.html

-----Original Message-----
From: mlccougar@... [mlccougar@...]
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2002 12:58
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Comic Books

In a message dated 6/21/2002 9:04:52 PM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

What exactly is POTA? There's no answer that everyone would agree on. Some only like one movie, some the movies but not the shows, some did "Battle" but not the original, some even like the Burton flick only. Who decides? I'll tell you who. Mr. 20th Century Fox! Anything they choose to call POTA is legally so.

Who can take a rainbow,
Sprinkle it with grapes,
Add a bunch of chocolate
And call it POTA?
The Fox Man
The Fox Man can
The Fox Man can 'cause he adds a lot of love
And makes it all taste good! Etc.
                                               - - - - Jeff

Cute jingle... "Sammy Davis Veetus"

But on the serious side... I know you're correct that whatever they choose to call POTA technically is because they "say so." I also know you're right in saying that what POTA is is not the same to everyone. But I go by content, and to me some of the sh*t laid out in the comics is just a bunch of worthless crap. APES does not need to be played down to the lowest common denominator, which it was in the 70's "original" stories in the mag, and in the 90's throughout that whole comics run. To ME, there's no place for talking brains in glass bubbles, half ape/half human slaves, stupid sh*t like the "Taylorites", and yes, even the dreaded Ape-Nation on the Planet of the Apes.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

.html

-----Original Message-----
From: mlccougar@... [mlccougar@...]
Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2002 13:12
To: pota@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] More Apes comics talk...

In a message dated 6/21/2002 9:53:17 PM Central Standard Time, handleyr@... writes:

>We may never know, but seeing as the original film series WAS popular, and
>the comic books NEVER were - unless they were stories about the films - I
>still believe they could have explored more interesting/familiar things than
>talking giant brains and the absolute garbage from the 70's stuff (ie
>someone's stupid comic strip, change faces to apes, call it POTA).

The shame of it is that I think a lot of the comics from both Adventure and
Marvel were good.  The only really bad ones were from the British
hardcovers, and the Apeslayer storyline from the British POTA comics.

Actually, I have 2 of the British annuals, and personally, I think those stories aren't half bad. I mean they "fit in" with the basic elements of the tv series. A little "cartoonish" so to speak, but overall, considering what they are, they're not bad. They're a lot better than let's say..."Ape City".. At least the annual's stories kept a lot of the feel of the tv show and didn't take it waaaay off into right field.

<.html

Good Point. A rose by any other name will still smell as sweet (or
stinky if Tim Burton directs it).

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> What exactly is POTA? There's no answer that everyone would
agree on. Some only like one movie, some the movies but not the
shows, some did "Battle" but not the original, some even like the
Burton flick only. Who decides? I'll tell you who. Mr. 20th Century
Fox! Anything they choose to call POTA is legally so.
>
> Who can take a rainbow,
> Sprinkle it with grapes,
> Add a bunch of chocolate
> And call it POTA?
> The Fox Man
> The Fox Man can
> The Fox Man can 'cause he adds a lot of love
> And makes it all taste good! Etc.
> - - - - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@a...
> To: pota@y...
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 5:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Comic Books
>
>
> In a message dated 6/21/2002 5:50:11 PM Central Standard Time,
whitty@c... writes:
>
>
>
> We may never know, but seeing as the original film series WAS
popular, and
> the comic books NEVER were - unless they were stories about
the films - I
> still believe they could have explored more
interesting/familiar things than
> talking giant brains and the absolute garbage from the 70's
stuff (ie
> someone's stupid comic strip, change faces to apes, call it
POTA).
>
> Michael
>
>
> You are absolutely right! Thankfully at least someone in here is
seeing what I had said before. Just because it has talking Apes in
it DOES NOT make it POTA.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/21/2002 8:21:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> So, I'm closed minded huh? I know I am as far as Apes goes, and

what it is to

> me, but I admit it.

Well admitting is the first step to getting help;-)

> You set there and say I'm closed minded, well, look who's talking.

You're as

> bad, if not worse, than me. You're closed minded by constantly

bringing up

> the dial phone and the city transit to say that it happened in the

20th

> century.

No I've often asked on this board for someone to point out something
in Planet or Beneath that I may have missed that would indicate the
nuclear war took place centuries later. To date, no has been able to
do so. My contention has been that when these films were made that
the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in the
late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in the
films, the dialouge from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's line
in Beneath. Additionally, the official plot synopsis released by FOX
at the time states that "shorty after Brent's launch New York was
destroyed in a Nuclear attack". Again if there is something in
Planet or Beneath that suggest a much later date for mankind's
destruction, please point it out to me.



We're in the 21st century now, and I'm still seeing buses and

> phones, (eye glasses, and prefabricated heart valves too...)

Things didn't

> stop on 12/31/99 and suddenly become the space age society you

seem to think

> it has to be to prove that the Apes revolt (and "The War")

happened in what I

> believe is the 2500's at least.

The first part of the statement is completely illogical. I've never
said that since we're in the early 21st century that we'd be in a
space age society. But do I expect the world to be substantially
different 500 years from now? Yes, as different as the world is now
from what it was 500 years ago. Once again if there is anything in
Planet or Beneath that indicates the nuclear war took place in the
26th century please point it out.

> And why is it you can't seem to say any of your points to try to

say the

> timeline is circular rather than two seperate ones? You suddenly

stoop to

> calling me closed minded and telling me to read a book (which I

have read by

> the way.)

The circular timeline theory is not something I dreamed up alone. It
is something that has existed for 30 years. It has been stated
within the films and discussed on in magazines & books written about
the films. Roddy McDowall even commented on in the Behind
documentary. Several timelines showing the circle have been written.
Paul Dehn himself even said it was a circle.
After all that for a POTA fan to may such a statement as:

"Such as what? I'd really like to know some of this circular
evidence..."

Says to me that the fan has either not paid attention for the last
35 years or has a closed mind.
I'm willing to admit that there is equal evidence to support both
theories. As I've stated before, Battle is a fork in the road. If
man & ape can continue to get along 'Earth will sail safely through
space till the end of time'. If not, everything will happen as it
happened before and Taylor will destroy the Earth in the 40th
Century.

Great answer Michael. I think that I had almost the same
experiences. I hadn't though about POTA for years (even though I had
a stash of Posters, Lobby Cards and other stuff in my closet) until
the new film peaked my interest in the originals again. I didn't
have a DVD in '98, but when the Evolution box set was rereleased
last summer I ran out and bought it. Then bought the series when it
came out in November. (I did draw the line at the 2001 DVD though. I
really hate that film and won't have it in the house.) I've even
collected all the Medicoms in the last years and completed my
collection of Pressbooks and Heralds. So like the Apes I've gone
full cirle from devoted fan as a child to devoted fan again as an
adult.

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> I am tempted to play with that jingle a bit Jeff, but I'll refrain.
>
> I think this is the best place to start and it is the first
question we
> should ask new members to the chat group:
>
> WHAT IS PLANET OF THE APES?????
>
> When I applied for teaching jobs, the first question you are asked
in an
> interview is "What is your philosophy of education?".
>
> And what a good place to start.
>
> So me first:
>
> Planet of the Apes is a story that excited me when I was a child.
When I
> was depressed, I could open a POTA mag and lose myself in it
(talking brains
> and all). I never had any ideas about plot holes and
inconsistencies.
> Every time POTA (any of them) came on at the movies I went to see
it
> (including at the Drive-In when they played them all back to
back). Any
> related item I could find, I would have my parents buy it. I
could not get
> enough.
>
> I think I originally liked it because it was so different and
unique. Where
> I lived, there was no POTA saturation - it would have been so much
easier to
> sell out and like something else that was more easy to collect but
I didn't.
>
> Then I turned 15 and girls became far more important, my toys got
thrown out
> and there was no time for apes.
>
> At 30 I decided I missed apes and the wonders of technology had
offered all
> those wonderful toys I had when I was a kid, some in as new
condition. So I
> started collecting again.
>
> But the actual movies themselves had lost much of their magic. No
longer
> was staying up all night and watching them back to back such a
treat, and
> there was so much contradiction! Some things were just downright
silly.
> And the TV Series, well the stories weren't great were they?
>
> But now I have a far more demanding expectation of POTA products.
There is
> no reason to cut corners (eg Hasbro figures) and the good quality
stuff has
> a market (eg Medicoms) and the garbage is run out at 3 for $1 (eg
most of
> the POTA 2001 related merchandise).
>
> Jacobs wanted to break new ground with POTA and totally against
the run of
> play he got backed and it got made and it was enormously well
received.
> Then the idiots threw less money in the kitty each time and
somehow the
> sequels continued to be successful anyway. "Just pump it out and
keep the
> cash flow going". What a shame.
>
> Anyway, I think my answer to what is POTA is probably best
summarised by my
> recent response to an on-line 20th C Fox Competition asking me to
say in 25
> words or less why I deserve to win the prize. I responded:
>
> BECAUSE I LOVE PLANET OF THE APES SO MUCH THAT I JUST KEEP BUYING
THE CRAP
> YOU GUYS CHURN OUT, EVEN THAT AWFUL BURTON MOVIE.
>
> So there it is, I am a collector so I buy it, but I really want to
be
> satisfied with the quality of what I buy now so it is time for the
quality
> of POTA product to increase and give me some VALUE.
>
> By the way, I won a Classic Apes DVD box (and the judgement was
according to
> the most original answers, no luck involved). The message may
just get
> through, but not if you all just want to be defeatist.
>
> Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mlccougar@a... [mlccougar@a...]
> Sent: Saturday, 22 June 2002 12:58
> To: pota@y...
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Comic Books
>
>
> In a message dated 6/21/2002 9:04:52 PM Central Standard Time,
> veetus@e... writes:
>
>
>
> What exactly is POTA? There's no answer that everyone
would agree
> on. Some only like one movie, some the movies but not the shows,
some did
> "Battle" but not the original, some even like the Burton flick
only. Who
> decides? I'll tell you who. Mr. 20th Century Fox! Anything they
choose to
> call POTA is legally so.
>
> Who can take a rainbow,
> Sprinkle it with grapes,
> Add a bunch of chocolate
> And call it POTA?
> The Fox Man
> The Fox Man can
> The Fox Man can 'cause he adds a lot of love
> And makes it all taste good! Etc.
> - - - - Jeff
>
>
>
> Cute jingle... "Sammy Davis Veetus"
>
> But on the serious side... I know you're correct that whatever
they
> choose to call POTA technically is because they "say so." I also
know you're
> right in saying that what POTA is is not the same to everyone. But
I go by
> content, and to me some of the sh*t laid out in the comics is just
a bunch
> of worthless crap. APES does not need to be played down to the
lowest common
> denominator, which it was in the 70's "original" stories in the
mag, and in
> the 90's throughout that whole comics run. To ME, there's no place
for
> talking brains in glass bubbles, half ape/half human slaves,
stupid sh*t
> like the "Taylorites", and yes, even the dreaded Ape-Nation on the
Planet of
> the Apes.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

.htmlIt seems that not all of the messages have been sent to me lately. I've been getting a lot of them, but there are some which are replies to posts I haven't received...

Are others in this group not receiving all of the posts? Is Yahoo! messed up again?<.html

Michael's post made me think about my collection and how long ago I
started it. Now we've all listed what's in our collection but I was
wondering what is the oldest item in everyone's collection. How long
have you had it? Why did you buy it? And what made you keep it all
these years?
For me it's 3 cards from the original Topps series. Back when the
first film came out, the women who live in the apartment downstairs
worked at FOX's offices in New York. She brought home 2 boxes of
these cards for her sons. They gave me and my brother the doubles so
we had a complete set. Unfortunately, the place my brother stored
them was flooded a few years later and only three survived. I kept
these for years and now thanks to Ebay, have been able to rebuild
the whole 44 card set.

> You don't mind if I call you "Pat", right? I tried to cut out a lot of your irrelevent stuff.

*** I'd prefer "Patrick", if you please. My use of "Morgoth" and
"Melkie" aren't meant to be offensive--just a 'familiar' sort of slang
version of your pseudonym 'Melkor'. Just as Taylor didn't want to be
called 'Bright Eyes' by the orangutans ["My name is Taylor--!"], so
too would I prefer it if you referred to me as 'Patrick'.

>
> >Similarly, if Heston had vociferously disagreed with the political
> >messages incorporated into "PLANET OF THE APES", then his conscience
>
> He didn't "vociferously disagree", he merely played a character with different views than he has today.

*** I didn't say that Heston DID "vociferously disagree" etc.; I used
the CONDITIONAL tense: "... IF Heston had vociferously disagreed..."
In other words, IF Chuck had read the initial script and IF he had
found it to have a political agenda which he personally could not
bring himself to endorse, THEN he would either have declined to appear
in the picture, or he would have "surrendered his principles" and done
the job for the paycheck ("selling out")... which is NOT what I think
he really did. I believe that Chuck DID approve of the political
subtext of the film (an agenda which the FILM embodies, although
mainly through the characters of the "liberal" chimps--Cornelius,
Zira, and Lucius--and NOT necessarily through the character he himself
played: the misanthrope Taylor). Remember when Zira, in BENEATH, asks
Zaius, "Are you asking me to surrender my principles?"? She is being
asked--almost begged--to shelve for the moment her own liberal agenda
(i.e. revealing the truth about the Humans and their Past, to put an
end to the "ignorance" which she thinks is evil), in order--as Zaius
says--to be the guardian of the "higher principles of Science" during
his absence; the future of the simian civilization may rest on the
shoulders of Zira and Cornelius (and their like-minded liberal
chimpanzee friends), and Zaius wants that civilization saved. Zira is
faced with a dilemma: to "surrender her principles" for the sake of
more important matters... just as WE in the post-9/11 era are being
told by many that in order to combat the "evil" of Terrorism we may
have to give up some of our essential liberties, it being a matter of
our civilization's survival. Will Zira "think well" before she acts
during Zaius' absence? Or will she go "full-steam-ahead" and take
advantage of that absence in order to promulgate her own agenda--
perhaps waging some sort of coup d'etat after the Army has left the
vicinity?

> >Taylor is the protagonist--but he is NOT a "hero". In a way,
> >he's sort of an "anti-hero" whose actions are NOT necessarily
> >laudable.
>
> Yes Taylor IS one of the heros in POTA, along with all of the other liberals in the movie: Zira, Cornelius and Lucius. When Taylor mockingly laughs at Landon for planting the American flag the audience is supposed to agree with Taylor, not with Landon.

*** I respectfully disagree. Taylor does very little in the film that
can reasonably be construed as "heroic". Just trying to stay alive is
not necessarily a heroic act; an act of altruism on behalf of another,
on the other hand, IS heroic, and the first real example of this is
when Taylor insists that Nova come along with him and Lucius (after he
knocks Julius unconscious)--previously, when he had broken out of his
cell to avoid getting gelded, he just ran out to save his own skin,
leaving Nova behind (why didn't he help her to escape their cage,
too?). Later... after Lucius helps to free him, Taylor altruistically
insists on Nova's accompanying them.
Later on, Taylor is grateful to Cornelius and Zira for saving him...
but mere gratitude is hardly heroism. However, when Zaius appears on
the scene at the Cave, THEN Taylor not only saves the day (using his
rifle to ward off the gorillas), but he offers to "return the favor"
and help Cornelius and Zira in their Heresy case against "this
fanatic" they had saved him from. Taylor could have just snagged a
bunch of supplies then and there and ridden along the beach, letting
Zira and Cornelius fend for themselves... but he does the decent
thing, and offers to help them out. One could say that he owes them
that much, since they DID save his life--so that his altruistic
actions are merely the fulfilment of an obligation, which is NOT
necessarily heroic.
Feel free to think of Taylor as some sort of hero... but I don't think
he is. He's just a protagonist, the "main character" in the story. The
most blatant "hero" (in the truest sense of the word) in the POTA saga
is Caesar: his life fits the pattern of the epic hero to a "T".

>
>
> >We aren't meant to cheer Taylor's laughing at
> >Landon planting the flag--quite the opposite, I think.
>
> The audience is supposed to think that "golden boy" Landon is an idiot for planting the American flag. That's why the writers give Landon a lobotomy later in the movie.

***Landon's lobotomy has nothing to do with what you perceive to be
his "idiocy". In Boulle's book, Arthur Levain is killed in the hunt--
just as Dodge is; Ulysse Merou survives and is befriended by Zira--
just as Taylor is; but Professor Antelle is captured alive and is not
seen again until much later in the story--just as Landon is captured
and not seen again until Taylor's "hearing". But the satirical point
Boulle was making with Antelle's condition after Ulysse Merou finds
him again was far different than what the movie did with Landon.
Antelle, being treated to the amenities of the zoo--where he gets fed
regularly, and gets to snuggle up to naked females--loses that one
trait that had set humans apart from the rest of the animal kingdom:
Intelligence. But Landon doesn't just lose his Intelligence: he is
mutilated by Zaius' veterinary surgeons; they "cut up his brain" and
"stole his memory" (as Taylor accuses). Landon's condition is forced
on him--unlike Antelle's. Zaius didn't have his vet butcher Landon
because of his patriotic flag-planting; he had him rendered a
vegetable in order to destroy his ability to use his Intelligence in
the way that the ancient Human civilization did: destructively.

