The Museum of Hoaxes
HOME   |   ABOUT   |   FORUM   |   CONTACT   |   PINTEREST   |   FACEBOOK   |   TWITTER   |   RSS
The Amazing Randi’s amazing suicidal applicant
Posted By:
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
May 08, 2005
 A Belgian man has made an application for James Randi's $1,000,000 Paranormal Challenge. The applicant, Siegfried Verbeke, claims he will be able to survive exposure to Zyklon B gas for 15 minutes. This, he says, will prove that the extermination of six million Jews by the Nazis during WWII was a hoax. He would like to use the restored gas chamber at Auschwitz to conduct the test. The exchange between Verbeke and Randi's agent, Kramer, has to be read to be believed. And even then you may not.
Amazing suicidal applicant
Category: Death, Hate-Crimes; Replies: 59

Comments
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 12:33 PM
....Because ANY WETTING in public places is against the law. If we made it okay to pee on grave markers it would have to be okay to do it in the street, in someone's front lawn on their way home from the bar.

I guess I'm not sure what you're point is. Sorry, maybe I'm a slow learner.

'splain it simple.
David B.
in Reading, England.
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 02:47 PM
Maegan said, "....Because ANY WETTING in public places is against the law. If we made it okay to pee on grave markers it would have to be okay to do it in the street, in someone's front lawn on their way home from the bar"

Your constitutional right to freedom of expression can not be limited by county, state or federal law. It is *already* okay to pee on grave markers if your doing so as an expression of a particular belief. To legislate *against* gravewetting as a political statement would be unconstitutional, it would breach the first amendment.

If someone pees on a front lawn at random, or on the nearest lampost, or under the influence of drink, it would be very hard to argue that they were making a statement with first amendment protection any more that setting fire to the nearest bush, box or dumpster.

Standing in front of the your state capitol building, burning stars & stripes in hand, shouting (or not) "Down with neo-con imperialism!" is your right. As, apparently, is standing over an American soldier's grave at Arlington, in full flow, shouting (or not) "Not in *my* name, Bush!"

Nothing I could remember, and nothing I could Google, provided me with any evidence that 'gravewetting' would not have the same FA protection as flag-burning, effigy-burning, placard-waving, etc.

If you so object to someone p**sing in public, why we can get a crowd of ten of us to all go in a bucket in private beforehand. Then we can all stand around some poor unfortunate's resting place and slowly tip the lot out while chanting, "P**s on you! P**s on you! P**s on USA!"

There, you've made me get even *more* objectionable (if that were possible). And the point? The point is I cannot see why this is *not* covered by the first amendment; I rather suspect it is. But I also cannot imagine anyone ever getting away with doing it. If they weren't beaten to death at the scene, there'd be a queue around the block of people *wanting* to do jury duty just for the chance to but the bastard (err... me in this case, oh dear!) away!
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 04:52 PM
How's this Dave...

Pull your dick out to piss, make a political statement, grave-whiz... whatever you want to call it, in a place where my children will be subjected to it... and you'll be dealing first with the law, and then with me.

But stand around "talking" about and "believing" that your pissing activities should be a protected right and guess what? Innocents aren't subjected to matters that contain sexual overtones. If I don't want my children exposed to the drivel then I'll remove them from the area, censor what they hear, whatever. Your analogies are silly... there are major differences between exposure of sexual organs, and discussing or not believing in something. EVEN something as sensitive as the holocaust!

I'm an American and a veteran who has served during conflict but I'll tell you this. Burn an American flag all you want! It's your right to do so because burning something (in a safe manner) isn't illegal! But pull your junk out where my family might be exposed... and then you're breaking the law. Regulating what people "think" is going too far... but that's just my opinion!
Mark-N-Isa
in Midwest USA
 Member
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 | 04:54 PM
PS - Also, pouring your privately dispensed piss in public is illegal as well since it contains many toxins and would be considered "assault with bodily fluids." So get over the pissing already... it's WAY worse than just "not" believing in the holocaust and doesn't make a good example... no matter how hard you try.

smile
David B.
in Reading, England.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 05:14 AM
"it's WAY worse than just "not" believing in the holocaust and doesn't make a good example"

That's your opinion (and you're entitled to it). I agree to the point that 'not believing' in the holocaust is a non-sensical, non-enforceable crime. Spouting such a belief is, and in my opinion should be, a crime (in NL).

"pouring your privately dispensed piss in public is illegal as well since it contains many toxins and would be considered "assault with bodily fluids."

Assault on who, exactly? And are you saying it's not the desecration that offends you, but the indecent exposure?

Laws banning public nudity 'in an expressive context' have been repeatedly struct down by the Supreme Courts as unconstitutional (and just as repeatedly upheld, go figure). And again we see 'context' rear it's ugly head. Why not just regulate the use of loadhailers, ban the paint used in placards, enforce 'no loitering' laws at the places crowds like to gather? Are constitutional rights so easily legislated against?

The only injury of my example, the only harm it does, is to the society, community or individual that attaches great symbolic importance to Arlington (you *and* me would be in that group). Is this is sufficient 'harm to a nonconsenting party' to override a person's right to express his personal outrage?

Apparently it is. Apparently no one here would seek to defend that right. Apparently everyone would cheer whatever by-laws, laws, statutes or civil cases were used to put the offender down.

Public, spoken, leafleted holocaust denial causes harm (my opinion). It is a psychological assault on the survivors, it is premeditated mental cruelty, it causes mental anguish. It is not deserving of the protection of freedom of speech.

There are things in America not protected by the FA, and not because of indecent exposure laws, waste disposal laws or anti-littering laws. Shouting "Man overboard!" on a cruise ship, or "I have a bomb!" on an airplane, are two examples. In the Netherlands, shouting "Zyklon-B never killed anybody! It's a big Zionist conspiracy is all!" is another.

Since the point of my example was to show that harm might be found 'through offense caused', and since it's certainly causing offense (so much so that we're getting hung up on the wrong argument), I'll give way on this with all good graces. The subject of 'Gravewetting' is closed.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 06:05 AM
I believe in Santa Clause.
David B.
in Reading, England.
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 07:11 AM
Of course. It's against the law not to!
Rod
in the land of smarties.
 Member
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 10:56 AM
""pouring your privately dispensed piss in public is illegal as well..." - MnJ

Actually, it would be vandalism or damaging private or public property. That is, if it left a residue, damage, or smell. (Unless that particular area has an ordinance about dumping raw sewage, and most populated areas do.)
If you poured it out ON someone, it would be assault with bodily etc.
But yes, your point is made.

" It is *already* okay to pee on grave markers if your doing so as an expression of a particular belief" - Dave

Only if you can convince the judge/jury that it is a LEGITIMATE belief, worthy of said demonstration.

And yes, I understand you gave up, so I'll leave the rest alone.

Santa Claus is real.

God is real.

God is NOT real.

The holocaust is fake.

My point in the above statements? Who gets to decide who's going to jail for what someone says and believes? And who gave them the power to decide that I (or anyone else) should be put away just because I deny what happened?

And if they're getting sent to jail for simply not believeing the truth, what do they do with people there who believe in ghosts, gods, and the continued survival of Elvis?
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 | 11:11 AM
I miss Elvis.
David B.
in Reading, England.
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 | 05:32 AM
Rod said, "Who gets to decide who's going to jail for what someone says and believes? And who gave them the power to decide that I (or anyone else) should be put away just because I deny what happened?"

Rod, you already know the answer, "Only if you can convince the judge/jury that it is a LEGITIMATE belief, worthy of said demonstration."

This is where the boundaries of freedom of speech lie. If you cannot convince a jury of your peers that you *should* be free to say something, then you aren't.

The brilliance of the first amendment is that it makes the default that you *are* free to speak. But laws can always be used or made to shut you up again. That's when it comes back down judges, juries and (supreme court) justices.

In the end Verbeke could not convince the Belgian courts, and received his one-year jail term, in what was a very-rare case of this law being invoked.
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
 Member
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 10:40 AM
I never got that "jury of your peers" deal. (I looked up peer btw, to see the specific definition: 1 : one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status


I mean, if a middle class, 32 yr old, white housewife is being charged with manslaughter, shouldn't the jury be made up of other 32 yr old, white, middle class criminals??? Otherwise, how could it really be fair. It seems that the jury is usually made up of the victim's peers.

So, "Jury of your peers" isn't actually accurate. Most lawyers spend a lot of time deciding, "This one hates cops, this one got expelled from catholic school...they'll be sympathetic to the alleged murderer."

Whatever.
David B.
in Reading, England.
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 04:21 PM
Actually I don't think the 'jury of his peers' bit is in the American Constitution anyway, but FYI...

It's supposedly a protection against alienation, marginalisation or persercution by law or fiat and comes from the Magna Carta ("No free man shall be taken or imprisoned [...] except by the lawful judgment of his peers") by preventing a person from being judged purely by his 'betters' (i.e. by Baron or King) with out recourse to the courts. By a hundred years later the rather 'ad hoc' interpretations of this right had settled down to 'trial by jury'. The 'peers' bit then served to keep an Overlord from rounding up twelve mates and having a 'summary justice cook-out'. Instead they rounded up twelve indentured bondsmen whose livelyhoods depended on 'his Lordship's' good graces. Same result, but a lot less venison involved.

In those days the 11th. commandment was "don't get accused"!
Citizen Premier
in spite of public outcry
 Member
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 09:01 PM
Ever notice how our threads tend to turn into "The Big Debates?"
Accipiter
Member
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 11:45 PM
I disagree, Citizen Premier. Shall we debate that?
Franz Holtzh
in Germany
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 | 01:59 AM
"Cranky Media Guy" writes:
>Yes, he's a racist asshole

Oh really! Thanks for letting us know of his fierce racism! Maybe you could explain why he is engaged to his girlfriend from the Philippines?
People from the Philippines tend to be a little brown. Maybe Verbeke overlooked that? Maybe he forgot that he was a racist?

Jews are incredibly good liars, but when one investigates their foul lies, truth is often piercing.

Faithfully,
Franz Holtzh
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Nov 27, 2005 | 03:00 AM
Franz Holtzhauser said:


"Oh really! Thanks for letting us know of his fierce racism! Maybe you could explain why he is engaged to his girlfriend from the Philippines?
People from the Philippines tend to be a little brown. Maybe Verbeke overlooked that? Maybe he forgot that he was a racist?"

I made that entry so long ago (back in May) that I had completely forgotten about it and this thread in general. I think what I meant to call him was "anti-Semitic" rather than racist.

"Jews are incredibly good liars, but when one investigates their foul lies, truth is often piercing."

Yup, anti-Semitic, all-righty! Still dusting off the armbands, waiting for the return of Der Fuhrer? Sheesh, Hans, you guys lost WWII. Get over it, will you?
Franz Holtzh
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 | 12:25 PM
You "think" you meant to call a person "anti-Semitic"? Does Siegfried Verbeke dislike Arabic speaking peoples? May you present any evidence for this bold suggestion? If not, I would leave the thinking for others, who are far more capable than you apparently are.

You posted your previous accusation in May and you do not possess the ability to remember this? Dear Sir, are you of the Jewish faith? I also never said anything, unless you perhaps hear voices.

Faithfully,
-Franz H, http://www.holocaust-history.info/response45.html
gsdfg
in sdfg
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 | 06:12 PM
"Jews are incredibly good liars, but when one investigates their foul lies, truth is often piercing"

incredibly good liars? I think that's too much presumption, I think sometimes some people thinks everyone lies, that's reasonable but what about when they're not actually liyng?

I think truth is more than what you think "her fehurer". Truth is often a mere approximation and often elusive (instead of piercing).

I agree one must investigate but that doesn't mean you will know the truth at all. Maybe you should read about scientific method as a way to investigate efficiently.
asfdsa
in asdf
Posted: Mon Aug 23, 2010 | 06:27 PM
also, here in mexico we can't burn our flag (I don't know if American one is allowed) we can't distort our national hymn or things like that. We can't piss on the street but kids can (on a tire), we can't spit on the street or puke or something like that.

I think we have hate crimes but we also have narcotraffic and shit like that. I'm a former catholic but I don't believe even in god and I don't accept it because of the rejection.

BTW, does minute man commit hate crimes? they are killing/beating people because of their race.
Page 3 of 3 pages  < 1 2 3

In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server. 		Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.