elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F0B4C97.DB2341B3@cloud9.net>...
[snips]
> Parry wrote:
> >
> > elag <elag@cloud9.net> wrote in message news:<3F066947.7537C31D@cloud9.net>...
> > [snips]
> >
> > Apologies in advance if I'm overly loquacious. Tends to happen when
> > I'm avoiding other tasks.
>
> S'okay it can slightly make up for the dearth of post in this "shadow of
> a shadow"... That would make a nice film title... hmm-mm...
It's very much like the title of Paul Hammond's book on surrealist
film.
> > > > > Hey, I've always pined for my own theatre where I can show Stan Brakhage
> > > > > films, Silent movies, and Black & White cartoons... pay as you exit.
> > > > > Maybe people over there might be bored enough to take a chance on
> > > > > distinctly opposite fare. I could charge 5 bucks to attract all the
> > > > > cheapskates and deadbeats and maybe even break even. I could rent all
> > > > > those really obscure films I've only read about and that you hardly ever
> > > > > see even in NYC.
> > > >
> > > > A common daydream of my own, too. When the train station closed, I
> > > > imagined hollowing out the building and projecting Von Stroheim movies
> > > > in it.
> > >
> > > Nice coincidence... I was just wondering about the name of the director
> > > of "Greed" (1924). Sometimes I confuse him w/ Otto Preminger.
> > >
> > > Maybe, someday I really can realize my idea on some level. After all
> > > I've seen films & screened my films in places which were little more
> > > that storefronts, bars, rooftops, &tc. I'll have to watch for an opportunity.
> >
> > A new daydream: touring remote areas of South America, Africa and Asia
> > with a projector, generator, and handful of films, screening them
> > wherever the hospitality seems right to feed and shelter you for the
> > evening.
>
> I know that this sort of thing goes on in Australia New Zealand and
> China where a film projection team equipped with a 16mm projector still
> travels "as a guerrilla unit" from village to village.
>
> I believe I saw a docu on the subject but I can't turn up any concrete info.
>
> So rest assured that your dream is somewhere a reality. Let us rejoice!
It would be great to observe audiences who aren't jaded to film.
> > ...
> > > > > I have read about that, probably in the trivia laden "Reader's Digest".
> > > > > It would make a great formula for building Ice Hotels and sculpture gardens.
> > > >
> > > > You read "Reader's Digest"? No wonder you're so smart.
> > >
> > > It's not like I have a subscription... It's just that you tend to find
> > > it in toilets (where it belongs)... and I happen to have found one of
> > > their books of "Strange Stories, Amazing Facts &tc"... actually quite
> > > interesting if you only have 45 seconds reading time...
> >
> > I can't be snarky here as I have some Reader's Digest material myself.
> > For instance, there's a songbook designed for family fun, but the
> > guitar-fingering they propose is needlessly difficult. Watch gramps
> > break his wrist while trying to go from an Ab diminished with a G to
> > C9 playing Bye Bye Blackbird. But I like to attempt their chord
> > changes just to see where my mistakes lead.
>
> I play guitar a bit and yes it does sound like intentional torture...
> probably the editors just copied and pasted w/o a thought about carpal
> tunnels...
I suspect in the 60s publishers hired frustrated composers to
transcribe the music. You could find sheet music for radio pop songs
full of weird chord configurations, which if you tried to play
wouldn't sound anything like the records.
> I was just saying to a prospective guitarist that you really
> only need to know 7 basic chords in order to play simple songs... not
> everyone even wants to be a Segovia.
Even three chords will get you a lot of songs. Learn two chords and
you can play mine.
> I like the idea of improvising on fingering errors. I was always a
> sloppy player myself, but it does lead to unexpected places at times.
I'm not a good guitarist, but fortunately I enjoy discordant music.
[snip much Oak Island stuff]
> Well, I don't accept the details of the csicop theory w/o exception.
> They provide some critical analysis and theories where they are sorely
> needed. Most of the coverage of stories like this (back to my childhood
> copy of "Earths Hidden Mysteries") tends towards the credulous. Hype
> sells books... skepticism not so much.
