THE GREAT DONUT CONSPIRACY
Startling New Evidence exposed
Secret Jew Stephen R Gould
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.
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.
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.
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
"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
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
Back to THE MAD
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 writerís/authorís 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.