||The respected historian David Irving, a fearless challenger of established myths, has made his views clear on the topic of Anne Frank.
It is dangerous to spread the truth though - Römer, another respected historian, claimed the diaries were fake only to be convicted in an emotional German court. How typical of our supposed 'freedoms'.
As David points out, it is highly suspicious that Otto Frank, her father, refuses to hand out the manuscript even to the most impeccable institutions. Nobody is allowed to see them. Is this not a tad suspicious? And how can the genuine nature of the diaries be established when nobody is allowed to examine the diaries?
The manuscripts were examined briefly, in situ, in the 70's by Swiss authoroties. Suspiciously, large portions of the manuscript were 'embellished' with a ball point pen - despite the fact that ball point pens were not invented till well after WWII.
I am glad to see you accept that Anne Frank's diaries may not be all they appear. Just remember the inherent dangers in denying such things in this confirmist age.
At the very least, large parts of the diary were not written by Anne herself - this much has been established and accepted by all parties, already. But even larger portions could be false - possibly as much as the whole entirety of the diaries could be faked. There are many suspicious and odd facts in the case, and we seem to be heading towards one inevitable conclusion.