для goering@lj
Ответить у мудилки алана не могу, поскольку забанен, отвечу здесь.


Про ямы ты, конечно, ничего не доказал, никаких расчетов не привел, так что эта тема закрыта. (Замечу лишь, что большинство сожженных были до этого захоронены, и значит значительно обезвожены в процессе разложения, и уже поэтому данные для "свежих" трупов к ним неприложимы.)

А про дневник Анны Франк ты процитировал враля Мухина, и поступил весьма опрометичиво - сам ведь пишешь, что "про военные дела он полную херь пишет", почему же тогда доверяешь остальному? Вот ты цитируешь:

В Европе, не подумавши, выставили "подлинную" рукопись этого дневника. Смышленые европейцы тут же определили, что текст написан шариковой ручкой, а их изобрели лет через 10 после смерти реальной Анны Франк. Не хорошо, конечно, получилось, как говорят музыканты - лажа, но, надо думать, рукопись отправят на реставрацию и все будет путем.

Это, конечно, полное вранье, так же как и его вранье о катынских и других документах. Вот что было на самом деле:

The Bundeskriminalamt (the BKA, or Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau) in Wiesbaden was charged with preparing an expert opinion on whether it was possible "by an examination of paper and writing material to establish that the writing materials attributed to Anne Frank were produced during the years 1941 to 1944".

The investigation - in the spring of 1980 - was therefore restricted by this limited brief. The BKA came to the conclusion that the types of paper used, including the covers of Diaries 1, 2 and 3, as well as the types of inks found in three diaries and on the loose sheets, were all manufactured before 1950-51 (and could thus have been used during the stated period). On the other hand:

Some of the corrections made subsequently on the loose pages were [...] written in black, green and blue ballpen ink. Ballpen ink of this type has only been on the market since 1951.

The BKA report ran to a mere four pages. The precise location of the corrections on the loose sheets and their nature and extent are not mentioned, nor is the number of such corrections.

In itself this was a less than sensational report and did not touch upon the authenticity of the diary as such. That was not, however, the view of Der Spiegel, which on October 6, 1980, published a long article with the following introductory paragraph printed in bold type:

Proved by a Bundeskriminalamt report: "The Diary of Anne Frank" was edited at a later date. Further doubt is therefore cast on the authenticity of that document.

It was a suggestive article in other respects too. Without asking when the writing in ballpoint had been made on the loose sheets, what the nature of these corrections was or whether they had been incorporated in the published texts, the author of the article, instead of referring to Korrekturen (corrections) as the BKA had done, wrote of "additions to the original text that had up till now had always been considered to be in the same hand as the rest of the text."

In support of the phrase "up till now had always been considered," the reader was referred to Minna Becker's mistaken 1960 opinion (see p.87). Der Spiegel added: "Now if the handwriting of the original entries matched that of the additions, then there must have been an imposter at work," which, the magazine generously conceeded, "cannot be seriously maintained even now in view of the controversial nature of the graphological evidence."

It is only towards the end of the article that Der Spiegel quotes briefly from the BKA report and uses the term "Korrekturen"; before that, however, the reader had been told that the published diary had been subjected to countless "Manipulationen" [manipulations]."

True, Der Spiegel also pointed out that those who had cast doubt on the authenticity of the diary had done so for the purposde of establishing "the truth about the persecution of the Jews," in the manner, as the magazine critically, of "one of the pamphlet distributors at the Roemer trial who wanted to put a stop to the 'gas chamber fraud.'"

David Irving, too, was portrayed critically, as was the "oft-repeated legend" that Otto Frank had incorprated quotations from a film script (what was meant, of course, was from the text of a play) into the diary.

The article aroused great interest both in Germany and abroad. Der Spiegel's message seemed clear: there was something wrong. Members of the Anne Frank Foundation let it be known in the Dutch press that, at the request of Otto Frank, Kleiman had made minor corrections to the manuscript after the war but that these had been clarifications.

We have called the Spiegel article suggestive. The magazine had, however, been indirectly encouraged to take this line by the failure of the Bundeskriminalamt to publish the concrete data on which it had based its findings, thus rendering any kind of verification impossible.

We asked the Bundeskriminalamt to put these data at our disposal. The reply was that no such data was in their possession.

On December 20, 1985, at out request, the BKA then used the State Forensic Science Laboratory of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice in Rijswijk in an attempt to give concrete expression to the finding of their report.

They were in part successful. The reader is referred to Chapter IV of the State Forensic Science Laboratory's report, which also discusses the relevance of the ballpoint writing to the authenticity of the diary.

The BKA was unable to indicate where just one alleged correction in green ballpoint ink was to be found.

The Diary of Anne Frank: The Revised Critical Edition, pp.97-99.

Following the publication of an article in Der Spiegel, No. 41, 1980 (pp.121-122), the State Forensic Science Laboratory at the request of the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation paid particular attention to the possible inclusion in the diary of entries written with a ballpoint pen. To that end, all handwriting, with the exception of the photocopied loose sheet, was examined closely by the document examiner. The only ballpoint writing was found on two loose scraps of paper included among the loose sheets. Figures VI-1-1 and 3 show the way in which the scraps of paper had been inserted in the relevant plastic folders. As far as the factual contents of the diary are concerned, the ballpoint writings have no significance whatsoever. Moreover, the handwriting on the scraps of paper and the diary differ strikingly.*

[...]

*The Hamburg psychologist and court-appointed handwriting expert, Hans Ockelmann, stated in a letter to ANNE FRANK-Fonds dated September 27, 1987, that his mother, Mrs. Dorothea Ockelmann, wrote the ballpoint texts in question when she collaborated with Mrs. Minna Becker in investigating the diaries (see p.87).

Ibid., p. 160.

Ну или короче и по-русски:

1. "текст написан шариковой ручкой"

Текст дневника не написан шариковой ручкой. Есть пометки шариковой ручкой на двух отдельных листиках в дневнике, написанных совершенно другим почерком.

2. "а их изобрели лет через 10 после смерти реальной Анны Франк"

а) Их изобрели не через 10 лет после смерти Анны Франк.

б) Явно перепутана информация о чернилах, производившихся после 1951 года, с "изобретением" шариковой ручки.

Т.е. Мушкин - чмо. Не надо его цитировать :-)

А, ну и напоследок, вот те самые листочки с пометками шариковой ручкой: