Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Tom
Savior (resurrected)
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Tom »

John Gee is now listed as full-time faculty in ANEL's Hebrew section. Professor, William Gay Research Chair, ANEL.

kairos
God
Posts: 1886
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by kairos »

Hebrew- I thought Gee was an Egyptologist!

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9790
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Gadianton »

kairos wrote:Hebrew- I thought Gee was an Egyptologist!


Even if they did teach an Egyptology class, it would be very interesting to me if they'd allow him to teach it, given the conflict of interest with the Chair to do apologetics. BYU has never taught "scholarly" classes on the Book of Mormon or Abraham, except in an extremely limited 1-off fashion.

As long as he can handle Hebrew better than Old Norse, he should be fine. And like I said, it's a free course for the university -- bill to the chair.

Tom's revelation is stunning. I think we've (Tom) identified our "one person who matters" to the chair's continuance and any and all GA communication and intervention in one fell swoop.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11601
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Shulem »

Gadianton wrote:BYU has never taught "scholarly" classes on the Book of Mormon or Abraham, except in an extremely limited 1-off fashion.


BYU would have to totally discredit the Book of Abraham and its Facsimiles if it were to teach it on a scholarly basis. Same goes for the Book of Mormon being historical. For the record:

2015 by Philip Jenkins wrote:After nearly two centuries, though, nobody has ever produced a single site, object, or document that in any way supports any single line of the Book of Mormon.

In 1972, esteemed Meso-American archaeologist Michael Coe gave his opinion that “The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of early migrants to our hemisphere.” We are now forty years on from that statement, with vastly more evidence at our disposal, not least the translation of extensive Maya texts and inscriptions. The last twenty years, indeed, have been a Golden Age of New World archaeology. Nothing, though, has come to light to change Coe’s assessment.


2015 by Philip Jenkins wrote:No academic at a mainstream scholarly conference would dare cite the Book of Mormon as an authentic source on pre-Columbian conditions. No such academic has ever presented an archaeological paper concluding “and thus we see that the finds at site X must be taken to confirm the description of the conflicts described in the Book of Alma.”

If a New World archaeologist ever found anything as anomalous as that suggested in the Mormon story, such as a confirmed Semitic inscription on American soil, he or she would be partying for days to celebrate a career-making find. That has, though, never once happened.


2015 by Philip Jenkins wrote:As a historical source on the ancient Americas, the Book of Mormon is worthless.


Yeah, it's worthless as are the Explanations of the Facsimiles.

User avatar
Symmachus
God
Posts: 1492
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Symmachus »

kairos wrote:Hebrew- I thought Gee was an Egyptologist!


Is he teaching Hebrew or just in the same department as Hebrew? And anyway, you're forgetting that Nephitish Hebrew is basically interchangeable with Egyptian, as well as Akkadian, Eblaite, all forms of even modern Arabic, Amorite, and every dialect of Aramaic, even that of the tiny of villages of Maaloula and Jubbaadin in modern Syria. Mormon apologistics is the flux capacitor that makes dialectical time-travel possible.

Dean Robbers wrote:As long as he can handle Hebrew better than Old Norse, he should be fine.


:lol: :lol:

Tom's revelation is stunning. I think we've (Tom) identified our "one person who matters" to the chair's continuance and any and all GA communication and intervention in one fell swoop.


Yes, thanks for your digging about, Tom. I can't say that it is strictly corrupt, but, wow, a situation where a board member has endowed a chair to help the career of his favorite professor is not exactly a model of ethical administration. Daniel Peterson is right, then: in this case, BYU is a just the stage on which Gee performs for his patron.

After a few false hits that violated the innocence of my eyes, I learn that Robert Gay "served as chairman of the Self-Reliance Services/Perpetual Education Fund Committee with responsibilities for worldwide self-reliance services and as the President of the Asia North Area."

