> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1528912698

>
>Think its more of a my god is better than your god mentality (Just
>like the Apes and Mutants) which proves they are missing the point.
>Sort of loving the messager while hating the message.
>My philosphy has always been whatever god or deity you believe in
>either Jehovah or Christ or Allah or Budda; Superman can still kick
>his ass in a fight.
>
>
>--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>> That's the biggest buncha crap I've ever heard in my life! What
>they're
>> doing in the Mideast has absolutely nothing to do with God! If
>some religion
>> tells you to go kill people and kill yourself, then you've been
>worshiping
>> Satan! They should wake the F*** up and smell the F***ing coffee!
>I don't
>> know of any legitimate religion that spouts that kind of Shite!
>They must be
>> thinking of Kali, not God. The only excused killing is self-
>defense, and I
>> think both sides have pushed the limits of that about as far as
>they can.
>> Right now it seems to be all about revenge. That and borders . . .
>Invade.
>> Invade! INVADE!!!! Had to get an Apes reference in there
>somewhere.

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> Religion provides one more reason to kill people. Historically it
has
> been a (the?) major reason, justified or not.
>
> Both BENEATH and PLANET make this point. Note that when Urses
invoked
> the Almighty to his cause in his war speech, he DID have a
religious
> justification.
>
> "Let him (man) not breed in great numbers..."
> The Sacred Scrolls.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Notice Regarding Nonhuman Great Apes in
Entertainment


> Religion provides one more reason to kill people. Historically it has
> been a (the?) major reason, justified or not.
>
> Both BENEATH and PLANET make this point. Note that when Urses invoked
> the Almighty to his cause in his war speech, he DID have a religious
> justification.
>
> "Let him (man) not breed in great numbers..."
> The Sacred Scrolls.
>
> >
> >Think its more of a my god is better than your god mentality (Just
> >like the Apes and Mutants) which proves they are missing the point.
> >Sort of loving the messager while hating the message.
> >My philosphy has always been whatever god or deity you believe in
> >either Jehovah or Christ or Allah or Budda; Superman can still kick
> >his ass in a fight.
> >
> >
> >--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> >> That's the biggest buncha crap I've ever heard in my life! What
> >they're
> >> doing in the Mideast has absolutely nothing to do with God! If
> >some religion
> >> tells you to go kill people and kill yourself, then you've been
> >worshiping
> >> Satan! They should wake the F*** up and smell the F***ing coffee!
> >I don't
> >> know of any legitimate religion that spouts that kind of Shite!
> >They must be
> >> thinking of Kali, not God. The only excused killing is self-
> >defense, and I
> >> think both sides have pushed the limits of that about as far as
> >they can.
> >> Right now it seems to be all about revenge. That and borders . . .
> >Invade.
> >> Invade! INVADE!!!! Had to get an Apes reference in there
> >somewhere.
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:25 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Fwd: (GAPNews) Upcoming Event in Boston, Massachusetts

I read some where that a rapist or molester or something wants to be
castrated and released and there's controversy over whether they should do
that. What kind of punishments would they have on the Planet of the Apes?
They don't really mention any, except hanging.

Except for Taylor!  "Emasculation to begin with, followed by surgery on the brain."

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Notice Regarding Nonhuman Great Apes in
Entertainment


> I love Ursus' speach. It's such a wonderful combination of race
> hatered, religious demagoguery and blind patriotism. I'm convinced
> FOX uses it to train the anchors for their news channel.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > Religion provides one more reason to kill people. Historically it
> has
> > been a (the?) major reason, justified or not.
> >
> > Both BENEATH and PLANET make this point. Note that when Urses
> invoked
> > the Almighty to his cause in his war speech, he DID have a
> religious
> > justification.
> >
> > "Let him (man) not breed in great numbers..."
> > The Sacred Scrolls.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Fox gave you "Planet of the Apes". Show some respect!
> - - - Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2002 5:09
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Fwd: (GAPNews) Upcoming Event in
> Boston, Massachusetts
>
>
> There is nothing rightous about ending another human beings life.
> Every other democracy on earth has regonized that and outlawed the
> death penalty. Instead the U.S. is one of the top 5 countries in the
> world for executions along with Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran &
> Iraq. What great company we're in!!!!
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> The word "execution" means the lawful/righteous ending of another
> person's life.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> Must agree with you James. If nothing justifies the taking of a
human life,
> then how does that change because somebody has? Also, if they are
later
> found to be innocent (and don't be so naive as to think this does
not
> happen) then it is kind of hard to pardon them.....
>
> By the way James, you can talk off topic as much as you want but we
have
> previously agreed in this group to fill in an appropriate SUBJECT
and add
> (OT) so those who are not interested can simply delete.
>
> Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 7 April 2002 10:16
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Philosophy (OT)
>
>
> Sorry didn't know about the OT.
>
> And you're right. Many in this country are railroaded by the Police
> and Courts. I also don't like the uneven way the Death Penalty is
> handed out. No white person has ever been executed for killing a
> black. If that's not an example of injustice; I don't know what is.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Must agree with you James. If nothing justifies the taking of a
> human life,
> > then how does that change because somebody has? Also, if they are
> later
> > found to be innocent (and don't be so naive as to think this does
> not
> > happen) then it is kind of hard to pardon them.....
> >
> > By the way James, you can talk off topic as much as you want but we
> have
> > previously agreed in this group to fill in an appropriate SUBJECT
> and add
> > (OT) so those who are not interested can simply delete.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2002 3:24 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Notice Regarding Nonhuman Great Apes in Entertainment

In a message dated 4/6/02 6:15:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

The FOX that gave me and the world "Planet of the Apes", as well
as "Patton", "Star Wars", "Alien" & "Die Hard", doesn't exist
anymore. The current FOX has given us "Titanic", "The Phantom
Menance" Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" and Bill O'Reilly. The
don't deserve any respect.

Jesus H!  What I was just saying!   We must be in telepathic link, like the visual deterent, or the sonic deterent.  Mere illusion.

What the hell am I saying?!!!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
> Ha! There's another word for libos like you. Commies! Go and
suckle at the
> teat of the State! They'll tell you what to think, and how your
tax money
> should be spent. Remember to repeat the mantra . . . Clinton
wasn't such a
> bad guy. Clinton wasn't such a bad guy. That's what all his
friends
> say...right before they go to jail, or he has them wacked!

--- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:
>
> > also don't like the uneven way the Death Penalty is
> > handed out. No white person has ever been executed for killing a
> > black. If that's not an example of injustice; I don't know what
is.
>
> You're right . . .You don't know! Let me jog your memory.
>
> JASPER, Texas -- The mood in the courthouse here Thursday was one
of quiet,
> respectful triumph as John William King received the death penalty
for one of
> the most heinous crimes in recent American history, the murder of
James Byrd
> Jr., whom he dragged to death behind a pick-up truck. The historic
> sentencing -- the first time a white man in Texas has received the
death
> penalty for killing a black man since the death penalty was
reinstated in the
> late 1970s
>
> You should know what you're talking about before you speak. Get it
right!

> 1) The ape beaten at the beginning of Conquest was named Otto not Aldo. So
> maybe Aldo was one of the gorillas after all.

> 3) The picture of New York in the TV series is not a Photo but a drawing.

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 10:10 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Less Politics More Apes

In a message dated 4/7/02 9:06:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

2) During the trial of Taylor, Zauis refers to "our eastern desert" not 'our northern desert'. Thus the argument that Planet took place in the Chesapeake Bay area and Cornelius' Map was sideways doesn't stand up.

Let's not start that again!    Listen, PLANET is a political film, so I don't see anything wrong with discussing politics here -- as long as it's done from the point of view that we are also part of the great ape family and that this is the real Planet of the Apes.  That's the way Boulle would have wanted it, I think.

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

>I read some where that a rapist or molester or something wants to

> They don't really mention any, except hanging. I think they would

> There is nothing rightous about ending another human being's life.
> Every other democracy on earth has recognized that and outlawed the
> death penalty. Instead the U.S. is one of the top 5 countries in the
> world for executions along with Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran &
> Iraq. What great company we're in!!!!
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> The word "execution" means the lawful/righteous ending of another
> person's life.

> Better to be a Commie than a Nazi.
>
> --- In pota@y..., LordTZer0@A... wrote:

> The discussions are getting to political so I thought I'd revive 3

>
> 1) The ape beaten at the beginning of Conquest was named Otto not

>
> 2) During the trial of Taylor, Zauis refers to "our eastern desert"

>
> 3) The picture of New York in the TV series is not a Photo but a

>
> OK Let's rumble.

--- In pota@y..., "Alan Maxwell" <alan@a...> wrote:
> First of all, just because it is not a photo does not mean this is
not New
> York in 2503. If an artist in the 19th century drew a picture of
Queen
> Victoria, she doesn't cease to exist simply because it's not a
photo. People
> might still draw in the future!

