Raskolnikov is rightly curious about Beeplo’s evil twin’s sources….
> HALPO, where ever did you get that tidbit of information that
>spewed proclaiming that most of the diary of Anne Frank was written in
>ball-point pen? Through the grape-vine?
>> I never said MOST of the Diary. I just posted that The german federal
>> criminal investigation bureau found that Most of the parts of the fourth
>> book were written in ball point pen. They state the the first three parts
>> are not in question. This test was done in regards to the Ernst Roemer
>> Case and was widley reported by the meida.
>This was so widely reported that Mr.HAPLO is unable
>to provide a source or citation for this event.
I imagine that Senor Haplo’s memory may be playing tricks on him, and may
be thinking of the article in Der Spiegel in ’80 or so that started the
whole Dutch forensic ball rolling. The original 4-page report from the
BKA (Bundeskriminaliteitsarchiv? Man, my spelling’s rusty) confined itself
to the more narrow question of the time period in which the diary materials
were created being consistent with a 1940-43 date. The conclusion was that,
yes, the materials were consistent. They did, correctly, point out that
there were several additions to the text in ball pen ink. However, what
the report neglects to mention (and Der Spiegel doesn’t either. I’m still
curious about that, since I don’t *always* associate DS with News of the
World) is the *number* of entries (small), *where* they are made (on loose
scraps of paper collected in with the “loose” contents of the third section
of the diary), and whether or not they appear in the text of the diary
itself (they do not. They’re clearly editorial notes made during the attempt
to collate the loose pages in the correct order. Otto Frank’s page numbers
exist on the corner of a number of the sheets in the third diary section
for precisely the same reason).
Those little ommissions (and a few other things) got the ball rolling. In
fact, there was some contact and co-operation between the BKA and the
Dutch State forensic bureau (it’s detailed in the critical edition of the
diary). In short, the Dutch results on the materials of the diary are
in agreement with the shorter and less thorough German report on every point.
Since the German report included no information on the Haplo’s imaginary
ballpoint volume, I’m quite curious to know where he came up with it. The
Dutch foresic examination merely takes up where the German one left off (that
is, it asked the questions that the German examination did not explicitly
You can find all this nifty stuff in – you guessed it – the Critical Edition.
You can also read about the “editing” to the diary – surprise, it’s
grammar (Anne’s strong and weak Dutch verbs were better than mine, but
not quite there just yet), spelling, and the occasional bit of syntax (no
doubt because Dutch some tricky syntax here and there has). There’s also not
very many of ’em. But you can read all that yourself, so you don’t have to
count on Haplo’s active imagination.
While I don’t have the original Spiegel article close at hand, I recall that
it was less than complementary in its comments about the revisionist work
surrounding the case (I don’t they spoke very highly of Irving or Roemer).
This is from memory, however. Is there a copy of the Spiegel article on the
I would go to her, lay it all out, unedited. The plot was a simple one,
paraphrasable by the most ingenuous of nets. We life we lead is our only
maybe. The tale we tell is the must that we make by living it. [Richard
Powers, “Galatea 2.2”] Gregory Taylor/Host, RTQE/WORT-FM 89.9/Madison, WI
From [email protected] Mon Oct 2 16:23:48 PDT 1995
Article: 10222 of alt.revisionism
From: [email protected] (Gregory Taylor)
Subject: HAPLO imagines the BKA at work (was Anne Frank)
Date: 2 Oct 1995 12:37:29 -0500
Organization: FullFeed Communications (Internet +1.608.246.2701 info)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <1995Oct2.025128@miavx1>
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.conspiracy:11786 alt.illuminati:9201 alt.politics.correct:59092
alt.politics.nationalism.white:3638 alt.politics.white-power:5080 alt.revisionism:10222 alt.skinheads:4043