It is a cornerstone of Dunkin Donuts' commercial success that their donuts have holes in them, but close objective analysis shows that this popularly-held view is in fact false.

Photographic evidence
 

There are very few photographs at all of DD donuts.  Contrary to what visitors have been told, the illustrations of donuts in their shops are in fact paintings or plastic replicas, not actual donuts, and these illustrations were made after DD started making donuts.  The oft-cited New York DD donut photograph was taken from some distance away from a moving police car, and cannot be regarded as conclusive, therefore.  Shadows in the photograph make it very difficult to distinguish between the claimed hole and a heavy chocolate coating.


Eyewitness accounts
 

Here is the most obvious inconsistency.  The witnesses are just too good. We are used to the fact that witnesses tend to disagree with each other on various points - recollections and perceptions are different, etc.  Yet here we are expected to believe that all witnesses are unanimous in agreeing that DD's donuts have holes in them.  Clearly the so-called eye-witnesses must have colluded in their testimony, or were "encouraged" by others to make their evidence consistent.  This collusion would, of course, only make sense if there were no holes in the donuts - there would be little point in establishing the conspiracy if the holes did in fact exist.

It has also been pointed out that eyewitness accounts are consistent with the witnesses having observed bagels, not donuts.   Hence even if the witnesses did see holes, the identification of the surrounding material as donuts is highly questionable.


Analysis of remains
 

Donuts that have been broken down into pieces have shown no evidence of holes at all.


Commercial rationale
 

DD is a successful commercial company.  It is clearly more expensive to make donuts with holes in that without, and we are asked to believe that DD would voluntarily add to its costs through adopting a process that adds nothing to the flavour of the donuts.  This makes little sense.  It is far cheaper to make non-holed donuts and merely suggest to the donut-huggers that the donuts do in fact have holes.


"But I bought a DD donut and it had a hole in it"
 

A common observation from people who recently visited DD.  But these donuts were made AFTER DD claimed that their donuts had holes in, so they cannot be used as evidence. They are not the original holes.


Conclusion
 

We have seen that the donut-huggers' case is built on a mixture of distortion, collusion, and inadequate evidence.  That they disparage the seekers of objective truth about the existence of the donut "holes" rather than attempt to refute the evidence that we have presented shows that they realise how weak their own case is.


It is simply a matter of fact that there were no holes in the donuts.

I agree, but from a different convergence of evidence

Back to THE MAD REVISIONIST

THE MAD REVISIONIST: We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite your support and submissions.
 

DISCLAIMER: All editorial content on this website is strictly not the writer’s/author’s opinion. THE MAD REVISIONIST, located on the moon, is owned and operated by accident. The content of this page is the copyrighted property of THE MAD REVISIONIST. Any illegal copying or circulating of this page, in whole or in part, without the expressed permission of THE MAD REVISIONIST will be taken as a compliment.