> *** Oh, come on! If you had a rifle, and you saw a lunatic running
> towards an awaiting nuclear bomb--with a visible trigger that

> could press--knowing that that lunatic wants to detonate that bomb,
> thus destroying the lives of millions of innocent people (let's

> this is all taking place in New York City, or some other high
> population center)... would YOU just sit there like a self-

> idiot thinking to yourself, "It's wrong for anyone to kill anyone
> else... it would be wrong for me to kill this lunatic who wants to
> mass murder millions of people... so I'll just sit here and allow

> to press the button and wipe out this city and everybody in it..."?
> It IS righteous to kill somebody who is on the verge of committing
> murder--whether the intended victim is yourself or someone your
> actions could save from the intended act of murder. By doing

> you would become just as guilty as the would-be bomb detonator.
>
> Think of Isaac Asimov's "Laws of Robotics", where the First Law

> that a robot must never harm a human being, OR allow a human being

> be harmed. In "ROBOTS AND EMPIRE", Asimov's robots R. Daneel Olivaw
> and R. Giskard Reventlov make a quantum "jump" in consciousness

> the develop the non-programmed "Zeroth Law" which states that--

> Mankind is more important than any individual person--"a robot may

> harm Humankind, or allow Humankind to be harmed", which causes the
> First Law to be revised so that "a robot must never harm a human
> being, or allow a human being to be harmed UNLESS THIS CONFLICTS

> THE "ZEROTH LAW"..."
>
> Was it Right or Wrong for President Truman to give the order to

> Hiroshima and then Nagasaki? YES! The death toll of an invasion

> have dwarfed the number killed by the use of the nuclear bombs, and

> was to minimize the death toll that Truman gave the order.
>
> Let's examine an individual case regarding the Death Penalty.

> when Polly Klass was kidnapped? She was that girl in Petaluma,
> California, who disappeared--the actress Winona Ryder put up a
> monetary reward for her safe return. Unfortunately, the creep who
> kidnapped her also murdered her (his name is Richard Allen Davis, I
> believe). This was NOT his first offense--he had previously served
> time for various other crimes (including, if I recall correctly,
> assault and child molestation; if I'm wrong, please somebody out

> correct me on this). Had that swine been executed for his prior
> crimes, he would never have had the opportunity to murder Polly

> Those who oppose the Death Penalty are--in my opinion--complicit in
> her death, since the "humanitarian" philosophy which allowed him to
> live after his prior crimes gave him the opportunity to commit yet
> another crime.
> Weigh the life of that innocent girl against the life of her

> and if hers doesn't tip the scales in your mind, then you are a
> heartless bastard. Face facts: executing murderers is the ONLY way

> prevent repeat offences. Whether murderers are let back out on the
> street or if they escape from prison, they represent a danger that

> only be completely overcome if their forfeited lives are ended by

> State.
>
> By the way, the United States of America is NOT a democracy, and

> has been; it is a constitutional republic--and if you don't know

> difference, you should bone up on it. The word "democracy"

> rule"--i.e. the majority gets its way, regardless of the will of

> in the minority. Hitler's regime was democratic--the majority

> Nazis LEGALLY mistreated the Jewish minority. In a "republic"

> "res publica", meaning "public thing" or institution, "publica"
> referring to ALL of the people, and not just the majority [Greek
> "demos" means "mob" or "crowd", hence "majority"]), ALL the people
> have Rights--"inalienable rights" to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of
> Happiness (etc.)--which NOBODY has the right to infringe upon. When
> somebody DOES infringe upon another's rights, our courts adjudicate
> between the parties involved; if the victim is DEAD, then it is the
> State that represents the victim in the court proceedings. When a
> murderer is found guilty by a jury of his/her peers in a court of

> it becomes official: the perpetrator of the crime LOSES HIS RIGHT

> LIBERTY by being incarcerated, having forfeited that right by the
> commission of the crime. Similarly, the "right to Life" can also be
> forfeited (not for jaywalking, for Pete's sake! but for Murder? You
> betcha!), and it is JUST for murderers to have their forfeited

> ended by the State, in order to prevent any potential future

> they might commit if they were to escape from prison (as Polly

> murderer should have been).
>
> Answer me this: if there's "nothing righteous about ending another
> human being's life", then will you dare to call the soldiers

> (and KILLING) in Afghanistan "unrighteous" for doing what they are
> doing there? Would you rather that they use only "harsh language"

> their weapon against al-Qaeda? Get real, pal!
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-07-2002

> ***The APES films are "political" films, so discussion of politics

> always relevant. But I also enjoy a good intellectual rumble, so
> here's my two-pence.
> 1.) The subtitler may have typed in "Otto", but that's not what's

> either the screenplay or the John Jakes novelization or the Marvel
> adaptation of the former. The name Aldo sounds a lot like "Otto",
> which is the reason whoever did the subtitling goofed--

> is a much more common name than "Aldo", so it shouldn't surprise us
> that this mistake is there. Besides, the subtitles--when they

> from the details in the actual film--are NOT canon (at least in my
> book).
>

> 2.) Zaius' mention of "our Eastern desert" is in reference to a
> description written by Taylor, who is going by his recollection of
> Cornelius' map, which had the Forbidden Zone on the RIGHT side of

> map; Taylor must have assumed that RIGHT equals EAST, so he

> the lake as having been in the "eastern" desert (because the lake

> on the RIGHT side of the map. Cornelius (in BENEATH) plainly tells
> Brent that Taylor had headed "towards the north" into the Forbidden
> Zone, which means that the map he showed Taylor was "oriented" with
> EAST on the BOTTOM, and not on the RIGHT. Besides, who's to say

> there isn't ANOTHER desert "above" the desert shown on Cornelius'

> Since the desert visible on the map is bordered by

> Ocean, then any desert on the other side (i.e. above the map) would

> a "western" desert in relation to the other one visible.
>

> 3.) The caption reads "NEW YORK CITY: 2503", and makes no mention

> it being a fantastic illustration. Virdon & Burke don't conclude

> it's a fanciful description of a city of the future (as an
> illustration would lead one to assume), since they clearly believe
> that they are not only back on Earth but also in the future.
> Is it an illustration? Yeah, sure. But it's an illustration of a

> which actually exists (as far as we can tell), and not necessarily

> fictional representation of what NYC might look like centuries

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Maxwell" <alan@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2002 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Less Politics More Apes


> <JamesA1102@...> wrote:
> > 1) The ape beaten at the beginning of Conquest was named Otto not Aldo.
So
> > maybe Aldo was one of the gorillas after all.
>
> Nope, he's called Aldo - the picture you sent demonstrates a mistake by
the
> people responsible for subtitling the film, nothing more. It wouldn't be
the
> first time, either!
>
> > 3) The picture of New York in the TV series is not a Photo but a
drawing.
>
> First of all, just because it is not a photo does not mean this is not New
> York in 2503. If an artist in the 19th century drew a picture of Queen
> Victoria, she doesn't cease to exist simply because it's not a photo.
People
> might still draw in the future!
>
> Secondly, I think the picture is supposed to be a photo, but since (a) the
> TV series was made in the 70s and no photographs from 2503 were available
> and (b) they had a low budget, then a painting has been made. I don't
think
> that your point holds any more than if someone said "the Statue of Liberty
> is just a matte painting, so it might not be Earth".
>
> Alan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
> Why don't we all just concede that Cornelius' map is a puzzle
wrapped in an
> enigma and leave it at that. I got my opinion, you got yours. Who
cares?
>
> I just got through watch PLANET again on DVD. If you go to the
scene where
> Heston leaves the cave and yells down "Nova!" and the gorilla on
the beach
> takes a shot at him -- Freeze on Heston as he ducks in the shot
that angles
> down with the gorilla. You can just see at the bottom of the frame
that
> Heston is wearing a white sneaker.
>
> -- Rory

For those with no DVD players out there here's the previously spoken of movie goof of Heston's sneaker showing.

For those with no DVD players out there here's the previously spoken of movie goof of Heston's sneaker showing.

ThyPentacle

>From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
>Subject: Re: Less Politics More Apes
>It could just as easlily be an artist conception of what New York
>would look like. Taking the TV series alone, all the ruins of cities
>they encounter are from the 20th Century not the 26th.

--- In pota@y..., Rich Handley <handleyr@o...> wrote:
> Excellent reasoning -- that is probably the best continuity fix for
the TV
> series I've yet seen!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 April 2002 7:30
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1010
>
>
> Thanks. The simpliest explanation is always the best.
>
> --- In pota@y..., Rich Handley <handleyr@o...> wrote:
> > Excellent reasoning -- that is probably the best continuity fix for
> the TV
> > series I've yet seen!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> What about that future scientist dude in "The Legacy" episode?

> survived the nuclear war and had a civilization in America for a

> wait. . . No, they came from Australia! That's it!

----- Original Message -----

From: Haristas@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 4:47 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1010

In a message dated 4/8/02 4:19:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, handleyr@... writes:

It could just as easlily be an artist conception of what New York
>would look like. Taking the TV series alone, all the ruins of cities
>they encounter are from the 20th Century not the 26th.

Excellent reasoning -- that is probably the best continuity fix for the TV
series I've yet seen!

What about that future scientist dude in "The Legacy" episode?  Maybe they survived the nuclear war and had a civilization in America for a while?  Oh, wait. . . No, they came from Australia!  That's it!

Hey, why don't we all just try to prove how smart we humans really are and stop trying to explain nonsense with more nonsense?  From Cornelius doing sketches for Armando to keep, to the apes' glyphs originating with aliens that visited Roswell in 1948, I'm just about ready to say "To Hell with the Planet of the Apes"!  Can we do anything to evolve our conversations to a higher level?

Somewhere in the Universe there has to be Something Better THAN THIS!!!

-- Rory

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Maybe the ruins in the TV show LOOK like the 20th Century but
obviously it was supposed to take place much later. Just as the
original "Star trek" is dated and they even updated things in later
movies and shows, yet the original is still supposed to be part of
continuity. Burke talks about "disposable clothing" that you can wash
off. It's no longer the 20th century and we still don't have that. I
think their intent was that we're still around in 2503. That's their
story and I'm sticking with it. Spam. - - -
Jeff

>From: Haristas@...
>Subject: Re: Digest Number 1010
>Can we do anything to evolve our conversations to a higher level?

>Zauis [Zaius] is not refering to Taylor's written statment. You can see in the picture that piece of paper is lying to the side. He's refering to a scroll, pointing at it with his knuckle. The line begins with Zauis [spelling!] saying "Doctor Zira you write here...".

> It could just as easily be an artist conception of what New York
> would look like. Taking the TV series alone, all the ruins of cities
> they encounter are from the 20th Century not the 26th.

> In a message dated 4/7/02 11:37:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mslpel5@c... writes:

> *** What is Zira's reply to this query of Zaius'? "That is HIS

> Taylor's] assertion." Zira only knows about Taylor's spaceship and

> splashdown in Dead Lake--as well as there having been "two

> companions with him at the time of his capture"--because Taylor had
> informed her and Cornelius about it in writing (remember the scene
> beginning with Cornelius exclaiming, "It's a stunt! Humans can't
> write!"?)
> It was in that scene where Taylor sees Cornelius' map. Cornelius

> says, "North is up, south is down, west is on the left, east is on

> right." He DOES say, "We're here [pointing to the green area on the
> left side of the map] . . . you were captured here [pointing to the
> smaller green area just above and to the right of the "Ape City"

> near the dotted line border of the Forbidden Zone]." There are no N-

> E-W directional arrows to clue us in on where North is. The ONLY
> reason we can know that Cornelius' map is turned 90 degrees

> from the standard orientation of our own maps is the line in

> when Cornelius tells Brent that when they last saw Taylor he was
> heading "towards the NORTH, deep into the territory we call--",
> followed by Brent's sentence-finishing line: "Yeah, I know: the
> Forbidden Zone." ["Who told you that?" asks Zira, etc.]. Plainly,

> Forbidden Zone is NORTH of the "ape city"/"city of the apes"; just

> plainly, Cornelius' map must be rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise

> order to show us how a "north/top" mapview would look.
>
>
> > It could just as easily be an artist conception of what New York
> > would look like. Taking the TV series alone, all the ruins of

> > they encounter are from the 20th Century not the 26th.
>
> *** "... all the ruins of cities they encounter..." are in

> the "ruins" being of the two Bay Area cities of Oakland ("The

> and San Francisco ("The Trap"). This in no way proves that the

> surface of the planet Earth is permanently devastated--hence my

> scenario involving the Jeffersonian orbiting science station group
> which eventually descends to what was once Australia, to found

> America", etc.
> Remember, Virdon and Burke also encounter remnants of an unfamiliar
> high-tech civilization (or, perhaps, MORE THAN ONE such

> though in my novel-in-progress all these "remnants" will be linked
> under one umbrella scenario):
> a.) Farrow's book (with its picture of NEW YORK CITY in the year

> b.) The mini-handgrenades Zaius acquired from the mysterious "as-

> nauts" who landed "more than ten years" prior to 3085
> c.) The holographic projector left behind in the Oakland Science
> Institute building by "the Scientists"
> I would agree that the "ruins of cities they encounter" are indeed
> from our time (though I place the Nuke War in 2006--the early 21st
> Century, and not the late 20th); however, they don't hopscotch

> the globe. The TV series protagonists travel around a rather

> area--northern California.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-09-2002

> *** Think, also, of the staging of the scene. Cornelius has to hold

> the map, so that not only Taylor and Zira can see it too, but also

> in the audience (this is NOT done in the scene in BENEATH, when
> Cornelius shows his map to Brent--we never get to see the map then,
> since it's out of frame).
> Taylor--whose throat wound prevents him from verbally describing

> splashdown and 3-day journey (or so)--must pantomime the action

> extravagant hand gestures, with Zira giving a running commentary/
> interpretation. In order for Taylor to point out where on the map
> such-and-such a moment occurred prior to his capture, he must be

> to touch it without obscuring the view. If Cornelius had held the

> so that the Sea/Ocean were on the right side, then Taylor would

> had a difficult time cranking his wrist around to "act out" the
> journey from the Lake to "the jungle" (going down the map), whereas
> the way it is filmed (with Taylor on the right side of the movie
> screen) he can do his gesturing from his side of the map towards
> Cornelius' side of the map--from right-to-left. Logistically, it

> a whole lot more sense that way.
> They COULD have had Cornelius set the map down on a table, with an
> overhead camera shot--personally, I think that might have been even
> better; Taylor could have made a tiny paper airplane and "flown" it

> its splashdown into the lake, mimicking the ship's actual descent

> beyond the atmosphere. Of course, the paper airplane scene a minute
> later would have played differently, then.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-09-2002

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
Zaius was not quoting the statement but refering to it. I doubt he
would say "our eastern desert" if he really knew it was to the north.
Even if he was quoting Zira's statement directly, she was going by
the locations Taylor pointed to in the Map. Remember, Taylor never
says (or wrote) I landed east, he just pointed to the map. So your
arguement doesn't hold water.

*** "Zaius was not quoting the statement..." you say. Huh? He says to
Zira, "Dr. Zira, you state here that..." etc. What follows is what is
in a written statement--either the one Taylor had just written (and
that he wished Cornelius to read on his behalf, since he'd been
refused to speak on his own behalf), or an earlier-written statement
by Zira which could only have been based on information provided to
her by Taylor.
And you're missing the point: if the Forbidden Zone is north of "city
of the apes" (with the Ocean to the east), then IF there is another
desert west of the Forbidden Zone, the TWO deserts would be
differentiated most probably by their positions relative to each other
(i.e. the desert near the coast--the Forbidden Zone--would be the
"eastern desert", and the desert west of the Forbidden Zone would be
the "western desert" [unseen on the map Cornelius drew]).
You say: "Remember, Taylor never says (or wrote) I landed east, he
just pointed to the map." How do YOU know what Taylor wrote? When the
President of the Academy hears Cornelius begin to recite Taylor's
statement he interrupts him: "Wait a minute--let me see that paper."
He then reads it TO HIMSELF, then chuckles and says, "It's a joke...
in very poor taste." ["Is it a JOKE to seek the Truth about this man?"
Zira exclaims in reply.] The President hands it over to his left--to
Zaius, who then makes some remarks about either Taylor's statement or
Zira's statement based on Taylor's prior WRITTEN statements to Zira
and Cornelius (the "map" scene--look at all the paper!).
It is the standard convention FOR US to assume that "north" on a map
is on TOP; that's why a southerly direction is referred to as "going
down" (as in "going down to Miami" which is south of every other major
city in the continental USA), even though the word "down" does NOT
mean "south" and SHOULD only be used for elevation. It makes sense
that Taylor--having seen a map with a dotted line demarcating the
inhabited LEFT portion and a desert RIGHT portion would ASSUME that
the desert in question was in the East, based on the types of maps
that he had been familiar with all his life. But ancient maps used to
have EAST on TOP--that's why the term "orienting" is used, since the
Orient (the "east") is where the Sun rises "up" above the horizon, and
that used to be the "up"/"top" position on ancient maps.


"In terms of the drawing of New York, your whole scenario sounds way
too conveluted [convoluted] and implausible. As well as being highly
insulting to all the people of Australia."

***Convoluted and implausible? Given that the purpose of my scenario
is to reconcile the discordant details given in the TV show in
relation to the prior-established details from the film series, a
certain amount of "invention" is required. We're dealing with a
timeframe of about 11 centuries here, with the mysterious picture of
New York representing a time almost halfway into it. A hell of a lot
can happen in a millennium, and given the complexities of details in
the actual history of the last 1000 years, it shouldn't surprise
anyone if the next 1000 years also have a certain complexity to them.

How is my scenario "insulting" to all the people of Australia? In my
scenario, a worldwide nuclear war annihilates human civilization in
2006 A.D. In addition, a Nuke War-triggered catastrophe occurs--a
"pole shift"/"Earth crust displacement" event--causing the crust of
the planet to slide over the magma-lubricated mantle in such a way
that the geodetic grid of latitude and longitude is radically altered
(with Australia--which means "south" from the Latin "australis"--being
shifted northward almost entirely into the tropical zone, resulting in
it no longer having an appropriate name and requiring a new one).
The idea that survivors of the War--having been safe up in an orbiting
scientific research station--would descend onto the relatively
unscathed continent of Australia, as opposed to the radioactive-
contaminated continents of North America, Eurasia, Africa, etc., is
not "insulting" in any way. The re-naming of former-Australia as "New
America" (in my scenario) has all sorts of precedents; the north-
eastern states of the USA are termed "New England", having been
colonized by people who came FROM "old England" (or "olde England", if
you prefer); "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland"--again, colonized by
persons of Scottish descent; New York used to be called "New
Amsterdam"--having been settled by folks from the Low Countries, and
it was RE-NAMED "New York" (in honor of the Duke of York, if I'm not
mistaken). If fictional Americans--fearing to expose themselves to
radioactive contamination after a Nuclear War--were to pick ANY spot
to land (whether Australia or not) other than their contaminated
homeland, then it is LIKELY that they would re-name their NEW home
after the place they hailed from originally. Hence, "New America";
there's nothing "insulting" about it at all--especially (given the
scenario I've cooked up) when the half-dozen Post-Catastrophe years
(from 2006-2013) have resulted in the native Australian nation being
rendered a barbaric, savage world.

You ask, "Plus why do you think it's a holographic projector? It look
like the image was just projected flat against the brick wall."

Watch "The Legacy" again; you'll notice that as the recording plays
(prior to the battery's power running out) Burke waves his hand in
front of the machine, trying to ascertain where the image is coming
from... but his waving hand does NOT occult the projected image, which
means that it is NOT projected like a movie-projector at a theater,
onto a flat screen.
Clearly, this device--which seems to have been designed for the sole
purpose of telling its finder(s) that a hidden treasure-trove of
"human knowledge" awaits them at the train station--represents a
technology beyond that which Virdon and Burke are familiar. When
they've taken the battery-unit apart, they guess that "there's
probably zinc in the battery" etc. Virdon also says something like
"this baby's been here a long time" and that "it's way beyond our
time".
In my scenario, the "holographic projector" was NOT built in the 26th
Century (as you infer), only that the same group of "Scientists" who
safely avoided the Cataclysm of 2006--who KNEW it was coming (the
long-dead scientist mentions that "the destruction of our world is
imminent")--managed to get up into orbit, into their scientific
research station, not knowing if they'd EVER be able to go back down
to the surface. Somehow they knew that there would be a nuclear war,
and that it would happen soon... so they prepared a "number of vaults"
in various cities throughout the world in the months/years leading up
to the Nuke War in 2006, and also left the projectors in hermetically-
sealed chambers in relatively structurally-sound buildings (like the
"Oakland Science Institute" building) to point the way to those buried
caches of "knowledge"... all the while hoping that IF anybody were to
survive the Nukes, and IF those survivors might find a projector, THEN
they could track down the buried caches and make use of them. But as
for themselves, the up-in-orbit Scientists eventually have to go back
down to the Earth's surface after their supplies run low... and
because for all they know they're the ONLY people to escape having
fallen into savagery, they feel that they don't have the right to risk
contaminating their limited gene pool by landing back in the
radioactive former-USA; so, instead, they opt for landing somewhere
relatively safe (from the standpoint of the radiation threat)--the
former continent of Australia.
The "computers Burke found", then, date from about 2004 to 2005, just
prior to the Cataclysm, and THAT is why they're so "easy" for him to
figure out. Besides, wouldn't the Scientists who left those machines
there try to "idiot-proof" them, purposely making them "user-friendly"
as we say nowadays? Of course they would!

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002

> Please you're really stre[t]ching now. The description clearly says the Forbidden Zone is in the east not the north.
> "The eastern quadrants are rendered in yellow, and except for a blue
> lake, appear to be lifeless desert and barren mountain. This area is
> marked FORBIDDEN ZONE."
> The map was not turned sideways. If it was the bar holding would of [have] been to the left but it was on top.

> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> Zaius was not quoting the statement but refering to it. I doubt he
> would say "our eastern desert" if he really knew it was to the

> Even if he was quoting Zira's statement directly, she was going by
> the locations Taylor pointed to in the Map. Remember, Taylor never
> says (or wrote) I landed east, he just pointed to the map. So your
> arguement doesn't hold water.
>
> *** "Zaius was not quoting the statement..." you say. Huh? He says

> Zira, "Dr. Zira, you state here that..." etc. What follows is what

> in a written statement--either the one Taylor had just written (and
> that he wished Cornelius to read on his behalf, since he'd been
> refused to speak on his own behalf), or an earlier-written

> by Zira which could only have been based on information provided to
> her by Taylor.
> And you're missing the point: if the Forbidden Zone is north

> of the apes" (with the Ocean to the east), then IF there is another
> desert west of the Forbidden Zone, the TWO deserts would be
> differentiated most probably by their positions relative to each

> (i.e. the desert near the coast--the Forbidden Zone--would be the
> "eastern desert", and the desert west of the Forbidden Zone would

> the "western desert" [unseen on the map Cornelius drew]).
> You say: "Remember, Taylor never says (or wrote) I landed east, he
> just pointed to the map." How do YOU know what Taylor wrote? When

> President of the Academy hears Cornelius begin to recite Taylor's
> statement he interrupts him: "Wait a minute--let me see that

> He then reads it TO HIMSELF, then chuckles and says, "It's a

> in very poor taste." ["Is it a JOKE to seek the Truth about this

> Zira exclaims in reply.] The President hands it over to his left--

> Zaius, who then makes some remarks about either Taylor's statement

> Zira's statement based on Taylor's prior WRITTEN statements to Zira
> and Cornelius (the "map" scene--look at all the paper!).
> It is the standard convention FOR US to assume that "north" on a

> is on TOP; that's why a southerly direction is referred to

> down" (as in "going down to Miami" which is south of every other

> city in the continental USA), even though the word "down" does NOT
> mean "south" and SHOULD only be used for elevation. It makes sense
> that Taylor--having seen a map with a dotted line demarcating the
> inhabited LEFT portion and a desert RIGHT portion would ASSUME that
> the desert in question was in the East, based on the types of maps
> that he had been familiar with all his life. But ancient maps used

> have EAST on TOP--that's why the term "orienting" is used, since

> Orient (the "east") is where the Sun rises "up" above the horizon,

> that used to be the "up"/"top" position on ancient maps.
>
>
> "In terms of the drawing of New York, your whole scenario sounds

> too conveluted [convoluted] and implausible. As well as being

> insulting to all the people of Australia."
>
> ***Convoluted and implausible? Given that the purpose of my

> is to reconcile the discordant details given in the TV show in
> relation to the prior-established details from the film series, a
> certain amount of "invention" is required. We're dealing with a
> timeframe of about 11 centuries here, with the mysterious picture

> New York representing a time almost halfway into it. A hell of a

> can happen in a millennium, and given the complexities of details

> the actual history of the last 1000 years, it shouldn't surprise
> anyone if the next 1000 years also have a certain complexity to

>
> How is my scenario "insulting" to all the people of Australia? In

> scenario, a worldwide nuclear war annihilates human civilization in
> 2006 A.D. In addition, a Nuke War-triggered catastrophe occurs--a
> "pole shift"/"Earth crust displacement" event--causing the crust of
> the planet to slide over the magma-lubricated mantle in such a way
> that the geodetic grid of latitude and longitude is radically

> (with Australia--which means "south" from the Latin "australis"--

> shifted northward almost entirely into the tropical zone, resulting

> it no longer having an appropriate name and requiring a new one).
> The idea that survivors of the War--having been safe up in an

> scientific research station--would descend onto the relatively
> unscathed continent of Australia, as opposed to the radioactive-
> contaminated continents of North America, Eurasia, Africa, etc., is
> not "insulting" in any way. The re-naming of former-Australia

> America" (in my scenario) has all sorts of precedents; the north-
> eastern states of the USA are termed "New England", having been
> colonized by people who came FROM "old England" (or "olde England",

> you prefer); "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland"--again, colonized

> persons of Scottish descent; New York used to be called "New
> Amsterdam"--having been settled by folks from the Low Countries,

> it was RE-NAMED "New York" (in honor of the Duke of York, if I'm

> mistaken). If fictional Americans--fearing to expose themselves to
> radioactive contamination after a Nuclear War--were to pick ANY

> to land (whether Australia or not) other than their contaminated
> homeland, then it is LIKELY that they would re-name their NEW home
> after the place they hailed from originally. Hence, "New America";
> there's nothing "insulting" about it at all--especially (given the
> scenario I've cooked up) when the half-dozen Post-Catastrophe years
> (from 2006-2013) have resulted in the native Australian nation

> rendered a barbaric, savage world.
>
> You ask, "Plus why do you think it's a holographic projector? It

> like the image was just projected flat against the brick wall."
>
> Watch "The Legacy" again; you'll notice that as the recording plays
> (prior to the battery's power running out) Burke waves his hand in
> front of the machine, trying to ascertain where the image is coming
> from... but his waving hand does NOT occult the projected image,

> means that it is NOT projected like a movie-projector at a theater,
> onto a flat screen.
> Clearly, this device--which seems to have been designed for the

> purpose of telling its finder(s) that a hidden treasure-trove of
> "human knowledge" awaits them at the train station--represents a
> technology beyond that which Virdon and Burke are familiar. When
> they've taken the battery-unit apart, they guess that "there's
> probably zinc in the battery" etc. Virdon also says something like
> "this baby's been here a long time" and that "it's way beyond our
> time".
> In my scenario, the "holographic projector" was NOT built in the

> Century (as you infer), only that the same group of "Scientists"

> safely avoided the Cataclysm of 2006--who KNEW it was coming (the
> long-dead scientist mentions that "the destruction of our world is
> imminent")--managed to get up into orbit, into their scientific
> research station, not knowing if they'd EVER be able to go back

