It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: D8Tee
originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: intrptr
I'm pretty sure propaganda has been around long before Hitler.
To the rest of you, do you know who Anne Frank is?
Theres doubt as to the authenticity of the Frank diaries.
On 9 December 1998 the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Actually there is, but it's been made illegal to question it, under penalty of law.
On 9 December 1998 the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.
I never spoke to the veracity of the claims, just mentioning that some doubt it's authenticity.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Actually there is, but it's been made illegal to question it, under penalty of law.
On 9 December 1998 the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.
And yet there is nothing remotely plausible behind the claims that it's a fake.
originally posted by: D8Tee
I never spoke to the veracity of the claims, just mentioning that some doubt it's authenticity.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Actually there is, but it's been made illegal to question it, under penalty of law.
On 9 December 1998 the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.
And yet there is nothing remotely plausible behind the claims that it's a fake.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
originally posted by: D8Tee
I never spoke to the veracity of the claims, just mentioning that some doubt it's authenticity.
originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
This is not a forum that allows for debate on the authenticity of the Frank diaries, I will leave it at that.
originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: AngryCymraeg
Actually there is, but it's been made illegal to question it, under penalty of law.
On 9 December 1998 the Amsterdam District Court ruled in favour of the claimants, forbade any further denial of the authenticity of the diary and unsolicited distribution of publications to that effect, and imposed a penalty of 25,000 guilders per infringement.
And yet there is nothing remotely plausible behind the claims that it's a fake.
Yes, but you did not then state that there's nothing to those doubts. Which there is not. Once again - there have been two forensic investigations into the diary, plus an analysis of the handwriting. It's genuine.