Technical Hurdles Suggest Extensive Z-Film Alteration Highly Unlikely

[Charles Drago]

I would be able to take this a bit more seriously if I thought you had ever talked to the Wilkinsons.

Which is the equivalent of saying that I'd take you more seriously if I though you had ever talked to Oswald.

With you, that kind of one on one discussion does not count. What counts is your "deep political analysis" which essentially amounts to, just because Stanley Kubrick didn't know about it, that doesn't mean it did not exist.

No offense, but this is utterly non-responsive and wholly nonsensical.

Charles, if I thought you knew anything about the rather passe film process that others have talked about in depth in other places, I would spend more time on this post.

I have stipulated on at least two occasions that I possess no technical knowledge whatsoever regarding film processes. I am, however, expert in deep political analysis, and that is what I apply here.

Instead, your "deep political analysis" simply amounts to, "See, I am Charles Drago".

My, what a classic case of transference -- given your ceaseless appeals to authority and all. Physician, heal thyself.

In the real world, as Jeff noted, this kind of argument gets us nowhere. It would be ripped to shreds by any authority the other side got.

Then rip away, old sport.

And yes Doug Horne did misrepresent his so called representation of the "Hollywood Group". There was no "Hollywood Group". There was Sydney and her husband who were doing all the heavy lifting on this. The last time I looked, two people did not make a group.

Look again, Jim:


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/group

group noun, often attributive \ˈgrüp\

1: two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition
2: a number of individuals assembled together or having some unifying relationship

and

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/group

group n.

1. An assemblage of persons or objects gathered or located together; an aggregation: a group of dinner guests; a group of buildings near the roa
2. Two or more figures that make up a unit or design, as in sculpture.


Your language skills appear to be the equivalent of my technical film skills. This is bordering on the pathetic.

But of course, Horne misrepresented more than just them.

By indicating that two individuals comprise a group?! We've just crossed the border.

As I tried to teach you, Jim, he most certainly did not misrepresent anything in this regard.

Transference once again rears its ugly heads.


Anyway, let's move on to your fevered attack on Horne, which begins with,

"He also talked about the Boyijean Report, or whatever it was, which "proved" Lifton's theory. Well it did not."

and ends eight irrelevant paragraphs later with,

"He actually also tried to float the FFL argument also. It turned out, he and Lifton had not really done their homework on this, at best. Because, as Costella predicted, that did not play out either."

None of this barely controlled rant bears the slightest relevance to my arguments that so disturb you. Repeat: NONE of it.

But if ever a guy needed an editor, it was Doug. Why he didn't get one escapes me.

Transference, for the third time. You're the gift that keeps on giving, Jim.


Let me simplify things for you. Please try to focus and comment cogently upon the following points I made in the post that got your goat:

1. "[D]eep political analysis of Z-film alteration arguments suggests that some of the most easily refuted were made to diminish all of the most easily demonstrated[.]"

2. "Further, implicit in [Jeff's] statement above is the claim, 'If I don't know about it, it can't exist.'

"Did stealth technology exist prior to being made public by the Air Force? For how long?

"Might classified technologies [including advanced] optical printers have existed in 1963?"

Are you arguing, Jim, that if you don't know about it, it can't exist?