I'm not arguing his argument was flawless. I'm pointing out that an analogy is not invalid simply because there are differences in the two situations. Thus, "Fi

I'm not arguing his argument was flawless. I'm pointing out that an analogy is not invalid simply because there are differences in the two situations. Thus, "First, it was an F-35." and "Second, the faked CGI jet had a pilot." are irrelevant criticisms. Neither one answers the question that mpyne was asking via his analogy, and which he also explicitly stated at the bottom of his post: >> "...why people are fixated on drones as opposed to black helicopters[, etc?]"