|
Post by zaqwilson on Oct 8, 2018 16:22:42 GMT
Great example here of the cyber-bullies coming out of the closet and ganging-up. Just laughable really. The point of the thread was to contribute anything to this Aztecs film can image, not for people who don't like themselves to deflect their personal insecurities onto someone else so they can feel all the better for it. I though the point of this thread, like many others, was to let people like me know what is and might be going on without me having to keep tabs on it myself? Im busy, i dont have time to search for stuff.... I want the forum to find it for me!
|
|
|
Post by Chris Wilkinson on Oct 8, 2018 16:25:45 GMT
Great example here of the cyber-bullies coming out of the closet and ganging-up. Just laughable really. Ed, over the past few days you have been making unsubstantiated suppositions and purporting them to be facts. Please consider what you're posting before you post anything, or you'll end up making yourself look fanatical and ultimately untrustworthy - that is why people have been arguing.
No one has considered the real facts, as I alluded to on the first page of this thread. Paul has said here (missingepisodes.proboards.com/thread/12616/recoveries-tiea) that 'There is other material as part of this return which the BBC have yet to announce'. No time frame given, but it is reasonable to suggest that this 'other material' is of greater significance or quantity than the highly-significant episodes of Basil Brush, M&W, Steptoe et al. It also suggests that the announcement of this 'other material' will not come for quite some time. It could be possible that this is Doctor Who material. It is, after all, Doctor Who's 55th anniversary this year - the last missing episodes were revealed in Doctor Who's 50th anniversary year. For entirely logical reasons (namely, not wanting to deflect attention away from the currently-airing Series 11), there may be a moratorium on the announcement if this is the case. As I've been saying all year, I'm banking on The Wheel in Space if anything Who-related turns up.
I saw the documentation in late-2011 for the shipment of films that came into the UK - it was a whole container. There is nothing to suggest that any of that was missing from the archives, let alone allowed to wait seven years for a release. However, one thing certainly strikes me as being odd. Why has it been only since July this year that Phil Morris has been posting updates on TIEA's news page? As I said in my original post: If PM was to maintain his silence during his search so as not to endanger missing material, why is it now (after five years) that he's posting updates? Is the search complete, or nearing completion?
|
|
|
Post by samnurden on Oct 8, 2018 16:40:28 GMT
Great example here of the cyber-bullies coming out of the closet and ganging-up. Just laughable really. Ed, over the past few days you have been making unsubstantiated suppositions and purporting them to be facts. Please consider what you're posting before you post anything, or you'll end up making yourself look fanatical and ultimately untrustworthy - that is why people have been arguing.
Pretty much this. But also to be fair, nothing has actually been said out of malice. No hard swears or threats have been made. It's more tongue in cheek than anything, it's just... how can we not have a laugh, with threads like these? I hold no ill will towards Eddy boy here, but I find it difficult not to have a crack. In the last few days, I've casually stumbled in here now, it's been in constant tinfoil hat mode. I swear it wasn't like this a couple of weeks ago.
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,854
|
Post by RWels on Oct 8, 2018 17:21:29 GMT
But it does NOT mean that "a discovered film can of Marco Polo might well be sitting on the shelf quite naturally alongside" as some would leap to. Also, sometimes the cans are empty... I’m not saying that. I’m saying one can’t discount a film can from the sixties because it could help us better understand what happened. I don’t think and would never think it’s an instant ticket to a missing episode.... just a possibly better understanding of what could’ve happened. No, that is correct, you didn't; I wasN'T referring to you, but to the jumping to conclusions that sometimes infects some of the fans.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hutchinson on Oct 8, 2018 17:38:05 GMT
again this is a legitimate thread that has descended into pessimists v optimist
its legitimate because of the following:
Phil Morris has posted a picture of a film can that's not easily identifiable from those pictured previously Phil Morris is a known episode hunter, therefore is this a find from his search? If it is one he has found could he have found more from the same batch i.e. ones that are actually missing. Phil Morris has only recently started updating his news page.
the speculation may or may not be unfounded - but its NOT unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by Greg H on Oct 8, 2018 17:59:04 GMT
Great example here of the cyber-bullies coming out of the closet and ganging-up. Just laughable really. The point of the thread was to contribute anything to this Aztecs film can image, not for people who don't like themselves to deflect their personal insecurities onto someone else so they can feel all the better for it. Ed, this is not bullying. I can only speak for myself when I state that I am totally bored of threads predicated on 'such and such wore a red sweater, so mission to the unknown is back' or 'I have rearranged PM's statements and decoded them to say that all Troughtons are back', etc etc. Anyone who is a persistent poster of these type of threads will get the piss taken out of them eventually and fairly gently in the greater scheme of things. There are lots of other forums where the woollier end of fan conspiracy and expert parsing is something of a sport. I do not think that you will find this is such a forum. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hutchinson on Oct 8, 2018 19:07:49 GMT
again this is a legitimate thread that has descended into pessimists v optimist its legitimate because of the following: Phil Morris has posted a picture of a film can that's not easily identifiable from those pictured previously Phil Morris is a known episode hunter, therefore is this a find from his search? If it is one he has found could he have found more from the same batch i.e. ones that are actually missing. Phil Morris has only recently started updating his news page. the speculation may or may not be unfounded - but its NOT unreasonable. you mean, erm, like this post?
|
|
|
Post by samnurden on Oct 8, 2018 19:41:04 GMT
again this is a legitimate thread that has descended into pessimists v optimist its legitimate because of the following: Phil Morris has posted a picture of a film can that's not easily identifiable from those pictured previously Phil Morris is a known episode hunter, therefore is this a find from his search? If it is one he has found could he have found more from the same batch i.e. ones that are actually missing. Phil Morris has only recently started updating his news page. the speculation may or may not be unfounded - but its NOT unreasonable. you mean, erm, like this post? Ehhhh... sorta, kinda. roughly 60/40. It's an acknowledgement of the thread direction, but not really an ask if we can move back. Credit where it's due though, you tried to steer on topic, clearly. But the post afterwards still helped push us off topic on the personal attack debate. So kind of hitting middle ground. It is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hutchinson on Oct 8, 2018 19:48:30 GMT
you mean, erm, like this post? Ehhhh... sorta, kinda. roughly 60/40. It's an acknowledgement of the thread direction, but not really an ask if we can move back. Credit where it's due though, you tried to steer on topic, clearly. But the post afterwards still helped push us off topic on the personal attack debate. So kind of hitting middle ground. It is what it is. happy to have been of help
|
|
|
Post by charles drummel on Oct 8, 2018 20:01:38 GMT
Sorry if I missed it, but I didn't see anyone posting the exif data from the image. The three hardware images on the page (lost-tapes-2 through 4) have no real info available, though the images were saved within the last week. But the image of the Aztecs reel does, and it's quite different, including the camera information: It was apparently taken about 10 years ago with a Fujifilm camera, for whatever that's worth. EDIT: There's an exception, and the following photo is from the same source as the Aztecs one, most likely: www.tiea.co.uk/images/services.jpg
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Oct 10, 2018 7:21:49 GMT
Thanks, Charles, bang on topic! It's perfectly reasonable to ask if the can is one Phil found, and if so, where did it come from?
|
|
|
Post by charles drummel on Oct 10, 2018 12:27:53 GMT
Thanks, Charles, bang on topic! It's perfectly reasonable to ask if the can is one Phil found, and if so, where did it come from? I think an alternative explanation is that, in 2008, Phil got a tour of some BBC facilities and took these two photographs (seemingly within a half hour of one another). The equipment may indeed be something that's available to him, but not TIEA property?
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Oct 11, 2018 22:29:37 GMT
I'd also like to point out the obvious: The age of the label can be determined by the BBC logo - this label dates from the 1970s. If we are to assume that label stocks lasted a while, the BBC has been through 3 more corporate logo revisions since that logo.
In other words, this can't be something that Phil has found.
|
|
|
Post by Sue Butcher on Oct 12, 2018 1:33:49 GMT
I'd also like to point out the obvious: The age of the label can be determined by the BBC logo - this label dates from the 1970s. If we are to assume that label stocks lasted a while, the BBC has been through 3 more corporate logo revisions since that logo. In other words, this can't be something that Phil has found. If it had been sold overseas in the 70s, it might have had that old logo, but I assume the label would be headed "BBC Enterprises" instead?
|
|
|
Post by simonashby on Oct 12, 2018 9:01:36 GMT
I'd also like to point out the obvious: The age of the label can be determined by the BBC logo - this label dates from the 1970s. If we are to assume that label stocks lasted a while, the BBC has been through 3 more corporate logo revisions since that logo. In other words, this can't be something that Phil has found. If it had been sold overseas in the 70s, it might have had that old logo, but I assume the label would be headed "BBC Enterprises" instead? Yes exactly, if it were sold it would have been from Enterprises. The film library and Enterprises were completely different parts of the BBC.
|
|