Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh report

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh report

Postby gl0spana » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:11 pm)

I haven't yet seen a revisionist debunking of this analysis,

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... on-of.html

which to my mind makes a stronger claim to  authenticity than all the stamps, signatures, and proper formatting in the world, because it suggests the report was written on a specific typewriter associated with FG (due to common abnormalities clearly visible for specific letters).

Thus the forger would have seemingly had to locate the typewriter FG's accompanying supervisor was using around the time of that fateful trip to Auschwitz in the spring of 1943, knowing that perhaps 20, 50, 80 years into the future somebody would use such analysis to demonstrate the authenticity of the report.

Most of the time revisionists summarily ignore the analysis, as is evident in this CODOH thread. "another fake document: Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report", which is all about the report and the newly discovered carbon copy

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=116

But recently a revisionist I was talking to offered an explanation! Finally the conclusions of the typewriter analysis could be debunked and the issue put to rest forever.

This is what they said: "The typewriter analysis is nothing. The document was typed on a common typewriter with a standardized font. These sorts of machine always degrade in similar ways"

And then, as "proof" I guess, they proceeded to give an example of the time they had met somebody at a party and learned their phones had developed the exact same kind of defect.

Well as it turns out, the use of such forensic analysis to link "Typewriting to a Typewriter" is quite common.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

See section 4. The key line is this:

Features that develop during lifetime of a typewriter such as fault from wear or damage, are of greater significance as these occur randomly for the most part.

https://twitter.com/whatcorner/status/1 ... 13/photo/2

I recommend reading the entire section and more for context, but based on this it would seem the explanation given by the revisionist I was talking to would not seem to be necessarily correct, or even probably, since such typewriting analysis is considered reliable enough to be used in criminal investigations.

Thus the challenge is this - if such defects are quite common and the typewriter and font used is common as well, revisionists should be able to produce hundreds or even thousands of documents exhibiting such characteristics (from the millions of documents readily accessible from this time period).

But since I am generous, if revisionists can produce ONLY ONE such document written by someone with no association to Maximilian von Herff, Franke Gricksh's accompanying supervisor, I will consider their claim validated.

(this would also cover cases where the commonalities were produced due to variance in manufacturing process, whether intentional or unintentional)

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritin analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of the Frank-Gricksh re

Postby Hannover » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:30 pm)

"Disprove"? That is highly illogical. The onus is upon the accusers to prove their claims. That is how laws of jurisprudence work.

Gl0spana said:
I haven't yet seen a revisionist debunking of this analysis,
You really mean that you haven't read the Revisionist research that you linked to.

"Carbon copy"? LOL.

Anyone with a German typewriter could and did type whatever they wanted.

As Nuremberg, expert Carlos Porter has demonstrated that supposedly incriminating documents have been shown to be
'English translations of Russian translations of Polish copies of an alleged German original which cannot be found'.

And to repeat, you cannot refute what is actually stated here:
another fake document: Franke-Gricksch 'Resettlement Action Report'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=116

This laughable "carbon copy" is also necessarily fraudulent since you cannot show us the alleged millions upon millions of human remains that are claimed to be in known locations as a result of the "mass exterminations" that supposedly resulted from the 'Resettlement Action'.

You have also dodged telling us how the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz and the Aktion Reinhardt camps supposedly worked, see:
Challenge to Believer & Forum registrant Gl0spana on Alleged 'Gas Chambers'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13751

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritin analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of the Frank-Gricksh re

Postby Hannover » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:04 pm)

Gl0spana, it would really be helpful if you actually read Revisionist research.

This contains additional demolition of your claims and your 'Holocaust Controversies' link by Lamprecht:
Lamprecht wrote:So HC Blog has found a "carbon copy" of this report:

ImageImage

Until their post last month, all we had was the following copy typed up by Lipmann (US Army):

ImageImage

The primary difference (besides the minor spelling errors during transcription) is that Lipmann's copy has handwriting on the second page stating in English that it is a "true copy" and on the first page, in English, the following text is written at the top:
Part of a report rendered by SS Sturmbannführer Franke-Gricksch on a trip through the General Governement on 4 to 16 May 1943

As pointed out above, there is another, longer report attributed Franke-Gricksch, found as an English translation only in the British National Archives in the early 2000s, posted here: https://archive.is/kBLa

It is also discussed in this thread:
Was the authentic Franke-Gricksch report discovered?
viewtopic.php?t=8872

I will refer to the first report mentioned, the 2-page carbon copy document, as the shorter report and this second one (English translation, 11 pages) as the longer report. The longer report has the title:
A Report on the Duty Journey through POLAND from the 4th – 16th May 1943 by SS-Sturmbannführer ALBERT FRANKE-GRICKSCH
and makes no mention of gassings or mass killings.