>
> > Worse, though, Nickell brushes aside the "flood tunnel" theory without
> > even addressing the claims of the excavators. The syndicate that was
> > digging in 1850 located off the NE coast drains with a multi-layered
> > filter system; and the alliance that was excavating in 1970 located
> > the remnants of what may have been the cofferdam used when
> > constructing the filter bed. (Another flood tunnel is suspected of
> > coming in through the south coast but no solid evidence of it has been
> > found.) The things they say they found were certainly man-made, and
> > this was a recent exploration, not one of the "early stories" now
> > beyond reach. Which isn't to say they can't be lying, but still...
> > These are the points Nickell needs to debunk, not frivolities like
> > apocryphal pulleys and secret inscriptions. Nickell's own pet theory
> > about a wild Masonic goose chase isn't any more factual or persuasive
> > than the William-of-Orange-treasure argument of Harris & McPhie (the
> > two engineers who wrote "The Treasure of Oak Island"), which wasn't
> > particularly moving either.
>
> Your criticisms are valid. It always has to come back to whether or not
> to accept hearsay. I often have a difficult time determining the
> credibility of witnesses... eye witnesses often disagree.
This is something that becomes obvious from looking at crime stories.
Eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Newspaper accounts
are often dodgy as well, as reporters just pass along what they were
told. I remember talking to a railway worker who had been involved in
a minor accident with a train. He said when the newspaper interviewed
him he gave his name as "K.C. Jones," and of course they ran it.
> Basically I'm
> always looking for some hint that the scientific methid is being
> rigorously applied. Skeptics still have to have an open mind.
This could lead into a whole other discussion about skepticism, a
position about which I'm skeptical. I tend not to think of this as
being a matter of an open or closed mind, but simply of rigor. The
holes in any idea become apparent when it is exposed to the right
critical light, while many ideas are too worthless as to waste the
battery power. When an unusual claim is made, the burden of proof is
on the claimant. Because skeptics adopt this outlook, they are often
accused of being close-minded. In this respect, maybe being
close-minded is a good thing. If you leave your mind wide open all the
time, all sorts of junk is liable to fall in.
> I do think that there is some good evidence presented that the geology
> of the Island makes it likely that the "water traps" are naturally
> occuring due to underground cavities, but it's possible that man made
> excavations contributed to the effect, though to uncertain purpose. I'm
> not sure what to make of the "filter system" you mentioned but I'm open
> to looking at that evidence.
>
> The Masonic argument isn't terribly persuasive except in that I could
> easily see that mythology feeding the increasingly wild tales spun about
> the treasure pit. Masonic ideas were fairly common in the 18th
> century... look at the back of a US 1$ bill.
>
> > Lastly, something I find irritating: a sort of "guilt by association"
> > tactic used by Nickell and other CSICOP writers. If you want to
> > discount the credibility of, say, postmodernists you need only lump
> > them in with the usual cranks -- that is, say "such-and-such ranks
> > with the screwball fantasies of astrologers, faith healers,
> > postmodernists, and UFOlogists." So the consortiums that have
> > excavated Oak Island are seamlessly blended in with treasure-hunting
> > "dowsers, automatic writers, clairvoyants, channelers, tarot-card
> > readers, dream interpreters, psychic archaeologists, [etc.]," all
> > awaiting the "investigative approach." And the notes of the excavators
> > are thrown out simply because Nickell bundles them with the earlier
> > legend of the pulley. It's a lazy and spurious method of discrediting
> > the other side without actually confronting it. (Conversely, Nickell
> > has the ammunition do discredit this Bowdoin character, but doesn't
> > use it because he likes what Bowdoin says.) What can you expect from a
> > group that puts "COP" in its name?
>
> You have some fair criticism there as well. It doesn't always have to
> be a witch hunt, but I do get fed up with the predominant credulity used
> in investigating these types of stories. I do appreciate the critical
> info which CSICOP puts out there. Ithink this type of thing is sorely
> needed, thoughthe manner used in debunking myths is open to debate.
I used to pick up their magazine, The Skeptical Inquirer, despite my
reservations about their general philosophy, but I tired of all the
cover stories debunking the inconsequential "X-Files" tv show.
> Without cats like these I might play out my days fearing the future and
> cowering in fear of dead people like my mother.
On first reading, I thought you meant you had a poltergeist.
> > What can you expect from a group that puts "COP" in its name?
>
> I can appreciate a good acronym. Personally. I'd rather have a dose of
> CSICOP than another credulous interview by the likes of Connie Chung of
> the likes of Yuri Geller.
