Zig Zagger wrote:At a German screening the director explained that leaving Sanders out was mainly a dramatic choice, for lack of a dramatic key scene that could have been reenacted.
He choose to include Gallaway, a candidate with zero evidence to support his candidacy - over Sanders?
And did so because Sanders has no "drama
" to reenact?
Further to Richards comment of "I can think of several dramatic scenes that put Sanders closer than other candidates"
How about Sanders purchasing multiple decks of cards?
How about Sanders performing magic tricks with playing cards, as we know he did on multiple occasions?
How about Sanders gambling with his associates, as we know he did on multiple occasions?
How about Sanders playing around with anagrams of his own name, which we know he did on multiple occasions?
How about Sanders gambling at the Silver Bow Club in Butte, Montana, where common chips (in 1900) were the $100.00 variety?
All of the above passed over in exchange for the likes of Gallaway's completely empty bucket of evidence?
I watched the film, but as usual with Erdnase stories intended for the general public, I found too much pandering, and not enough serious examination of the available evidence ... and at least in Gallaway's case, no
examination of actual evidence - because there is no
actual evidence to be found!