Hello everyone.
Months ago a read the article titled: "the end of the line" by the former revisionist Eric Hunt, i didnt think it was convincing enough though, but i havent found any response to this article yet, is there any?
Eric Hunt
Moderator: Moderator
Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Re: Eric Hunt
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
— Herbert Spencer
NOTE: I am taking a leave of absence from revisionism to focus on other things. At this point, the ball is in their court to show the alleged massive pits full of human remains at the so-called "extermination camps." After 8 decades they still refuse to do this. I wonder why...
Re: Eric Hunt
I'm not aware of any rebuttals to it. I doubt anybody bothered. As I recall (it's been a couple of years) he doesn't make any groundbreaking arguments. He does the where-did-they-go thing. He rambles on about conspiracy theories and feels this discredits revisionism. He makes a big deal about some of the Auschwitz photos.
Here's a very quick rebuttal
Where did the Jews go: Very common topic. It's an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. This assumes that if we can't track all the Jews perfectly we have to conclude they were killed. No, we don't. If we can't account for all of them satisfactorily, at best that would be a circumstantial argument that something might have happened to them. If there was a grand slaughter of millions of Jews it should be possible to confirm this directly. They lost the direct argument so they have pivoted to this.
Conspiracy theories: Even if it were true that those who are inclined to believe in conspiracy theories and adopt contrarian and esoteric positions are inclined to accept revisionism, logically, that would not imply that the revisionist position is incorrect. I also don't think that's an accurate description of revisionists in general.
Photos: The photos he uses don't show anything.
Another issue is that Hunt only sort of repudiated his revisionist work. I think he said there were some parts that he still stands by but there are other parts that would need to be corrected. However to this day he has never actually issued the retractions (at least not anything complete and specific). My question for Eric Hunt would be: which claims have you retracted and which you still accept? Why won't you tell us? If he put out something he believes to contain false information he has an obligation to set the record straight. I suspect it's that much of the stuff he attacks in his movies is simply indefensible. He's not willing to publicly embarrass himself by saying he believes some of that stuff but he doesn't want to get in trouble by explicitly endorsing it either. So he prefers to be cagey about it. Or he's just lazy.
Here's a very quick rebuttal
Where did the Jews go: Very common topic. It's an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. This assumes that if we can't track all the Jews perfectly we have to conclude they were killed. No, we don't. If we can't account for all of them satisfactorily, at best that would be a circumstantial argument that something might have happened to them. If there was a grand slaughter of millions of Jews it should be possible to confirm this directly. They lost the direct argument so they have pivoted to this.
Conspiracy theories: Even if it were true that those who are inclined to believe in conspiracy theories and adopt contrarian and esoteric positions are inclined to accept revisionism, logically, that would not imply that the revisionist position is incorrect. I also don't think that's an accurate description of revisionists in general.
Photos: The photos he uses don't show anything.
Another issue is that Hunt only sort of repudiated his revisionist work. I think he said there were some parts that he still stands by but there are other parts that would need to be corrected. However to this day he has never actually issued the retractions (at least not anything complete and specific). My question for Eric Hunt would be: which claims have you retracted and which you still accept? Why won't you tell us? If he put out something he believes to contain false information he has an obligation to set the record straight. I suspect it's that much of the stuff he attacks in his movies is simply indefensible. He's not willing to publicly embarrass himself by saying he believes some of that stuff but he doesn't want to get in trouble by explicitly endorsing it either. So he prefers to be cagey about it. Or he's just lazy.
Re: Eric Hunt
The where-did-they-go argument is a logical fallacy.Archie wrote:....
Here's a very quick rebuttal
Where did the Jews go: Very common topic. It's an attempt to reverse the burden of proof. This assumes that if we can't track all the Jews perfectly we have to conclude they were killed. No, we don't. If we can't account for all of them satisfactorily, at best that would be a circumstantial argument that something might have happened to them. If there was a grand slaughter of millions of Jews it should be possible to confirm this directly. They lost the direct argument so they have pivoted to this.
It assumes that Jews simply vanished and that's why they must have been gassed. It's wrong on several levels.
* Jews didn't simply vanished, they emigrated and where deported, This isn't even in dispute.
* Even if they 'simply vanished', that wouldn't prove in any way that they were gassed or otherwise killed. Them not being around after world war two would be a requirement for plausibility of a thesis, but it isn't proof for the thesis.
What they essentially do with the argument is arguing that because Revisionists can't you give the whereabout of all the Jews that lived in Europe prior to World War Two, this somehow nullifies the thesis that there was no homicidal gas chambers and industrial extermination program.
The question is why do they have to resort this kind of deception? The answer is simply that they can't give any positive evidence for their thesis, so they have to use a rescue device to salvage it.
Indeed. It's another fallacy to claim because A believes X, he can't be right on Y. It's an ad hominem fallacy being used there and a 'poisoning the well'. "Discredit" your critiques, by claiming that they believe something that is odd.Archie wrote:Conspiracy theories: Even if it were true that those who are inclined to believe in conspiracy theories and adopt contrarian and esoteric positions are inclined to accept revisionism, logically, that would not imply that the revisionist position is incorrect. I also don't think that's an accurate description of revisionists in general.
Why would you have to resort to this, if your proof is actually sound?
What makes it even more funny is that they themselves engage in conspiracy theories to prove their point. They suggest that they can't find the evidence for their thesis, because the Nazis managed to make it vanish and cover it up.
Archie wrote:Photos: The photos he uses don't show anything.
Another issue is that Hunt only sort of repudiated his revisionist work. I think he said there were some parts that he still stands by but there are other parts that would need to be corrected. However to this day he has never actually issued the retractions (at least not anything complete and specific). My question for Eric Hunt would be: which claims have you retracted and which you still accept? Why won't you tell us? If he put out something he believes to contain false information he has an obligation to set the record straight. I suspect it's that much of the stuff he attacks in his movies is simply indefensible. He's not willing to publicly embarrass himself by saying he believes some of that stuff but he doesn't want to get in trouble by explicitly endorsing it either. So he prefers to be cagey about it. Or he's just lazy.
I get that Eric Hunt went to some difficult time. I empathize with this. But that doesn't make his retractions in anyway correct. It's obvious that there was some pressure on him to 'recant' his Revisionist Views. His arguments somehow supports the fishiness of Holocaust Belief in general. People believe it, because otherwise they'll be in trouble.
Eric did get polemical some times in the video. E.g. calling people claiming to be witnesses 'Zionists', etc. That was distracting from the point there. Whether Zionism is valid is irrelevant to the question whether Holocaust claims are true or not.
In total the videos where however quite good and informative. He got some talent in that department. But I guess it is demanded too much, that a person got 'all the answers' there. And lets face it, the Holocaust Industry is well-organized and has huge resources at its disposal. Unfortunately people tend to believe those that have the appearance of wealth, power, wittiness, class, etc. It doesn't prove their position, but people go for appearances and not through the labor of analyzing a thesis. They love their short cuts... But this isn't a good way to establish what is true or not.
Re: Eric Hunt
Hunt's so-called antirevisionist recantation sounded much like the recantation of a top evolutionist claiming he suddenly became a creationist after seing a giraffe in a zoo. 100% unconvincing and ridiculous. 
One must know and keep in mind that Eric Hunt was a recidivist of insincere recantation when he recanted his revisionist views in 2017. In 2008, he was released from jail (when he was being held for accosting Elie Wiesel in a hotel at San Francisco) because he had apologized to Elie Wiesel and said that he had been "sucked into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on the internet" but that he did not deny the Holocaust. The insincerity of that spectacular recantation was exposed many times during the following years, when he made some of the best revisionist documentaries ever seen. If memory serves me right, Hunt was travelling in Europe (where Holocaust revisionism is illegal almost everywhere) for the second part of his revisionist documentary "Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed" when he finally saw the light (i.e. recanted his revisionist views... again). Inferring what happened to him (and so the real source of his last 'recantation') is not that hard if I'm asked...
One must know and keep in mind that Eric Hunt was a recidivist of insincere recantation when he recanted his revisionist views in 2017. In 2008, he was released from jail (when he was being held for accosting Elie Wiesel in a hotel at San Francisco) because he had apologized to Elie Wiesel and said that he had been "sucked into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on the internet" but that he did not deny the Holocaust. The insincerity of that spectacular recantation was exposed many times during the following years, when he made some of the best revisionist documentaries ever seen. If memory serves me right, Hunt was travelling in Europe (where Holocaust revisionism is illegal almost everywhere) for the second part of his revisionist documentary "Questioning the Holocaust: Why We Believed" when he finally saw the light (i.e. recanted his revisionist views... again). Inferring what happened to him (and so the real source of his last 'recantation') is not that hard if I'm asked...
QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST - WHY WE BELIEVED (PART 1 OF 2)
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
-
borjastick
- Valuable asset
- Posts: 3233
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:52 am
- Location: Europe
Re: Eric Hunt
I think Hunt's theory went further than that. He claimed that as we (revisionists) cannot prove that the jews even left Auschwitz, Treblinka etc they must have died there.
It's a bit like the Schrodinger's cat hypothesis explained below. Jews were sent to camps, cannot be sure if they were gassed there or were sent on into the eastern territories and further into Russia so we could think of them as both alive and dead...
It's a bit like the Schrodinger's cat hypothesis explained below. Jews were sent to camps, cannot be sure if they were gassed there or were sent on into the eastern territories and further into Russia so we could think of them as both alive and dead...
The where-did-they-go argument is a logical fallacy.
It assumes that Jews simply vanished and that's why they must have been gassed. It's wrong on several levels.
* Jews didn't simply vanished, they emigrated and where deported, This isn't even in dispute.
* Even if they 'simply vanished', that wouldn't prove in any way that they were gassed or otherwise killed. Them not being around after world war two would be a requirement for plausibility of a thesis, but it isn't proof for the thesis.
Schrödinger's cat
In quantum mechanics, Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment that illustrates a paradox of quantum superposition. In the thought experiment, a hypothetical cat may be considered simultaneously both alive and dead, while it is unobserved in a closed box, as a result of its fate being linked to a random subatomic event that may or may not occur.
'Of the four million Jews under Nazi control in WW2, six million died and alas only five million survived.'
'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician
'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician
Re: Eric Hunt
Schrödinger's kikes.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
-
Otium
Re: Eric Hunt
It's all well and good to make fun of Hunt, to speculate on his reasonings. But this doesn't solve the questions he has put to revisionists. His actual arguments need to be dealt with. Has anyone done so?
If it's true, as Hunt claims, that the American surveillance plane photographs showing the alleged gas chamber holes in Crematorium's 2 and 3 are not forgeries, then this needs to be addressed with facts:
At least regarding these photographs, it's true I haven't seen any revisionist article or book discuss any of the other photographs except for the American ones, and I also haven't seen anyone prove that the negatives were tampered with. Though I think Hunt draws the wrong conclusion, I think he has to be taken seriously and these criticisms needed to be addressed by revisionists, ideally many years ago already. But this - to my knowledge - was never done.
As far as I know though, Germar and Mattogno have shown that the alleged "holes" in these photographs couldn't have been holes, due to their position and size. So really they must just be something else. Hunt cannot claim that these are definitvely "holes to the gas chamber" unless all the other evidence is considered regarding their alleged positioning and size.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, I found Hunt's discussion on the authenticity of the Auschwitz photos convincing, provided the information he gave was accurate. His conclusions, as said, I think aren't proven by the fact (?) that the photographs haven't been tampered with.
In the section on Babi Yar he claims that John Ball is wrong. I have no clue how true that is, so far as I know Mattogno has established that there are air photographs which should've shown the tail end of the German action of disposing human remains, but nothing can be seen. No evidence at all. In that section he presents the well known Babi Yar photographs and gives them a backstroy which fits his view without actually providing any evidence.
As to why there is a photograph of a bunch of clothing in a ravine, I don't know:
If it's true, as Hunt claims, that the American surveillance plane photographs showing the alleged gas chamber holes in Crematorium's 2 and 3 are not forgeries, then this needs to be addressed with facts:
The “believers” had an expert on forgeries and photography, Dino A. Brugioni, testify in court that they were not doctored at the negative level. Photographs showing the areas with the Zyklon B insertion holes were not forgeries. Brugioni “wrote the book” on the subject, titled Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation. The typical kneejerk conspiracy theorist rebuttal is that since Brugioni worked for the C.I.A., he lied on the witness stand to cover up the top secret multi-national plot.
[...]
In addition, Ball only analyzed the American photographs, not the South African surveillance photos which also show four holes over both Crematoriums two and three. They are remarkably consistent despite being taken in sequence at varying distances. Photographs from the second camera of the South African mosquito plane which flew over Birkenau was only recently uncovered in British archives. It’s highly unlikely the CIA or Brugioni forged those too. Ball clearly isn’t anywhere near the expert he claims he is, as Brugioni commented about the grain of the film being consistent over the alleged forged holes, etc., the type of hard evidence which one would expect to be shown and analyzed by even an amateur photographer.
