I'm not interested in taking on every "no-planer" argument you can come up with -- it's a waste of time

Yes to establish a reputation that would support the idea that you are logical, rational fair-minded and correct you would need to, at least in passing, answer every one of my points.

That you cannot and will not and choose instead to dismiss everything and wave it away, lends credence to the notion you are not in good faith.

The reason yours is a shill argument technique is like this:

1. You ignore the larger picture and context and concentrate on a nit-picky thing that you can win.

2. If you win it, or if it's unclear, and you can keep contesting, as long as you keep people's concentration and focus on the disagreement and contention you can muddy the waters and distract attention from the many arguments *against* your point of view that you have lost.

3. Tried and True Shill Technique that has worked for the folks who muddied the waters surrounding the MLK and the JFK fascist murders.

If it worked before, why change it?

The larger context you cannot win. So you distract attention from that and focus on a small skirmish that you perhaps *can* win - a misdirection ploy. You refuse to take into consideration the larger context and focus attention somewhere else. The bigger picture and the many points you cannot win you treat as incidental, when they are not.

Example: in the Kennedy Assasination arguments, scientists were called forth to "prove" a pumpkin will explode *toward* the direction of the impact of a bullet. The pumpkin was supposed to be analogous to Kennedy's head. This was to disprove the idea that just because JFK's brains were all over the trunk of his limo it couldn't be that he was hit from the back. Most people would assume that, yes, if there were brains all over the back of his car, most likely he was hit from the *front.* That's a natural assumption.

(It takes a lot of work to convince people of what is not true.)

There's a hundred thousand other points in the events surrounding JFK's killing which point to the fact the killer shot did not come from behind.

By focusing on a tiny detail, what happens to a pumpkin when it's hit by a bullet, and trying to convince folks that "yes" a pumpkin will explode toward the direction the bullet comes from, those who wanted to obscure the reality of what happened were able to fool folks and distract them.

This is comparable, IMO, to you trying to convince people that the Rector St. Greenwich St. Deluxe Condo Bld. was obscured by trees in the "Hezarkhani" CNN Exclusive "2nd hit" TV clip.

> "Yea, I think The Greenwich Lux Condo Bld on Rector is missing from the Hezrkhani CNN "Exclusive" Fraud Video."