Liberals were very distrustful of flag-waving in 1967 because of the
wide perception that conservatives had exploited and hijacked the flag
for their pro-war policies and I'm sure that Mike Wilson's having been
blacklisted most of his career for "anti-american" activities didn't
make him a gung-ho flag-waving patriot like Landon.

*** The 1967-era liberals who were politically active (in the
Democratic Party) did not do any less flag-waving during the election
campaign season. You didn't see any flag-burning at the Democratic
National Convention, now, did you? Maybe some protestors outside did
some of that, but the "party faithful" inside the convention hall
waved flags just as much as the Republicans did at their convention.
Granted, Wilson probably wasn't the "gung-ho flag-waving patriot"
type, but neither is Landon, necessarily. Landon--like Taylor and
Dodge--was an officer in the ANSA space program, probably recruited
from the Air Force. When Landon plants that little flag in the sand,
it is not much different than when the Apollo 11 astronauts planted
the American flag on the Moon. Military personnel plant flags for one
primary reason: to claim territory on behalf of their mother country
(sometimes after fighting a fierce battle, conquering that territory--
as the famous Iwo Jima photo shows the Marines doing); however,
although these ANSA astronauts are obviously military personnel
(Taylor's a "colonel", and so forth), that doesn't necessarily mean
that their flag-planting was meant to connote 'conquering' this
planet. Neil Armstrong was in the U.S. military, too, but when he
stepped on the Moon he did so on behalf of not just the U.S.A., but of
all mankind ("... one giant leap for mankind").
There are those who disagree with me regarding this, but I think it's
obvious that the mission Taylor commands is a COLONIZING mission--
witness his remarks to Landon about Stewart ("...with our lovely
Lieutenant Stewart dead, it looks like you're the last of the
line...") and to Nova ("...she was to be the 'new Eve'... with our hot
and eager help, of course..."). In other words, the 3 male astronauts
were intended to beget children borne by Stewart... but since she died
in her sleep, the Plan to colonize this planet orbiting a star in the
constellation Orion is now unachievable. There can be no colony, with
the female member of the crew dead. So what's the point in planting
the flag in the sand, claiming it for the United States? There IS no
point anymore... and THAT is what Taylor is mockingly laughing about.
In my opinion, anyway.

> Okay I did misunderstand what you saying in your earlier post. Because I never thought anybody would say that Taylor was not one of the heros.
> Maybe Heston wasn't as "savvy" as you are.
>

***Sure he was... he did the film, didn't he? Heston gravitated
towards roles that were not necessarily heroic. In "The Omega Man" he
plays a rather unlikable man; a man we can sympathize with, sure, but
he 'doesn't fit in' with either the Zombie group or the group of
uninfected survivors. That black kid says that he scares him more than
the Zombie guys do, sometimes. In "Soylent Green" he plays a cop--but
his character is not all that likable there either. Edward G.
Robinson's character is much more likable, I think. Heston's character
takes advantage of his murder investigation in order to get "more than
his share" of the rationed goods of the overpopulated city. Not a very
heroic thing to do... but it IS a very human thing to do. No, these
characters Heston played at that time were flawed, imperfect, yet
interesting protagonists who exemplified the flawed and imperfect
societies in which they lived. The "hero" is supposed to stand out
from the rest--to be noticably better than the flawed world in which
he pilgrimages, to be an exemplar of virtues that most everybody else
does NOT embody. Heston played the hero in "The Ten Commandments" and
in "Ben Hur"--but he played more interesting characters in those later
films... because those characters were NOT heroes.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-22-2002

>

--- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:

> T just brought up a very interesting point that I had not previously
> considered.
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the
> Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be
> covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency
> device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced (well,
> if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed
> (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is
> Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior was
> replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they completely
> different too?
>
> Michael

*** The ship in PLANET does not have a "gull-wing" hatch on the port
side of the cockpit; the ship in ESCAPE does have this type of hatch
(like the door of Marty McFly's DeLorean time machine). Similarly, the
ship Brent crawls out of doesn't have that port "gull-wing" door
(otherwise, why not use IT rather than climb up the cylindrical tube
to the "escape hatch" hole?).
Ergo, the ship in ESCAPE is neither the one we see in PLANET nor the
one from BENEATH. It's a THIRD ship, with a similar external topology,
yet with certain obvious differences.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-22-2002

Just a few comments:


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

>just as WE in the post-9/11 era are being
> told by many that in order to combat the "evil" of Terrorism we ay
> have to give up some of our essential liberties

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

> Antelle, being treated to the amenities of the zoo--where he gets
> fed regularly, and gets to snuggle up to naked females

Sounds good to me. Where do I sign??

> Neil Armstrong was in the U.S. military, too, but when he
> stepped on the Moon he did so on behalf of not just the U.S.A.,

Armstrong, Neil Alden (1930- ), one of the first civilian United
States astronauts and the first human to set foot on the moon.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001. © 1993-2000 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.

--- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:

> I like this.
>
> So Milo could have avoided recovering the entire ship if he had
> diving equipmet and discovered a chamber with another vehicle (or
> more?) in it, then retrieved the smaller ship hence all else seems to
> fit.
>
> Very clever Mr Cougar.
>
> The reason I don't like Patrick's creation of a mother ship called
> Earth is because there is just no disputing in my mind that all
> references to "Earth" were to the planet earth. I don't mind
> explaining flubs, but I think we would mostly agree to keep it simple
> and believeble. At lest this way we don't have to re-interpret what
> we know the script was saying. Patrick, I am simply explaining what
> irritates me about the mother ship earth idea, so please do not take
> it personally.
>
> Michael
>

*** I neither expect nor insist that anybody "agree" with my scenario.
Feel free to be irritated by it! I won't take it personally, trust me.

The two references to "Earth" in PLANET and BENEATH, I feel, make much
more sense in the light of my scenario, however. Taylor tells Landon
on two specific occasions later, that they are "320 lightyears away
from Earth on an unnamed planet in orbit around a star in the
constellation of Orion" (later he says: "You're 300 lightyears from
your precious planet! Your loved ones are dead and forgotten for 20
centuries. Twenty centuries!"). So why the heck would Taylor tell
Landon--as the ship is taking on water and on the verge of losing its
auxiliary power--to "get out a last signal... to EARTH that we've
landed"? If Taylor truly believes that they are 320 lightyears away
from the planet Earth, then what is the damn point in sending out a
radio signal which MIGHT (if our solar system is not obstructed by the
planet they landed on, and is "in the sky above") be received in 320
years--in 3978 + 320 = 4298 A.D.? What good will that do Earthlings in
4298 A.D.? What good will this do for these astronauts? NOTHING.
Granted, Taylor DID imply--in his "final report until we reach
touchdown"--that he would make an "initial report" after awakening
from hibernation; but isn't there a major difference between a REPORT
and a mere SIGNAL? "Hey! We landed! Can't talk right now... we're
taking on water! We gotta abandon ship! Bye!"
If we make the assumption that the "launch"/"shuttlecraft" we see in
PLANET is attached to a much bigger "mothership" named "EARTH" (the
"U.S.S. Earth", carrying the other "cargo" Taylor implies they have,
in addition to Lt. Stewart), then Taylor's order to Landon makes much
more sense, at least to me. It would be like Spock telling Scotty to
send out a signal to the ENTERPRISE (up in orbit) that the
shuttlecraft GALILEO had landed on the planet's surface (remember "The
Galileo 7" episode?). "Scotty--get out a last signal... to Enterprise,
that we've landed!"
Later on, when "Skipper" asks Brent, "Did you contact EARTH?", it
doesn't make any sense to suppose that he means the planet Earth,
because Brent makes it plain that wherever it is that they've gone to,
he doesn't believe it to be the planet Earth... and there are no other
habitable planets in the Solar System. Brent believes he's on an alien
planet orbiting an alien star. Skipper asks "Which sun?", because he
doesn't know what star is shining down on him, which Brent says he can
feel, warming his skin. "I don't know what planet we're on..." Brent
says. But they can breathe its air--which rules out every other planet
and moon in our Solar System. So, then, if Brent had been trying to
"contact Earth", it wouldn't make any sense if by "Earth" they meant
the planet, since you can't get into contact with something that is
LIGHTYEARS away (unless you have "subspace radio" or "hyperwave",
etc.--but Brent mentions only "our radio" which "is shot"/busted). The
ONLY "Earth" which Brent could even HOPE to contact (provided the
radio was still working) via radio signals would be something else
named "Earth" within radio range: a "mothership" in orbit above them.

Given the above, and given that the ESCAPE ship cannot be either the
one seen in PLANET or the other one in BENEATH, then this is a THIRD
ship, and it was landed intact "on our seaboard" (as Cornelius tells
the Presidential Commission), which rules out Taylor's shuttle (which
sank in Dead Lake) and Brent's shuttle (which crashed on the ground
nowhere near the sea). So... who the hell landed this third shuttle?
How could 3 separate ships land in roughly the same area (i.e. within
20 miles of each other, or so) following a "trajectory" across
HUNDREDS OF LIGHTYEARS? Impossible. Only by following a Re-Entry
trajectory could both Brent's ship and the "third" ship even hope to
land anywhere near Taylor's splashdown coordinates. And these ships
could only do so if they were "together" initially--attached to the
bigger mothership, just as Professor Antelle's "launches" were
attached to the interstellar vessel which traversed the hundreds of
lightyears between Sol and Soror.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-22-2002

> --- mlccougar@a... wrote:
> >
> > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> mentioned the
> > ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship
> because the
> > rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,
> whereas the
> > blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
> recovered
> > and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
> >
> > I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same
> ship as
> > Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size,
> design, etc.
> > because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said
> before, it's
> > really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I
> have been
> > doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its
> not
> > possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
> justify
> > their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear
> of the ship
> > is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
> hatch was an
> > emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> replaced... I'd
> > doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking ship was
> supposed
> > to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just from the
> opening
> > sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of the ship
> shown in
> > the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole thing. That's
> not to
> > say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one in Escape or
> the TV
> > series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an escape
> hatch, just a
> > functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
> >
> > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> anyone
> > ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
> makes it
> > so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
> suppose you
> > could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
> controls etc?
> > Are they completely different too?
> >
> > I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother
> ship "Earth" flying
> > around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
> as that's
> > all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> don't
> > remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> said,
> > though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
> novel that
> > they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller
> ships they
> > referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> that say
> > it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be
> the "main"
> > (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-
> nauts "escape" in,
> > it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get to
> see all of)
> > had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could be
> that they
> > escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could return
> to the
> > mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> >

I didn't keep any "Ape" stuff from when I was a kid. My favorites were the
Megos, which I got when I was 10 and the strings that held them together
broke after a couple of weeks. I sold the rest when I was 12, including the
novels I had, because it didn't seem cool anymore. It never occurred to me
to be a "collector". But I always enjoyed watching them on TV and in '82 I
bought a used paperback of Boulle's novel, the first item of my current
collection. I found the first issue of the Marvel magazine in ''85 and
collected the novelizations around that time. In the '80's I found a couple
of collectibles shops but "Apes" was deader than a doornail. There just
wasn't much. I was collecting the old "Peanuts" paperbacks then. The things
that spurred my interest were the Marvel magazines (which I didn't know
about as a kid) and Russo's excerpt from his book in "Starlog". I couldn't
wait for that book to be published. Little did I know it wouldn't be for
over a decade. The magazines were cool because they talked about various
aspects of the subject (chronologies, interviews, letters that showed it
struck a nerve). As a kid I didn't know anyone else who liked "Apes". So the
magazine broadened my interest and showed all the different aspects. A
friend in college collected other things, comic books, movie stills (not
"Apes"). So I started going to my first sci-fi conventions. I've probably
gone to 10 in my life. But that was enough to get the bug. I collected the
trading cards, cheap posters (I got "Conquest" for $7, the Planet/Beneath
double feature for $3 - - - I lucked out in that I got into just before
prices rose). But I never collected the old stuff in a big way.
TO BE CONTINUED! Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 7:37 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] POTA collectables


> Michael's post made me think about my collection and how long ago I
> started it. Now we've all listed what's in our collection but I was
> wondering what is the oldest item in everyone's collection. How long
> have you had it? Why did you buy it? And what made you keep it all
> these years?
> For me it's 3 cards from the original Topps series. Back when the
> first film came out, the women who live in the apartment downstairs
> worked at FOX's offices in New York. She brought home 2 boxes of
> these cards for her sons. They gave me and my brother the doubles so
> we had a complete set. Unfortunately, the place my brother stored
> them was flooded a few years later and only three survived. I kept
> these for years and now thanks to Ebay, have been able to rebuild
> the whole 44 card set.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> It's easy now to say Heston would have been "dumb" to turn down the role
> but at the time I'm sure he looked dumb to pursue it. A movie that probably
> would never get made and, gosh, he had to do that makeup test (Edward G.).
> And they didn't have enough money for him so he'd have to take it out of the
> profits, which there wouldn't be because it would never get made.
> The trades say that Heston is doing the voice of "Ben Hur" in a 90 minute
> straight-to-video version of the story. His son Fraser's company is making
> it and Heston will introduce it as himself. And they announced last week a
> remake of his "El Cid". That's "Apes", the upcoming "I Am Legend" (Omega
> Man), "Ben Hur", "El Cid". All that's left is "Ten Commandments" and
> "Soylent Green" to be remade of his signature roles. Etc. - - - - Jeff
>

*** One thing that APES had going for it was that it was an adaptation
of "Pierre Boulle's finest novel since BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI" (as
the POTA trailer's narrator says). KWAI won the Oscar for Best Picture
when it came out, so the Boulle connection was quite the plus. It's
too bad that none of Boulle's other books have been adapted to the
screen. I'd rather go to a film version of a Boulle novel than to yet
another mediocre Stephen King film adaptation of a too-long novel...

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> I really don't think that holds water, because the 3 astronauts act like they're the only ones around. With all he goes through I think he'd mention if there was a mothership hovering around. "See Zauis? There it is". "Why yes, you humans do have technology beyond ours. I was wrong. I'm sorry, sir." "Aw, that's alright, Zauis".
> I don't think they cut the "Escape" scene because it doesn't match. In those days there weren't many VCRs for people to compare films. They could've easily matched it when they shot it. I think it was cut to give the removal of the helmets more impact. For those who don't know what we're talking about, a scene was filmed with the "Ape-o-nauts" inside the ship and it looked different than the beginning of "Planet". Please oh please put that in the new DVDs! Etc. - - - Jeff
>

*** The ESCAPE scene would have required significant visual effects
work: the view out-the-windows of the planet Earth from orbit... the
"bright white blinding light" of the explosion of the Alpha Omega
bomb... the "shockwave" effect, etc. They built the cabin interior set
(which differs significantly from the PLANET ship's cabin), yet since
budgets were being slashed, they probably cut their losses and just
cut out the scene to avoid the expense of the effects. Too bad...

In regards to your other comment regarding the 3 astronauts acting
like they're the only ones around, I addressed that way back when in
my scenario: 2 of the shuttlecraft (the PLANET and BENEATH ones) are
equipped with 4 hibernation chambers each, and during the 18 month
voyage from Earth to "Orion" these 2 shuttles' hibernation chambers
are utilized by 8 of the crew members (Taylor, Stewart, Dodge, Landon
in one, Brent and 3 others in the other one); the reason that the
shuttles aren't empty during the voyage is just in case there is a
deadly emergency on the mothership (such as a meltdown of their
nuclear reactor core)--then the shuttles (occupied each by 4
astronauts) could be automatically detached from the mothership, and
act as lifeboats. The astronauts trapped aboard the mothership might
be killed in such a major malfunction, but the hibernating astronauts
in the shuttle-cum-lifeboats would survive and--since each shuttle has
a "Hassleinian hyperdrive" engine--be able to be flown either onward
to the Destination or back to Earth.
Taylor, Dodge and Landon tried to get out a signal to their mothership
("... to EARTH, that we've landed..."), but failed. Since they weren't
programmed to land in the water--yet they HAVE--then it's obvious to
them that something bad happened while they were asleep, and it has
messed up the intended protocols. It would be reasonable for them to
assume that their mothership was destroyed in some sort of accident...
and that their presence in the shuttle/lifeboat saved their lives
(except for Stewart), and enabled them to somehow be on the surface of
this weird planet. That doesn't mean that they wouldn't try to get a
glimpse of their mothership IF it were indeed in orbit overhead:
Landon mentions "...if we could just get a fix...!" Taylor berates
him, reiterating, "What would that tell you? I've told you WHERE you
are and WHEN you are" (i.e. 320 LY away from planet Earth, and 2000
years into the Future). But Landon could very well have been hoping to
"get a fix" on the position of an orbiting mothership--a slim chance
at getting off this lifeless rock, IF the guys up in orbit can send
down one of the other shuttles and pick 'em up.

