The Franke-Gricksch Report

[Stubble]

Stuff has been forged on both sides of the fence. What usually sinks it, is the contents, because it is the answer to the wish.

'I sure wish I had one that said >insert x<.'

Poof

'Oh look, I have found it all here in this one document'

Sometimes the document even has the correct seals, signatures etc. What it doesn't have? Patents and confirmability...



viewtopic.php?t=207

It happens man.

I also don't have to give a forgery artist any props. It is tradecraft. I would fully expect a professional to use correct paper, ink, equipment etc.

[bombsaway]

I also don't have to give a forgery artist any props. It is tradecraft. I would fully expect a professional to use correct paper, ink, equipment etc.

You would not expect them to track down a typewriter, or break one in a very specific way, no this is not typical. This would require, at the very least, a great deal of energy.

[Stubble]

A presentation from TRS on the report;



It is a response to the HC article.

We have misrepresented the expert report. The expert only confirmed the model of typewriter, and, without the original could not confirm they were typed on the same machine.

I stress again that the biggest problem here is the content, not that it was typed on paper. You seem to think a forger would not use time correct materials or the same model typewriter to make a forgery. This omits the fact that a forger would and this isn't even a complex forgery. It is literally just words on paper.

[bombsaway]

Not only time correct materials bro, they made it look like the EXACT same typewriter, and you can examine the high def copies of the files to see this is true and the discrepancies (very slight almost unnoticeable manufacturing defects) line up.

"The expert only confirmed the model of typewriter, and, without the original could not confirm they were typed on the same machine."

Utter poppycock. The expert said "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."

[Stubble]

You are misrepresenting the expert findings. He said same model, and, because of the carbon, could not confirm the same typewriter.

A higher probability statement was not possible because the examined documents were not available as originals.

The part of the quote, you docked.

https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... f.html?m=1

[bombsaway]

You are misrepresenting the expert findings. He said same model, and, because of the carbon, could not confirm the same typewriter.

A higher probability statement was not possible because the examined documents were not available as originals.

The part of the quote, you docked.

I quoted that before so I felt no need to again.

By higher probability statement, he means higher probability than "great probability".

[Stubble]

No, you omitted it because it confirmed what I said. That's obvious to anyone who sees this exchange.

You keep saying 'the exact same', while the expert explicitly states such exactitude is not possible without the original.

[bombsaway]

No he says a higher probability than great probability is not ascertainable without the originals.

"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)