Revisionists never properly analyzed the various aerial photographs from numerous countries’ surveillance planes, and proved the holes in the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3 were doctored into the original negatives. This is something entirely provable by expert examination of modified physical negatives. To create such a forgery, one would have to use acid, or scratch, perhaps with the head of a needle, (or other methods) the original physical negative. The negative material would be thinner, one would be removing or thinning dark areas on the negative, actually. But when printed into a positive or the typical printed photographs we see, this area would appear dark. This kind of tampering with the evidence should be easily provable. Simply calling “bullshit” on it won’t do.
Brugioni’s analysis is correct, he told the truth, and after all, the holes are still there. The claim that Brugioni himself doctored the photographs is defamatory and outrageous.
https://archive.fo/DoGTn
[...]
In addition, Ball only analyzed the American photographs, not the South African surveillance photos which also show four holes over both Crematoriums two and three. They are remarkably consistent despite being taken in sequence at varying distances. Photographs from the second camera of the South African mosquito plane which flew over Birkenau was only recently uncovered in British archives. It’s highly unlikely the CIA or Brugioni forged those too. Ball clearly isn’t anywhere near the expert he claims he is, as Brugioni commented about the grain of the film being consistent over the alleged forged holes, etc., the type of hard evidence which one would expect to be shown and analyzed by even an amateur photographer.
Revisionists never properly analyzed the various aerial photographs from numerous countries’ surveillance planes, and proved the holes in the roofs of Kremas 2 and 3 were doctored into the original negatives. This is something entirely provable by expert examination of modified physical negatives. To create such a forgery, one would have to use acid, or scratch, perhaps with the head of a needle, (or other methods) the original physical negative. The negative material would be thinner, one would be removing or thinning dark areas on the negative, actually. But when printed into a positive or the typical printed photographs we see, this area would appear dark. This kind of tampering with the evidence should be easily provable. Simply calling “bullshit” on it won’t do.
Brugioni’s analysis is correct, he told the truth, and after all, the holes are still there. The claim that Brugioni himself doctored the photographs is defamatory and outrageous.
https://archive.fo/DoGTn
At least regarding these photographs, it's true I haven't seen any revisionist article or book discuss any of the other photographs except for the American ones, and I also haven't seen anyone prove that the negatives were tampered with. Though I think Hunt draws the wrong conclusion, I think he has to be taken seriously and these criticisms needed to be addressed by revisionists, ideally many years ago already. But this - to my knowledge - was never done.
As far as I know though, Germar and Mattogno have shown that the alleged "holes" in these photographs couldn't have been holes, due to their position and size. So really they must just be something else. Hunt cannot claim that these are definitvely "holes to the gas chamber" unless all the other evidence is considered regarding their alleged positioning and size.
Unless someone can show me otherwise, I found Hunt's discussion on the authenticity of the Auschwitz photos convincing, provided the information he gave was accurate. His conclusions, as said, I think aren't proven by the fact (?) that the photographs haven't been tampered with.
In the section on Babi Yar he claims that John Ball is wrong. I have no clue how true that is, so far as I know Mattogno has established that there are air photographs which should've shown the tail end of the German action of disposing human remains, but nothing can be seen. No evidence at all. In that section he presents the well known Babi Yar photographs and gives them a backstroy which fits his view without actually providing any evidence.
As to why there is a photograph of a bunch of clothing in a ravine, I don't know:
-
Waldgänger
- Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Sat May 16, 2020 1:46 am
Re: Eric Hunt
As far as I know though, Germar and Mattogno have shown that the alleged "holes" in these photographs couldn't have been holes, due to their position and size. So really they must just be something else. Hunt cannot claim that these are definitvely "holes to the gas chamber" unless all the other evidence is considered regarding their alleged positioning and size.
Otium, even some mainstream narrative sites say quite openly that the kremas were designed as morgues, and that there was some primitive ventilation system (which would have included holes) to let out the noxious stench of decaying bodies that is normal in a conventional morgue. These mainstreamers go further, of course, insisting that the SS covertly converted the morgues into gassing cellars (despite lack of technical expertise and lack of professional engineers on site) using these pre-existing holes. I have never been bothered by the roof outlets for this reason.
Re: Eric Hunt
There is also the following thread:MLLBR wrote:Hello everyone.
Months ago a read the article titled: "the end of the line" by the former revisionist Eric Hunt, i didnt think it was convincing enough though, but i havent found any response to this article yet, is there any?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10963
My recollection is that there was a bit of discussion here at the time by way of explanation and response, but nothing very systematic.
