admitted to knowing that ballpoint pen exists in the original Diary, is either pure autism, or more likely, the Holopologetic tactic of obfuscating the issue to the point that the mountain of evidence against this hoax gets overlooked.

[_Smokey]

[_Lemmie]

. The original documents don’t exist and are not open for examination, conveniently

So this teenager is upset that the mysterious “they” won’t let him examine non-existent documents? The tribulations caused by a lack of education are mighty.

an image with arrows pointing to edits made in ballpoint pen.

....I’m not aware of the type of instrument all the changes were made in.

...explanation that they are merely edits but [you] refuse to provide a source for that. A source doesn’t exist.

So the kid defines his image as “edits” in “ballpoint pen”, but then notes that not only does he not actually know if it was ballpoint pen, he also asserts there is no source to document that what he defines as “edits” are actually edits.

Logic is not in the kid’s wheelhouse, is it?

[_Smokey]

<snip a bunch of emojis and personal insults about being a teenager, as if being old means you will believe in the Anne Frank Diary>

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that an anti-Mormon dude pretending to be a woman on an ex-Mormon support group message board is also dishonest in his arguments.

[_Res Ipsa]

The original documents don’t exist and are not open for examination, conveniently

So this teenager is upset that the mysterious “they” won’t let him examine non-existent documents? The tribulations caused by a lack of education are mighty.

an image with arrows pointing to edits made in ballpoint pen.

....I’m not aware of the type of instrument all the changes were made in.

...explanation that they are merely edits but [you] refuse to provide a source for that. A source doesn’t exist.

So the kid defines his image as “edits” in “ballpoint pen”, but then notes that not only does he not actually know if it was ballpoint pen, he also asserts there is no source to document that what he defines as “edits” are actually edits.

Logic is not in the kid’s wheelhouse, is it?

LOL. No, Lemmie, it's not. And this is as good as it gets for Holocaust denial. Like I posted in the holocaust denial thread, they are simply anomaly hunters. The present a bunch of alleged "anomalies", then claim they've debunked the holocaust. Except they never stop and and examine each alleged anomaly to honestly examine whether it is anomalous at all. Time after time, when you go to check out the actual evidence, the deniers have lied about it, exaggerated it, taken it out of context, or presented it in a way to make it very difficult to verify. You can find examples of all of these in this thread. It's clear that Smokey has never sat down with all the evidence, tried to figure out the best fit explanation, and see if "If Anne's Dad faked the whole thing" is actually consistent with the evidence. He hasn't even thought through the logic of this particular denialist argument.

And now he's sweating because he sees that there is nothing about the ball point pen issue that detracts from the authenticity of the original manuscripts. That's why he's throwing out all the stops to avoid having to deal with that fact.