Patrick

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@a...
> To: pota@y...
> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 5:42 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
>
> We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T mentioned the ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
>
> I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same ship as Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size, design, etc. because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said before, it's really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I have been doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its not possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could justify their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and replaced... I'd doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking ship was supposed to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just from the opening sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of the ship shown in the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole thing. That's not to say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one in Escape or the TV series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an escape hatch, just a functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
>
> I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has anyone ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it makes it so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I suppose you could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the controls etc? Are they completely different too?
>
> I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother ship "Earth" flying around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far as that's all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I don't remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he said, though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the novel that they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller ships they referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those that say it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be the "main" (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-nauts "escape" in, it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get to see all of) had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could be that they escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could return to the mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/18/2002 7:01:08 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@c... writes:
>
>
> > How they raised the ship is more difficult. How they got the water
> > out and repaired damaged (shorted and blown) wiring is a bit of a
> > problem. How they did it so quickly is also a concern.
>
> Now this is so hypothetical it's not even funny... But let's say that the
> "Escape" ship is a smaller vessel from inside the larger ship we see sinking
> at the beginning of "Planet of the Apes". Perhaps this smaller vessel would
> have the ability to float (in case it had to land on water.) Remember, in
> "Escape" that ship is not sunk or sinking when it's discovered, it is
> floating. So, by having the ability to float, "maybe" it would have just went
> upward to the water's surface when it would have been released from it's
> holding chamber. Being an (I'd guess) vacuum sealed ship in a protected
> holding chamber could prevent any of the interior from being damaged by
> water, and prevent water from getting into the interior to begin with.
>
> Now, again, as stated before, I know that "technically" the "Escape" ship is
> supposed to be Taylor's ship from "Planet" as well. BUT, I am also saying
> that for those who say the "Escape" ship can't be the same one as we see
> sinking in "Planet," these may be a possible solution to what the much
> smaller vessel we see in "Escape" is.

*** Just one problem with this take on it: Cornelius tells the
Presidential Commission that Milo found the ESCAPE ship "on our
seaboard"--in other words, on the beach or shoreline of the Ocean.
Cornelius previously referred to the lake where Taylor's ship splashed
down as "Dead Lake", and he tells Brent that the last time they saw
Taylor he was headed deep into the Forbidden Zone "between the LAKE
and the SEA". We know that Cornelius refers to Dead Lake as a "lake",
so that means that the Ocean is what he means by "sea" (he tells
Taylor that the river in the Forbidden Zone empties into "a SEA some
miles from here... that's where we'll find the diggings"). The Cave
with the Human Doll is on a cliff overlooking this same beach/
shoreline/SEAshore. Further along this beach is the half-buried Statue
of Liberty... and perhaps a bit further along there is another stretch
of beach where the mysterious astronauts who landed the ESCAPE ship
parked their vehicle. "...on our seaboard..." This rules out the
PLANET ship (which sank to the bottom of Dead LAKE) and the BENEATH
ship (which crashed onto the ground, far enough away from any body of
water that you can neither see any or hear the waves lapping along the
beach). Milo discovered an INTACT and working ANSA shuttle--Taylor's
shuttle would have been irreparably trashed by water corrosion, and
Brent's shuttle's computer is "shot"--so that they wouldn't be able to
use it regardless. If the computers don't work, then it's hopeless.
But an intact ANSA shuttle, correctly landed on a stretch of beach a
few miles further down from the Statue of Liberty (and unfortunately
missed by Taylor and Nova, obviously), COULD be discovered by Milo,
and put to use...

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., MTotsky@a... wrote:

> The ship never sank....what Taylor, Landon and Dodge saw was just an illusion created by the mutants in order to confuse them. So what Milo and the chimps eventually found was a fully intact and workable ship.
>
> Well that's the way I would unflub it anyways...
>
> Matt

*** Heyyyy! That's a pretty cool idea! I'm not gonna steal it and
revise my own scenario in favor of it... but I like the way you think!
Perhaps, in furtherance of your "unflubbing" scenario, perhaps the
water jetting into the ship was also an illusion... maybe Stewart was
NOT really a shrivelled up corpse... maybe it's ALL just an illusion
the Mutants concocted in order to get the 3 guys to skedaddle the
"sinking" ship, so that the fleshy-headed Mutants could gain access to
this marvelous vehicle and the hot blonde babe dozing in the upper
starboard hiberbunk!
"Mars Needs Women"... and so does the Underground City of Mutants!

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., Haristas@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/20/02 1:18:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> mlccougar@a... writes:
>
>
> > The ship is not a "dead horse" and we need to keep up topics on the APES
> > all we can in here... I hope it gets the ball rolling in here as to other
> > real APES topics .
>
> Well, whatever. I didn't say this before but I think the interior of the
> spaceship we see in the first episode of the TV series is what was used in
> ESCAPE but cut. So really didn't miss anything.
>
> -- Rory

*** The chronometer consoles in the ESCAPE ship and in Virdon's ship
are different. We never do get to see the front consoles of Virdon's
ship, unfortunately; they may never have even built that part of the
set, since none of the shots they used show it.

Patrick

*** You asked for evidence, so here's a tidbit that "proves" that the
Nuke War had to be either late-20th Century or early-21st Century:
Cornelius is accused by Zaius of having "methods of dating the past"
that are "crude to say the least", yet I think that Zaius was just
blowing smoke outta his ass. Cornelius says that he found traces of an
"early ape creature" dating back 1300 years, roughly (from the late
40th Century), to just before the time when Zaius says the Sacred
Scrolls were written (i.e. 1200 years ago). But the artifacts from the
"more ancient culture" (which was also "more advanced") date back
"another seven hundred years". Add about 700 to about 1300 and you get
about 2000 years... and if you subtract THAT number from 3978 or 3955
(whichever year your may prefer), you get a timeframe for the Nuke War
near the turn of the Millennium (circa 2000). If you're partial to the
"two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).

You got what you wanted, Tiger... how does it taste?
("Mmmm... gummy Venus de Milo..." or "Mmmm... forbidden donut...")
[insert image of drooling Homer Simpson here...]

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/21/2002 8:21:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> > So, I'm closed minded huh? I know I am as far as Apes goes, and
> what it is to
> > me, but I admit it.
>
> Well admitting is the first step to getting help;-)
>
>
> > You set there and say I'm closed minded, well, look who's talking.
> You're as
> > bad, if not worse, than me. You're closed minded by constantly
> bringing up
> > the dial phone and the city transit to say that it happened in the
> 20th
> > century.
>
> No I've often asked on this board for someone to point out something
> in Planet or Beneath that I may have missed that would indicate the
> nuclear war took place centuries later. To date, no has been able to
> do so. My contention has been that when these films were made that
> the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in the
> late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in the
> films, the dialouge from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's line
> in Beneath. Additionally, the official plot synopsis released by FOX
> at the time states that "shorty after Brent's launch New York was
> destroyed in a Nuclear attack". Again if there is something in
> Planet or Beneath that suggest a much later date for mankind's
> destruction, please point it out to me.
>
>
>
> We're in the 21st century now, and I'm still seeing buses and
> > phones, (eye glasses, and prefabricated heart valves too...)
> Things didn't
> > stop on 12/31/99 and suddenly become the space age society you
> seem to think
> > it has to be to prove that the Apes revolt (and "The War")
> happened in what I
> > believe is the 2500's at least.
>
> The first part of the statement is completely illogical. I've never
> said that since we're in the early 21st century that we'd be in a
> space age society. But do I expect the world to be substantially
> different 500 years from now? Yes, as different as the world is now
> from what it was 500 years ago. Once again if there is anything in
> Planet or Beneath that indicates the nuclear war took place in the
> 26th century please point it out.
>
> > And why is it you can't seem to say any of your points to try to
> say the
> > timeline is circular rather than two seperate ones? You suddenly
> stoop to
> > calling me closed minded and telling me to read a book (which I
> have read by
> > the way.)
>
> The circular timeline theory is not something I dreamed up alone. It
> is something that has existed for 30 years. It has been stated
> within the films and discussed on in magazines & books written about
> the films. Roddy McDowall even commented on in the Behind
> documentary. Several timelines showing the circle have been written.
> Paul Dehn himself even said it was a circle.
> After all that for a POTA fan to may such a statement as:
>
> "Such as what? I'd really like to know some of this circular
> evidence..."
>
> Says to me that the fan has either not paid attention for the last
> 35 years or has a closed mind.
> I'm willing to admit that there is equal evidence to support both
> theories. As I've stated before, Battle is a fork in the road. If
> man & ape can continue to get along 'Earth will sail safely through
> space till the end of time'. If not, everything will happen as it
> happened before and Taylor will destroy the Earth in the 40th
> Century.

My oldest item is the 66 card, tv set from Topps, 1974. However, they're
copyrighted 1967. Bought it becaused I liked POTA. Kept it because I STILL
like POTA. Next up are my Don Post Studios Cornelius and Zaius masks, that I
purchased in 1986. Ditto. ;)
Gristle P.

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 10:37 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] POTA collectables


> Michael's post made me think about my collection and how long ago I
> started it. Now we've all listed what's in our collection but I was
> wondering what is the oldest item in everyone's collection. How long
> have you had it? Why did you buy it? And what made you keep it all
> these years?
> For me it's 3 cards from the original Topps series. Back when the
> first film came out, the women who live in the apartment downstairs
> worked at FOX's offices in New York. She brought home 2 boxes of
> these cards for her sons. They gave me and my brother the doubles so
> we had a complete set. Unfortunately, the place my brother stored
> them was flooded a few years later and only three survived. I kept
> these for years and now thanks to Ebay, have been able to rebuild
> the whole 44 card set.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So I started going to my first sci-fi conventions. I've probably

> gone to 10 in my life. But that was enough to get the bug. I collected the
> trading cards, cheap posters (I got "Conquest" for $7, the Planet/Beneath
> double feature for $3 - - - I lucked out in that I got into just before
> prices rose). But I never collected the old stuff in a big way.
> TO BE CONTINUED! Etc. - - - Jeff

10 cons, huh...? Rookie! I'm a con veteran, going back to 1982 and my wife
and I are still going strong. Ah, the stories we could tell... But anyway,
In all those years, I have never seen many POTA collectibles. Except for the
few TV-based items and the original movie trading cards (in ancient times,
they were called, "bubblegum cards"), there simply are none. There are a few
unlicensed garage kits out there based on Classic POTA and POTA 2001, and
that's about it, folks. That's all the affordable stuff, anyway. I suppose
you COULD take a second mortgage on your house and maybe buy one or two
items from Apemania. ;)
Gristle P.

>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
> To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 7:37 AM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] POTA collectables
>
>
> > Michael's post made me think about my collection and how long ago I
> > started it. Now we've all listed what's in our collection but I was
> > wondering what is the oldest item in everyone's collection. How long
> > have you had it? Why did you buy it? And what made you keep it all
> > these years?
> > For me it's 3 cards from the original Topps series. Back when the
> > first film came out, the women who live in the apartment downstairs
> > worked at FOX's offices in New York. She brought home 2 boxes of
> > these cards for her sons. They gave me and my brother the doubles so
> > we had a complete set. Unfortunately, the place my brother stored
> > them was flooded a few years later and only three survived. I kept
> > these for years and now thanks to Ebay, have been able to rebuild
> > the whole 44 card set.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

Well Patrick for once we agree.


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

> *** You asked for evidence, so here's a tidbit that "proves" that

the

> Nuke War had to be either late-20th Century or early-21st Century:
> Cornelius is accused by Zaius of having "methods of dating the

past"

> that are "crude to say the least", yet I think that Zaius was just
> blowing smoke outta his ass. Cornelius says that he found traces

of an

> "early ape creature" dating back 1300 years, roughly (from the

late

> 40th Century), to just before the time when Zaius says the Sacred
> Scrolls were written (i.e. 1200 years ago). But the artifacts from

the

> "more ancient culture" (which was also "more advanced") date back
> "another seven hundred years". Add about 700 to about 1300 and you

get

> about 2000 years... and if you subtract THAT number from 3978 or

3955

> (whichever year your may prefer), you get a timeframe for the Nuke

War

> near the turn of the Millennium (circa 2000). If you're partial to

the

> "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
> Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
> years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
>
> You got what you wanted, Tiger... how does it taste?
> ("Mmmm... gummy Venus de Milo..." or "Mmmm... forbidden donut...")
> [insert image of drooling Homer Simpson here...]
>
> Patrick
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 6/21/2002 8:21:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > So, I'm closed minded huh? I know I am as far as Apes goes,

and

> > what it is to
> > > me, but I admit it.
> >
> > Well admitting is the first step to getting help;-)
> >
> >
> > > You set there and say I'm closed minded, well, look who's

talking.

> > You're as
> > > bad, if not worse, than me. You're closed minded by constantly
> > bringing up
> > > the dial phone and the city transit to say that it happened in

the

> > 20th
> > > century.
> >
> > No I've often asked on this board for someone to point out

something

> > in Planet or Beneath that I may have missed that would indicate

the

> > nuclear war took place centuries later. To date, no has been

able to

> > do so. My contention has been that when these films were made

that

> > the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in

the

> > late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in

the

> > films, the dialouge from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's

line

> > in Beneath. Additionally, the official plot synopsis released by

FOX

> > at the time states that "shorty after Brent's launch New York

was

> > destroyed in a Nuclear attack". Again if there is something in
> > Planet or Beneath that suggest a much later date for mankind's
> > destruction, please point it out to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > We're in the 21st century now, and I'm still seeing buses and
> > > phones, (eye glasses, and prefabricated heart valves too...)
> > Things didn't
> > > stop on 12/31/99 and suddenly become the space age society you
> > seem to think
> > > it has to be to prove that the Apes revolt (and "The War")
> > happened in what I
> > > believe is the 2500's at least.
> >
> > The first part of the statement is completely illogical. I've

never

> > said that since we're in the early 21st century that we'd be in

a

> > space age society. But do I expect the world to be substantially
> > different 500 years from now? Yes, as different as the world is

now

> > from what it was 500 years ago. Once again if there is anything

in

> > Planet or Beneath that indicates the nuclear war took place in

the

> > 26th century please point it out.
> >
> > > And why is it you can't seem to say any of your points to try

to

> > say the
> > > timeline is circular rather than two seperate ones? You

suddenly

> > stoop to
> > > calling me closed minded and telling me to read a book (which

I

> > have read by
> > > the way.)
> >
> > The circular timeline theory is not something I dreamed up

alone. It

> > is something that has existed for 30 years. It has been stated
> > within the films and discussed on in magazines & books written

about

> > the films. Roddy McDowall even commented on in the Behind
> > documentary. Several timelines showing the circle have been

written.

> > Paul Dehn himself even said it was a circle.
> > After all that for a POTA fan to may such a statement as:
> >
> > "Such as what? I'd really like to know some of this circular
> > evidence..."
> >
> > Says to me that the fan has either not paid attention for the

last

> > 35 years or has a closed mind.
> > I'm willing to admit that there is equal evidence to support

both

> > theories. As I've stated before, Battle is a fork in the road.

If

> > man & ape can continue to get along 'Earth will sail safely

through

> > space till the end of time'. If not, everything will happen as

it

> > happened before and Taylor will destroy the Earth in the 40th
> > Century.

Could a storyline be made to make this case? I'm sure it's a
sieve,
but if it worked it would explain Milo's story AND clean up the
question of the ship.

Is it possible that Milo has been in the past? Maybe he COMES from
the past. "Our Time." Suppose he is the child that resulted
from the breeding of Caesar and the slave ape in Conquest. He is a
speaking, thinking Ape -- somewhat more advanced than the other Apes -
- with the knowledge that in the future, Apes rule. Suppose THAT
Ape, Milo, took a ship (the Escape ship) to the future.

He has a ship AND knows how it works. For some reason (maybe
obvious), he chooses to go back now – just before the doomsday
bomb goes off -- and chooses to take Zira and Cornelius with him.
Beneath them…. Kaboom!!

It is possible that they (C & Z) don't know that Milo has already
been in the past and that, in fact, he is their "grandchild."
And
now, unfortunately, they won't know – unless maybe he told
them
either enroute or before he died. And maybe that is why Cornelius
feels a need to "lie" or "make something up" –
not knowing what to
think anymore, what is actually true, whom to trust, or his actual
level of responsibility. They, C & Z, know too much, and are too
involved for their own safety.

???????

--Helen



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

> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/18/2002 7:01:08 PM Central Standard Time,
> > whitty@c... writes:
> >
> >
> > > How they raised the ship is more difficult. How they got the

water

> > > out and repaired damaged (shorted and blown) wiring is a bit of

a

> > > problem. How they did it so quickly is also a concern.
> >
> > Now this is so hypothetical it's not even funny... But let's say

that the

> > "Escape" ship is a smaller vessel from inside the larger ship we

see sinking

> > at the beginning of "Planet of the Apes". Perhaps this smaller

vessel would

> > have the ability to float (in case it had to land on water.)

