Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Charles Drago]

I agree that argument from authority has no place in a domain which seeks to establish empirically falsifiable claims. It is thus more than appropriate to challenge someone for facts, to demand precision and to call for clear counterarguments and counterexamples: it is expected and necessary. By the same token it is gratuitous to base proof of an argument on credentials. Besides, what means of authentication would there be at one's disposal in this venue, one participant's word against another's? Shall ye not know them, instead, by their fruits?

I heartily concur, Albert.

I'm certain that the history of science is dotted with examples of meaningful discoveries made by individuals who in the academy would be labeled "uncredentialed." So too has great art been created by autodidacts.

I meant no offense when I politely asked Jeff for a review of his credentials. Rather, I was attempting to establish a base line for weighing the pros and cons of his Z-film assessments. Surely such a request is understandable and far from being out of order.

His position is now this: "If any of the moderators want to PM me I will share with you my qualifications. I've briefly outlined them on another thread. Otherwise, frankly, I don't feel I should have to submit a resume or go into greater detail."

I speak only for myself when I describe such a response as antithetical to the spirit of collegial research and fact-based argument. Why is Jeff willing to share his qualifications only with moderators? What possible downside would there be to publicly posting a brief but detailed c.v.? Surely if Jeff asks us to accept his science, he must be willing to present his scientific credentials.

You will note that I have not offered my opinion on the value of his scientific work. I have no credentials whatsoever in the fields of study he would apply to Z-film analysis.

I am credentialed, however, in the field of deep politics. Thus I challenged -- again, respectfully if at times sardonically -- Jeff and Jim DiEugenio to understand that deep political analyses of science-based arguments demand that we look beyond the science itself and pose questions commonly posed by the most accomplished researchers who probe the JFK assassination.

Perhaps I have no right to speak.

You have EVERY right to speak on DPF. You have broadened and deepened our forum's intellectual bandwidth, and I've learned much from you.

I, unlike others in this community, have not been subjected to decades of harassment by the professional contortion artists of history[.]

You're on to something very important here. Those of us who have toiled in the fields of JFK assassination research -- in some cases for decades -- are all too familiar with the cover-up Facilitators' tactic of re-introducing long-settled arguments for the purposes of spreading disinformation, prolonging the faux debate, and stirring up old, research community-fracturing disagreements.

In the past I have been, shall we say, other than avuncular in my reactions to those who, in my opinion, service the cover-up in such a manner. I will neither speak for nor attempt to condone the behavior of those who reacted violently to Jeff -- researchers whose Z-film work (and indeed their very characters) have been savaged by the Facilitators who troll the Internet. Rather, I simply point out that decades of conflict can harden a person and stifle the better angels of his or her nature.

But perhaps the time for me to part company has also arrived.

To those of you with whom I have exchanged what I believe have been friendly and fruitful words, my gratitude.

Please reconsider this course of action, Albert. I submit that we are at war with the killers of JFK and the monstrous perpetrators of other deep political acts considered on DPF. If need be, withdraw from the field to a rear area for a brief time. But your services, sir, are required on the front lines.

Your comrades await.