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.

 

Anne Frank Center Blasts Tim Allen for ‘Deeply Offensive’ Nazi Germany Comment

page: 8
25
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   

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.


No, actually, there isn't. They have been tested by forensic experts, the handwriting has been analysed and there is no doubt whatsoever that they were written by Anne Frank and are therefore authentic.




posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   
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.


(post by darkstar57 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

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.



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

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.
I never spoke to the veracity of the claims, just mentioning that some doubt it's authenticity.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.
I never spoke to the veracity of the claims, just mentioning that some doubt it's authenticity.


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.



posted on Mar, 26 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: D8Tee

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.
This is not a forum that allows for debate on the authenticity of the Frank diaries, I will leave it at that.

And yet there is nothing remotely plausible behind the claims that it's a fake.
I never spoke to the veracity of the claims, just mentioning that some doubt it's authenticity.


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.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join