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...
>
> > > > 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
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!
>
> > > > I wonder how much they're asking?
> > >
> > > Well, there's a number for inquiries. They probably can't ask for
> > > much. And they say they have quite low property taxes.
> >
> > I guess Moosomin is a bit far for me... I hope somebody comest up w/ a
> > more interesting use for it than selling the latest sausages fro the
> > "dream factory".
> >
> > > > > * Did you know Canada's flag didn't always look like a blood-stained
> > > > > rag.
> ...
> > > I'd like to see what other designs they have stored away. Perhaps a
> > > white flag with the word "FLAG" printed on it, or a picture of a
> > > sasquatch having sex with a mandrill, or a big pile of bear shit, or a
> > > coat hanger,
> >
> > coat hanger?
>
> I just think a coat hanger makes for a strong, simple graphic.
> Certainly better than hockey sticks. (I won't make a cheap Morgentaler
> joke.)
Yeah, I did think it was a symbol of "The Land of Free @b0rt10ns".
>
> ...
> > > > 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 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.
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.
>
> > > > > * And Oak Island, my favourite buried treasure story:
> > > > > http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/Nova_Scotia/oakisland.htm
> > > >
> > > > It is an interesting story, but probably there never was any treasure.
> > >
> > > That sort question mark makes the story interesting. But the so-called
> > > "Money Pit" is such an elaborate and sophisticated engineering feat it
> > > presumably was constructed in the service of something deemed
> > > important.
> >
> > ....
> >
> > I've probably read most of the same material you have but I'm inclined
> > to doubt nearly all of the early stories. I think the "water trap",
> > being that it occurs below the water level, is a natural phenomenon.
>
> If the water trap were artificial, it would still occur below water
> level, otherwise there would be needed a pumping system to draw the
> water up.
Yeah, that was a bit of sloppy phrasing. I just meant that often
digging below the water level will result in seepage due to natural
geological structures like aquifers, underground streams and the like.
I believe that everyone agrees that there is an underground stream at
200 feet or so and I find it far easier to believe in natural seepage as
opposed to an incredible complex "water trap".
>
> > It looks to me like a long game of "telephone"... distortion on top of
> > exaggeration on top of lie with an overlay of fervent hope.
>
> I'm not predisposed to either side, as both theories produce a set of
> riddles. So I suspend an opinion for now, except to say the basic
> fantasy of the "booby-trap" isn't very sensible. Why would anyone
> guard a treasure with a mechanism that makes the treasure utterly
> irretrievable? It would be like Fort Knox having a trigger to destroy
> its gold if its security is breached.
I think that that thought is basic to looking at this story. In the
spirit of Ockham I find the simplest explanation fits best... that the
complex engineering necessary tends towards being unbelievable for the
reasons you mentioned while misguided obsession and common natural
"traps" seems quite likely.
>
> > This Skeptical Inquirer article goes some way towards debunking the
> > mystery.
> >
> > http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-03/i-files.html
>
> The Oak Island system could well be all natural phenomena and the
> story a great case of people seeing what they wish to see, but
> Nickell's article does little to sway the argument, I thought. The
> most interesting bits, those that argue the site was produced by
> natural phenomena, all seem to have been copped from a Smithsonian
> article by Douglas Preston. Basically Preston is saying that
> sink-holes sucked man-made materials deep into the earth, and dragged
> down and buried trees to create the illusions of platforms. Of course
> the rule of thumb concerning mysteries is that the prosaic explanation
> is the correct one, but this sink-hole hypothesis seems contrived,
> reminiscent of the desperate rationalist explanations with which
> Charles Fort used to have sport.
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. Basically I'm
always looking for some hint that the scientific methid is being
rigorously applied. Skeptics still have to have an open mind.
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.
Without cats like these I might play out my days fearing the future and
cowering in fear of dead people like my mother.
> 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.
>
> > 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.
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.
>
> > 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.
|
| 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 |
|