> to the surface. Somehow they knew that there would be a nuclear

> and that it would happen soon... so they prepared a "number of

> in various cities throughout the world in the months/years leading

> to the Nuke War in 2006, and also left the projectors in

> sealed chambers in relatively structurally-sound buildings (like

> "Oakland Science Institute" building) to point the way to those

> caches of "knowledge"... all the while hoping that IF anybody were

> survive the Nukes, and IF those survivors might find a projector,

> they could track down the buried caches and make use of them. But

> for themselves, the up-in-orbit Scientists eventually have to go

> down to the Earth's surface after their supplies run low... and
> because for all they know they're the ONLY people to escape having
> fallen into savagery, they feel that they don't have the right to

> contaminating their limited gene pool by landing back in the
> radioactive former-USA; so, instead, they opt for landing somewhere
> relatively safe (from the standpoint of the radiation threat)--the
> former continent of Australia.
> The "computers Burke found", then, date from about 2004 to 2005,

> prior to the Cataclysm, and THAT is why they're so "easy" for him

> figure out. Besides, wouldn't the Scientists who left those

> there try to "idiot-proof" them, purposely making them "user-

> as we say nowadays? Of course they would!
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002

> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > Please you're really stre[t]ching now. The description clearly

> > "The eastern quadrants are rendered in yellow, and except for a

> > lake, appear to be lifeless desert and barren mountain. This area

> > marked FORBIDDEN ZONE."
> > The map was not turned sideways. If it was the bar holding would

>
> *** It doesn't MATTER what the "description" says. There are no
> directional markings on Cornelius' map, no lines of latitude or
> longitude, no names... nothing except a dashed line separating the
> "left" from the "right".
> Watch BENEATH again; when Cornelius shows Brent the map, he tells

> that the last time they saw Taylor was when he and Nova headed
> "towards the NORTH" deep into the ... Forbidden Zone". They were
> headed NORTH, on horseback, and Taylor had said he would FOLLOW THE
> SHORELINE. Look at Cornelius' map again. Look at the seashore on

> "bottom" of the map, bisected by the dashed line demarcating the
> Forbidden Zone. What direction did Taylor HAVE to have gone? OFF

> "RIGHT" SIDE OF THE MAP. That direction--as Cornelius plainly told
> Brent--is NORTH-ward. Turn the map 90 degrees counterclockwise,

> so that NORTH is on top, the Sea/Ocean is on the right/East, etc.;
> then IMAGINE that off the left side of the map there's ANOTHER

> (do it just for the heck of it). This other desert would be WEST of
> the Forbidden Zone area that is visible on Cornelius' map, which

> make the Forbidden Zone--relative to that other western desert--an
> "eastern desert".
> We KNOW that Cornelius' map is 90 degrees off-kilter, because he
> himself tells Brent (and us) that the Forbidden Zone is "towards

> north". It doesn't get any simpler than that!
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/10/02 1:17:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
> > Please you're really streching now. The description clearly says
the
> > Forbidden Zone is in the east not the north.
> >
>
> Your forgetting Cornelius' line in BENEATH, James. Anyway, why
don't we just
> compromise and concede that the Forbidden Zone was NORTHEAST of Ape
City and
> the green belts. OK?
>
> -- Rory

> In a message dated 4/10/02 4:46:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > We KNOW that Cornelius' map is 90 degrees off-kilter, because he
> > himself tells Brent (and us) that the Forbidden Zone is "towards

> > north". It doesn't get any simpler than that!
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002
> >

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Map Description


> No he says that they last saw Taylor towards the north not that the
> Forbidden Zone is North. Get your facts straight!!!
>
> > In a message dated 4/10/02 4:46:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > We KNOW that Cornelius' map is 90 degrees off-kilter, because he
> > > himself tells Brent (and us) that the Forbidden Zone is "towards
> the
> > > north". It doesn't get any simpler than that!
> > >
> > > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > > EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> I was looking for more info on "The Fall" the new "Ape" book coming
> out in
> June. I found Mr. William T. Quick's website
> ( www.iw3p.com/quick..html)
> and it says he signed for two upcoming POTA books, including "The
> Fall". Two
> books! My heart is pounding. Thank you, Mr. Quick for your "ape"
> efforts,
> and also for your chocolate milk mix.Quick. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----

From: veetus@...

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:26 AM

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Book 'em, Urko!

 

  I was looking for more info on "The Fall" the new "Ape" book coming out in
June. I found Mr. William T. Quick's website ( www.iw3p.com/quick..html)
and it says he signed for two upcoming POTA books, including "The Fall". Two
books! My heart is pounding. Thank you, Mr. Quick for your "ape" efforts,
and also for your chocolate milk mix.Quick.   - - Jeff


----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Map Description


> No he says that they last saw Taylor towards the north not that the
> Forbidden Zone is North. Get your facts straight!!!
>
> > In a message dated 4/10/02 4:46:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > We KNOW that Cornelius' map is 90 degrees off-kilter, because he
> > > himself tells Brent (and us) that the Forbidden Zone is "towards
> the
> > > north". It doesn't get any simpler than that!
> > >
> > > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > > EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: <veetus@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Book 'em, Urko!


> I was looking for more info on "The Fall" the new "Ape" book coming out
in
> June. I found Mr. William T. Quick's website ( www.iw3p.com/quick..html)
> and it says he signed for two upcoming POTA books, including "The Fall".
Two
> books! My heart is pounding. Thank you, Mr. Quick for your "ape" efforts,
> and also for your chocolate milk mix.Quick. - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 7:18 AM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Map Description
>
>
> > No he says that they last saw Taylor towards the north not that the
> > Forbidden Zone is North. Get your facts straight!!!
> >
> > > In a message dated 4/10/02 4:46:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > We KNOW that Cornelius' map is 90 degrees off-kilter, because he
> > > > himself tells Brent (and us) that the Forbidden Zone is "towards
> > the
> > > > north". It doesn't get any simpler than that!
> > > >
> > > > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > > > EARTH-TIME 4-10-2002
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----

From: veetus@...

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:26 AM

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Book 'em, Urko!

 

  I was looking for more info on "The Fall" the new "Ape" book coming out in
June. I found Mr. William T. Quick's website ( www.iw3p.com/quick..html)
and it says he signed for two upcoming POTA books, including "The Fall". Two
books! My heart is pounding.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

OK

Here they are:

Dawn of the Tree People

Mountain of the Delphi

Battle of Two Worlds

Back Cover (all identical)

Hope these Hyperlinks worked - I am still new at this!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
>

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
Zauis [Zaius] is refering [referring] to the scroll[,] not Taylor's
statement[;] go back and watch the film. The statement is still lying
between him and the President. If he were refering [referring] to the
statement, why wasn't the line 'Bright Eyes states here'... [?]
And you're the one missing the point. You're trying to make something
that's very simple and straight forward in the film and turn it in to
a conveluted [convoluted] mess. You're [Your] scenario is insulting
because if Australia is unscathed then there would be a society of
Australians living there and they wouldn't need saviors from the USA
to come down from space to return them to civilization. If you want to
reconcile the TV series with the films there are much more simple ways
to do so that won't strain credability and insult the intelligence of
you audience. Why spend chapters trying to reconcile a continuity
error when one line of text will do. Saying the picture of New York
was just an artist's conception is just one way. I'm sure someone of
your imagination could come up with something as equally simple to
explain it.

***The "scroll" that Zaius refers to is NOT Taylor's written statement
(the one that Cornelius began reading aloud before being interrupted
by the President of the Academy)... but it IS information that Taylor
had provided TO ZIRA, which is why Zaius says, "Doctor Zira, YOU STATE
HERE THAT ..." (etc.), to which Zira replies, "That is HIS assertion"-
-the word "his" obviously referring to TAYLOR. Evidently, Zira and
Cornelius--having been either asked or ordered to appear at the
"hearing"--were to bring along some sort of affidavit stating their
knowledge concerning this "speaking monster" (remember, this is
"weeks" after Taylor regains his voice and is then separated from any
contact with Zira).
Whatever Zira's affidavit says, it can ONLY tell the Tribunal what
Taylor had already communicated to Zira IN THE "MAP" SCENE, which is
the ONLY scene where Taylor had any opportunity to say non-verbally
(because of his throat wound) and in writing WHO he is, WHERE he came
from, HOW he came to be where he is, and WHY he was there. Taylor
wrote questions and answers to both Zira and Cornelius in that "map"
scene, telling them about having come from another planet in a
spaceship and that "Dodge was killed in the hunt", then asking, "What
happened to Landon?", etc. It is in THAT scene where Zira and
Cornelius learned what they "knew" about Taylor, and ONLY from
Taylor's own written Q&A with them could Zira have possibly written
the contents of the scroll that Zaius referred to in the Tribunal
scene.
BOTH the note that Taylor handed to Cornelius ("Will you read this for
me?") AND the "scroll" Zaius refers to ("Dr. Zira, you state here...)
are--essentially--Taylor's own version of who he is, where he came
from, how he got there, etc. THAT'S the point.

You say: "You're trying to make something that's very simple and
straight forward in the film and turn it in to a conveluted
[convoluted] mess. You're [Your] scenario is insulting because if
Australia is unscathed then there would be a society of Australians
living there and they wouldn't need saviors from the USA to come down
from space to return them to civilization."