Remember, in

> > "Escape" that ship is not sunk or sinking when it's discovered,

it is

> > floating. So, by having the ability to float, "maybe" it would

have just went

> > upward to the water's surface when it would have been released

from it's

> > holding chamber. Being an (I'd guess) vacuum sealed ship in a

protected

> > holding chamber could prevent any of the interior from being

damaged by

> > water, and prevent water from getting into the interior to begin

with.

> >
> > Now, again, as stated before, I know that "technically"

the "Escape" ship is

> > supposed to be Taylor's ship from "Planet" as well. BUT, I am

also saying

> > that for those who say the "Escape" ship can't be the same one as

we see

> > sinking in "Planet," these may be a possible solution to what the

much

> > smaller vessel we see in "Escape" is.
>
> *** Just one problem with this take on it: Cornelius tells the
> Presidential Commission that Milo found the ESCAPE ship "on our
> seaboard"--in other words, on the beach or shoreline of the Ocean.
> Cornelius previously referred to the lake where Taylor's ship

splashed

> down as "Dead Lake", and he tells Brent that the last time they saw
> Taylor he was headed deep into the Forbidden Zone "between the LAKE
> and the SEA". We know that Cornelius refers to Dead Lake as

a "lake",

> so that means that the Ocean is what he means by "sea" (he tells
> Taylor that the river in the Forbidden Zone empties into "a SEA

some

> miles from here... that's where we'll find the diggings"). The Cave
> with the Human Doll is on a cliff overlooking this same beach/
> shoreline/SEAshore. Further along this beach is the half-buried

Statue

> of Liberty... and perhaps a bit further along there is another

stretch

> of beach where the mysterious astronauts who landed the ESCAPE ship
> parked their vehicle. "...on our seaboard..." This rules out the
> PLANET ship (which sank to the bottom of Dead LAKE) and the BENEATH
> ship (which crashed onto the ground, far enough away from any body

of

> water that you can neither see any or hear the waves lapping along

the

> beach). Milo discovered an INTACT and working ANSA shuttle--

Taylor's

> shuttle would have been irreparably trashed by water corrosion, and
> Brent's shuttle's computer is "shot"--so that they wouldn't be able

to

> use it regardless. If the computers don't work, then it's hopeless.
> But an intact ANSA shuttle, correctly landed on a stretch of beach

a

> few miles further down from the Statue of Liberty (and

unfortunately

> missed by Taylor and Nova, obviously), COULD be discovered by Milo,
> and put to use...
>
> Patrick

Cornelius can dig up stuff from the 20th Century without the Nukes having
taken place then. Besides, the artifacts were just mutant illusions.
Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 9:40 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues


> *** You asked for evidence, so here's a tidbit that "proves" that the
> Nuke War had to be either late-20th Century or early-21st Century:
> Cornelius is accused by Zaius of having "methods of dating the past"
> that are "crude to say the least", yet I think that Zaius was just
> blowing smoke outta his ass. Cornelius says that he found traces of an
> "early ape creature" dating back 1300 years, roughly (from the late
> 40th Century), to just before the time when Zaius says the Sacred
> Scrolls were written (i.e. 1200 years ago). But the artifacts from the
> "more ancient culture" (which was also "more advanced") date back
> "another seven hundred years". Add about 700 to about 1300 and you get
> about 2000 years... and if you subtract THAT number from 3978 or 3955
> (whichever year your may prefer), you get a timeframe for the Nuke War
> near the turn of the Millennium (circa 2000). If you're partial to the
> "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
> Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
> years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
>
> You got what you wanted, Tiger... how does it taste?
> ("Mmmm... gummy Venus de Milo..." or "Mmmm... forbidden donut...")
> [insert image of drooling Homer Simpson here...]
>
> Patrick
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 6/21/2002 8:21:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > So, I'm closed minded huh? I know I am as far as Apes goes, and
> > what it is to
> > > me, but I admit it.
> >
> > Well admitting is the first step to getting help;-)
> >
> >
> > > You set there and say I'm closed minded, well, look who's talking.
> > You're as
> > > bad, if not worse, than me. You're closed minded by constantly
> > bringing up
> > > the dial phone and the city transit to say that it happened in the
> > 20th
> > > century.
> >
> > No I've often asked on this board for someone to point out something
> > in Planet or Beneath that I may have missed that would indicate the
> > nuclear war took place centuries later. To date, no has been able to
> > do so. My contention has been that when these films were made that
> > the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in the
> > late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in the
> > films, the dialouge from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's line
> > in Beneath. Additionally, the official plot synopsis released by FOX
> > at the time states that "shorty after Brent's launch New York was
> > destroyed in a Nuclear attack". Again if there is something in
> > Planet or Beneath that suggest a much later date for mankind's
> > destruction, please point it out to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > We're in the 21st century now, and I'm still seeing buses and
> > > phones, (eye glasses, and prefabricated heart valves too...)
> > Things didn't
> > > stop on 12/31/99 and suddenly become the space age society you
> > seem to think
> > > it has to be to prove that the Apes revolt (and "The War")
> > happened in what I
> > > believe is the 2500's at least.
> >
> > The first part of the statement is completely illogical. I've never
> > said that since we're in the early 21st century that we'd be in a
> > space age society. But do I expect the world to be substantially
> > different 500 years from now? Yes, as different as the world is now
> > from what it was 500 years ago. Once again if there is anything in
> > Planet or Beneath that indicates the nuclear war took place in the
> > 26th century please point it out.
> >
> > > And why is it you can't seem to say any of your points to try to
> > say the
> > > timeline is circular rather than two seperate ones? You suddenly
> > stoop to
> > > calling me closed minded and telling me to read a book (which I
> > have read by
> > > the way.)
> >
> > The circular timeline theory is not something I dreamed up alone. It
> > is something that has existed for 30 years. It has been stated
> > within the films and discussed on in magazines & books written about
> > the films. Roddy McDowall even commented on in the Behind
> > documentary. Several timelines showing the circle have been written.
> > Paul Dehn himself even said it was a circle.
> > After all that for a POTA fan to may such a statement as:
> >
> > "Such as what? I'd really like to know some of this circular
> > evidence..."
> >
> > Says to me that the fan has either not paid attention for the last
> > 35 years or has a closed mind.
> > I'm willing to admit that there is equal evidence to support both
> > theories. As I've stated before, Battle is a fork in the road. If
> > man & ape can continue to get along 'Earth will sail safely through
> > space till the end of time'. If not, everything will happen as it
> > happened before and Taylor will destroy the Earth in the 40th
> > Century.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, he's a soldier and they do have a "procedural" way about them. He
could even be in shock and shifting between what he knows and what he wants
to believe. He could also just be panicking and just makes an error. Maybe
he is being cruel and ironic! Any of these scenarios make far more sense to
me.

Same with Skipper, he wouldn't be too logical and calculative and it
certainly makes sense to me that when you crash in outer space the first
thing you would want to do is contact earth, or have a crew member contact
earth, regardless what century you are in and what planet you are on. And
regardless what the "clock" says, until Taylor finds the Statue of Liberty
he is not sure about Hasslein's theory - it is only a theory. The clock is
a theoretical clock, and could not possibly be anything else unless it is
acyually on earth and aging at that relative rate.

And the radio, well I'm sure we are to assume that it is the best sci-fi
futuristic radio available, while the mechanisc of it were not created by a
scientist but a mere script writer.

So is there any reason this "motherhip" could not have been Taylor's ship
that landed in the Dead Lake from which the Escape ship was recovered?

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2002 1:19
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] The Hatch of the ship
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I like this.
> >
> > So Milo could have avoided recovering the entire ship if he had
> > diving equipmet and discovered a chamber with another vehicle (or
> > more?) in it, then retrieved the smaller ship hence all else seems to
> > fit.
> >
> > Very clever Mr Cougar.
> >
> > The reason I don't like Patrick's creation of a mother ship called
> > Earth is because there is just no disputing in my mind that all
> > references to "Earth" were to the planet earth. I don't mind
> > explaining flubs, but I think we would mostly agree to keep it simple
> > and believeble. At lest this way we don't have to re-interpret what
> > we know the script was saying. Patrick, I am simply explaining what
> > irritates me about the mother ship earth idea, so please do not take
> > it personally.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> *** I neither expect nor insist that anybody "agree" with my scenario.
> Feel free to be irritated by it! I won't take it personally, trust me.
>
> The two references to "Earth" in PLANET and BENEATH, I feel, make much
> more sense in the light of my scenario, however. Taylor tells Landon
> on two specific occasions later, that they are "320 lightyears away
> from Earth on an unnamed planet in orbit around a star in the
> constellation of Orion" (later he says: "You're 300 lightyears from
> your precious planet! Your loved ones are dead and forgotten for 20
> centuries. Twenty centuries!"). So why the heck would Taylor tell
> Landon--as the ship is taking on water and on the verge of losing its
> auxiliary power--to "get out a last signal... to EARTH that we've
> landed"? If Taylor truly believes that they are 320 lightyears away
> from the planet Earth, then what is the damn point in sending out a
> radio signal which MIGHT (if our solar system is not obstructed by the
> planet they landed on, and is "in the sky above") be received in 320
> years--in 3978 + 320 = 4298 A.D.? What good will that do Earthlings in
> 4298 A.D.? What good will this do for these astronauts? NOTHING.
> Granted, Taylor DID imply--in his "final report until we reach
> touchdown"--that he would make an "initial report" after awakening
> from hibernation; but isn't there a major difference between a REPORT
> and a mere SIGNAL? "Hey! We landed! Can't talk right now... we're
> taking on water! We gotta abandon ship! Bye!"
> If we make the assumption that the "launch"/"shuttlecraft" we see in
> PLANET is attached to a much bigger "mothership" named "EARTH" (the
> "U.S.S. Earth", carrying the other "cargo" Taylor implies they have,
> in addition to Lt. Stewart), then Taylor's order to Landon makes much
> more sense, at least to me. It would be like Spock telling Scotty to
> send out a signal to the ENTERPRISE (up in orbit) that the
> shuttlecraft GALILEO had landed on the planet's surface (remember "The
> Galileo 7" episode?). "Scotty--get out a last signal... to Enterprise,
> that we've landed!"
> Later on, when "Skipper" asks Brent, "Did you contact EARTH?", it
> doesn't make any sense to suppose that he means the planet Earth,
> because Brent makes it plain that wherever it is that they've gone to,
> he doesn't believe it to be the planet Earth... and there are no other
> habitable planets in the Solar System. Brent believes he's on an alien
> planet orbiting an alien star. Skipper asks "Which sun?", because he
> doesn't know what star is shining down on him, which Brent says he can
> feel, warming his skin. "I don't know what planet we're on..." Brent
> says. But they can breathe its air--which rules out every other planet
> and moon in our Solar System. So, then, if Brent had been trying to
> "contact Earth", it wouldn't make any sense if by "Earth" they meant
> the planet, since you can't get into contact with something that is
> LIGHTYEARS away (unless you have "subspace radio" or "hyperwave",
> etc.--but Brent mentions only "our radio" which "is shot"/busted). The
> ONLY "Earth" which Brent could even HOPE to contact (provided the
> radio was still working) via radio signals would be something else
> named "Earth" within radio range: a "mothership" in orbit above them.
>
> Given the above, and given that the ESCAPE ship cannot be either the
> one seen in PLANET or the other one in BENEATH, then this is a THIRD
> ship, and it was landed intact "on our seaboard" (as Cornelius tells
> the Presidential Commission), which rules out Taylor's shuttle (which
> sank in Dead Lake) and Brent's shuttle (which crashed on the ground
> nowhere near the sea). So... who the hell landed this third shuttle?
> How could 3 separate ships land in roughly the same area (i.e. within
> 20 miles of each other, or so) following a "trajectory" across
> HUNDREDS OF LIGHTYEARS? Impossible. Only by following a Re-Entry
> trajectory could both Brent's ship and the "third" ship even hope to
> land anywhere near Taylor's splashdown coordinates. And these ships
> could only do so if they were "together" initially--attached to the
> bigger mothership, just as Professor Antelle's "launches" were
> attached to the interstellar vessel which traversed the hundreds of
> lightyears between Sol and Soror.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-22-2002
>
>
> > --- mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > >
> > > We were discussing the Planet/Escape ships' similarities. T
> > mentioned the
> > > ship in Planet could very well be the same as the Escape ship
> > because the
> > > rear of the ship is sunk and could be covering the actual exit,
> > whereas the
> > > blown hatch was an emergency device that could (I guess) have been
> > recovered
> > > and replaced (well, if they can raise a ship...).
> > >
> > > I know "technically" the Escape ship was supposed to be the same
> > ship as
> > > Taylor's. I never give it to much thought as to the actual size,
> > design, etc.
> > > because it is "supposed to be" Taylor's. And as had been said
> > before, it's
> > > really just a way to get the Apes back to "our" time. However, I
> > have been
> > > doing some thinking about it recently, and for those that say its
> > not
> > > possible for it to be Taylor's ship, there are arguments that could
> > justify
> > > their position. As to what was just said here:...because the rear
> > of the ship
> > > is sunk and could be covering the actual exit, whereas the blown
> > hatch was an
> > > emergency device that could (I guess) have been recovered and
> > replaced... I'd
> > > doubt that. I mean you have to remember that that sinking ship was
> > supposed
> > > to be MUCH larger that what was shown. It's obvious just from the
> > opening
> > > sequence of Taylor walking around in there... The part of the ship
> > shown in
> > > the movie is just the nose of the ship, not the whole thing. That's
> > not to
> > > say it doesn't have a side hatch like the smaller one in Escape or
> > the TV
> > > series though, but it's doubtful that it is meant as an escape
> > hatch, just a
> > > functioning entrance when the ship isn't in danger...
> > >
> > > I know someone is going to mention the deleted scene here, but has
> > anyone
> > > ever considered this could be why the scene was removed (because it
> > makes it
> > > so much more difficult to believe that it is Taylor's ship)? I
> > suppose you
> > > could also say the interior was replaced? But what about the
> > controls etc?
> > > Are they completely different too?
> > >
> > > I know Patrick has mentioned his theories about a mother
> > ship "Earth" flying
> > > around up there, and while I don't agree with what he said as far
> > as that's
> > > all concerned, his theory may have some truth to it. Now, again, I
> > don't
> > > remember his exact theory so I may be agreeing with some of what he
> > said,
> > > though it's not known to me if I am. Anyway, if you've read the
> > novel that
> > > they based APES on, you'll remember that their ship had smaller
> > ships they
> > > referred to as launches on it. That's where my "defending" of those
> > that say
> > > it isn't Taylor's ship comes into play. While it may not be
> > the "main"
> > > (large) ship actually commanded by Taylor that the Ape-o-
> > nauts "escape" in,
> > > it could very well be that the large ship (which we don't get to
> > see all of)
> > > had an escape vessel or two on board the main ship. It could be
> > that they
> > > escaped in an escape (or exploration) type ship that could return
> > to the
> > > mother ship which we see sinking at the films beginning.
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And many happy returns...





--Helen

.htmlIn a message dated 6/22/2002 11:41:25 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

If you're partial to the
"two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).

To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to accept this is bullsh*t. First of all, I don't take the timeclock date readings as gospel like you do. Who the hell knows how really accurate they are? Maybe the survivors of "the war" in New America know? Maybe those aliens from the Roswell incident that gave the apes (like Mandemus) their intelligence know the clocks accuracy? Anyway, in my opinion, they're not to be taken as "the truth" as to what year it really is. I'm more of the opinion of what Burke states in "Escape From Tomorrow" (paraphrased here) "It may be further, that's when it stopped working..." Right there you have an astronaut doubting the accuracy of them. Who's to say he isn't right? I'd say he just might be...

You're always making things up to make your ideas more suitable to you, well, you taught me how to do this too. Here's something then, let's just say that the clocks hit the date 12-31-9999 and then "flipped over" like a car's odometer does? Then it'd be at least the year 12,055 (1972 to the yr. 9999=8,027 years+ the additional yrs. from the clock "turnover" (3,978)= 12,055). Now what I just said here is not my "real" theory, but let's face it, it's definitely as feasible as 95% of what you dream up. I do however believe that the clocks are inaccurate, and that it may indeed be further than what the clocks indicate. I guess I'm saying I do believe it is further than the yr. indicated, but maybe not as far as my bullsh*t "theory" would say.

