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
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)