Smokey wrote:Res Ipsa wrote:What you posted is an image with arrows pointing to some edits.
No, it is not an image with arrows pointing to some edits.
See how blatant the denial gets. What he posted is literally an image of some text with arrows pointing to edits of the text.
Smokey wrote:It is an image with arrows pointing to edits made in ballpoint pen.
You keep repeating this over and over, as if repetition makes it true. Nothing on the face of the document says that the changes are in ball point pen. What they point to is editing, which doesn't require any kind of expert opinion. I know you cool kids don't do paper, but this is very typical editing from back in the day when writing was done on paper.
How was it determined that there was anything written in ball point pen? Answer: by testing the ink. So, if you are correct, that means someone tested the ink on the original page and reported by some means that the edits that the arrows point to were written in ball point pen ink. Nothing in the image you posted says anything about ball point pen. If there was accompanying text, such as a caption, that talked about ball point pen, you've omitted it. (Strangely, the copy of the page you posted omits the caption that was on the original page. I have no idea why.)
Despite repeated requests for a link to where you found the image, you just referred me to a hosting site. As you well know, all that tells me is that you used a hosting site to post the image here. It says nothing about where you found the original image. I have no idea why you want to conceal your source.
I did a couple of image searches, and found only one with a caption that indicates what the arrows are pointing to. It said:
look at the corrections and alterations in another handwriting. Whose is it? Why were these corrections made?
https://www.islam-radio.net/annefrank/handwriting.htmIf Smokey's source for that image contains any explanation for the arrows, he's hiding it. I've looked and found no text connected with that picture that claims there is any ball point pen in the image.
Smokey wrote: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.
Let's deal with "translations" first. How many English translations are there of the Bible? Let's just say way more than seven. Translation is an art -- not a formula. If two different translators translate Anne Frank's original writing from Dutch to English, it would be perfectly normal for there to be differences between the two published version. Look here at all the different English translations of Homer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_t ... s_of_Homer Look at the column labeled "proemic verse" and see how different the translations are of exactly the same Greek passage. These significant differences tell us nothing about whether Homer was the author of the original Greek.
Next, manuscripts. Holocaust deniers deliberately misrepresent the number of manuscripts to make it sound as if there are so many originals, nobody can know what's authentic and what's not. There are only two manuscript versions of "the diary" written in Anne's handwriting. One was the original diary she began to write on her 13th birthday and continued to write until her arrest. It was written in bound volumes. It appears there were four volumes, but the second one is missing. The other was a revision she intended to publish, which she titled "The Secret Annex." It is written on loose pages, and is commonly referred to as the "loose pages." There are no other manuscripts in Anne's handwriting.
There is one other existing manuscript: the typed manuscript Otto prepared based on Anne's two manuscripts.
I stumbled onto Smokey's "evidence" for other manuscripts while looking for something else, and about fell out of my chair laughing. It's that bad.
Smokey wrote:The original documents don’t exist and are not open for examination, conveniently.
Are there any documents that don't exist and are open for examination? Seriously, Holocaust deniers don't think through their arguments, and will make illegal and contradictory claims.
This, of course, is simply a flat out lie. The originals exist. Otto Frank willed them to The Netherlands War Documentation Center. They were placed on public display at the Anne Frank House in 2010, where they remain today.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter ... first-time https://www.my wife.com/en/complete-original ... /a-5515723Not only that, all the manuscripts were published 30 years ago, along with an extensive report documenting their authenticity.
https://www.amazon.com/Diary-Anne-Frank ... 0385240236 The publication also includes the two pages where ballpoint pen ink was found. The holocaust deniers have known this for three decades, yet they never, ever talk about the actual pages on which ball point pen ink was found. They just make broad brush statements about the diary being written with ball point pen, or large portions of the diary, or significant portions. They never talk about the fact that the pages that contain ball point pen have been specifically identified and published.
Smokey wrote: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.