Re: Eric Hunt
borjastick wrote:I think Hunt's theory went further than that. He claimed that as we (revisionists) cannot prove that the jews even left Auschwitz, Treblinka etc they must have died there.
It's a bit like the Schrodinger's cat hypothesis explained below. Jews were sent to camps, cannot be sure if they were gassed there or were sent on into the eastern territories and further into Russia so we could think of them as both alive and dead...
....
Where is the 'outbound train records'? Sure one needs at least that.
A possible reason for not showing up again, can of course be that someone is dead. But not showing up is not a proof of being dead. Otherwise you'd have assume that all the people you don't know about where they are have been murdered.
The fallacious argument has this structure:
Hypothesis: X causes Y. X is homicidal gassing and Y is that whereabout are unknown.
- We can claim that Y is given.
False Conclusion: Hypothesis is true, hence X is true as well.
It is kind like claiming that Christmas presents are brought by Santa Clause. And then point to Christmas presents under the tree, claiming that this proves Santa Clause exists.
Fallacious reasoning, albeit not always, will lead to bad results.
Re: Eric Hunt
Otium wrote:and after all, the holes are still there.
https://archive.fo/DoGTn
No, they are not. Or else the antirevisionist propagandist Robert Van Pelt wouldn't have postulated that those holes were invisibly filled in by the Nazis.
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
-
Otium
Re: Eric Hunt
hermod wrote:Otium wrote:and after all, the holes are still there.
https://archive.fo/DoGTn
No, they are not. Or else the antirevisionist propagandist Robert Van Pelt wouldn't have postulated that those holes were invisibly filled in by the Nazis.
I didn't write this, Hunt wrote that.
But you're right, van Pelt admitted that there were no holes, but others seem to disagree. This is an incongruity in the mainstream narrative between mainstream "historians" who admit there weren't holes, and those who claim that there were holes and that they've been identified: https://phdn.org/archives/www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/AuschwitzText%20Page.htm
-
DissentingOpinions
- Valued contributor
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:16 pm
Re: Eric Hunt
Didn't Eric Hunt claim he fell in love with a Jew whose family was allegedly killed by the Einsatzgruppen & he got into an argument with Hannover about that myth? I have to admit, it was pretty funny seeing him get triggered when I brought up how Germar cut off his funding.
Great documentaries, but his little blog was really poorly written. Shill or not, the man needs medication and therapy.
Great documentaries, but his little blog was really poorly written. Shill or not, the man needs medication and therapy.
Re: Eric Hunt
Otium wrote:hermod wrote:Otium wrote:and after all, the holes are still there.
https://archive.fo/DoGTn
No, they are not. Or else the antirevisionist propagandist Robert Van Pelt wouldn't have postulated that those holes were invisibly filled in by the Nazis.
I didn't write this, Hunt wrote that.
I know. I had understood that.
Otium wrote:But you're right, van Pelt admitted that there were no holes, but others seem to disagree. This is an incongruity in the mainstream narrative between mainstream "historians" who admit there weren't holes, and those who claim that there were holes and that they've been identified: https://phdn.org/archives/www.mazal.org/Auschwitz%20jpg/AuschwitzText%20Page.htm
I can easily understand why some desperate exterminationists need to portray those shapeless cracks as Zyklon holes, but I can also understand why Van Pelt and others don't want to ridicule themselves with Keren, McCarthy & Mazal's pathetic cracks.
There were square holes in the ceiling of the oven rooms of Krema II & Krema III and those ventilation holes still looked like very recognizable square holes after the Birkenau crematoria had been dynamited by the retreating Germans. Watch the video linked below (timecodes: 07:07-09:10 and 10:05-17:25). It's in French, but nevertheless useful. There used to be a subtitled version of it, but it was deleted by (((censors))) afraid of any too blatant exposure of their lies. In that video, Mr. Reynouard also explained that the 2004 "study" of Keren, Mc Carthy & Mazal was not even mentioned in the bibliography of the 2007 official book published by the Auschwitz Museum (timecode: 17:30-18:16).
https://archive.org/details/2014-07-05- ... itz-low-14
"[Austen Chamberlain] has done western civilization a great service by refuting at least one of the slanders against the Germans
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
because a civilization which leaves war lies unchallenged in an atmosphere of hatred and does not produce courage in its leaders to refute them
is doomed. "
Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, on the public admission by Britain's Foreign Secretary that the WWI corpse-factory story was false, December 4, 1925
Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
