No. I am arguing that 'Diamonds Are Forever' could contain a whistle-blow. There is a difference. A difference you all seem to have missed.

We don't miss it at all. The difference is the heart of the debate. You can only provide conjecture, not proof of any kind. There is no limit to the number of things that scene could mean. An infinite number of interpretations is possible.

A number of posts have demonstrated this, that any number of scenes in any number of movies may be interpreted in any number of ways depending on the viewer's preconceptions and interests. It simply doesn't matter what it "could be". Since there are infinite "could be's" it only matters what you can prove.

No, I am not (borrowing Percy's
argument).

But most assuredly you are! You may not realize it, but the infinite number of possibilities available, for you to offer a whistle-blower theory nearly identical to Percy's -- simply substituting Maibaum's name for Fleming's -- and which is found nowhere else, has only one rational explanation.

It's not a misconstrual. Your argument differs from Percy's unique argument in only one particular. It just happens to be a very important particular as far as the validity of the argument is concerned.

Percy argues that the Diamonds scene may be a whistle-blow orchestrated by writer Ian Fleming. You argue that the Diamonds scene may be a whistle-blow orchestrated by writer Richard Maibaum. This isn't a common argument. You two are the only ones making such an argument. Percy wrote it first, and you've read Percy. By what stretch of credulity are we to understand you're not borrowing it?

Now it is plausible but invalid, as I am unable to prove that this was the case.

It is plausible at prima facie in Fleming's case, for reasons I've explained half a dozen times. It is not plausible at prima facie in Maibaum's case. I have provided evidence beyond prima facie which demonstrates that the Fleming argument is invalid. The Maibaum argument never was plausible.

But seeing as I'm not looking to prove this was the case I will accept that.

Are you conceding that you are unable to prove that Maibaum intended the Diamonds scene as a whistle-blow?

You must understand that we have no interest in idle conjecture. Either provide evidence or withhold the proposition. To do otherwise reflects badly on you, not on us.

I don't mean to state anything as a matter of fact, merely provide an avenue of possibility.

But there are countless such avenues. Thus only those which show promise interest us. You have, in fact, been endeavoring to show that your proposed avenue has some merit, but you are oblivious to why it is essentially unlike any of the countless other fanciful avenues. I might just as well suggest Maibaum was involved in the current Olympic judging scandal, for there is just as much evidence in favor of that as there is for your proposition.

I'm not trying to change minds here. That's never going to happen.

It would happen with well-reasoned arguments. We haven't seen any yet.

You say, essentially, "It's just a possibility; I'm not asserting anything." But you seem oblivious to the impliciations of your "possibilities", i.e., that lots of very talented an eminent people would have to be consummate liars if your possibility was true.

If I were to pick some eminent historical figure to whom you felt sympathy and say it's "possible" he was a child molester, but provided no evidence, I would be lynched.

But I am not asserting anything. At no point have I stated categorically or declared Maibaum to be an intelligence insider.

No, you're just weaseling around it but implying that he "might" be because no evidence has been presented that he wasn't. Conjecture is pointless.

I am not stating anything with absolute authority.

Maybe you should. "Soft" conjectural arguments are pointless. If there is indeed no evidentiary reason for us to travel down your avenue of thought, why not one that involves drug smugglers or space aliens? None of these has any evidence for it, but they're all more fun to talk about.

This relates to Percy's theory and this is almost certainly where wires have been crossed over.

Okay then. If, hypothetically, Maibaum had been given inside information, why would he reveal it in such a public way?

I believe Neil Armstrong may be alluding to something with his "there are places to go beyond belief" speech.

A matter of interpretation. There are countless avenues of interpretation open to you on this point.

What would Armstrong have to gain by having said what he said in the context in which you claim he said it?

And there are a few other comments by astronauts which are open to interpretation.

Again, interpretation. With countless avenues open, you rush immediately for the interpretations that favor a hoax. There's a trend.

I simply try to take into consideration
as many different scenarios as possible.

No, that is precisely what you are not doing. You are taking every opportunity for interpretation and applying a conspiracist preconception to it. You freely admit that you have no evidence for any of this, but that they are just "possibilities". But the common thread running through your "possibilities" illustrates your agenda.

In fact, each of your "possibilities" is very, very far down the list of probable explanations for each of these occurrences, yet these are the ones to which you are drawn time after time. How can we be assured you aren't simply trying to justify a conclusion you've drawn prior to examining the evidence?

If things have gotten complicated then that is because you lot are obsessed with David Percy!

Well, no, you have clearly presented Percy's argument with only very minor changes, and far more tentatively than he. One of us may have been the first to mention Percy by name, but the notion that Diamonds is a whistle-blow is Percy's argument. It's right there in black and white, and we know you read it.

I'm not reluctant, I just thought it was plain for all to see.

Your words are plainly visible, but their meaning and intent are not. You present an argument which differs from another well-known one by only one detail, then when appropriate responses are given you say we have not answered your argument. We are quite justified in asking where the dissimilar argument is.

It has been my belief for some considerable time that the people working towards such a goal would be doing so willingly.

Do you believe there was any threat of death given at any time to any of the hypothetical hoax workers?

People who are happy with engineering a hoax obviously need little or no oversight. But those who organize and plan hoaxes can't always be sure that those they engage to create the hoax are happy doing it, even if they seem to be.

Again, the nature of whistle-blowing requires that whistle-blowers operate under some material threat of punishment. Otherwise there is no whistle-blow.

When did I invoke Percy's evidence?

When you hypothesized that the creator of the scene in Diamonds did so with insider knowledge of a postulated moon hoax, and when you continued to imply that Maibaum "may" have had such insider knowledge despite the lack of any evidence to prove it.

I do! It's just that I often discuss other areas of contention at the same time.

Then that's not a clear expostulation. How are we to know what is relevant to your argument and what is verbal candy?

You are asking me to uphold David Percy's theory, right? I'm not sure I want to do that.

Then don't. It's sufficient to say, "I don't believe it's possible; I agree with you."

It's curious and suggestive for starters.

Curious why, and suggestive of what?

I've gone on at length why it could be a whistle-blow.

And finally admitting that it's only one of countless avenues of possibility, none of which has any evidence in favor of it.