Your "date" theory has nothing to do with whether or not there are two timelines. It only points out the "hypothetical" date of the war. <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/22/2002 11:13:21 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Heyyyy! That's a pretty cool idea! I'm not gonna steal it and
revise my own scenario in favor of it ... but I like the way you think!
Perhaps, in furtherance of your "unflubbing" scenario, perhaps the
water jetting into the ship was also an illusion ... maybe Stewart was
NOT really a shriveled up corpse ... maybe it's ALL just an illusion
the Mutants concocted in order to get the 3 guys to skedaddle the
"sinking" ship, so that the fleshy-headed Mutants could gain access to
this marvelous vehicle and the hot blonde babe dozing in the upper
starboard hiberbunk!
"Mars Needs Women" ... and so does the Underground City of Mutants!

Patrick

Only you would go along with, and add even more, to that theory. That's not saying his idea is wrong to him, or that in a "Beneath" kind of way it wouldn't hold water to some, but it doesn't to me.

Maybe they didn't even crash on the planet, huh? Maybe it was ALL a mutant conspiracy to hijack the ship and get Stewart, huh? Boy wouldn't that be a neat-o idea? And maybe the ship was routed that way by the aliens that are flying around out there? (When they're not too busy helping ape intelligence become a reality that is...) Oh, the possibilities are endless in the world of "unflubbing"...

Look, the mutants have women, didn't you see the movie at all? What do you think Albina is? How about half the congregation in the church? To even suggest that they "sunk" the ship to get their hands on what they'd consider a primitive human is just... <.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/22/2002 11:04:57 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Just one problem with this take on it: Cornelius tells the
Presidential Commission that Milo found the ESCAPE ship "on our
seaboard"--in other words, on the beach or shoreline of the Ocean.
Cornelius previously referred to the lake where Taylor's ship splashed
down as "Dead Lake", and he tells Brent that the last time they saw
Taylor he was headed deep into the Forbidden Zone "between the LAKE
and the SEA". We know that Cornelius refers to Dead Lake as a "lake",
so that means that the Ocean is what he means by "sea" (he tells
Taylor that the river in the Forbidden Zone empties into "a SEA some
miles from here... that's where we'll find the diggings"). The Cave
with the Human Doll is on a cliff overlooking this same beach/
shoreline/SEAshore. Further along this beach is the half-buried Statue
of Liberty... and perhaps a bit further along there is another stretch
of beach where the mysterious astronauts who landed the ESCAPE ship
parked their vehicle. "...on our seaboard..." This rules out the
PLANET ship (which sank to the bottom of Dead LAKE) and the BENEATH
ship (which crashed onto the ground, far enough away from any body of
water that you can neither see any or hear the waves lapping along the
beach). Milo discovered an INTACT and working ANSA shuttle--Taylor's
shuttle would have been irreparably trashed by water corrosion, and
Brent's shuttle's computer is "shot"--so that they wouldn't be able to
use it regardless. If the computers don't work, then it's hopeless.
But an intact ANSA shuttle, correctly landed on a stretch of beach a
few miles further down from the Statue of Liberty (and unfortunately
missed by Taylor and Nova, obviously), COULD be discovered by Milo,
and put to use...

Patrick

Question: How come when it suits your wants/ or needs to back your "story", then Cornelius isn't a liar? But then at the same time you say he lied all the time about things? Which is it? Is he a liar or does he speak the truth to suit you? If he's a liar like you say he is, then who's to say he wasn't lying about where the ship was "discovered"?<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/22/2002 10:45:29 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** The ESCAPE scene would have required significant visual effects
work: the view out-the-windows of the planet Earth from orbit... the
"bright white blinding light" of the explosion of the Alpha Omega
bomb... the "shockwave" effect, etc. They built the cabin interior set  
(which differs significantly from the PLANET ship's cabin), yet since
budgets were being slashed, they probably cut their losses and just
cut out the scene to avoid the expense of the effects. Too bad...

I'd say this is one of the only things that you've said that I'd agree with.<.html

Think Patrick is just making a joke here. Lighten up!!!!

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:13:21 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> >
> > *** Heyyyy! That's a pretty cool idea! I'm not gonna steal it
and
> > revise my own scenario in favor of it ... but I like the way you
think!
> > Perhaps, in furtherance of your "unflubbing" scenario, perhaps
the
> > water jetting into the ship was also an illusion ... maybe
Stewart was
> > NOT really a shriveled up corpse ... maybe it's ALL just an
illusion
> > the Mutants concocted in order to get the 3 guys to skedaddle
the
> > "sinking" ship, so that the fleshy-headed Mutants could gain
access to
> > this marvelous vehicle and the hot blonde babe dozing in the
upper
> > starboard hiberbunk!
> > "Mars Needs Women" ... and so does the Underground City of
Mutants!
> >
> > Patrick
>
> Only you would go along with, and add even more, to that theory.
That's not
> saying his idea is wrong to him, or that in a "Beneath" kind of
way it
> wouldn't hold water to some, but it doesn't to me.
>
> Maybe they didn't even crash on the planet, huh? Maybe it was ALL
a mutant
> conspiracy to hijack the ship and get Stewart, huh? Boy wouldn't
that be a
> neat-o idea? And maybe the ship was routed that way by the aliens
that are
> flying around out there? (When they're not too busy helping ape
intelligence
> become a reality that is...) Oh, the possibilities are endless in
the world
> of "unflubbing"...
>
> Look, the mutants have women, didn't you see the movie at all?
What do you
> think Albina is? How about half the congregation in the church? To
even
> suggest that they "sunk" the ship to get their hands on what
they'd consider
> a primitive human is just...

.htmlIn a message dated 6/22/2002 9:15:27 AM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

My contention has been that when these films were made that
the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in the
late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in the
films, the dialogue from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's line
in Beneath.  

Okay, I'll give you this... If you're going strictly by the ship's dates vs. our society's "existence" that'd give you the 2,000 yrs. they "play" with in the movies, and the war being roughly "now."

BUT, my own beliefs are that I throw the ship times/dates to the side, and I built my theory on the story Cornelius says in "Escape", that of the Apes being enslaved for 500 years. Starting in "our time', plus adding the 500 yrs. to that, that'd give the 26th century. I believe that "our" (well, a somewhat "advanced" version of "us") has gone on for at least that long, with no nukes, and no mass destructive holocaust. That's where I come from with my theory. <.html

Had you ever considered that the radiation from the nuclear war is
what caused the plauge of dogs & cats. The humans left living on the
surface, in rather rustic conditions, took apes as pets. Then since
life was so hard with no electricity, they slowly started to use
Apes as servants to help them rebuild civilization. After time the
Apes became intelligent enough to take over.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/22/2002 9:15:27 AM Central Standard Time,
> JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
> > My contention has been that when these films were made that
> > the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in
the
> > late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in
the
> > films, the dialogue from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's
line
> > in Beneath.
>
> Okay, I'll give you this... If you're going strictly by the ship's
dates vs.
> our society's "existence" that'd give you the 2,000 yrs.
they "play" with in
> the movies, and the war being roughly "now."
>
> BUT, my own beliefs are that I throw the ship times/dates to the
side, and I
> built my theory on the story Cornelius says in "Escape", that of
the Apes
> being enslaved for 500 years. Starting in "our time', plus adding
the 500
> yrs. to that, that'd give the 26th century. I believe that "our"
(well, a
> somewhat "advanced" version of "us") has gone on for at least that
long, with
> no nukes, and no mass destructive holocaust. That's where I come
from with my
> theory.

.htmlIn a message dated 6/22/02 7:34:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sand_hill_school@... writes:

And many happy returns...

Thanks, Helen.   Wow!  Somebody remembered!  I'm sorry I haven't had more to say lately, but things in real life are a bit stressful at the moment.  I hope everybody is having a nice summer so far.

-- Rory<.html

In a message dated 6/22/02 10:36:12 PM Central Daylight Time,
Haristas@... writes:

<< > And many happy returns...

> >>

Yeah, happy birthday pal. Get any cool ape stuff?

-Joe

Attachments :

See Attached

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:

> Cornelius can dig up stuff from the 20th Century without the Nukes having
> taken place then. Besides, the artifacts were just mutant illusions.
> Etc. - - Jeff
>

*** That doesn't address Cornelius' dating methods. Cornelius never
mentions any "advanced culture" dating back only 1500 years (the
"post-2503 ape revolution" theory)--he dates it at 1300 + 700 years
(roughly), or 2000 years B.P. ("Before the Present"). In Boulle's
novel, the evidence comes from an excavated graveyard full of human
corpses who had NOT gotten there as a result of Nuke War; but in the
movie the Cave is full of artifacts dating back to our time which were
not interred with the body of the deceased intentionally via a
funeral, but were, rather, relegated to that spot after the
civilization-destroying Nuke War.
Cornelius dates the "more ancient culture" to our time, not 5
centuries from now.
Etc. - - Patrick

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 9:40 AM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues
>
>
> > *** You asked for evidence, so here's a tidbit that "proves" that the
> > Nuke War had to be either late-20th Century or early-21st Century:
> > Cornelius is accused by Zaius of having "methods of dating the past"
> > that are "crude to say the least", yet I think that Zaius was just
> > blowing smoke outta his ass. Cornelius says that he found traces of an
> > "early ape creature" dating back 1300 years, roughly (from the late
> > 40th Century), to just before the time when Zaius says the Sacred
> > Scrolls were written (i.e. 1200 years ago). But the artifacts from the
> > "more ancient culture" (which was also "more advanced") date back
> > "another seven hundred years". Add about 700 to about 1300 and you get
> > about 2000 years... and if you subtract THAT number from 3978 or 3955
> > (whichever year your may prefer), you get a timeframe for the Nuke War
> > near the turn of the Millennium (circa 2000). If you're partial to the
> > "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
> > Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
> > years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
> >
> > You got what you wanted, Tiger... how does it taste?
> > ("Mmmm... gummy Venus de Milo..." or "Mmmm... forbidden donut...")
> > [insert image of drooling Homer Simpson here...]
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > In a message dated 6/21/2002 8:21:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > > So, I'm closed minded huh? I know I am as far as Apes goes, and
> > > what it is to
> > > > me, but I admit it.
> > >
> > > Well admitting is the first step to getting help;-)
> > >
> > >
> > > > You set there and say I'm closed minded, well, look who's talking.
> > > You're as
> > > > bad, if not worse, than me. You're closed minded by constantly
> > > bringing up
> > > > the dial phone and the city transit to say that it happened in the
> > > 20th
> > > > century.
> > >
> > > No I've often asked on this board for someone to point out something
> > > in Planet or Beneath that I may have missed that would indicate the
> > > nuclear war took place centuries later. To date, no has been able to
> > > do so. My contention has been that when these films were made that
> > > the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in the
> > > late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in the
> > > films, the dialouge from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's line
> > > in Beneath. Additionally, the official plot synopsis released by FOX
> > > at the time states that "shorty after Brent's launch New York was
> > > destroyed in a Nuclear attack". Again if there is something in
> > > Planet or Beneath that suggest a much later date for mankind's
> > > destruction, please point it out to me.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We're in the 21st century now, and I'm still seeing buses and
> > > > phones, (eye glasses, and prefabricated heart valves too...)
> > > Things didn't
> > > > stop on 12/31/99 and suddenly become the space age society you
> > > seem to think
> > > > it has to be to prove that the Apes revolt (and "The War")
> > > happened in what I
> > > > believe is the 2500's at least.
> > >
> > > The first part of the statement is completely illogical. I've never
> > > said that since we're in the early 21st century that we'd be in a
> > > space age society. But do I expect the world to be substantially
> > > different 500 years from now? Yes, as different as the world is now
> > > from what it was 500 years ago. Once again if there is anything in
> > > Planet or Beneath that indicates the nuclear war took place in the
> > > 26th century please point it out.
> > >
> > > > And why is it you can't seem to say any of your points to try to
> > > say the
> > > > timeline is circular rather than two seperate ones? You suddenly
> > > stoop to
> > > > calling me closed minded and telling me to read a book (which I
> > > have read by
> > > > the way.)
> > >
> > > The circular timeline theory is not something I dreamed up alone. It
> > > is something that has existed for 30 years. It has been stated
> > > within the films and discussed on in magazines & books written about
> > > the films. Roddy McDowall even commented on in the Behind
> > > documentary. Several timelines showing the circle have been written.
> > > Paul Dehn himself even said it was a circle.
> > > After all that for a POTA fan to may such a statement as:
> > >
> > > "Such as what? I'd really like to know some of this circular
> > > evidence..."
> > >
> > > Says to me that the fan has either not paid attention for the last
> > > 35 years or has a closed mind.
> > > I'm willing to admit that there is equal evidence to support both
> > > theories. As I've stated before, Battle is a fork in the road. If
> > > man & ape can continue to get along 'Earth will sail safely through
> > > space till the end of time'. If not, everything will happen as it
> > > happened before and Taylor will destroy the Earth in the 40th
> > > Century.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:

> Well, he's a soldier and they do have a "procedural" way about them. He =

could even be in shock and shifting between what he knows and what he wants =
to believe. He could also just be panicking and just makes an error. Maybe=
he is being cruel and ironic! Any of these scenarios make far more sense t=
o me.

*** I take it you're talking about Brent here, right? Well, yes, Brent
COULD be this or that... and MAYBE he's being whatever... or maybe he
means exactly what he says and he's just being straighforward and
matter-of-fact, which DOES make sense (in my scenario) and doesn't
make Brent out to be "cruel and ironic", as you put it. Why would
Brent cruelly lie to his "Skipper"? What good would that do either of
them?

> Same with Skipper, he wouldn't be too logical and calculative and it cert=

ainly makes sense to me that when you crash in outer space the first thing y=
ou would want to do is contact earth, or have a crew member contact earth, r=
egardless what century you are in and what planet you are on. And regardles=
s what the "clock" says, until Taylor finds the Statue of Liberty he is not =
sure about Hasslein's theory - it is only a theory. The clock is a theoreti=
cal clock, and could not possibly be anything else unless it is acyually on =
earth and aging at that relative rate.

> And the radio, well I'm sure we are to assume that it is the best sci-fi =

futuristic radio available, while the mechanisc of it were not created by a =
scientist but a mere script writer.

*** Unfortunately, radio waves do not travel faster than light, and
that's a fact. During the first 6 months of the journey, Taylor must
have made a number of reports, since he refers to the one he makes
when the film begins as "my final report". If their radios were like
STAR TREK's "subspace radio" and able to "connect" them in a real-time
conversation with planet Earth, then Taylor would expect to hear
responses from those back on Earth. Due to the time dilation effects
of near-light-velocity travel, Taylor ages 31 seconds (or so) every
single Earth day (the Earth-Time chronometer clicks ahead through
March 24th, 25th, 26th 2673 during about 93 seconds of Ship-Time; go
ahead, check it out for yourself!). So, any "real-time" conversation
would be impossible (since it would take people back on Earth an
entire day to listen to Taylor's slowed-down voice speak what to him
was a mere 31 seconds worth of chatter). It is probable that Taylor
and "mission control" were in "real-time" communication at the start
of their interstellar mission, and the "Hassleinian hyperdrive"--when
activated--produced the near-light velocity effects, which would
immediately clue both Taylor and Mission Control in to the fact that
Time Dilation is happening, because Taylor would hear Mission
Control's chatter speed up 2,787 times (i.e. one day of 86,400 Earth
Seconds ÷ 31 Ship Seconds), sounding like Alvin and the Chipmunks, and
Mission Control would simultaneously hear Taylor's voice slow down to
1/2787th its proper speed, sounding like Hal after Dave Bowman unplugs
him.
In addition to the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME clocks (which you think
are merely theoretical), we have the fact that Taylor and his crew
don't go into hibernation until 6 months after they had left Earth;
during that 6 months they undoubtedly perceived what WE see in the
very first scene: stars passing by, being left behind... and proper
motion--the movement of stars relative to each other (and not just to
the perspective of the moving spaceship). Taylor and his crew could
easily estimate the validity of Hasslein's theory just by observing
how the stars move about relative to each other and to their ship: if
Hasslein's calculation ARE correct, then the star movements would
match their theorized motions, and if they did NOT match, then Taylor
would have no grounds for referring to Hasslein's theory as "a fact".

So, IF Skipper wanted to "contact [the planet] Earth" he would need a
"real-time" Subspace radio/hyperwave radio; otherwise, he'd just be
having Brent see if he can "tune in" any radio signal that Earth MAY
have beamed out hundreds of years earlier, like a SETI signal. If they
have reason to believe that they are LIGHTYEARS away from Earth (as
Brent indicates), then they must expect that ANY radio signal from
their home planet was sent out YEARS earlier. Intercepting such a
signal might be nice, but hardly helpful. Let's say that they thought
they were a mere 10 LightYears away from Earth: even IF they were to
receive a radio transmission from Earth, and IF they could send a
reply back to Earth using their radio transmitter, it would STILL take
10 years for their signal to get to Earth and ANOTHER 10 years for any
reply from Earth to get back to them.

> So is there any reason this "motherhip" could not have been Taylor's ship=

that landed in the Dead Lake from which the Escape ship was recovered?

