And then one day...

[_Gadianton]

As far as lies go, I pasted a handful of the book titles listed as banned by Amazon into Amazon and about 60% of my random checks come up for sale. Whose to say about those that don't come up; perhaps they aren't available for other reasons.

https://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Revisi ... 3943048330
https://www.amazon.com/Der-Holocaust-vo ... oks&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Auschwitz-und-di ... oks&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com.au/Six-Million-F ... 1684186196

[Guest]

PART V: WHEN HOLOCAUST DENIERS ATTACK

Keep in mind what the BKA report actually said [and did not say]

1. Some corrections [how many is some?]
2. Made subsequently [not the original text]
3. On the loose sheets [The Secret Annex, not the diary notebooks]
4. Written in black, green and blue bullpen ink

And, of course, given the holocaust deniers interest in presenting the truth, they stuck to the evidence.

Let's check in with William Pierce:

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.)

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!

https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/an ... x-exposed/

Oh dear. Maybe he wasn't so interested in the truth. He changed "the loose pages" to "the original diary." He changed "corrections made subsequently" to "the manuscript." He changed "some corrections" to "large portions of the alleged 'diary'." And he even goes so far to flatly stat that Anne Frank never wrote a diary at all.

Well, maybe he's an aberration. Let's try Robert Faurisson.

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.

quoting Pierre Vidal-Naquet, Interview in Regards, weekly of the Centre communautaire juif of Brussels, November 7, 1980, p. 11.

Oops. Now we've gone all the way to "this text" being written "using ballpoint pen." Ironically, Faurisson published this after he had learned the full truth about the ball-point pen. And still, he chose to include this absolutely false statement.

And this is what you can find all over the internet, including by our resident holocaust denier. Here's some of Smokey's smoke:



Notice the distortions: "Anne Frank's diary was written with ballpoint pen." "'Significant' portions of the work were written with ballpoint pen." These statements deliberately misrepresent the actual evidence. And you can dozens of similar examples on the internet: just google "Anne Frank fraud ballpoint pen."

Smokey himself illustrates the lengths to which holocaust deniers will go to lie about the evidence. Unable or unwilling to identify any pages of the manuscript on which ballpoint pen was found, he finally posted this:

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?

However, he failed to include the text that went with the original of that image, which said:

This is supposed to be a reproduction of the very first page of Anne's original Diary. If this was the size of Anne's writing, is it possible that a "little (handwritten) diary" could contain the same amount of material as a 237 page printed book? Also, look at the corrections and alterations in another handwriting. Whose is it ? Why were these corrections made ? (Author's arrows.)

[Emphasis added.]

https://ia801206.us.archive.org/8/items ... lderer.pdf

Smokey refused to say where he got the image. I had to track it down. He hid his source because he knew that the guy who placed the arrows on the image was not trying to point out ballpoint pen. In fact, Smokey's source was written before the BKA report was published.

But Smokey also claimed a second page that contained ballpoint pen -- ballpoint pen that had been mysteriously hidden in the American Edition.

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.

Did Smokey really go out and purchase both of these editions and then painstakingly compare them? Naw, he used the same source he took his other fake ballpoint pen example from -- the one that was written before the BKA analysis.

So, here is an image from the British edition:



See that diagonal line at the end of Anne Frank's signature. That's Smokey's "ballpoint pen"

And the image from the American Cardinal edition:



And the caption that went with the image (there's a page break in between).



Oooo! Conspiracy! Somebody removed the line!!!!

Now, what both images show is the first entry in the first notebook of the original diary. But the images don't show the whole page. Let's see what the editors of these editions were working from:



So, this is the whole page. Take a close look. Anne's first entry is at the top of the page. But later, she went back and wrote a second entry below it. Now, be an editor and look at that line at the end of her signature. Is is part of the signature? Is it a stray mark? Is it a small mark made to separate the two entries? What the hell is it?

So, was this some grand conspiracy to conceal ballpoint pen? Did Anne stop writing in fountain pen, switch to a ballpoint pen to make the line, and then switch back to fountain pen?

Or perhaps did two different editors make two different decisions about whether the line was part of the first diary entry, which is what they intended to show?

At any rate, in the final installment we'll look at images of whatever stuff is written in ballpoint pen, and see whether Smokey has uncovered a conspiracy or is just blowing smoke.

Part VI: THE BALLPOINT PEN UNMASKED

[Guest]

Hey, RI -

Just passing through to add that our neo-nazi friend Smokes is also attempting to lie about Meyer Levin's role in the controversy.

Note the last sentence in the graphic below (just above the 'authentication code', lol - like the ones that are printed on the envelopes of junk mail) ...