So what we can quite plainly see when looking at the "carbon copy" shorter report is that there is nothing written on the document that suggests that it is a report by Franke-Gricksch, or that it is from May 1943. Why did Lipmann, when making his copy, decide to type at the top of the page that these two pages were part of a report by Franke-Gricksch regarding his May 1943 journey into Poland? Was it found with the original German version of the longer report? If so, it would have to have been some sort of appendix, because the second page of the shorter report is labelled as page 2.

According to Pressac, quoted by Mattogno in my previous post:
This report was shown to Professor Charles W Sydnor of Hampton-Sydney College, Virginia (United States) in 1976 by a person from Richmond (Virginia) who had discovered it after the second world war. This man, apparently Eric M Lippmann [sic] according to the signature, was at the time employed by the US Army on collecting documents and seeking anything that might be used as evidence in the Nuremberg trials. He seems to remember finding carbon copy of the original report among a set of documents in a place he cannot recall exactly, somewhere in Bavaria. The original was not there. Having immediately realized the value of this report, which described the whole process of exterminating the Jews in Auschwitz, he made a typed copy for himself, as he had to hand the carbon over to the American Prosecutor at Nuremberg. He certified in longhand that he had made a true copy, and signed it ‘Eric M Lipmann.’ The two sheets that he typed are now preserved in the Tauber Estate of Brandeis University with other documents from the Third Reich.

So Lipmann, the guy who typed up the copy of the carbon copy, was employed by the US Army to find incriminating documents to be used in the Nuremberg show trials.

What is more likely is that some German speaking individual was given a German typewriter and told to type up this fake report by the Americans, with no name or date or anything. Then, this fake document was handed off to Lipmann who was instructed to sort through a bunch of documents until he could find someone to pin it on. Eventually, Lipmann found the longer report where Franke-Gricksch discussed visiting Poland (including Auschwitz) in May 1943 and figured Franke-Gricksch and the [longer] report was a perfect scapegoat. So he took the "Carbon copy" made after the war for the purpose of incriminating the Germans, got a typewriter, typed the "Part of a report by Franke-Gricksch on a trip to Poland in May 1943" title and proceed to copy the rest of the document, word-for-word (with a few spelling mistakes), and then signed the bottom of the second page, affirming it was a true copy.

Regarding the Nuremberg Show Trials, Justice Robert Jackson explains:
"As a military tribunal, this Tribunal is a continuation of the war effort of the Allied nations. As an International Tribunal, it is not bound by the procedural and substantive refinements of our respective judicial or constitutional systems."

More on the Nuremberg show trials: viewtopic.php?t=11053

Really, what is more believable, that:
(a) the Germans shoved millions of Jews into gas chambers
or
(b) the "Allies" [and those persecuted by the NSDAP] forged some documents after a long and bloody war to incriminate their enemies as revenge

Many other examples of fake documents being used at Nuremberg here:
https://www.cwporter.com/document.htm
and: https://www.cwporter.com/gd382.htm
also see: viewtopic.php?t=115
additional info on document forgeries (mostly focusing on the USSR): viewtopic.php?t=12297
Forged Documents at the IMT Nuremberg Trial: viewtopic.php?t=8635
Proven Forgeries: viewtopic.php?t=6134

Let's not forget about the shrunken heads, furniture and cleaning products the Americans claimed were made out of Jews by the Nazis: https://codoh.com/library/document/1529/

Simply, there is no convincing evidence that this "carbon copy" was written by Franke-Gricksch. The longer report mentions no mass killing and actually supports the revisionist case that "Operation Reinhardt" was not a mass murder operation but a means to plunder the wealth of deported Jews. This is confirmed in the following document:
5 January 1944 Globocnik Report to Himmler (4024-PS) on Operation Reinhard(t) viewtopic.php?t=12359

Franke-Gricksch died in 1952, but never was asked to verify the contents of this report. How convenient :roll:

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Archie
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 am

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritin analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of the Frank-Gricksh re

Postby Archie » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:09 pm)

What are the names of the forensic typewriter experts who have formally analyzed this and issued an opinion on the matter? Has anyone issued a report cataloguing all the distinctive features, along with the appropriate statistical analysis? And has the opinion been corroborated by other experts? Preferably ones who aren't aware of the nature of the interest in the document?

