30-08-2013, 07:46 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Umm, David, as I said, there is no Hollywood Group.
What there is is the Wilkinsons.
You just won't come to your senses, will you?
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.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:Well, I hate to tell everyone, but the highest rating the critics ever got with the public was after Oliver Stone's movie came out. Remember, "back and to the left"? Yep, he said it five times. Maybe Stone was a CIA agent? Or maybe it was Zach Sklar?
Or was it Albert Rossi?
Another cheap shot.
No one -- repeat, NO ONE -- at DPF has made any such suggestion regarding Messrs. Rossi, Stone, and Sklar.
And for the record, no one has done more than I've done to try to convince Albert Rossi to stay on DPF.
You, on the other hand, seem pleased and better served by his exit and the opportunities for I-told-you-so's that it provides.
But perhaps I'm mistaken. Please share with us how you attempted to keep Albert within the DPF fold.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:[The Wilkinsons] have one significant technical problem to overcome [in re their back-of-head blackout work]. And I look forward to the end result of that endeavor. But during our talk, it became clear to me that they don't buy the wholesale alterationist concept. And that, in this regard, Horne misrepresented who they were and what they are about.
At last, Jim, a prime example of deep political analysis in progress. Of course it originates with the Wilkinsons.
As I tried to explain to you on two previous occasions:
"Deep 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."
http://thesaurus.com/browse/group
Please show me where it says "pair" in the list of synonyms for the word group above.
What got Albert so disgusted with this discussion was the rather all too quick tendency to devolve the debate into smears and innuendoes about certain person's bona fides and credentials. This was also a tendency at EF. Now, I used people who obviously are not spooky to show the rather confused logic of this tendency.
And the Wilkinson work is not any kind of Deep Political Analysis on my part. It was simply a matter of driving to their nice home in the valley. And spending a couple of hours with them and listening to their technical analysis. Not one thing political about it. I understand something about film since I went to college out here for a degree in film. And they explained to me how the digital reformatting worked and what it showed. And that is a rather original approach. Since most of the other presentations I have seen worked exclusively from a film format. And since I understand some of the technical problems involved in the film process I really have not seen anything convincing that would explain to me how it could be done in a brief period of time.
See Brugioni saying, they could do anything at Hawkeye, to me that is not evidence. What is "anything"? But yet Horne hangs his hat on this in reply to all the technical arguments Zavada makes in his 30 page letter.
Then there is the first day quandary: About five people saw the film in Dallas. Would they not have said something if the film had been radically altered in some way?
Having said this, again, I am still an agnostic on the issue. I have changed my mind on issues in this case and related ones. For example, I did not think at one time that all the assassinations were conspiracies or were related. I then wrote a book saying they were.
So once it reaches the tipping point, I will then reevaluate. To me, it has not yet.