Here's the actual story -

In 1952, Otto Frank appointed (Meyer) Levin his literary agent in the United States to explore the possibility of producing a play. Levin wrote a script that was turned down by a series of producers. Frustrated by Levin's failures and convinced that this script would not be accepted, Frank awarded the production rights to Kermit Bloomgarden, who turned, at the suggestion of American author Lillian Hellman, to two accomplished MGM screenwriters. Their version of the play was a success and won the 1955 Pulitzer Prize.

Levin, deeply embittered, sued, charging that the playwrights had plagiarized his material and ideas. In January 1958 a jury ruled that Levin should be awarded fifty thousand dollars in damages. However, the New York State Supreme Court set aside the jury's verdict, explaining that since Levin and the MGM playwrights had both relied on the same original source - Anne's diary - there were bound to be similarities between the two. [34]

[34] New York Law Journal, Feb. 27, 1959 cited in Barnouw, "The Play," p. 80.

Just can't trust Holocaust deniers, it appears.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, canpakes. But that's one of the other denier attacks. I''m still finishing the saga of the ballpoint pen. The saga of the play and the battles over it is it's own weird, complicated story. And the holocaust deniers, as usual, lie through their pretty little teeth about it. The cite to Barnouw is actually to a chapter in the Critical Edition -- the one I'm primarily relying on. It gives a very detailed, blow-by-blow account.

[_Smokey]

Why would you have to use loaded weasel words like denier if you are telling the truth?

[_canpakes]

Why would Holocaust denialists have to use photoshopped images, falsified quotes and outright lies if they are telling the truth?

FIFY, NPC Smokey.

[_Gadianton]

Perhaps shifty, virulent anti-Mormons are not aware that the Bible is a part of Mormon cannon and discussions of it are directly related to Mormonism anyways, even without my steering the discussion to the Book of Mormon.

Mormons aren't going to join your campaign of shooting bibles at people with cannons any time soon.

And again your issues with affirming the consequent:

Mormonism -- > Bible does not mean Bible --> Mormon.

[_Res Ipsa]

PART VI: THE BALLPOINT PEN UNMASKED

The Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation received the original Anne Frank manuscripts a short time after the Der Spiegel article was published. After examining the manuscripts, the Institute decided to publish the original diary, the Secret Annex, and the first published version of The Secret Annex in a volume that would allow the reader to compare differences among them. It also decided to try and clarify the BKA report. It first asked the BKA for data that would show what was written in ballpoint pen and where it was found. The BKA reported that it had no such data. In fact, the BKA was unable to locate any examples of green pen anywhere in the manuscripts.

The Institute then asked the BKA to commission the State Forensic Science Laboratory of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in Rifswijk to specifically identify any ballpoint pen markings in the manuscripts. The Laboratory was also asked to perform an extensive handwriting analysis. The full report is over 250 pages. The Laboratory wrote a summary of its findings for inclusion in the Critical Edition.

Most of the report consists of handwriting analysis. The documents examiner tested the materials, especially looking for the presence of ballpoint pen. According to the summary:

The only ballpoint writing was found on two loose scraps of paper included among the loose sheets. Figures VI-I-I and 3 show the way in which these scraps of paper had been inserted in the relevant plastic folders. As far as the factual contents of the diary are concerned, the ballpoint writings have no significance whatsoever. Moreover, the handwriting on the scraps of paper and in the diary differ strikingly.

The following images show the two scraps of paper as they were found among the loose pages by the examiner, as well as a close up image of both slips.







In 1987, court appointed handwriting expert Hans Ockelmann sent a letter to the Anne Frank-Fond, stating that he recognized the handwriting on the two slips as that of his mother, Dorothea Ockelmann. If you recognize her name, it's because you read it in Part III. She worked on the handwriting analysis in 1960. So, the ball point pen that Holocaust Deniers offered as proof that the diary was a forgery were, in fact, a couple of notes taken by a document examiner in 1960. Presumably, she simply forgot to remove two of her notes from the folders when the analysis was complete. Regardless, the only identified ball point pen was not made in Anne
Frank's handwriting.

The report also noted that someone had added page numbers to the manuscripts at some time -- some in pen and some in pencil. In six places, corrections and/or additions had been made to the page numbers in something that the examiner thought looked like ballpoint pen ink. The examiner tested the ink at those locations, but was unable to confirm that the ink actually was ballpoint pen.

So there you have it: the ballpoint pen ink that, according to the deniers, proved that the diary was a hoax, consisted of two scraps of paper not in Anne Frank's handwriting and, maybe, some corrections to page numbers. That's it. Smokey posted claims that the diary was written in ball point pen; that large portions of the diary were written in ball point pen, and that significant portions of the diary were written in ball point pen. All are false. And they were proven false almost 40 years ago.

When pressed to show where the ball point pen was found, Smokey flat out made stuff up. Why? Because he's on a mission from God. He's adopted a twisted distortion of the Bible to justify his hatred of Jews. Jews are the literal spawn of Satan, and he feels justified in doing anything to defeat them.