>
> Michael

*** When Taylor's ship splashlands in Dead Lake, it ends up bobbing in
the water at an angle of about 45 degrees prior to its sinking.
Although there must be SOMETHING aftward of the rear bulkhead of the
cabin (at their feet in their hiberbunks), there can't be TOO MUCH,
since otherwise the ship would float with its nosecone pointed
straight up, backweighted with all the excess that a much bigger ship
would carry.
Taylor's ship seems to be just like Brent/Skipper's ship, with its
emergency escape hatch on the top-front near the nosecone, and with
room for hibernacula just aft of the cockpit seats. Brent's ship had a
tripodal landing gear assembly (which, alas, weren't stable enough for
Brent to safely land on, since his ship ended up toppling onto its
belly), so I think that Taylor's ship, too, had such a tripod to land
on. The "door" in the aft bulkhead must lead somewhere, probably to an
airlock sandwiched in between the cockpit/hibernacula area and the aft
engine assembly, and it is from this hypothetical airlock where the
astronauts were intended to exit the ship--from a hatch leading out
the "belly" of the ship. If Brent had landed his ship correctly, then
he could have made his way out of the ship properly, through the
"belly" hatch and down one of the 3 landing legs; however, since he
fudged the landing and the ship flopped onto its belly, he couldn't
get out of the ship that way, so he HAD to get out of his ship the
same way Taylor & crew got out of theirs, via the forward near-
nosecone hatch. Taylor couldn't get out of his ship via the proper
airlock hatch, since that part of the ship was underwater.
Taylor also mentions to Nova that Lt. Stewart was "the most precious
cargo we brought along...", which implies that their mission involved
OTHER cargo (i.e. the supplies you would expect an interstellar
mission to include: food, tools, shelter-building materials, etc.),
which would not fit into the limited space of the "airlock" area.
Remember, also, that the "third" ship (which Milo finds) has no
hibernacula (no room for them at all), and that it floats horizontally
in the water (unlike Taylor's ship). Imagine Brent's ship in the
water: how would IT float? Like the ESCAPE ship, horizontally? Or like
Taylor's ship, at a 45 degree angle? I think it would float like
Taylor's ship.
So... where could all of Taylor's mission's cargo BE, if it can't be
in the cramped space behind the aft bulkhead of his splashed-down
ship? It MUST be on a bigger ship from which his shuttlecraft detached
prior to re-entry and landing. The cargo is still up in orbit, in his
mothership. At least, that's MY theory/scenario... and you're free to
disagree with it. It makes more sense to me than any other alternative
I've seen out there, however. But to each their own.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002

P.S. The ESCAPE ship couldn't have been "tucked inside" Taylor's ship
(the one we see in PLANET), since Milo found the former on the beach
of the Ocean ("on our seaboard" as Cornelius says), rather than at the
bottom of Dead LAKE. If Cornelius had said that Milo found it "washed
up on the shore of a nearby lake", then I'd buy the possibility that
SOMEHOW it was "connected" to Taylor's ship. But I don't think it's
too plausible that it "disconnected" from Taylor's ship, floated down
the river, wound up in the Ocean, and then somehow washed up on the
shore. I think it was purposely landed by three OTHER astronauts who
were also part of Taylor's mission, and that they landed it on a flat
stretch of beach along the ocean further down the shoreline from the
Cave/Statue of Liberty vicinity... and that Milo (who helped Cornelius
build the wooden causeway leading up to the Cave a year earlier) was
still heretically snooping around the Forbidden Zone when he
discovered the ANSA ship perched on its tripodal landing legs (which,
obviously, must later detach from the capsule after re-take off from
the planet prior to re-entry back in the Past), still in perfect
working order--not water-damaged like Taylor's shuttle and with a
computer that still functions (unlike Brent's shuttle).
How does Milo get back to Ape City and Cornelius & Zira? How does he
get them to the landing site on the coast of the Forbidden Zone?
Perhaps... by boat. Cornelius mentions that "we had no boats on our
last expedition": who's the "we" he's talking about? Not Zira, who
tells Taylor that Cornelius went into the Forbidden Zone--she doesn't
include herself as part of that cut-short trip. Cornelius didn't go
alone, hence the "we" and "our". I think that Cornelius was
accompanied by at least one other ape--Milo. And Milo avoided Zaius'
goons who shepherded Cornelius back to the Academy, still
investigating the Forbidden Zone... And the fastest way to get from
Ape City to the landing site of this third ANSA ship would be to take
a boat down the river, past where it empties into the Sea, then sail
it along the coastline "towards the North" along the same stretch of
beach Taylor rode, going past the now-destroyed Cave... past the
Statue of Liberty... and eventually to the "off-the-map" location of
the ANSA ship, which awaits their lift-off (whilst the 3 astronauts
who landed it remain on the Planet of the Apes, doomed to die when the
Alpha Omega bomb goes >BOOM!!!<).

> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> I like this.

>So Milo could have avoided recovering the entire ship if he had diving equ=

ipment and discovered a chamber with another vehicle (or more?) in it, then =
retrieved the smaller ship hence all else seems to fit.

> Very clever Mr Cougar.

> The reason I don't like Patrick's creation of a mother ship called Earth =

is because there is just no disputing in my mind that all references to "Ear=
th" were to the planet earth. I don't mind explaining flubs, but I think we=
would mostly agree to keep it simple and believeble. At lest this way we d=
on't have to re-interpret what we know the script was saying. Patrick, I am=
simply explaining what irritates me about the mother ship earth idea, so pl=
ease do not take it personally.

> > >
> > > Michael

>*** I neither expect nor insist that anybody "agree" with my scenario. Fee=

l free to be irritated by it! I won't take it personally, trust me.

>The two references to "Earth" in PLANET and BENEATH, I feel, make much mor=

e sense in the light of my scenario, however. Taylor tells Landon on two spe=
cific occasions later, that they are "320 lightyears away from Earth on an u=
nnamed planet in orbit around a star in the constellation of Orion" (later h=
e says: "You're 300 lightyears from your precious planet! Your loved ones ar=
e dead and forgotten for 20 centuries. Twenty centuries!"). So why the heck =
would Taylor tell Landon--as the ship is taking on water and on the verge of=
losing its auxiliary power--to "get out a last signal... to EARTH that we'v=
e landed"? If Taylor truly believes that they are 320 lightyears away from t=
he planet Earth, then what is the damn point in sending out a radio signal w=
hich MIGHT (if our solar system is not obstructed by the planet they landed =
on, and is "in the sky above") be received in 320 years--in 3978 + 320 = 429=
8 A.D.? What good will that do Earthlings in 4298 A.D.? What good will this =
do for these astronauts? NOTHING. Granted, Taylor DID imply--in his "final r=
eport until we reach touchdown"--that he would make an "initial report" afte=
r awakening from hibernation; but isn't there a major difference between a R=
EPORT and a mere SIGNAL? "Hey! We landed! Can't talk right now... we're taki=
ng on water! We gotta abandon ship! Bye!" If we make the assumption that the=
"launch"/"shuttlecraft" we see in PLANET is attached to a much bigger "moth=
ership" named "EARTH" (the "U.S.S. Earth", carrying the other "cargo" Taylor=
implies they have, in addition to Lt. Stewart), then Taylor's order to Land=
on makes much more sense, at least to me. It would be like Spock telling Sco=
tty to send out a signal to the ENTERPRISE (up in orbit) that the shuttlecra=
ft GALILEO had landed on the planet's surface (remember "The Galileo 7" epis=
ode?). "Scotty--get out a last signal... to Enterprise, that we've landed!" =
Later on, when "Skipper" asks Brent, "Did you contact EARTH?", it doesn't ma=
ke any sense to suppose that he means the planet Earth, because Brent makes =
it plain that wherever it is that they've gone to, he doesn't believe it to =
be the planet Earth... and there are no other habitable planets in the Solar=
System. Brent believes he's on an alien planet orbiting an alien star. Skip=
per asks "Which sun?", because he doesn't know what star is shining down on =
him, which Brent says he can feel, warming his skin. "I don't know what plan=
et we're on..." Brent says. But they can breathe its air--which rules out ev=
ery other planet and moon in our Solar System. So, then, if Brent had been t=
rying to "contact Earth", it wouldn't make any sense if by "Earth" they mean=
t the planet, since you can't get into contact with something that is LIGHTY=
EARS away (unless you have "subspace radio" or "hyperwave", etc.--but Brent =
mentions only "our radio" which "is shot"/busted). The ONLY "Earth" which Br=
ent could even HOPE to contact (provided the radio was still working) via ra=
dio signals would be something else named "Earth" within radio range: a "mot=
hership" in orbit above them.

>Given the above, and given that the ESCAPE ship cannot be either the one s=

een in PLANET or the other one in BENEATH, then this is a THI bigger mothers=
hip, just as Professor Antelle's "launches" were attached to the interstella=
r vessel which traversed the hundreds of lightyears between Sol and Soror.

>Patrick Michael Tilton
>EARTH-TIME 6-22-2002

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:41:25 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > If you're partial to the
> > "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
> > Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
> > years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
>
> To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to accept this is bullsh*t. First of all, I don't take the timeclock date readings as gospel like you do. Who the hell knows how really accurate they are? Maybe the survivors of "the war" in New America know? Maybe those aliens from the Roswell incident that gave the apes (like Mandemus) their intelligence know the clocks accuracy? Anyway, in my opinion, they're not to be taken as "the truth" as to what year it really is. I'm more of the opinion of what Burke states in "Escape From Tomorrow" (paraphrased here) "It may be further, that's when it stopped working..." Right there you have an astronaut doubting the accuracy of them. Who's to say he isn't right? I'd say he just might be...
>
> You're always making things up to make your ideas more suitable to you, well, you taught me how to do this too. Here's something then, let's just say that the clocks hit the date 12-31-9999 and then "flipped over" like a car's odometer does? Then it'd be at least the year 12,055 (1972 to the yr. 9999=8,027 years+ the additional yrs. from the clock "turnover" (3,978)= 12,055). Now what I just said here is not my "real" theory, but let's face it, it's definitely as feasible as 95% of what you dream up. I do however believe that the clocks are inaccurate, and that it may indeed be further than what the clocks indicate. I guess I'm saying I do believe it is further than the yr. indicated, but maybe not as far as my bullsh*t "theory" would say.
>
> Your "date" theory has nothing to do with whether or not there are two timelines. It only points out the "hypothetical" date of the war.

*** I beg to differ--it isn't "bullsh*t"--it's a fact, and here's the
proof.
ESCAPE takes place in 1973, as evidenced by the Chairman of the
Presidential Commission of Inquiry dissolving that same Commission "in
the year of our Lord NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE" ("1973"). Zira
tells Hasslein that the "date meter" (as he calls the EARTH-TIME
chronometer) read "nineteen seventy... three" AFTER the "bright light
and the tornado" (i.e. AFTER the Ape-onauts time-travelled back from
their Present (our Future) to ours (their Past). That same EARTH-TIME
clock which ACCURATELY depicted the date "1973" AFTER the
"retrotemporal" journey 1,983 years into the Past, read the date
"3955" BEFORE the detonation of the Doomsday Bomb. If the EARTH-TIME
clock were malfunctioning, then it could NOT have displayed the
accurate year--1973--after going through the Time warp. It MUST be
telling the time accurately, given this evidence; and THAT means that
both PLANET and BENEATH take place in the year 3955, and that the
"3978" reading Taylor sees just before his ship sinks requires an
explanation (which I've given on prior occasions, linking this 23-year
discrepancy and Virdon's EARTH-TIME discrepancy of 115 days to the
distance each ship travelled (320 LY and 4.34 LY) when they both zip
back to Earth after activating the "Automatic Homing Device" and
accelerating their hyperdrives to the limit... and I'm sure you've
heard all that before, so I'll move on).

I don't accept the "2 timelines" theory, but let's assume that there
ARE two separate timelines, the second one being created by the
actions of Caesar to "change lanes" in order to avoid a destroyed
Earth in 3955.
The "second" timeline (i.e. the one in which ESCAPE, CONQUEST and
BATTLE take place) has a Nuke War happening between 1991 (CONQUEST)
and 2018 (BATTLE--Mandemus' "27 years" after CONQUEST), probably in
2006 (Mendez' "12 years" line).
The "first" timeline (i.e. the one in which PLANET and BENEATH take
place) has a Nuke War happening--as Cornelius figures it, due to his
archaeological findings--roughly 700 years prior to the 1300-years-ago
artifacts (the fossilized bones of carnivorous gorillas, etc.).
Added up, that makes roughly 2000 years, and the artifacts Cornelius
finds from that "more ancient" and "more advanced" culture are 20th
Century articles: Eyeglasses, False Teeth, Prefabricated Heart-Valves,
and a Talking Doll. Either Zaius is right about Cornelius' methods of
dating the Past ("crude to say the least"), or he isn't. Feel free to
agree with Zaius on this point, but I'd put my money on Cornelius.
So, the evidence from BOTH of the so-called "two timelines" points to
a Nuke War aroung the year 2000 (some 2000 years prior to the time of
Zaius, Cornelius, Zira, & Ursus). There is no evidence whatsoever that
the Nuke War prior to PLANET was 1500 years earlier (i.e. circa 2503),
given Cornelius' dating of the artifacts. It happened about 2000 years
before PLANET, in "our" time. Whether or not Caesar was able to
prevent the Doomsday Bomb outcome of BENEATH is another argument, but
the dating of the Nuke War is provable--as I've just shown (and as
others have shown, citing the BENEATH evidence--the Bus, the Subway
station Phone, etc.). And, besides, the whole point of the first film
was to indite the PRESENT generation, with its policy of "Mutually
Assured Destruction"--the ever PRESENT possibility of an all-out
Nuclear War, which WAS not only achievable in the late 1960's but was
also considered by many (perhaps most) at the time to be the PROBABLE
outcome of the Cold War. "Does Man, that Marvel of the universe...
that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars... still make war on
his brother? keep his neighbour's children starving?" In other words,
does Man STILL do what he HAD BEEN DOING in the late 20th Century?
Taylor saw the trends, and--ever the cynical misanthrope--probably
thought that Man would keep on its course... but he HOPES that Man
evolves into something better, a "new breed... I hope a better one".
He tells Landon that even IF Landon could get back to Earth, they'd
think that he was "something that fell out of a tree"--they'd look
down on him just as we look down on primitive apes--if, that is,
Mankind had successfully evolved into something "better".
Unfortunately, Mankind splits into two known groups: the "devolved"
primitives (like Nova) and the "Mutants" who acquire Telepathy... and
the Madness of Bomb-worship.

Insofar as Burke isn't totally sure about the actual Earth-Time
reading [3-21-3085], that's beside the point. The fact is that the
clock which Zira sees both before the Timewarp and afterwards had to
be accurate, since the date it ends up with IS accurate, and could
ONLY be so if it had been working properly beforehand. Maybe the
clocks on Virdon's ship ARE wrong--that has nothing to do with the
clocks on Milo's ship.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:13:21 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> >
> *** Heyyyy! That's a pretty cool idea! I'm not gonna steal it and revise my own scenario in favor of it ... but I like the way you think! Perhaps, in furtherance of your "unflubbing" scenario, perhaps the water jetting into the ship was also an illusion ... maybe Stewart was NOT really a shriveled up corpse ... maybe it's ALL just an illusion the Mutants concocted in order to get the 3 guys to skedaddle the "sinking" ship, so that the fleshy-headed Mutants could gain access to this marvelous vehicle and the hot blonde babe dozing in the upper starboard hiberbunk!
> "Mars Needs Women" ... and so does the Underground City of Mutants!
>
> Patrick
>
> Only you would go along with, and add even more, to that theory. [*** Yeah, in a joking fashion, sure. Why do you have a problem with that? PMT] That's not saying his idea is wrong to him, or that in a "Beneath" kind of way it wouldn't hold water to some, but it doesn't to me. [*** Fine. Nobody's saying it has to. So lighten up, okay?]
>
> Maybe they didn't even crash on the planet, huh? Maybe it was ALL a mutant conspiracy to hijack the ship and get Stewart, huh? Boy wouldn't that be a neat-o idea? And maybe the ship was routed that way by the aliens that are flying around out there? (When they're not too busy helping ape intelligence become a reality that is...) Oh, the possibilities are endless in the world of "unflubbing"...
>
> Look, the mutants have women, didn't you see the movie at all? What do you think Albina is? How about half the congregation in the church? To even suggest that they "sunk" the ship to get their hands on what they'd consider a primitive human is just...

