This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a bad
news server.

Michael Petukhov wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
Michael Petukhov wrote in message ...
"Geoffrey Sinclair" wrote in message ...
This will probably appear in the wrong place thanks to a bad
news server.

Bad or not that bad. How about this?

Let us see now, instead of answering the problems with the
oil claim the subject is simply changed.

Well you could note I do not get salary to answer on all your
claims.

So we can take it as read Michael is paid to post material that
to be true requires a major conspiracy involving the faking of
American, British, French, Spanish and German documentation.
Since the alleged conspiracy requires American oil to Germany
via Spain and France with Britain allowing the tankers to sail
by Gibraltar for years.

You cite one book I cite a couple of others which seem show
very different pictures on the matter discussed. Any one
can decide which version is closer to sad reality, including you
and me. That's all as far as I understand.

This is really funny, "all care and no responsibility". Michael
cannot defend the version he prefers, but tries to announce
the equivalence of a belief in a flat Earth and a round Earth,
they should be treated equally apparently. By the way what
were "the books" Michael cited?

Although I do appreciate your contribution and the numbers
you cited. So now I better understand what was US official
line of defence on its supplies to NAZI germany.

I see, instead of actually answering the problems about US
oil ending up in Germany during WWII Michael simply
carries on assuming it was true, but cannot actually defend
the article, just change the subject.

A good
starting point to look a bit deeper. When and if I find
something extrodinary like yours "non existent Spanish oil
refinery" in Canaries I'll post it, don't worry.

Look on the internet, you can find almost anything, just tell
them what you want to believe and it can be supplied.

Effectively none of
my text makes it to the non reply.

Maybe. Although unfortunately I do not have the book
to decide how objective, selfconsistent and complete is it.

So please tell us all when you looked at the research and
facts behind the article you quoted to "decide how objective,
selfconsistent and complete is it", or does that only apply
to disliked facts?

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.