The Franke-Gricksch Report

[Nessie]

I do not find it baffling that a description is unclear and causes confusion, especially when there is a lack of clarity about events and precise chronology. To me, that is quite normal and to be expected.

[Stubble]

I'm going to reply to this;

Thanks Bombsaway.

You, do understand that document is very contentious, and why? Or no?

For inquiring minds, Mattogno goes over this particular document on p107 of Holocaust Handbook #40 Deliveries of Coke, Wood and Zyklon B to Auschwitz
Neither Proof Nor Trace for the Holocaust

https://holocausthandbooks.com/book/del ... auschwitz/

Spoiler

“Holocaust Controversies” and the Franke-Gricksch Report
In August 2019, bloggers of the web site “Holocaust Controversies” published
the scan of a carbon copy of what they claim to be the original text of the al-
leged Franke-Gricksch Report.149 It was a sensational discovery, as they put it.
In general, I only consider in my books what has been published in paper
form, but in this case I make an exception.
Before I begin, some general statements about historiographic methods are
in order.

Yeah. Mattogno doesn't address the typewriter analysis in any substantive way



https://chatgpt.com/s/t_6a594f3a5530819 ... 87e9c0dcfa

Spoiler

Mattogno supplies no alternative typescript examination, no examples showing that a production series routinely possessed the same four individualized defects, and no evidence that the particular office machine was available to Lipman or another alleged fabricator after the war. His first two responses establish abstract possibilities, not evidence for either possibility in this case.

couldn't have said it better AI.

You should make a separate thread for FG with your explanation for the type match. Is it Coincidence?

Here.

Mattogno is correct, we have insufficient analysis. The similarity is not perfect and could be explained by manufacturing defect, for example.

Givem the other problems with the report, interesting you choose to lay your laurels on this particular.

10x less people in the chamber? He can't count to 4? The 'judenramp' 'exists'? We could go on.

No no, let's quibble over letter strikes on simple paper with no signature or letterhead...

[bombsaway]

Here.

Mattogno is correct, we have insufficient analysis. The similarity is not perfect and could be explained by manufacturing defect, for example.

There's obviously a defect, but yeah so it was coincidence? That fabricated document matched a signature related to FG?

[Stubble]

Again you want to start here. I don't because it isn't especially important. Paper and typewriters 'exist'. Looking at the contents there is information that doesn't apply to the year of supposed authorship, for example.

Even if I grant out of hand that the same typewriter was used, that doesn't excuse the content, and it doesn't exclude forgery.

[bombsaway]

If you can't reasonably explain it, it is important. Just provide your most reasonable explanation. Are you going with same typewriter?

[Stubble]

Dude, I've spent maybe 2 hours on this document over the last 6 years, I've never held it.

That said, it is the contents that scream forgery. Keep in mind, typewriters and paper were abundant next to file cabinets....

[bombsaway]

Dude, I've spent maybe 2 hours on this document over the last 6 years, I've never held it.

That said, it is the contents that scream forgery. Keep in mind, typewriters and paper were abundant next to file cabinets....

You're not answering the question. I assume it's not a coincidence... therefore the conspirators plausibly might have done X. What is X

I'll help you out

is it

a) tracked down the original typewriter

b) found a typewriter match based on the typeface and the defects

c) broken a typewriter so that it displayed the same defects

d) something else, all of the above?

[Stubble]

If I were looking for the correct typewriter, I'd start with the one on the desk outside the office that contained the report.

You act like this is difficult or somehow impossible.

Barring that, the Intelligence Agencies were completely capable of making a match.

Both of those assume these errors were not the result of a common manufacturing defect by Remington. I'm assuming this is a 'lightning bolt' typewriter, as this was an SS man.

Remember, these typewriters are a subset of a subset.

[bombsaway]

Well, let's go through it.