*** Yeah, the "mutants have women", sure... and just take a look at
'em. They're UGLY AS SIN. When they have their masks on, they look
alright, sure. But when they're "revealing their inmost selves unto
their God" they take 'em off, and every male in the group can see how
ugly those women really are. If they were "alright" with that
ugliness, they'd have no need to wear masks in the first place. They
wear masks for a reason--to appease their perceptions of the surface
features, which they inherited from their distant ancestors who
evolved to be genetically predisposed to find certain features
attractive--and varicose-veined, bald, epidermis-stripped skin is NOT
what the males would find attractive!
Besides, they may have need for new genetic material for their gene
pool. Remember the movie "A BOY AND HIS DOG", based on Harlan
Ellison's story? The underground-dwelling group run by Jason Robards
has Don Johnson lured down to their subterranean city in order to get
his sperm vacuumed out of him so that they can get their females
impregnated (evidently, the males down there became infertile,
probably due to either the post-Nuke War radiation or to prolonged
subterranean living, lack of sunlight, etc.). Similarly, the BENEATH
male mutants may be fertile, but their females might be having trouble
with fertility... necessitating the occasional abduction of a
primitive human female--or a hibernating chick from that mysterious
spaceship that just splashed down. Granted, they may consider such
women to be "inferior" to them, but that wouldn't preclude their using
them for strictly medical reasons. I just finished reading a great
book entitled "HITLER: The Survival Myth" by Donald M. McKale, and in
it he quotes from Ira Levin's book "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL" where
Mengele boasts to his nemesis (the Nazi-hunting Yakov Liebermann) that
Hitler is alive, and that

"the boys are exact genetic duplicates of him... conceived in my
laboratory, and carried to term by women of the Auiti tribe: healthy,
docile creatures with a businesslike chieftain. The boys bear no taint
of them; they're pure Hitler, bred entirely from his cells."

Let's suppose that Mendez XXVI's group does this very thing--uses the
occasionally abducted primitive human females who dwell on the surface
to serve as incubators for genetically-engineered Mutant offspring.
This would help to ensure the promulgation of their bloodlines and the
"mutant gene" which allows them to cast illusions and to communicate
telepathically. The offspring would be "untainted" by the primitive
human women, whose wombs would be "used" as a tool, much as Ursus
describes the surviving humans captured by gorillas as having the
privilege of being "used" by Dr. Zaius (or his surgeons). The women
would be "used", against their will, of course. The Mutants are not
the type to find fault with such a course of action, from an ethical
standpoint, given the way they treat Taylor and Brent.

Patrick

Good job, James. Too bad you had to import the shots from POTA2001. Did
your computer melt? Etc. - - -
Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:27 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Happy Birthday, Rory!


> See Attached
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But his methods of dating the past are crude, to say the least. There are
"Ape" fans on my staff who'd laugh at your speculations. Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 6:02 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues


> --- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> > Cornelius can dig up stuff from the 20th Century without the Nukes
having
> > taken place then. Besides, the artifacts were just mutant illusions.
> > Etc. - - Jeff
> >
> *** That doesn't address Cornelius' dating methods. Cornelius never
> mentions any "advanced culture" dating back only 1500 years (the
> "post-2503 ape revolution" theory)--he dates it at 1300 + 700 years
> (roughly), or 2000 years B.P. ("Before the Present"). In Boulle's
> novel, the evidence comes from an excavated graveyard full of human
> corpses who had NOT gotten there as a result of Nuke War; but in the
> movie the Cave is full of artifacts dating back to our time which were
> not interred with the body of the deceased intentionally via a
> funeral, but were, rather, relegated to that spot after the
> civilization-destroying Nuke War.
> Cornelius dates the "more ancient culture" to our time, not 5
> centuries from now.
> Etc. - - Patrick
>
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> > To: <pota@y...>
> > Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 9:40 AM
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues
> >
> >
> > > *** You asked for evidence, so here's a tidbit that "proves" that the
> > > Nuke War had to be either late-20th Century or early-21st Century:
> > > Cornelius is accused by Zaius of having "methods of dating the past"
> > > that are "crude to say the least", yet I think that Zaius was just
> > > blowing smoke outta his ass. Cornelius says that he found traces of an
> > > "early ape creature" dating back 1300 years, roughly (from the late
> > > 40th Century), to just before the time when Zaius says the Sacred
> > > Scrolls were written (i.e. 1200 years ago). But the artifacts from the
> > > "more ancient culture" (which was also "more advanced") date back
> > > "another seven hundred years". Add about 700 to about 1300 and you get
> > > about 2000 years... and if you subtract THAT number from 3978 or 3955
> > > (whichever year your may prefer), you get a timeframe for the Nuke War
> > > near the turn of the Millennium (circa 2000). If you're partial to the
> > > "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
> > > Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
> > > years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
> > >
> > > You got what you wanted, Tiger... how does it taste?
> > > ("Mmmm... gummy Venus de Milo..." or "Mmmm... forbidden donut...")
> > > [insert image of drooling Homer Simpson here...]
> > >
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> > > > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > > > In a message dated 6/21/2002 8:21:49 PM Central Standard Time,
> > > > > So, I'm closed minded huh? I know I am as far as Apes goes, and
> > > > what it is to
> > > > > me, but I admit it.
> > > >
> > > > Well admitting is the first step to getting help;-)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > You set there and say I'm closed minded, well, look who's talking.
> > > > You're as
> > > > > bad, if not worse, than me. You're closed minded by constantly
> > > > bringing up
> > > > > the dial phone and the city transit to say that it happened in the
> > > > 20th
> > > > > century.
> > > >
> > > > No I've often asked on this board for someone to point out something
> > > > in Planet or Beneath that I may have missed that would indicate the
> > > > nuclear war took place centuries later. To date, no has been able to
> > > > do so. My contention has been that when these films were made that
> > > > the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in the
> > > > late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in the
> > > > films, the dialouge from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's line
> > > > in Beneath. Additionally, the official plot synopsis released by FOX
> > > > at the time states that "shorty after Brent's launch New York was
> > > > destroyed in a Nuclear attack". Again if there is something in
> > > > Planet or Beneath that suggest a much later date for mankind's
> > > > destruction, please point it out to me.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > We're in the 21st century now, and I'm still seeing buses and
> > > > > phones, (eye glasses, and prefabricated heart valves too...)
> > > > Things didn't
> > > > > stop on 12/31/99 and suddenly become the space age society you
> > > > seem to think
> > > > > it has to be to prove that the Apes revolt (and "The War")
> > > > happened in what I
> > > > > believe is the 2500's at least.
> > > >
> > > > The first part of the statement is completely illogical. I've never
> > > > said that since we're in the early 21st century that we'd be in a
> > > > space age society. But do I expect the world to be substantially
> > > > different 500 years from now? Yes, as different as the world is now
> > > > from what it was 500 years ago. Once again if there is anything in
> > > > Planet or Beneath that indicates the nuclear war took place in the
> > > > 26th century please point it out.
> > > >
> > > > > And why is it you can't seem to say any of your points to try to
> > > > say the
> > > > > timeline is circular rather than two seperate ones? You suddenly
> > > > stoop to
> > > > > calling me closed minded and telling me to read a book (which I
> > > > have read by
> > > > > the way.)
> > > >
> > > > The circular timeline theory is not something I dreamed up alone. It
> > > > is something that has existed for 30 years. It has been stated
> > > > within the films and discussed on in magazines & books written about
> > > > the films. Roddy McDowall even commented on in the Behind
> > > > documentary. Several timelines showing the circle have been written.
> > > > Paul Dehn himself even said it was a circle.
> > > > After all that for a POTA fan to may such a statement as:
> > > >
> > > > "Such as what? I'd really like to know some of this circular
> > > > evidence..."
> > > >
> > > > Says to me that the fan has either not paid attention for the last
> > > > 35 years or has a closed mind.
> > > > I'm willing to admit that there is equal evidence to support both
> > > > theories. As I've stated before, Battle is a fork in the road. If
> > > > man & ape can continue to get along 'Earth will sail safely through
> > > > space till the end of time'. If not, everything will happen as it
> > > > happened before and Taylor will destroy the Earth in the 40th
> > > > Century.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

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

.htmlFirst, read what I wrote, I didn't say as you said here:

*** I beg to differ--it isn't "bullsh*t"--

If you'd had taken the time to read what I wrote, I said I don't "have to" believe anything you say if I believe there are two timelines. I said this: To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to accept this is bullsh*t. If you read it correctly, you'll see it says that your saying I have to buy into what you (in your oh so ever infinite wisdom) say is bullsh*t, I didn't say your theories are or were. (Though a lot of your "unflubbing" leaves a lot to be desired.)

And in that posting you did where you said I said this, you yet again bring up Cornelius. You mentioned him again in another post this morning, saying that he says the ship was found on the sea board. Well, you never answered my question I posed to you last night. I asked you how you can call Cornelius a liar when it suits you, yet when he's saying something that you like him to say, then it's gospel truth. Which is it? Is Cornelius a liar or isn't he?

I'll ask you right out, if you accuse him of lying about the actual time before the Apes revolt in "Escape" (I believe you said it was 5 years, rather than 5 centuries...) then how can you know he's not lying about where the ship was found by Milo? And if he's such a liar, how do you know his "methods of dating the past" are to be taken so seriously? Is he not a liar because these things fit your story?<.html

Let me play devil's advocate because I think the 2 timelines theory
has equal validity. Everyone assumes that the nuclear war and the
rise of apes are simultaneous events because that's how it was
depicted in Conquest & Battle (the alleged 2nd timeline). But what
if the war still took place in late 20th/early 21st century and
radiation from the nuclear war is what caused the plauge of dogs &
cats. The humans left living on the surface, in rather rustic
conditions, took apes as pets. Then they slowly started to use Apes
as servants to help them rebuild civilization (maybe even building a
new New York City in Northern New Jersey as seen in the TV series).
Then after centuries of slavery the Apes became intelligent enough
to take over.



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

> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:41:25 AM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If you're partial to the
> > > "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War-

-by

> > > Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly

2000

> > > years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
> >
> > To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to

accept this is bullsh*t. First of all, I don't take the timeclock
date readings as gospel like you do. Who the hell knows how really
accurate they are? Maybe the survivors of "the war" in New America
know? Maybe those aliens from the Roswell incident that gave the
apes (like Mandemus) their intelligence know the clocks accuracy?
Anyway, in my opinion, they're not to be taken as "the truth" as to
what year it really is. I'm more of the opinion of what Burke states
in "Escape From Tomorrow" (paraphrased here) "It may be further,
that's when it stopped working..." Right there you have an astronaut
doubting the accuracy of them. Who's to say he isn't right? I'd say
he just might be...

> >
> > You're always making things up to make your ideas more suitable

to you, well, you taught me how to do this too. Here's something
then, let's just say that the clocks hit the date 12-31-9999 and
then "flipped over" like a car's odometer does? Then it'd be at
least the year 12,055 (1972 to the yr. 9999=8,027 years+ the
additional yrs. from the clock "turnover" (3,978)= 12,055). Now what
I just said here is not my "real" theory, but let's face it, it's
definitely as feasible as 95% of what you dream up. I do however
believe that the clocks are inaccurate, and that it may indeed be
further than what the clocks indicate. I guess I'm saying I do
believe it is further than the yr. indicated, but maybe not as far
as my bullsh*t "theory" would say.

> >
> > Your "date" theory has nothing to do with whether or not there

are two timelines. It only points out the "hypothetical" date of
the war.

>
> *** I beg to differ--it isn't "bullsh*t"--it's a fact, and here's

the

> proof.
> ESCAPE takes place in 1973, as evidenced by the Chairman of the
> Presidential Commission of Inquiry dissolving that same

Commission "in

> the year of our Lord NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE" ("1973").

Zira

> tells Hasslein that the "date meter" (as he calls the EARTH-TIME
> chronometer) read "nineteen seventy... three" AFTER the "bright

light

> and the tornado" (i.e. AFTER the Ape-onauts time-travelled back

from

> their Present (our Future) to ours (their Past). That same EARTH-

TIME

> clock which ACCURATELY depicted the date "1973" AFTER the
> "retrotemporal" journey 1,983 years into the Past, read the date
> "3955" BEFORE the detonation of the Doomsday Bomb. If the EARTH-

TIME

> clock were malfunctioning, then it could NOT have displayed the
> accurate year--1973--after going through the Time warp. It MUST be
> telling the time accurately, given this evidence; and THAT means

that

> both PLANET and BENEATH take place in the year 3955, and that the
> "3978" reading Taylor sees just before his ship sinks requires an
> explanation (which I've given on prior occasions, linking this 23-

year

> discrepancy and Virdon's EARTH-TIME discrepancy of 115 days to the
> distance each ship travelled (320 LY and 4.34 LY) when they both

zip

> back to Earth after activating the "Automatic Homing Device" and
> accelerating their hyperdrives to the limit... and I'm sure you've
> heard all that before, so I'll move on).
>
> I don't accept the "2 timelines" theory, but let's assume that

there

> ARE two separate timelines, the second one being created by the
> actions of Caesar to "change lanes" in order to avoid a destroyed
> Earth in 3955.
> The "second" timeline (i.e. the one in which ESCAPE, CONQUEST and
> BATTLE take place) has a Nuke War happening between 1991

(CONQUEST)

> and 2018 (BATTLE--Mandemus' "27 years" after CONQUEST), probably

in

> 2006 (Mendez' "12 years" line).
> The "first" timeline (i.e. the one in which PLANET and BENEATH

take

> place) has a Nuke War happening--as Cornelius figures it, due to

his

> archaeological findings--roughly 700 years prior to the 1300-years-

ago

> artifacts (the fossilized bones of carnivorous gorillas, etc.).
> Added up, that makes roughly 2000 years, and the artifacts

Cornelius

> finds from that "more ancient" and "more advanced" culture are

20th

> Century articles: Eyeglasses, False Teeth, Prefabricated Heart-

Valves,

> and a Talking Doll. Either Zaius is right about Cornelius' methods

of

> dating the Past ("crude to say the least"), or he isn't. Feel free

to

> agree with Zaius on this point, but I'd put my money on Cornelius.
> So, the evidence from BOTH of the so-called "two timelines" points

to

> a Nuke War aroung the year 2000 (some 2000 years prior to the time

of

> Zaius, Cornelius, Zira, & Ursus). There is no evidence whatsoever

that

> the Nuke War prior to PLANET was 1500 years earlier (i.e. circa

2503),

> given Cornelius' dating of the artifacts. It happened about 2000

years

> before PLANET, in "our" time. Whether or not Caesar was able to
> prevent the Doomsday Bomb outcome of BENEATH is another argument,

but

> the dating of the Nuke War is provable--as I've just shown (and as
> others have shown, citing the BENEATH evidence--the Bus, the

Subway

> station Phone, etc.). And, besides, the whole point of the first

film

> was to indite the PRESENT generation, with its policy of "Mutually
> Assured Destruction"--the ever PRESENT possibility of an all-out
> Nuclear War, which WAS not only achievable in the late 1960's but

was

> also considered by many (perhaps most) at the time to be the

PROBABLE

> outcome of the Cold War. "Does Man, that Marvel of the universe...
> that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars... still make war

on

> his brother? keep his neighbour's children starving?" In other

words,

> does Man STILL do what he HAD BEEN DOING in the late 20th Century?
> Taylor saw the trends, and--ever the cynical misanthrope--probably
> thought that Man would keep on its course... but he HOPES that Man
> evolves into something better, a "new breed... I hope a better

one".

> He tells Landon that even IF Landon could get back to Earth,

they'd

> think that he was "something that fell out of a tree"--they'd look
> down on him just as we look down on primitive apes--if, that is,
> Mankind had successfully evolved into something "better".
> Unfortunately, Mankind splits into two known groups:

the "devolved"

> primitives (like Nova) and the "Mutants" who acquire Telepathy...

and

> the Madness of Bomb-worship.
>
> Insofar as Burke isn't totally sure about the actual Earth-Time
> reading [3-21-3085], that's beside the point. The fact is that the
> clock which Zira sees both before the Timewarp and afterwards had

to

> be accurate, since the date it ends up with IS accurate, and could
> ONLY be so if it had been working properly beforehand. Maybe the
> clocks on Virdon's ship ARE wrong--that has nothing to do with the
> clocks on Milo's ship.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002

No but it is smoking!!!!