I've conceded what point about the ball point pen? I told you exactly what I conceded in very specific language, and ever since you've lied about what I said. At this point, you've provided only one image that you claim has ball point pen markings on it. I don't need a source to say that the arrows in that image are pointing to edits -- it's plain as day on the face of the document. And the only version of your image that I've found with a caption expressly describes them as "edits." Not only that, you yourself admitted they are edits -- just a couple of paragraphs ago.
As for the ball point pen ink that does appear on two pages found among the loose sheets, my google fu is so sad that I've not been able to locate an online image of the two pages. All I've read are descriptions, and I'm not sure based on those descriptions whether they are like your image (handwritten text with edits written in ball point pen) or annotations on pages that do not contain original text text at all. One thing I'm pretty certain of is this: if they contained handwritten diary entries in what purports to be Anne Frank's handwriting written in ball point pen ink, that would be by far the strongest evidence the deniers would have to attack the authenticity of the diary. Yet, even though images of the pages that contain ball point pen markings have been publicly available for 30 years, the deniers never, ever talk about them.
Smokey wrote: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.
More repeating of the same lie over and over and over. How many times have I told you that I'm perfectly willing to discuss any issues about Anne Frank's diary that you want, after we've finished investigation your original claims about the handwriting and examined all the available evidence. I'm still missing a couple of pieces of evidence that I think are important, and expect to have them before the end of the month. It's clear you've never reviewed them.
Smokey wrote: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?
Not going admit or deny some misleadingly simple description of a complex factual situation. Here are the facts as I understand them:
1. There was a young Girl in the Netherlands named Anne Frank.
2. She hid from the Nazis during the 1940s
3. Beginning on her 13th birthday, she kept a handwritten diary up until the time she was arrested. Then original manuscript appears in three bound notebooks, with a fourth apparently missing.
4. At some point, she decided she wanted to publish her diary as a book, and so began to write a revised version titled "The Secret Annex". In contrast to the original diary, she wrote the Secret Annex on loose sheets of paper.
5. Sometime after Anne wrote the text, she and others edited at least some of the original text.
6. After the war, her father retrieved her papers from the landlady.
7. Her father edited and compiled Anne's two manuscripts into a typed manuscript.
8. The first published edition was published in Dutch in 1947.
9. Many other editions of "the diary" have been published in many different languages based on any or all of the three manuscripts.
10. Decades later, ball point pen ink was identified on two pages contained within the collection of loose pages.
Smokey wrote:"Wow, this is some arguing in bad faith levels that I’ve never seen before. First of all, I’m not clicking that ____ 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.
Oh my. Do you need your fainting couch now? After you refused to tell me where you found the image, and found that your hosting site simply gives you a web link that says nothing about where a hosted picture comes from, I started image searching. The only image that included a caption was the one you found. And I don't know that you would never used "such a website." You've lied to me constantly throughout this thread, while concealing the places where you go to cut and paste holocaust denier BS. It's clear that you wouldn't know an actual poisoning the well fallacy if you actually fell into a poisoned well.
Smokey wrote: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.
Yep, there is literally nothing new in any argument you've made, other than new repetitions of the same old lies and distortions. And they're no better than what you've done here -- claimed that an image shows ball point pen markings based on zero evidence. Anne Frank's father was viciously attacked, smeared and slandered almost from the first publication. The reason is easy to understand. Anne Frank doesn't fit the image of jews that jew haters want to project: the cunning, dishonest, hook-nosed, rodent faced non-human Jew. She's a pretty, innocent teenage girl. She had to hide from the Nazis to avoid being forcibly detained, deported from her country, and imprisoned in one of the Nazi's forced labor until you die camps. All because she was a jew. Her story would be iconic, even if there had been no extermination camps. The jew haters recognized how sympathetic this teenage girl was, and have been on an all out attack ever since. The sheer volume of lies they tell on this subject alone is astounding.
So you just keep on playing "Smokey says," Smokey. And I'll just keep closely inspecting your so-called evidence. And pointing out how you lie and lie and lie about what I say. And when I get the materials, I've ordered, we'll see whether the image you posted is one of the two with ball point pen markings, or whether you tried to bluff your way through with fake evidence.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
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.