But why all this fuss? Anne Frank's diary discusses some rumors heard about the camps. But it ends with her arrest. Her diary clearly isn't -- and cannot be -- an eyewitness account of Auschwitz-Birkenau or Bergen-Belsen. She didn't survive the camps. And not even Smokey disputes that Jews were forcibly deported to the camps. So why the vicious, vitriolic attacks on her and her father?

I suggest it's this:



The Jew haters want to portray all Jews with as a cartoonish, dirty, hooked-nose, greedy, vermin-faced man who deserved what they got in WWII. But Anne Frank shatters that vicious stereotype. She's just a pretty, young teenager forced into extraordinarily brutal circumstances. I had never read her diary before I bought the Critical Edition. Now I can read her original diary, her revision titled The Secret Annex, and the first published version. I've compared the three versions over many pages, and there are differences. But it's clearly the same story of the same girl. A girl who's discovering boys, gets silly, gets cranky, acts like a brat, is frightened, is excited, and is desperately trying to decide who she is. Just like millions of girls her age. You can feel her hope as the families learn of the Normandy invasion and receive news that the tide has been turned in the war. She expects to be able to come out of hiding practically any day now.

And then the diary just stops. And we know she is sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau and then to Bergen-Belsen, which has become an overcrowded, disease-ridden hell-hole. And then her sister dies. And then she dies. Both of them should have had a chance to live. But life was ripped from them by the Jew Haters.

Anne Frank puts a face to the holocaust.

And that's what Jew haters like Smokey can't stand.

[_Chap]

The Jew haters want to portray all Jews with as a cartoonish, dirty, hooked-nose, greedy, vermin-faced man who deserved what they got in WWII. But Anne Frank shatters that vicious stereotype. She's just a pretty, young teenager forced into extraordinarily brutal circumstances. I had never read her diary before I bought the Critical Edition. Now I can read her original diary, her revision titled The Secret Annex, and the first published version. I've compared the three versions over many pages, and there are differences. But it's clearly the same story of the same girl. A girl who's discovering boys, gets silly, gets cranky, acts like a brat, is frightened, is excited, and is desperately trying to decide who she is. Just like millions of girls her age. You can feel her hope as the families learn of the Normandy invasion and receive news that the tide has been turned in the war. She expects to be able to come out of hiding practically any day now.

And then the diary just stops. And we know she is sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau and then to Bergen-Belsen, which has become an overcrowded, disease-ridden hell-hole. And then her sister dies. And then she dies. Both of them should have had a chance to live. But life was ripped from them by the Jew Haters.

Anne Frank puts a face to the holocaust.

And that's what Jew haters like Smokey can't stand.

Thanks for doing all the work that went into your posts.

Of course there are plenty of other pictures of Jewish people who were alive and well and living normal useful lives before the Nazi machine swept them up. And then they weren't there any more. But Anne left a diary - which was left like scattered waste paper on the floor of her family's hidden apartment when the police broke in and dragged the family away to what awaited them. Death for her and her sister.

If the Jew haters who seized her family had only known the role her diary would play after their foul world of hate and lies was swept away with the Allied victory, they would have taken the care to pick up its scattered pages and burn it. But unfortunately for Smokey and his pals, they did not.

[_Smokey]

Res Ipsa makes the point that much of what you believe about Anne Frank’s Diary is faith based, and it’s good to remember that this is a belief system.

It is the Cult of Holocaustism. Observe:

The Devil = Hitler

Devil worshipers = neo-Nazis, fascists, racists, eugenicists, Christians/Trump supporters, etc.

Cursed people = Germans and Whites generally

Blasphemy/heresy = Holocaust denial

Blasphemy/heresy laws = Holocaust denial laws

Pilgrimages to holy places = mass travels to Holocaust concentration camps and other places connected with the Holocaust

Places of worship elsewhere = museums, Yad Vashem, and so on. See also: List of Holocaust memorials and museums.

Holy days = Holocaust Memorial Days

The Blessed Virgin = Anne Frank

Holy scriptures = the Posen speeches, the Wannsee Protocol, the Hossbach Memorandum, Anne Frank's diary, and so on

Relics = Holocaust memorabilia displayed in the places of worship and traded on, for example, Ebay

Icons = Holocaust photographs, holograms of Holocaust survivors, and so on

Morality plays = Holocaust movies and television series

Martyrs = Holocaust victims

Saints = Holocaust survivors

Apostles = notable Holocaust witnesses

Holy Warriors = Nazi hunters, anti-racists, social justice warriors, and so on

The Cross = the gas chamber

Resurrection = creation of Israel

Offerings, penances, and indulgences = payments and privileges to various groups and Israel

Prophets = alarmists alarming of a new a Holocaust if not obeyed such as when lobbying for starting wars on various perceived enemies of Israel

The Jew is over-represented in all places except Arlington Cemetery