I wish I had the kind of self-reliance that Gay offers Gee.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie

User avatar
Analytics
God
Posts: 4192
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:24 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Analytics »

Symmachus wrote:Yes, thanks for your digging about, Tom. I can't say that it is strictly corrupt, but, wow, a situation where a board member has endowed a chair to help the career of his favorite professor is not exactly a model of ethical administration. Daniel Peterson is right, then: in this case, BYU is a just the stage on which Gee performs for his patron.

After a few false hits that violated the innocence of my eyes, I learn that Robert Gay "served as chairman of the Self-Reliance Services/Perpetual Education Fund Committee with responsibilities for worldwide self-reliance services and as the President of the Asia North Area."

I wish I had the kind of self-reliance that Gay offers Gee.

LOL
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21126
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Kishkumen »

Symmachus wrote:Is he teaching Hebrew or just in the same department as Hebrew? And anyway, you're forgetting that Nephitish Hebrew is basically interchangeable with Egyptian, as well as Akkadian, Eblaite, all forms of even modern Arabic, Amorite, and every dialect of Aramaic, even that of the tiny of villages of Maaloula and Jubbaadin in modern Syria. Mormon apologistics is the flux capacitor that makes dialectical time-travel possible.


ROFLMAO!!!

The learning of the Jews, the language of the Egyptians, and the blarney of the Irish.

Yes, thanks for your digging about, Tom. I can't say that it is strictly corrupt, but, wow, a situation where a board member has endowed a chair to help the career of his favorite professor is not exactly a model of ethical administration. Daniel Peterson is right, then: in this case, BYU is a just the stage on which Gee performs for his patron.

After a few false hits that violated the innocence of my eyes, I learn that Robert Gay "served as chairman of the Self-Reliance Services/Perpetual Education Fund Committee with responsibilities for worldwide self-reliance services and as the President of the Asia North Area."

I wish I had the kind of self-reliance that Gay offers Gee.


He had to pay a very high price for it, but he seems to have been fully willing to pay it.
Last edited by Kishkumen on Wed May 29, 2019 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I think the religious debates in America, where they fail is people will joke around in a rather mean and rude way, and they'll put other people down as opposed to being respectful when they debate." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

Tom
Savior (resurrected)
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:45 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Tom »

The Maxwell Institute’s 2018 report features this bit of trivia from Dr. Gee: “According to Oxford University’s and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München’s Online Egyptological Bibliography, I am already in the top 4 percent of Egyptologists historically in terms of number of Egyptological publications.“

Dr. Gee’s CV (https://humanities.BYU.edu/wp-content/u ... y-2019.pdf) lists two books and 148 articles, including book reviews. I’d be interested to learn which of these made the OEB grade.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22200
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by moksha »

Like Dr. Kerry Muhlestein would say, "You find one mummy and you get wrapped up in all the excitement".
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 7897
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Doctor Scratch »

I must admit that these developments have put me in a pensive--perhaps even rueful--frame of mind. I think we all have to admit that the Mopologists were correct (well....more or less) in their reporting of this event. They, of course, have already set the stage in terms of how they would like the viewing public to interpret what happened: this is a huge blow to the Maxwell Institute, and a follow-up to "unprecedented" (Tanner's word) "spanking" (Midgley's) that was delivered by Elder Holland back in the fall of 2018. Peterson, meanwhile, framed this as "good news" insofar as John Gee no longer has to be around the odious and repugnant Maxwell Institute.

To be honest, I think this is throwing fuel onto the fire. The Mopologists are going to sharply ratchet up their nastiness. Now that they see that blows can be successfully landed on the "new" MI, they are going to gather up their energies for renewed levels of aggression. You can see some of this in the "Comments" thread of the "Sic et Non" post, where Dr. Peterson is practically frothing at the mouth over getting to trash people he doesn't like. Meanwhile, Midgley, in a separate Comments thread, is holding up Mike Norton as an exemplar of how LDS Church critics speak and behave.