***First off, my scenario regarding the "New America" founded by
American astronauts on what was once the continent of Australia is NOT
(as you infer) "something that's very simple and straightforward IN
THE FILM" etc. I didn't concoct my "New America" scenario from ANY
details in either the film PLANET OF THE APES or from any of the 4
sequel films (BENEATH to BATTLE). The ONLY place I got the "details"
from is the TV SERIES--in specific, the episodes ESCAPE FROM TOMORROW,
and THE LEGACY. Farrow's book (with its picture), the unfamiliar
grenades from the mysterious "as-tro-nauts" who landed prior to 3085,
and the Holographic projector left in the Oakland Science Institute
building by "the Scientists" (along with the cache of "knowledge" in
the train station's basement to which the holographic message directed
Pete and Galen)--it is THESE curious details that I have used as a
foundation for concocting my scenario. There's NOTHING in the film
series to suggest that there is/was/will be a human technological
civilization in the 26th Century (with a "New York City" as a part of
it)--that's ONLY in the TV series; since the NYC in Beneath is
patently NOT the futuristic-looking one seen in Farrow's book, then it
has to be ANOTHER city with the SAME name, located SOMEWHERE OTHER
THAN THE "REAL" DESTROYED NYC where the Mutants lurk with their Bomb
god. The holographic projector, made by a group of "Scientists" just
prior to the Catastrophe that they KNEW would soon wipe out human
civilization (between CONQUEST and BATTLE), is--in my scenario--
connected to the post-Catastrophe civilization that produced Farrow's
book. It isn't "convoluted" (as you imply); rather, it offers a single
explanation for the entirety of these bizarre details that seemingly
conflict with the established film series' details. What WOULD be
convoluted is a series of separate and unrelated explanations for each
separate detail.
As for your insistence that my scenario is "insulting" to Australians,
you've completely gotten it wrong. In my scenario, Australia is
relatively "unscathed" by NUCLEAR RADIATION--the soil there is
relatively NON-POISONOUS when compared to the devastated terrain where
America's cities "lie buried under RADIOACTIVE rubble" (as Caesar
prophesies). But Australia is NOT spared the post-Nuke War devastation
(in my scenario) of the "Earth-crust-displacement"/"pole shift", which
would shake the bejeezus outta the tectonic plates, the worst and
longest earthquake you could ever imagine--followed by humongous
tsunamis, which would result as the oceans and seas sloshed around in
their basins like when a fat guy slips in the bathtub. As the
continent of Australia is shifted northward, its coastal cities would
be "earthquaked" and then inundated by huge waves from the Pacific and
Indian Oceans. After the tectonic plates settle down into their new
relative positions, the climate of the globe would be severely
altered, as the north and south polar ice sheets--once within the sub-
zero polar zones yet now within temperate and tropical zones--MELT,
causing the sea levels to rise high enough to flood a fair percentage
of the current surface of the Earth (mostly the coastal areas, where
the majority of the world's major cities happen to be).
With THAT happening to Australia (and to the rest of the world)--as
well as the collapse of all international trade, the failure of crops,
the enormous loss of life due to YEARS of fighting for the dregs of
food resources by those "lucky" enough to have survived--it would be a
MIRACLE if there were still any civilization left in Australia. As I
said before: modern Man is NOT well-equipped to survive a major
catastrophe, since the production of FOOD (the most important
necessity for sustaining life) is so specialized. If any farmers were
to survive such a catastrophe, would they be so willing to share their
crops with starving refugees from the urban areas? Probably not, if it
means risking their own lives.
Besides... it isn't like Australians themselves haven't imagined a
savage post-Apocalyptic scenario--you ever seen the "Mad Max" movies?
Jesus H. Christ, the only "civilization" we ever see in THOSE movies
are rather pathetic, dictatorial, twisted, and/or doomed. It's a
violent "dog-eat-dog" world they imagined--and the ONLY way to combat
those who would prey upon you in such a world is to offer either FOOD
(if you have any) or a commodity that is worth either as much as or
more than food... such as the ability to produce future crops of food,
in plenty. A group of scientist-geniuses descending from orbit to a
savage world would have that commodity--the know-how about producing
enough food to keep the starving savages from cannibalizing you. In
six months they'd be running the continent--to paraphrase Taylor's
remark to Landon.

The real world is a harsh enough place, pal. A hypothetical post-
Nuclear War (and post-Pole Shift) world would be harsher than any of
us can possibly imagine. Nevertheless, there are those who have tried
(the makers of PLANET, "The Road Warrior", "The Terminator", etc.),
and I'm going to put in my two cents too.
Incidentally, the scenario we are given in BATTLE could be viewed as
"insulting" to Americans. Would the humans in Caesar's community
really allow Aldo and his "jack-booted thug" gorillas to lord it over
them? Would they really willingly be subservient to a "king"--
especially a non-human, simian, TALKING one? Americans live in a FREE
society--at least, that's what we're used to. The idea that Americans
would kowtow to a self-styled monarch is "insulting" to some (to ME,
in fact). Would humans who "enslaved" apes for less than EIGHT YEARS
(!) consider it fair that their on-going punishment is to be
subservient to their former slaves (the "tables" having turned) for
well over eight years, indefinitely? Or that their "masters" forbid
them to say "No" to any ape? What about saying "No" to a young ape
(like Caesar's son, Cornelius), who WASN'T EVEN ALIVE DURING THE
PERIOD OF ENSLAVEMENT, when apes were "electrically conditioned" to
respond to the "No!" command? Cornelius would not react viscerally (as
Aldo did) to the "negative imperative", since he never went through
Ape Management's conditioning centers... so why should it be wrong for
a human to say "No" to him?
I think it much more likely that the humans would have told Caesar and
the other apes (especially the gorillas, who aren't even allowed
access to the guns, since Caesar has Mandemus guarding them) to go
phuck themselves, rather than submitting to ape dominance over them.
There would have been an all-ape society, led by Caesar, and miles
away there would have been an all-human society--perhaps led by
MacDonald and Abe/Teacher, with no group allowing the other to
dominate them. If the humans had skills that Caesar's ape society
needed in order to survive, then the humans could have demanded
equality in exchange for their bartered services; if the apes threaten
to kill them, the humans could say: "Go ahead, you damn monkeys! Do it
and die of starvation, or revert to savagery, since the HUMAN skills
you need to make it in this world you'll have thrown away. Either
treat us as equals, and we BOTH prosper, or do your worst... and we
both end up as losers."
No matter how much Aldo hates humans, if the need was urgent enough
then the ape survivors would cut a deal with the humans... or die off.
But, instead, BATTLE portrays the humans as meek milquetoasts who are
too afraid of the gorillas to protest their unequal treatment. Why
don't they just run away? What would the gorillas do? Hunt them down?
Would Caesar--who knows that the Apes need the skills that the Humans
possess--allow that to happen?
Which scenario, now, is the truly "insulting" one?

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 4-13-2002

> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> Taylor and Nove [Nova] were heading up the coast. on the east coast that's north plain and simple. You're reading far too much into it.
> And one minute your quoting the map description, when it agrees with
> you, then when it doesn't you say disregard it. The map description
> say the Forbidden Zone was in the east. Dr. Zauis say "out eastern
> desert". The roll bar of the map scroll was at the top indicating it
> was oriented correctly not sideways. The Forbidden Zone was in the
> east not north and no amount of conveluted thinking is going to
> change that.
>

> In a message dated 4/10/02 12:21:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > The ONLY
> > reason we can know that Cornelius' map is turned 90 degrees clockwise
> > from the standard orientation of our own maps is the line in BENEATH,
> > when Cornelius tells Brent that when they last saw Taylor he was
> > heading "towards the NORTH, deep into the territory we call--",
> > followed by Brent's sentence-finishing line: "Yeah, I know: the
> > Forbidden Zone."
> >
> Isn't it also obvious, Patrick, that Taylor is riding north, up the eastern
> coastline, at the end of PLANET? And that the ocean level has dropped in two
> thousand years? That would help explain the massive erosion seen in the
> landscape, and I would say that the cliff to the right of the ruined statue
> is the side of what was, now attached to the mainland, Liberty Island. Only
> problem with the scene: You would be able to see the ruins of Mahattan in the
> distance.
>
> -- Rory

> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> Zauis [Zaius] is refering [referring] to the scroll[,] not Taylor's
> statement[;] go back and watch the film. The statement is still

> between him and the President. If he were refering [referring] to

> statement, why wasn't the line 'Bright Eyes states here'... [?]
> And you're the one missing the point. You're trying to make

> that's very simple and straight forward in the film and turn it in

> a conveluted [convoluted] mess. You're [Your] scenario is insulting
> because if Australia is unscathed then there would be a society of
> Australians living there and they wouldn't need saviors from the

> to come down from space to return them to civilization. If you want

> reconcile the TV series with the films there are much more simple

> to do so that won't strain credability and insult the intelligence

> you audience. Why spend chapters trying to reconcile a continuity
> error when one line of text will do. Saying the picture of New York
> was just an artist's conception is just one way. I'm sure someone

> your imagination could come up with something as equally simple to
> explain it.
>
> ***The "scroll" that Zaius refers to is NOT Taylor's written