Typewriter analysis is commonly used in court cases and if it's important they will typically have several experts provide an analysis. If you were on trial and the primary evidence against you rested on a typewriter analysis would you be cool with it if the prosecution submitted a blog post from a biased and untrustworthy source?

People dismiss this document as fake because it has a questionable provenance and the content itself has problems and doesn't sound anything like any other wartime document. This document has been known since the late 70s and virtually all of the mainstream holocaust historians have steered clear of it. You might ask yourself why Van Pelt et al have never endorsed it. I suppose you will say that it's because this was only "confirmed" recently with this "carbon copy," but I predict the mainstream hoaxers will not get on board with this. HC's entire argument here relies on typewriter analysis which is a very specialized field of study that few are qualified to comment on. But they lack the reputation for anyone to take their claims seriously here.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh re

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:38 pm)

OP:
if such defects are quite common and the typewriter and font used is common as well, revisionists should be able to produce hundreds or even thousands of documents exhibiting such characteristics

This is your evidence?
Image

Yes, the same make/model degrades in similar ways. A phone is one example. Old cars generally do the same. People type different documents up but use the same letters in roughly the same ratios.

The issue here is that you have no physical evidence to substantiate your claims of homicidal gassings, so you post this weak "typewriter analysis" which proves nothing but both documents were typed with a very common, standardized typewriter with the same font on it - hardly a conspiracy at all.

The letters do not even appear to be defective in precisely the same way upon closer inspection.

OP:
And then, as "proof" I guess, they proceeded to give an example of the time they had met somebody at a party and learned their phones had developed the exact same kind of defect.

And your "proof" for homicidal gassings at Auschwitz is words typed on a paper and a handful of contradictory "eyewitnesses" whose statements do not even make sense. There is no physical evidence for your claims even though there would be.

OP:
revisionists should be able to produce

But you cannot even produce the make/model of the supposed engine used for gassings at Sobibor. If hundreds of thousands of Jews were gassed in one building at Auschwitz, you should be able to provide physical evidence for this. But chemical analyses of the bricks of this building show no significant traces of cyanide reside despite extremely large quantities in the walls of the delousing chambers.

OP:
if revisionists can produce ONLY ONE

Funny, when OP has claimed that multiple "Olympic swimming pool" sized mass graves full of human remains have been found at Belzec, he cannot show us just one of them.

The typewriter letters do not even appear to have exactly identical flaws.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritin analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of the Frank-Gricksh re

Postby gl0spana » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:00 pm)

Lamprecht wrote:The typewriter letters do not even appear to have exactly identical flaws.


Which letters? Please be specific.

for anyone who isn't seeing it, tho it is pretty obvious,

the U is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

the N is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

the M is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

the I is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

One thing you may notice is that the letters on found FG report are thicker and smudged - this is due to carbon copy process as described in the HC blog article. You can see it in the letter of 21.6.43

----------

As for your challenge: 'find the make/model of the supposed engine used for gassings at Sobibor', are you saying that if I find an 8-cylinder water cooled gasoline engine used by soviets in a large vehicle I have answered the challenge? This doesn't seem too difficult lol.

I linked to some archives for easy viewing for your convenience on my twitter: https://twitter.com/whatcorner/status/1 ... 2842764289

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritin analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of the Frank-Gricksh re

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:02 pm)

OK gl0spana I found a document with what I think is the same typewriter font from your link. Tell us all which letters a-i are from FG (2 documents used) and which are not. I used this link to look for similar documents: https://collections.arolsen-archives.org/en/search/

Put the answers in this format with each number referring to the order of the letter:
F(1): #-#-#-#...
F(2): #-#-#-#...
Other: #-#-#-#...

Image
(that pic is enlarged but here is the original size: https://i.imgur.com/bSafMXZ.jpg)

So if the a's went in regular order, the b's in reverse, and the c's in a different order you would write:
F(1): 1-3-2
F(2): 2-2-1
Other: 3-1-3

That would say the first a is FG document #1, the 2nd is FG document #2, and third from the other document.
The 1st b is from the other document, 2nd is from FG #2, 3rd is from FG #1.
1st c is from FG #2, 2nd is from FG #1, and third from the other document.

Simple enough, right? Actually, if you want you can just use FG and other because apparently, the FG document characters should be so identical.

Here are the answers (has a password that I will reveal after your attempt[s]): https://controlc.com/40b919587

Let's see how well you do here.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby gl0spana » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:38 pm)

Lamprecht,

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly but the bottom 'd' is clearly different, they all should be identical no?

I don't have time or will to go through this. Once you've found a document, create another row for it, #6. Every letter in row 6 should more or less match the corresponding ones in rows 1, 2, 3.