The IAs are in document forging mode. For this document they decide we're not going to with formal signatures, or official documents. We're going to create an unsigned carbon copy, which we're going to put somewhere in the archives for a researcher to find. Knowing that such a document is important "proof" of the Holocaust we will rely on researchers knowing (as HC blog did) that they could trace the typewriter signature and match to another document by FG or (in this case) his direct superior, who accompanied him on his "trip".

so they did A, B, C, or some similar method is that fair to say?

[Stubble]

We have no idea when this would have transpired, exactly. We don't have a proper chain of custody of the document.

Ostensibly the real appendix could have been replaced with this, frankly garbage, over half a decade after the war.

'Oh, well, they would have had to have the right typewriter, or, have made one to match'

Neither of those are out of the realm of possibility and both assume this is not a common set of defects...How many coins have the same misstrike, for example? Sometimes, things wear down, and manufacturing continues with the same go no go tolerance...

The guy refers to stuff that didn't exist, did he fucking time travel bombsaway? He fired up Die Glocke for his trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau?

[Archie]

There's obviously a defect, but yeah so it was coincidence? That fabricated document matched a signature related to FG?

Are you claiming to have competence in typewriter analysis?

[bombsaway]

No I would defer to Bernhard Haas,

To be on the safe side, we had photographs of the documents examined by a qualified expert on typescripts. According to this expert opinion, both the report on Auschwitz (document "A") and the Krüger letter (document "B") were written with the font AR 1 from the company Ransmayer & Rodrian with a layout in use since 1930. The analysis concludes the following:

"The matching system features and type features justify the conclusion that the documents "A" and "B" were with a great probability [mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit] written with one and the same typewriter. A higher probability statement was not possible because the examined documents were not available as originals."

(expert opinion of 3 April 2019 by Bernhard Haas, Sachverständiger für Maschinenschriften, provided to the author)

[bombsaway]

We have no idea when this would have transpired, exactly. We don't have a proper chain of custody of the document.

Ostensibly the real appendix could have been replaced with this, frankly garbage, over half a decade after the war.

'Oh, well, they would have had to have the right typewriter, or, have made one to match'

Neither of those are out of the realm of possibility and both assume this is not a common set of defects...How many coins have the same misstrike, for example? Sometimes, things wear down, and manufacturing continues with the same go no go tolerance...

The guy refers to stuff that didn't exist, did he fucking time travel bombsaway? He fired up Die Glocke for his trip to Auschwitz-Birkenau?

Well there are two possibilities, happy coincidence on the part of the forgers, or that they did it intentionally. I don't think you would argue for coincidence, so we're left with they purposefully rigged up the same or a similar typewriter for the purposes of their scheme. This is not really very speculative, from a revisionist frame.

[Stubble]

From contents alone it is a forgery.

It is a wet dream for the orthodoxy, because everything desired is there. A Hitler order, description of the gassing process in 1943 by a 'perpetrator', the whole shebang.

It is the only document of its kind, we are told it would not exist, because no such document exists out side of it, it has murky patents, it describes things that did not exist when the author is said to have penned it, the list can get very long.

It is highly problematic for your side of the fence. If I were on that side of the fence, I would avoid this one. Surely there is something less ridiculous and better known that can be pointed at?

I know why you don't want to let this one go, but, you are going to have to find something else. Something better known 'at the time' (immediately post war) that can't be fake.

Before getting all in a twist about 'but, a typewriter', you need to ask yourself, what does it say...

I can give you this as a consolation prize, I can not tell you it wasn't typed on the same typewriter from my house. It may have been. That doesn't make it 'authentic'.

[bombsaway]

Is it not an extremely skilled forgery though? You have to give them that much. It's kind of genius thing to do, honestly.

How do you square that with the content, which in your frame reveals this to be an easy blatant forgery, something so ridiculous believers in orthodoxy are making a huge mistake by highlighting?

I think that if the forgers went through so much trouble with the typewriter stuff, they would have made the content somewhat passable. But they didn't, right?