> (the one that Cornelius began reading aloud before being

> by the President of the Academy)... but it IS information that

> had provided TO ZIRA, which is why Zaius says, "Doctor Zira, YOU

> HERE THAT ..." (etc.), to which Zira replies, "That is HIS

> -the word "his" obviously referring to TAYLOR. Evidently, Zira and
> Cornelius--having been either asked or ordered to appear at the
> "hearing"--were to bring along some sort of affidavit stating their
> knowledge concerning this "speaking monster" (remember, this is
> "weeks" after Taylor regains his voice and is then separated from

> contact with Zira).
> Whatever Zira's affidavit says, it can ONLY tell the Tribunal what
> Taylor had already communicated to Zira IN THE "MAP" SCENE, which

> the ONLY scene where Taylor had any opportunity to say non-verbally
> (because of his throat wound) and in writing WHO he is, WHERE he

> from, HOW he came to be where he is, and WHY he was there. Taylor
> wrote questions and answers to both Zira and Cornelius in

> scene, telling them about having come from another planet in a
> spaceship and that "Dodge was killed in the hunt", then

> happened to Landon?", etc. It is in THAT scene where Zira and
> Cornelius learned what they "knew" about Taylor, and ONLY from
> Taylor's own written Q&A with them could Zira have possibly written
> the contents of the scroll that Zaius referred to in the Tribunal
> scene.
> BOTH the note that Taylor handed to Cornelius ("Will you read this

> me?") AND the "scroll" Zaius refers to ("Dr. Zira, you state

> are--essentially--Taylor's own version of who he is, where he came
> from, how he got there, etc. THAT'S the point.
>
> You say: "You're trying to make something that's very simple and
> straight forward in the film and turn it in to a conveluted
> [convoluted] mess. You're [Your] scenario is insulting because if
> Australia is unscathed then there would be a society of Australians
> living there and they wouldn't need saviors from the USA to come

> from space to return them to civilization."
>
> ***First off, my scenario regarding the "New America" founded by
> American astronauts on what was once the continent of Australia is

> (as you infer) "something that's very simple and straightforward IN
> THE FILM" etc. I didn't concoct my "New America" scenario from ANY
> details in either the film PLANET OF THE APES or from any of the 4
> sequel films (BENEATH to BATTLE). The ONLY place I got

> from is the TV SERIES--in specific, the episodes ESCAPE FROM

> and THE LEGACY. Farrow's book (with its picture), the unfamiliar
> grenades from the mysterious "as-tro-nauts" who landed prior to

> and the Holographic projector left in the Oakland Science Institute
> building by "the Scientists" (along with the cache of "knowledge"

> the train station's basement to which the holographic message

> Pete and Galen)--it is THESE curious details that I have used as a
> foundation for concocting my scenario. There's NOTHING in the film
> series to suggest that there is/was/will be a human technological
> civilization in the 26th Century (with a "New York City" as a part

> it)--that's ONLY in the TV series; since the NYC in Beneath is
> patently NOT the futuristic-looking one seen in Farrow's book, then

> has to be ANOTHER city with the SAME name, located SOMEWHERE OTHER
> THAN THE "REAL" DESTROYED NYC where the Mutants lurk with their

> god. The holographic projector, made by a group of "Scientists"

> prior to the Catastrophe that they KNEW would soon wipe out human
> civilization (between CONQUEST and BATTLE), is--in my scenario--
> connected to the post-Catastrophe civilization that produced

> book. It isn't "convoluted" (as you imply); rather, it offers a

> explanation for the entirety of these bizarre details that

> conflict with the established film series' details. What WOULD be
> convoluted is a series of separate and unrelated explanations for

> separate detail.
> As for your insistence that my scenario is "insulting" to

> you've completely gotten it wrong. In my scenario, Australia is
> relatively "unscathed" by NUCLEAR RADIATION--the soil there is
> relatively NON-POISONOUS when compared to the devastated terrain

> America's cities "lie buried under RADIOACTIVE rubble" (as Caesar
> prophesies). But Australia is NOT spared the post-Nuke War

> (in my scenario) of the "Earth-crust-displacement"/"pole shift",

> would shake the bejeezus outta the tectonic plates, the worst and
> longest earthquake you could ever imagine--followed by humongous
> tsunamis, which would result as the oceans and seas sloshed around

> their basins like when a fat guy slips in the bathtub. As the
> continent of Australia is shifted northward, its coastal cities

> be "earthquaked" and then inundated by huge waves from the Pacific

> Indian Oceans. After the tectonic plates settle down into their new
> relative positions, the climate of the globe would be severely
> altered, as the north and south polar ice sheets--once within the

> zero polar zones yet now within temperate and tropical zones--MELT,
> causing the sea levels to rise high enough to flood a fair

> of the current surface of the Earth (mostly the coastal areas,

> the majority of the world's major cities happen to be).
> With THAT happening to Australia (and to the rest of the world)--as
> well as the collapse of all international trade, the failure of

> the enormous loss of life due to YEARS of fighting for the dregs of
> food resources by those "lucky" enough to have survived--it would

> MIRACLE if there were still any civilization left in Australia. As

> said before: modern Man is NOT well-equipped to survive a major
> catastrophe, since the production of FOOD (the most important
> necessity for sustaining life) is so specialized. If any farmers

> to survive such a catastrophe, would they be so willing to share

> crops with starving refugees from the urban areas? Probably not, if

> means risking their own lives.
> Besides... it isn't like Australians themselves haven't imagined a
> savage post-Apocalyptic scenario--you ever seen the "Mad Max"

> Jesus H. Christ, the only "civilization" we ever see in THOSE

> are rather pathetic, dictatorial, twisted, and/or doomed. It's a
> violent "dog-eat-dog" world they imagined--and the ONLY way to

> those who would prey upon you in such a world is to offer either

> (if you have any) or a commodity that is worth either as much as or
> more than food... such as the ability to produce future crops of

> in plenty. A group of scientist-geniuses descending from orbit to a
> savage world would have that commodity--the know-how about

> enough food to keep the starving savages from cannibalizing you. In
> six months they'd be running the continent--to paraphrase Taylor's
> remark to Landon.
>
> The real world is a harsh enough place, pal. A hypothetical post-
> Nuclear War (and post-Pole Shift) world would be harsher than any

> us can possibly imagine. Nevertheless, there are those who have

> (the makers of PLANET, "The Road Warrior", "The Terminator", etc.),
> and I'm going to put in my two cents too.
> Incidentally, the scenario we are given in BATTLE could be viewed

> "insulting" to Americans. Would the humans in Caesar's community
> really allow Aldo and his "jack-booted thug" gorillas to lord it

> them? Would they really willingly be subservient to a "king"--
> especially a non-human, simian, TALKING one? Americans live in a

> society--at least, that's what we're used to. The idea that

> would kowtow to a self-styled monarch is "insulting" to some (to

> in fact). Would humans who "enslaved" apes for less than EIGHT

> (!) consider it fair that their on-going punishment is to be
> subservient to their former slaves (the "tables" having turned) for
> well over eight years, indefinitely? Or that their "masters" forbid
> them to say "No" to any ape? What about saying "No" to a young ape
> (like Caesar's son, Cornelius), who WASN'T EVEN ALIVE DURING THE
> PERIOD OF ENSLAVEMENT, when apes were "electrically conditioned" to
> respond to the "No!" command? Cornelius would not react viscerally

> Aldo did) to the "negative imperative", since he never went through
> Ape Management's conditioning centers... so why should it be wrong

> a human to say "No" to him?
> I think it much more likely that the humans would have told Caesar

> the other apes (especially the gorillas, who aren't even allowed
> access to the guns, since Caesar has Mandemus guarding them) to go
> phuck themselves, rather than submitting to ape dominance over

> There would have been an all-ape society, led by Caesar, and miles
> away there would have been an all-human society--perhaps led by
> MacDonald and Abe/Teacher, with no group allowing the other to
> dominate them. If the humans had skills that Caesar's ape society
> needed in order to survive, then the humans could have demanded
> equality in exchange for their bartered services; if the apes

> to kill them, the humans could say: "Go ahead, you damn monkeys! Do

> and die of starvation, or revert to savagery, since the HUMAN

> you need to make it in this world you'll have thrown away. Either
> treat us as equals, and we BOTH prosper, or do your worst... and we
> both end up as losers."
> No matter how much Aldo hates humans, if the need was urgent enough
> then the ape survivors would cut a deal with the humans... or die

> But, instead, BATTLE portrays the humans as meek milquetoasts who

> too afraid of the gorillas to protest their unequal treatment. Why
> don't they just run away? What would the gorillas do? Hunt them

> Would Caesar--who knows that the Apes need the skills that the

> possess--allow that to happen?
> Which scenario, now, is the truly "insulting" one?
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-13-2002

> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> Zauis [Zaius] is refering [referring] to the scroll[,] not Taylor's
> statement[;] go back and watch the film. The statement is still

> between him and the President. If he were refering [referring] to

> statement, why wasn't the line 'Bright Eyes states here'... [?]
> And you're the one missing the point. You're trying to make

> that's very simple and straight forward in the film and turn it in

> a conveluted [convoluted] mess. You're [Your] scenario is insulting
> because if Australia is unscathed then there would be a society of
> Australians living there and they wouldn't need saviors from the