It's tough to say what this will mean in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that, on one level, the MI is glad to be rid of Gee. It's unclear to me what they gained from having the Gay Chair connected to the MI (though I guess we've now come to learn that there is a "mentoring" thing attached to the Gay funding is well? Has this been flowing into Smoot's pockets? He seems to be the Book of Abraham "heir apparent," no?). It always feels like a bummer to have something taken away; even if they remove your diseased appendix, you still feel a little "lesser," even if your reasons for feeling that way are dumb and irrational. I guess the trickiness for the MI at the moment is figuring out how to maneuver around the fact that the Mopologists are going to definitely frame this as an institutional "rebuke," and they are going to do everything in their power to make this hurt, to burn them down, and to get revenge.

I stand by my assertions concerning 2019 as an "historic" year.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Dr Exiled »

Let them return to their nasty ways. They are defending silly nonsense and the smug lack of self-awareness will come back to bite them when the Jenkinses of the outside world take notice. They are paper tigers. Their rhetoric and reasoning is weak (thank you Dr. Dale). They deserve to be singled out as irrational flat-earthers and their faux high and mighty attitude will only fuel the fire. I think I smell napalm in the morning like the Robert Duvall character in Apocalyse Now.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Physics Guy »

Tom wrote:The Maxwell Institute’s 2018 report features this bit of trivia from Dr. Gee: “According to Oxford University’s and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München’s Online Egyptological Bibliography, I am already in the top 4 percent of Egyptologists historically in terms of number of Egyptological publications.“

Dr. Gee’s CV (https://humanities.BYU.edu/wp-content/u ... y-2019.pdf) lists two books and 148 articles, including book reviews. I’d be interested to learn which of these made the OEB grade.


That's the thing I saw that made me ask how big an Egyptological big shot Gee was, but I couldn't find his CV.

148 articles is certainly a lot, but only about one-third of them are Egyptological research articles. If it were my CV I would have separated out publications by type more, but formats vary.

Fifty papers in 20 years post-PhD is two or three a year. I don't know what's normal in Egyptology but my guess is that this is a respectable output for a research professor who is mostly writing alone. A famous mentor of mine who has long held a purely research position and does not lean on a host of co-authors aims for 2-5 papers per year, feeling that more than five would mean he'd let quality slip in favor of quantity. Theoretical physics papers can often be ridiculously short compared to papers in other fields, so my mentor's high end of five may be too high for Egyptology.

So two-to-three Egyptology papers each year for Gee is probably neither too few nor too many, as far as simple quantity goes. Adding the reviews and all the Mormon articles does make it look as though Gee has been doing what an occupant of his chair should be doing.

Is there a meaningful way to assess how much Gee's Egyptological work has been cited? Are there citation indices in his field?
Last edited by Physics Guy on Thu May 30, 2019 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21126
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Kishkumen »

2-3 articles a year is what one should expect of a professor whose appointment is to do research almost exclusively. Whereas others have to put more effort into teaching and service (to the department, college, and university), a research professor is expected to do research and lots of it. I write this to put his level of productivity into perspective. Still, he has been very prolific.

I consider this a big win for everyone, and what could be better than that? Gee’s MI gig has been an albatross around his neck. New MI has had to deal with a colleague in rebellion. Now Gee can begin to pull himself out of the horrible bog of Book of Abraham apologetics he has been mired in. MI can take a huge breath of fresh air. DCP has another buddy in his department. It’s all good!

Most of all, we have been treated to a real bird’s eye view of how the wealthy Mormon elite can mold BYU and apologetics with their oversized clout. This Robert C. Gay business is absolutely fascinating. Remember that Howard Hughes was afraid of William Gay, Bob’s father. Bill was the guy who surrounded Hughes with Mormon bodyguards. Bob is at the heart of the Who’s Who of the LDS Church, and he has a strong interest in Mopologetics, to the point that he funded a professorship, and, when that was in jeopardy, used his clout to get it moved to an entirely different department.

