[Hoplite]

What do you mean was the photo a hoax?

It was no more a hoax than this one was.

Happily, you'll find fools who dispute the accuracy of this photo too, so you're in good company with your revisionist idiocy.

Are you planning on repeating discredited BS ad nauseum here, or do you at some point think you'll actually engage your brain and desist in this course of stupidity you've chosen?

Please defer from posting anything more until you have thought it out a bit - I grow weary of repeating myself. Get it through your thick head already that the authors of your chosen canard recanted - the information presented in their work has a numerically expressed value of zero. Ergo, anything you draw from their work has zero value, and any material based upon their work also has a value of zero.

In short, your argument is zero, and you're just taking up FR's server space with a whole lot of nothing.

[A. Pole]

It was no more a hoax than this one was. Happily, you'll find fools who dispute the accuracy of this photo too, so you're in good company with your revisionist idiocy.

Your use of pseudo reasoning by analogy is a sign of desperation: "the event A took place but some people deny it, so if some people deny that event B took place it means that B really happened".

You insult the intelligence of your audience.