> to come down from space to return them to civilization. If you want

> reconcile the TV series with the films there are much more simple

> to do so that won't strain credability and insult the intelligence

> you audience. Why spend chapters trying to reconcile a continuity
> error when one line of text will do. Saying the picture of New York
> was just an artist's conception is just one way. I'm sure someone

> your imagination could come up with something as equally simple to
> explain it.
>
> ***The "scroll" that Zaius refers to is NOT Taylor's written

> (the one that Cornelius began reading aloud before being

> by the President of the Academy)... but it IS information that

> had provided TO ZIRA, which is why Zaius says, "Doctor Zira, YOU

> HERE THAT ..." (etc.), to which Zira replies, "That is HIS

> -the word "his" obviously referring to TAYLOR. Evidently, Zira and
> Cornelius--having been either asked or ordered to appear at the
> "hearing"--were to bring along some sort of affidavit stating their
> knowledge concerning this "speaking monster" (remember, this is
> "weeks" after Taylor regains his voice and is then separated from

> contact with Zira).
> Whatever Zira's affidavit says, it can ONLY tell the Tribunal what
> Taylor had already communicated to Zira IN THE "MAP" SCENE, which

> the ONLY scene where Taylor had any opportunity to say non-verbally
> (because of his throat wound) and in writing WHO he is, WHERE he

> from, HOW he came to be where he is, and WHY he was there. Taylor
> wrote questions and answers to both Zira and Cornelius in

> scene, telling them about having come from another planet in a
> spaceship and that "Dodge was killed in the hunt", then

> happened to Landon?", etc. It is in THAT scene where Zira and
> Cornelius learned what they "knew" about Taylor, and ONLY from
> Taylor's own written Q&A with them could Zira have possibly written
> the contents of the scroll that Zaius referred to in the Tribunal
> scene.
> BOTH the note that Taylor handed to Cornelius ("Will you read this

> me?") AND the "scroll" Zaius refers to ("Dr. Zira, you state

> are--essentially--Taylor's own version of who he is, where he came
> from, how he got there, etc. THAT'S the point.
>
> You say: "You're trying to make something that's very simple and
> straight forward in the film and turn it in to a conveluted
> [convoluted] mess. You're [Your] scenario is insulting because if
> Australia is unscathed then there would be a society of Australians
> living there and they wouldn't need saviors from the USA to come

> from space to return them to civilization."
>
> ***First off, my scenario regarding the "New America" founded by
> American astronauts on what was once the continent of Australia is

> (as you infer) "something that's very simple and straightforward IN
> THE FILM" etc. I didn't concoct my "New America" scenario from ANY
> details in either the film PLANET OF THE APES or from any of the 4
> sequel films (BENEATH to BATTLE). The ONLY place I got

> from is the TV SERIES--in specific, the episodes ESCAPE FROM

> and THE LEGACY. Farrow's book (with its picture), the unfamiliar
> grenades from the mysterious "as-tro-nauts" who landed prior to

> and the Holographic projector left in the Oakland Science Institute
> building by "the Scientists" (along with the cache of "knowledge"

> the train station's basement to which the holographic message

> Pete and Galen)--it is THESE curious details that I have used as a
> foundation for concocting my scenario. There's NOTHING in the film
> series to suggest that there is/was/will be a human technological
> civilization in the 26th Century (with a "New York City" as a part

> it)--that's ONLY in the TV series; since the NYC in Beneath is
> patently NOT the futuristic-looking one seen in Farrow's book, then

> has to be ANOTHER city with the SAME name, located SOMEWHERE OTHER
> THAN THE "REAL" DESTROYED NYC where the Mutants lurk with their

> god. The holographic projector, made by a group of "Scientists"

> prior to the Catastrophe that they KNEW would soon wipe out human
> civilization (between CONQUEST and BATTLE), is--in my scenario--
> connected to the post-Catastrophe civilization that produced

> book. It isn't "convoluted" (as you imply); rather, it offers a

> explanation for the entirety of these bizarre details that

> conflict with the established film series' details. What WOULD be
> convoluted is a series of separate and unrelated explanations for

> separate detail.
> As for your insistence that my scenario is "insulting" to

> you've completely gotten it wrong. In my scenario, Australia is
> relatively "unscathed" by NUCLEAR RADIATION--the soil there is
> relatively NON-POISONOUS when compared to the devastated terrain

> America's cities "lie buried under RADIOACTIVE rubble" (as Caesar
> prophesies). But Australia is NOT spared the post-Nuke War

> (in my scenario) of the "Earth-crust-displacement"/"pole shift",

> would shake the bejeezus outta the tectonic plates, the worst and
> longest earthquake you could ever imagine--followed by humongous
> tsunamis, which would result as the oceans and seas sloshed around

> their basins like when a fat guy slips in the bathtub. As the
> continent of Australia is shifted northward, its coastal cities

> be "earthquaked" and then inundated by huge waves from the Pacific

> Indian Oceans. After the tectonic plates settle down into their new
> relative positions, the climate of the globe would be severely
> altered, as the north and south polar ice sheets--once within the

> zero polar zones yet now within temperate and tropical zones--MELT,
> causing the sea levels to rise high enough to flood a fair

> of the current surface of the Earth (mostly the coastal areas,

> the majority of the world's major cities happen to be).
> With THAT happening to Australia (and to the rest of the world)--as
> well as the collapse of all international trade, the failure of

> the enormous loss of life due to YEARS of fighting for the dregs of
> food resources by those "lucky" enough to have survived--it would

> MIRACLE if there were still any civilization left in Australia. As

> said before: modern Man is NOT well-equipped to survive a major
> catastrophe, since the production of FOOD (the most important
> necessity for sustaining life) is so specialized. If any farmers

> to survive such a catastrophe, would they be so willing to share

> crops with starving refugees from the urban areas? Probably not, if

> means risking their own lives.
> Besides... it isn't like Australians themselves haven't imagined a
> savage post-Apocalyptic scenario--you ever seen the "Mad Max"

> Jesus H. Christ, the only "civilization" we ever see in THOSE

> are rather pathetic, dictatorial, twisted, and/or doomed. It's a
> violent "dog-eat-dog" world they imagined--and the ONLY way to

> those who would prey upon you in such a world is to offer either

> (if you have any) or a commodity that is worth either as much as or
> more than food... such as the ability to produce future crops of

> in plenty. A group of scientist-geniuses descending from orbit to a
> savage world would have that commodity--the know-how about

> enough food to keep the starving savages from cannibalizing you. In
> six months they'd be running the continent--to paraphrase Taylor's
> remark to Landon.
>
> The real world is a harsh enough place, pal. A hypothetical post-
> Nuclear War (and post-Pole Shift) world would be harsher than any

> us can possibly imagine. Nevertheless, there are those who have

> (the makers of PLANET, "The Road Warrior", "The Terminator", etc.),
> and I'm going to put in my two cents too.
> Incidentally, the scenario we are given in BATTLE could be viewed

> "insulting" to Americans. Would the humans in Caesar's community
> really allow Aldo and his "jack-booted thug" gorillas to lord it

> them? Would they really willingly be subservient to a "king"--
> especially a non-human, simian, TALKING one? Americans live in a

> society--at least, that's what we're used to. The idea that

> would kowtow to a self-styled monarch is "insulting" to some (to

> in fact). Would humans who "enslaved" apes for less than EIGHT

> (!) consider it fair that their on-going punishment is to be
> subservient to their former slaves (the "tables" having turned) for
> well over eight years, indefinitely? Or that their "masters" forbid
> them to say "No" to any ape? What about saying "No" to a young ape
> (like Caesar's son, Cornelius), who WASN'T EVEN ALIVE DURING THE
> PERIOD OF ENSLAVEMENT, when apes were "electrically conditioned" to
> respond to the "No!" command? Cornelius would not react viscerally

> Aldo did) to the "negative imperative", since he never went through
> Ape Management's conditioning centers... so why should it be wrong

> a human to say "No" to him?
> I think it much more likely that the humans would have told Caesar

> the other apes (especially the gorillas, who aren't even allowed
> access to the guns, since Caesar has Mandemus guarding them) to go
> phuck themselves, rather than submitting to ape dominance over

> There would have been an all-ape society, led by Caesar, and miles
> away there would have been an all-human society--perhaps led by
> MacDonald and Abe/Teacher, with no group allowing the other to
> dominate them. If the humans had skills that Caesar's ape society
> needed in order to survive, then the humans could have demanded
> equality in exchange for their bartered services; if the apes

> to kill them, the humans could say: "Go ahead, you damn monkeys! Do

> and die of starvation, or revert to savagery, since the HUMAN

> you need to make it in this world you'll have thrown away. Either
> treat us as equals, and we BOTH prosper, or do your worst... and we
> both end up as losers."
> No matter how much Aldo hates humans, if the need was urgent enough
> then the ape survivors would cut a deal with the humans... or die

> But, instead, BATTLE portrays the humans as meek milquetoasts who

> too afraid of the gorillas to protest their unequal treatment. Why
> don't they just run away? What would the gorillas do? Hunt them

> Would Caesar--who knows that the Apes need the skills that the

> possess--allow that to happen?
> Which scenario, now, is the truly "insulting" one?
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 4-13-2002

> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"

> > wrote:
> > Taylor and Nove [Nova] were heading up the coast. on the east

> > And one minute your quoting the map description, when it agrees