Wild stuff.
"I think the religious debates in America, where they fail is people will joke around in a rather mean and rude way, and they'll put other people down as opposed to being respectful when they debate." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

I have a question
God
Posts: 9670
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by I have a question »

Kishkumen wrote:Now Gee can begin to pull himself out of the horrible bog of Book of Abraham apologetics he has been mired in.

I may have misunderstood, but isn't the whole purpose of the Gay Chair to fund Gee staying mired in Book Of Abraham apologetics?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21126
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Kishkumen »

I have a question wrote:I may have misunderstood, but isn't the whole purpose of the Gay Chair to fund Gee staying mired in Book Of Abraham apologetics?


That's a good questions, IHAQ. I would say that at the beginning this was most definitely the case. It seems to me, however, and here I am following the observations of others as well as my own, that Gee has let up on the gas pedal on his Book of Abraham apologetics in recent times. I am not suggesting that he believes in the Book of Abraham any less or that he feels it is any less an ancient text than he has always felt, but he does seem to have treated the whole thing like a tiresome slog lately.

Maybe this will afford him the opportunity to focus on other LDS texts more than he has in the past, thus allowing him to remain faithful to his charge as the William "Bill" Gay Professor.
"I think the religious debates in America, where they fail is people will joke around in a rather mean and rude way, and they'll put other people down as opposed to being respectful when they debate." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
Markk
Charlatan
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Markk »

DS wrote...You can see some of this in the "Comments" thread of the "Sic et Non" post, where Dr. Peterson is practically frothing at the mouth over getting to trash people he doesn't like.


Hey Doc...

I'm not sure which is more important to him.. trashing folks he does not care for, or exchanges like those in the comment section allowing him to play out his need to be a victim. But either way it has got to be hard for him to not be able to be the DCP he once was, leading his "army of apologists against the enemy."

Looking back over the years at Mopology, specifically FARM's, NMI, and all the "board wars"...what were the "victories" for them? Honestly the only one that I can think of, that I said to myself..."okay, I'll give you that one" is "adieu" being a french word only, and even then their work unwittingly proved it was a word that gave support to the Book of Mormon being a American 19th century work.

If you were to be objective, and you were hired to write DCP's resume, what would you list as his greatest accomplishments in regards to LDS apologenticts? I would love to read how his resume would read from your (or anyone else's) point of view, being as objective as you can? If this interests you maybe it deserves it's own thread.
Last edited by Markk on Thu May 30, 2019 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11601
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Shulem »

Kishkumen wrote:It seems to me, however, and here I am following the observations of others as well as my own, that Gee has let up on the gas pedal on his Book of Abraham apologetics in recent times. I am not suggesting that he believes in the Book of Abraham any less or that he feels it is any less an ancient text than he has always felt, but he does seem to have treated the whole thing like a tiresome slog lately.


He's not happy having to discuss the Book of Abraham. He's done. He's had it. He can't take it anymore.

Now it's time for him to settle in and make some adjustments. If those don't work out and he's unable to reconcile things then there is a good chance that apostasy is on the horizon.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10399
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Lemmie »

What surprises me is the requirement that he now, after 15 years or so has to teach while holding an endowed research chair. Who changed the conditions of his appointment? Was that compromise necessary in order to convince the ANEL department to take him on?

According to the Maxwell annual report on Gee, at least a month of last year's efforts was funded separately by the H Donl Peterson family even though he spent it researching Book of Abraham papyri sources, so maybe the Chair hasn't been fully covering his salary. After all, iirc from a thread here, wasn't half of Peterson's salary also covered by the Maxwell Institute? Maybe the Maxwell no longer wanted to pick up any of the tab for Gee's salary.