I probably enjoy the latter more, as the general area of credulity and
beliefs is baffling. Take any crazy scenario -- being raped by
extraterrestrials, getting phone calls from the dead, being cured of
cankers by jesus -- and you'll find thousands of people who will swear
it happened to them. No wonder I'm suspicious of "belief" in itself.
Now here's a new poll that suggests a third of Americans believe that
the US found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and 22% think Iraq
used chemical or biological weapons in the war.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/6085261.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp
I've seen Geller on tv a few times. Usually there's an interviewer who
just swallows everything he says. Geller doesn't even have to do
tricks, he just tells a story of some psychic thing that happened to
him and the audience is awed. But he usually finishes with a little
trick. If it's a show that purports to "test" the credibility of
psychic phenomena, with the Amazing Randi or the like on hand to
heckle him, Geller will pull some stunt that is unverifiable. For
instance, he will tell home viewers to put their hands on the tv and
their broken watches will be fixed, then to phone in to tell him about
it. This is clever, as the skeptics can't expose Geller because he
didn't actually do anything. All their can do is try to explain away
the inevitable incoming phone testimonials as the nation snores.
> > > It is, at least, very interesting. I know, of course, that a final
> > > solution to the mystery is unlikely at this late date, and treasure even
> > > more so.
> >
> > A solution shouldn't be impossible. If they can figure out a way to
> > stanch the inflow of water then they can just dig up the place. This
> > would be costly, though. In the 1980s, what appeared to be bore holes
> > in ice cover were discovered some distance off the south coast, and
> > these holes are thought to be connected to the second flow of water. A
> > rather large cofferdam would have to be constructed to contain these
> > holes. And if this is a man-made system, it was a major engineering
> > project and there should be some record of it (which would have been
> > uncovered long ago). This isn't an "ancient" mystery, after all. Who
> > knows -- it may someday be decided the work off the NE coast is
> > unrelated to the Money Pit. Why not a theory that the water trap was
> > an accidental effect of some other human activity?
>
> Sure it's possible... I wouldn't be surprised at all if at the core of
> the mystery lay a true buried object. I think in that case it's fairly
> likely that it was recovered earlier and the (relatively shallow) hole
> filled in possibly w/ a few beams tossed in. Some remnants like that
> could easily have sparked a fruitless dig which merely went too far.
>
> I recall as a child finding some buried burlap scraps which I was sure
> would turn out to be the garb of an Indian Princess. Believing that it
> was sure made that day interesting... I really wanted to believe it, but
> I was fooling myself.
How can you say that? If we're looking for the so-called scientific
method, you should at least have those scraps analysed. Perhaps they
belonged to an Yma Sumac costume.
> I don't think anyone is crazy enough these days to come up w/ the
> scratch it would take to put this tale to rest.... but ye never know.
>
> > In any case, it's my favourite sort of mystery story, the sort where
> > the answer becomes more elusive the more people try to find it.
> > Another story with this quality is the first edition of Robert
> > Graysmith's book on the West Coast Zodiac Killer. As that book
> > progresses, virtually every scrap of information the investigators
> > thought they had is cast in doubt. I understand true crime buffs have
> > a problem with the book, but I found it fascinating probably for the
> > same reason they find it flawed.
>
> I could see how it might be interesting even if inconclusive. I feel
> the same about the Jack the Ripper/Sickert theory, which I haven't read
> first hand; only critical commentary. It's a neat little theory, but I
> don't believe a word of it. One also has to consider what is excluded.
There are articles on the Jack the Ripper site which take the piss out
of the Sickert theory, I thin. For instance:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-pamandsickert.html . Similarly,
there's now another book that solves the Black Dahlia murder. The
author is convinced his father was the murderer, but at least one
student of the crime says his story amounts to nothing. I imagine
these writers sort of hypnotise themselves into thinking they've found
the key to a mystery, and anything that contradicts the story becomes
invisible to them. The Zodiac book I mentioned is rather the reverse
of these stories, as instead of solving anything it multiplies
confusion.
> > > Got a spare million dollars? We could be millionaires!
> >
> > Well, give me a million dollars and I'll *guarantee* you at least one
> > of us will be a millionaire.
>
> Well, that's the general idea... the best way to get rich quick is not
> to invest in get rich quick schemes.
Have you tried selling that advice through a campaign of spam yet?
-- Parry
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 |
| 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 |
|