Image

Then everybody will be able to see for themselves, which they would need to anyway. I hope you'd agree that this is bigger than you or I.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritin analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of the Frank-Gricksh re

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:40 pm)

gl0spana wrote:
Lamprecht wrote:The typewriter letters do not even appear to have exactly identical flaws.


Which letters? Please be specific.

for anyone who isn't seeing it, tho it is pretty obvious,

the U is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

the N is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

the M is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter

the I is supposed to be elongated at the top left towards the left but isn't on the "defective" typewriter[/

One thing you may notice is that the letters on found FG report are thicker and smudged - this is due to carbon copy process as described in the HC blog article. You can see it in the letter of 21.6.43

All of those sorts of flaws will happen from wear-and-tear use of the letters. Appendages will be rubbed down after a while, it's the first part to mess up.

As for your challenge: 'find the make/model of the supposed engine used for gassings at Sobibor', are you saying that if I find an 8-cylinder water cooled gasoline engine used by soviets in a large vehicle I have answered the challenge? This doesn't seem too difficult lol.

He wasn't even sure if it was 8-cylinder or water-cooled though. And you have to find the actual, correct engine. Not any random engine that has 2 [common] qualities that would fit there.

I linked to some archives for easy viewing for your convenience on my twitter: https://twitter.com/whatcorner/status/1 ... 2842764289

Yes I used that for my challenge above. I await your answer.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:41 pm)

gl0spana wrote:I don't have time or will to go through this. Once you've found a document, create another row for it, #6.

It's incredibly simple, you could have typed up your answers already but instead, you made excuses. We're waiting.

I hope you'd agree that this is bigger than you or I.

The phony "typewriter analysis" that only highlights the most common "defects" from years of use is not very convincing either, especially when you have no physical evidence to substantiate your claim.
Please try to address the challenge. It should be easy
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby gl0spana » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:48 pm)

So if I find an 8-cylinder water cooled gasoline engine, I have solved the challenge?

I don't even understand what you're asking and the 'd' is clearly different so there is no match.

Also you only include the I, letters U, N, M must also have aberrations.

Just post a link to the entire document and I'll take a look. If it's a legit match this should be obvious to everyone.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby Hannover » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:53 pm)

This is hilarious.

Gl0spana, there is a mountain of information posted above by myself, Lamprecht, and others which demolishes your silly position and you dodge it all.

Image

- Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:57 pm)

gl0spana wrote:So if I find an 8-cylinder water cooled gasoline engine, I have solved the challenge?

Nope, please reread what was posted.

I don't even understand what you're asking

Ok then, please reread what was posted. It's clear

and the 'd' is clearly different so there is no match.

Not what I asked for

Also you only include the I, letters U, N, M must also have aberrations.

I'm waiting for your entire response. I didn't do the entre alphabet because we're all waiting for you to provide real evidence, such as physical evidence, for gassings to have actually occurred. We're waiting on you to provide evidence for the alleged huge mass graves you claim have been proven to exist with large quantities of human remains at Belzec.

Just post a link to the entire document and I'll take a look. If it's a legit match this should be obvious to everyone.

If it's so obvious why not put the answer in the format requested?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

gl0spana
Member
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2020 1:22 am

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby gl0spana » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:18 pm)

Lamprecht, you are under no obligation to answer my challenge to produce a document whose type corresponds to #1, #2, #3

and I am under no obligation to answer your counter challenge, which I admit I fail to understand the significance of

I also don't understand your challenge about the sobibor engine, so can't answer that either.

I guess this about does it then.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Challenge to Revisionists: Disprove the typewritten analysis for newly discovered Carbon Copy of Frank-Gricksh repor

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 2 weeks ago (Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:27 pm)

In other words, you have nothing of evidentiary value.

A document using a very common typewriter font supposedly with similar [commonly used] keys having standard wear-and-tear at the serif.

A testimony of an alleged homicidal gas chamber using a Soviet engine - which cannot even be identified - instead of any number of more effective, cheaper choices. Forgetting that the same individual contradicts his own testimony made at other times as well as the testimony of others about the same camp.

A lack of physical/material evidence to substantiate your allegations despite the fact that it would exist in large quantities in exactly known locations if your claims were true.
gl0spana wrote:Lamprecht, you are under no obligation to answer my challenge to produce a document whose type corresponds to #1, #2, #3

and I am under no obligation to answer your counter challenge, which I admit I fail to understand the significance of

I also don't understand your challenge about the sobibor engine, so can't answer that either.

I guess this about does it then.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lamprecht and 8 guests