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8844
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Fence Sitter »

Kishkumen wrote:
That's a good questions, IHAQ. I would say that at the beginning this was most definitely the case. It seems to me, however, and here I am following the observations of others as well as my own, that Gee has let up on the gas pedal on his Book of Abraham apologetics in recent times. I am not suggesting that he believes in the Book of Abraham any less or that he feels it is any less an ancient text than he has always felt, but he does seem to have treated the whole thing like a tiresome slog lately.

Maybe this will afford him the opportunity to focus on other LDS texts more than he has in the past, thus allowing him to remain faithful to his charge as the William "Bill" Gay Professor.


I suspect that the recent volume from the JSPP on the Book of Abraham is a strong clue why he is letting up. Not only does it not support his (following Nibley) theories on the creation of the Book of Abraham, it argues against it in support of people like Smith, Cook, Vogel & Metcalfe. While Gee may not care what non believers say about his work, it has to be a tough pill to swallow seeing a book come out which is produced by the Church's historian's office contradicting at the most fundamental level, his life's work on the Book of Abraham. His recent offering on the Book of Abraham, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham offered nothing new except feeble attempts to distance the Hor scroll from a missing scroll, attempts Vogel quickly put to rest. It is ironic how Gee, Bob Smith et al loudly condemn anyone who is not an Egyptologist for publishing on the Book of Abraham, yet when it comes to any their proffered arguments out of the field of Egyptology, they utter fail. See Gee's two inks fiaco, or his total failure at math in his length of the scroll papers. As a historian Gee is getting soundly thrashed by Vogel. In textual analysis Hauglid is also showing Gee his short comings.

Hauglid and Jensen are doing public presentations on the volume where they say Joseph Smith couldn't actually translate Egyptian, we have the papyri from which Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, and we as a church need to rethink what the word translation means in regards to Joseph Smith's work on the Book of Abraham. Think about that, if the church changes it's views on this and switches to a catalyst theory for the production of the Book of Abraham, there won't be a whole lot of demand for faithful Mormon Egyptologists.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11601
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Shulem »

Fence Sitter wrote: if the church changes it's views on this and switches to a catalyst theory for the production of the Book of Abraham, there won't be a whole lot of demand for faithful Mormon Egyptologists.


The church essay pretty much reveals that the church is adopting the catalyst theory. The missing roll theory is dead. So, Gee can take his ball and go home.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9790
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Has John Gee Been "Booted" from the Maxwell Institute?

Post by Gadianton »

Fencesitter wrote:I suspect that the recent volume from the JSPP on the Book of Abraham is a strong clue why he is letting up. Not only does it not support his (following Nibley) theories on the creation of the Book of Abraham, it argues against it in support of people like Smith, Cook, Vogel & Metcalfe. While Gee may not care what non believers say about his work, it has to be a tough pill to swallow seeing a book come out which is produced by the Church's historian's office contradicting at the most fundamental level, his life's work on the Book of Abraham. His recent offering on the Book of Abraham, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham offered nothing new except feeble attempts to distance the Hor scroll from a missing scroll, attempts Vogel quickly put to rest. It is ironic how Gee, Bob Smith et al loudly condemn anyone who is not an Egyptologist for publishing on the Book of Abraham, yet when it comes to any their proffered arguments out of the field of Egyptology, they utter fail. See Gee's two inks fiaco, or his total failure at math in his length of the scroll papers. As a historian Gee is getting soundly thrashed by Vogel. In textual analysis Hauglid is also showing Gee his short comings.

Hauglid and Jensen are doing public presentations on the volume where they say Joseph Smith couldn't actually translate Egyptian, we have the papyri from which Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, and we as a church need to rethink what the word translation means in regards to Joseph Smith's work on the Book of Abraham. Think about that, if the church changes it's views on this and switches to a catalyst theory for the production of the Book of Abraham, there won't be a whole lot of demand for faithful Mormon Egyptologists.


A fantastic contribution Fence Sitter, this has me rethinking this entire episode from the beginning. Doctor Scratch, what is your professional opinion here?
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

Post Reply