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Good job, James. Too bad you had to import the shots from
POTA2001. Did
> your computer melt?
Etc. - - -
> Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <JamesA1102@a...>
> To: <pota@y...>
> Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 11:27 PM
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Happy Birthday, Rory!
>
>
> > See Attached
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >

Yes, perhaps the intention was for it to be in the 20th Century, and if
this was 1968 I wouldn't have a problem with it. But It's no longer the 20th
Century so such a scenario is no longer relevant, just as after 1991
"Conquest" became dated and I moved it to another timeline (to my mind). But
I don't consider Cornelius' "evidence" as proof. I already incorporated his
findings into my chronology, I'll have to look for it. Don't make me get out
my chronology, boy! Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 7:52 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues


> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:41:25 AM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > > If you're partial to the
> > > "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War--by
> > > Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly 2000
> > > years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
> >
> > To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to accept this
is bullsh*t. First of all, I don't take the timeclock date readings as
gospel like you do. Who the hell knows how really accurate they are? Maybe
the survivors of "the war" in New America know? Maybe those aliens from the
Roswell incident that gave the apes (like Mandemus) their intelligence know
the clocks accuracy? Anyway, in my opinion, they're not to be taken as "the
truth" as to what year it really is. I'm more of the opinion of what Burke
states in "Escape From Tomorrow" (paraphrased here) "It may be further,
that's when it stopped working..." Right there you have an astronaut
doubting the accuracy of them. Who's to say he isn't right? I'd say he just
might be...
> >
> > You're always making things up to make your ideas more suitable to you,
well, you taught me how to do this too. Here's something then, let's just
say that the clocks hit the date 12-31-9999 and then "flipped over" like a
car's odometer does? Then it'd be at least the year 12,055 (1972 to the yr.
9999=8,027 years+ the additional yrs. from the clock "turnover" (3,978)=
12,055). Now what I just said here is not my "real" theory, but let's face
it, it's definitely as feasible as 95% of what you dream up. I do however
believe that the clocks are inaccurate, and that it may indeed be further
than what the clocks indicate. I guess I'm saying I do believe it is further
than the yr. indicated, but maybe not as far as my bullsh*t "theory" would
say.
> >
> > Your "date" theory has nothing to do with whether or not there are two
timelines. It only points out the "hypothetical" date of the war.
>
> *** I beg to differ--it isn't "bullsh*t"--it's a fact, and here's the
> proof.
> ESCAPE takes place in 1973, as evidenced by the Chairman of the
> Presidential Commission of Inquiry dissolving that same Commission "in
> the year of our Lord NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE" ("1973"). Zira
> tells Hasslein that the "date meter" (as he calls the EARTH-TIME
> chronometer) read "nineteen seventy... three" AFTER the "bright light
> and the tornado" (i.e. AFTER the Ape-onauts time-travelled back from
> their Present (our Future) to ours (their Past). That same EARTH-TIME
> clock which ACCURATELY depicted the date "1973" AFTER the
> "retrotemporal" journey 1,983 years into the Past, read the date
> "3955" BEFORE the detonation of the Doomsday Bomb. If the EARTH-TIME
> clock were malfunctioning, then it could NOT have displayed the
> accurate year--1973--after going through the Time warp. It MUST be
> telling the time accurately, given this evidence; and THAT means that
> both PLANET and BENEATH take place in the year 3955, and that the
> "3978" reading Taylor sees just before his ship sinks requires an
> explanation (which I've given on prior occasions, linking this 23-year
> discrepancy and Virdon's EARTH-TIME discrepancy of 115 days to the
> distance each ship travelled (320 LY and 4.34 LY) when they both zip
> back to Earth after activating the "Automatic Homing Device" and
> accelerating their hyperdrives to the limit... and I'm sure you've
> heard all that before, so I'll move on).
>
> I don't accept the "2 timelines" theory, but let's assume that there
> ARE two separate timelines, the second one being created by the
> actions of Caesar to "change lanes" in order to avoid a destroyed
> Earth in 3955.
> The "second" timeline (i.e. the one in which ESCAPE, CONQUEST and
> BATTLE take place) has a Nuke War happening between 1991 (CONQUEST)
> and 2018 (BATTLE--Mandemus' "27 years" after CONQUEST), probably in
> 2006 (Mendez' "12 years" line).
> The "first" timeline (i.e. the one in which PLANET and BENEATH take
> place) has a Nuke War happening--as Cornelius figures it, due to his
> archaeological findings--roughly 700 years prior to the 1300-years-ago
> artifacts (the fossilized bones of carnivorous gorillas, etc.).
> Added up, that makes roughly 2000 years, and the artifacts Cornelius
> finds from that "more ancient" and "more advanced" culture are 20th
> Century articles: Eyeglasses, False Teeth, Prefabricated Heart-Valves,
> and a Talking Doll. Either Zaius is right about Cornelius' methods of
> dating the Past ("crude to say the least"), or he isn't. Feel free to
> agree with Zaius on this point, but I'd put my money on Cornelius.
> So, the evidence from BOTH of the so-called "two timelines" points to
> a Nuke War aroung the year 2000 (some 2000 years prior to the time of
> Zaius, Cornelius, Zira, & Ursus). There is no evidence whatsoever that
> the Nuke War prior to PLANET was 1500 years earlier (i.e. circa 2503),
> given Cornelius' dating of the artifacts. It happened about 2000 years
> before PLANET, in "our" time. Whether or not Caesar was able to
> prevent the Doomsday Bomb outcome of BENEATH is another argument, but
> the dating of the Nuke War is provable--as I've just shown (and as
> others have shown, citing the BENEATH evidence--the Bus, the Subway
> station Phone, etc.). And, besides, the whole point of the first film
> was to indite the PRESENT generation, with its policy of "Mutually
> Assured Destruction"--the ever PRESENT possibility of an all-out
> Nuclear War, which WAS not only achievable in the late 1960's but was
> also considered by many (perhaps most) at the time to be the PROBABLE
> outcome of the Cold War. "Does Man, that Marvel of the universe...
> that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars... still make war on
> his brother? keep his neighbour's children starving?" In other words,
> does Man STILL do what he HAD BEEN DOING in the late 20th Century?
> Taylor saw the trends, and--ever the cynical misanthrope--probably
> thought that Man would keep on its course... but he HOPES that Man
> evolves into something better, a "new breed... I hope a better one".
> He tells Landon that even IF Landon could get back to Earth, they'd
> think that he was "something that fell out of a tree"--they'd look
> down on him just as we look down on primitive apes--if, that is,
> Mankind had successfully evolved into something "better".
> Unfortunately, Mankind splits into two known groups: the "devolved"
> primitives (like Nova) and the "Mutants" who acquire Telepathy... and
> the Madness of Bomb-worship.
>
> Insofar as Burke isn't totally sure about the actual Earth-Time
> reading [3-21-3085], that's beside the point. The fact is that the
> clock which Zira sees both before the Timewarp and afterwards had to
> be accurate, since the date it ends up with IS accurate, and could
> ONLY be so if it had been working properly beforehand. Maybe the
> clocks on Virdon's ship ARE wrong--that has nothing to do with the
> clocks on Milo's ship.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hey, Schaffner directed "Boys From Brazil"! Maybe Patrick's on to
something here. Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 8:19 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: The Hatch of the Ship


> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:13:21 AM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > >
> > *** Heyyyy! That's a pretty cool idea! I'm not gonna steal it and revise
my own scenario in favor of it ... but I like the way you think! Perhaps, in
furtherance of your "unflubbing" scenario, perhaps the water jetting into
the ship was also an illusion ... maybe Stewart was NOT really a shriveled
up corpse ... maybe it's ALL just an illusion the Mutants concocted in order
to get the 3 guys to skedaddle the "sinking" ship, so that the fleshy-headed
Mutants could gain access to this marvelous vehicle and the hot blonde babe
dozing in the upper starboard hiberbunk!
> > "Mars Needs Women" ... and so does the Underground City of Mutants!
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > Only you would go along with, and add even more, to that theory. [***
Yeah, in a joking fashion, sure. Why do you have a problem with that? PMT]
That's not saying his idea is wrong to him, or that in a "Beneath" kind of
way it wouldn't hold water to some, but it doesn't to me. [*** Fine.
Nobody's saying it has to. So lighten up, okay?]
> >
> > Maybe they didn't even crash on the planet, huh? Maybe it was ALL a
mutant conspiracy to hijack the ship and get Stewart, huh? Boy wouldn't that
be a neat-o idea? And maybe the ship was routed that way by the aliens that
are flying around out there? (When they're not too busy helping ape
intelligence become a reality that is...) Oh, the possibilities are endless
in the world of "unflubbing"...
> >
> > Look, the mutants have women, didn't you see the movie at all? What do
you think Albina is? How about half the congregation in the church? To even
suggest that they "sunk" the ship to get their hands on what they'd consider
a primitive human is just...
>
> *** Yeah, the "mutants have women", sure... and just take a look at
> 'em. They're UGLY AS SIN. When they have their masks on, they look
> alright, sure. But when they're "revealing their inmost selves unto
> their God" they take 'em off, and every male in the group can see how
> ugly those women really are. If they were "alright" with that
> ugliness, they'd have no need to wear masks in the first place. They
> wear masks for a reason--to appease their perceptions of the surface
> features, which they inherited from their distant ancestors who
> evolved to be genetically predisposed to find certain features
> attractive--and varicose-veined, bald, epidermis-stripped skin is NOT
> what the males would find attractive!
> Besides, they may have need for new genetic material for their gene
> pool. Remember the movie "A BOY AND HIS DOG", based on Harlan
> Ellison's story? The underground-dwelling group run by Jason Robards
> has Don Johnson lured down to their subterranean city in order to get
> his sperm vacuumed out of him so that they can get their females
> impregnated (evidently, the males down there became infertile,
> probably due to either the post-Nuke War radiation or to prolonged
> subterranean living, lack of sunlight, etc.). Similarly, the BENEATH
> male mutants may be fertile, but their females might be having trouble
> with fertility... necessitating the occasional abduction of a
> primitive human female--or a hibernating chick from that mysterious
> spaceship that just splashed down. Granted, they may consider such
> women to be "inferior" to them, but that wouldn't preclude their using
> them for strictly medical reasons. I just finished reading a great
> book entitled "HITLER: The Survival Myth" by Donald M. McKale, and in
> it he quotes from Ira Levin's book "THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL" where
> Mengele boasts to his nemesis (the Nazi-hunting Yakov Liebermann) that
> Hitler is alive, and that
>
> "the boys are exact genetic duplicates of him... conceived in my
> laboratory, and carried to term by women of the Auiti tribe: healthy,
> docile creatures with a businesslike chieftain. The boys bear no taint
> of them; they're pure Hitler, bred entirely from his cells."
>
> Let's suppose that Mendez XXVI's group does this very thing--uses the
> occasionally abducted primitive human females who dwell on the surface
> to serve as incubators for genetically-engineered Mutant offspring.
> This would help to ensure the promulgation of their bloodlines and the
> "mutant gene" which allows them to cast illusions and to communicate
> telepathically. The offspring would be "untainted" by the primitive
> human women, whose wombs would be "used" as a tool, much as Ursus
> describes the surviving humans captured by gorillas as having the
> privilege of being "used" by Dr. Zaius (or his surgeons). The women
> would be "used", against their will, of course. The Mutants are not
> the type to find fault with such a course of action, from an ethical
> standpoint, given the way they treat Taylor and Brent.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:04:57 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> *** Just one problem with this take on it: Cornelius tells the Presidential Commission that Milo found the ESCAPE ship "on our seaboard"--in other words, on the beach or shoreline of the Ocean. Cornelius previously referred to the lake where Taylor's ship splashed down as "Dead Lake", and he tells Brent that the last time they saw Taylor he was headed deep into the Forbidden Zone "between the LAKE and the SEA". We know that Cornelius refers to Dead Lake as a "lake", so that means that the Ocean is what he means by "sea" (he tells Taylor that the river in the Forbidden Zone empties into "a SEA some miles from here... that's where we'll find the diggings"). The Cave with the Human Doll is on a cliff overlooking this same beach/ shoreline/SEAshore. Further along this beach is the half-buried Statue of Liberty... and perhaps a bit further along there is another stretch of beach where the mysterious astronauts who landed the ESCAPE ship parked their vehicle. "...on our seaboard..." This rules out the PLANET ship (which sank to the bottom of Dead LAKE) and the BENEATH ship (which crashed onto the ground, far enough away from any body of water that you can neither see any or hear the waves lapping along the beach). Milo discovered an INTACT and working ANSA shuttle--Taylor's shuttle would have been irreparably trashed by water corrosion, and Brent's shuttle's computer is "shot"--so that they wouldn't be able to use it regardless. If the computers don't work, then it's hopeless. But an intact ANSA shuttle, correctly landed on a stretch of beach a few miles further down from the Statue of Liberty (and unfortunately missed by Taylor and Nova, obviously), COULD be discovered by Milo, and put to use...
>
> Patrick
>
> Question: How come when it suits your wants/ or needs to back your "story", then Cornelius isn't a liar? But then at the same time you say he lied all the time about things? Which is it? Is he a liar or does he speak the truth to suit you? If he's a liar like you say he is, then who's to say he wasn't lying about where the ship was "discovered"?

*** I never said that Cornelius "lied all the time about things". All
the time? Where did you get that?

In ESCAPE, after the first scene with the Presidential Commission,
Lewis Dixon and Stevie Branton gush over how well everything went, how
great Zira and Cornelius had been... and then Lewis says, "But...
there was one moment when--" and Zira admits to this, which prompts
the secret admission ("... but ONLY to Lewis and Stevie...") that
they, indeed, HAD known Taylor... and that they lied to the Commission
about that BECAUSE THEY HAD A REASON. The reason, of course, was that
IF they had admitted to knowing Taylor (even that they had "loved"
him), the Commission would have wanted to know if he were still
alive... which would lead to them describing the Destruction of the
Earth (IF, that is, they were to be TOTALLY truthful).

Remember in BENEATH when Zira and Zaius argue over "Innocence" and
"Ignorance"? Zira is PASSIONATELY honest--she ends up being GLAD that
the truth finally comes out, after Hasslein had her drugged up with
sodium pentothal. I think that Cornelius, too, shares her attitude
about honesty... but he also has the future safety of his unborn child
to think about. I think that Cornelius ALWAYS tells the truth...
unless he has an over-riding REASON to tell a lie. He HAS such a
reason when he denies ever knowing Taylor. He also has a reason to lie
about the 5 "centuries" between the Plague and the Revolution,
provided that he knows that the period in question lasted only 5
YEARS: he has an unborn son, and he knows that his son may very well
be alive in the year when the Plague happens, and later on, when apes
will be enslaved by Mankind. Cornelius knows that the Plague will
happen, that Ape Slavery will happen--and he also knows that Hasslein
wouldn't blink at murdering him, Zira, and their unborn child right
then and there if he were to believe that the overthrow of Mankind
were eminent, that it was a mere 13 years until the Plague (c. 1986),
a mere 18 years until the Ape Revolution (c. 1991), and a mere 33
years until the Nuclear War (2006 - 1973 = 33). Hasslein later on
seems to know that there's a Nuclear War on the horizon, since he says
that "later we'll do something about the nuclear war--we think we have
all the time in the world... How much time has the world got?!"
Notice: "... THE nuclear war...", not "...the possibility of there
being a nuclear war..."
If Cornelius, due to his having read the "secret scrolls" that were
"hidden from the masses", actually knew that there would be a Nuclear
War in a mere 33 years' time, and if he wanted his unborn child to
have a chance to be one of that War's survivors, then that would be
reason enough for Cornelius to sneak a Lie into the overall Truth he'd
been telling to Hasslein during the interrogation, regarding the
duration of Ape Slavery (i.e. 5 centuries instead of years).
You think that this "suits [my] wants/ or needs"--when it should be
obvious to you (as it is to me) that it suits the wants and needs of
CORNELIUS and ZIRA and their unborn CHILD. Cornelius is willing to mix
in a Lie to give Hasslein a false sense of security regarding the
longevity of Human Civilization (500 anticipated years after the
Plague, as opposed to 5 actual years) for the sake of his unborn
child; hell, he's willing to (accidentally) kill their orderly and
vamoose into the forest outside Camp Eleven--just as Zira is willing
to switch babies with Heloise: to ensure the survivability of their
child. It "suits" them to do so. Telling one or two necessary lies
does not make somebody a total and complete liar who NEVER EVER tells
the truth. When Holly Gennaro keeps her relationship to John McClane a
secret from Hans Gruber (in "DIE HARD"), it is because she has a
REASON to do so--a good one. So, too, does Cornelius (and Zira), when
they purposely mislead the Commission (regarding their knowing Taylor)
and their interrogators later on (regarding the time interval between
the Pet Plague and the Ape Revolution).

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002

.html

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 8:36 AM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues

First, read what I wrote, I didn't say as you said here:

*** I beg to differ--it isn't "bullsh*t"--

If you'd had taken the time to read what I wrote, I said I don't "have to" believe anything you say if I believe there are two timelines. I said this: To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to accept this is bullsh*t. If you read it correctly, you'll see it says that your saying I have to buy into what you (in your oh so ever infinite wisdom) say is bullsh*t, I didn't say your theories are or were. (Though a lot of your "unflubbing" leaves a lot to be desired.)

And in that posting you did where you said I said this, you yet again bring up Cornelius. You mentioned him again in another post this morning, saying that he says the ship was found on the sea board. Well, you never answered my question I posed to you last night. I asked you how you can call Cornelius a liar when it suits you, yet when he's saying something that you like him to say, then it's gospel truth. Which is it? Is Cornelius a liar or isn't he?

I'll ask you right out, if you accuse him of lying about the actual time before the Apes revolt in "Escape" (I believe you said it was 5 years, rather than 5 centuries...) then how can you know he's not lying about where the ship was found by Milo? And if he's such a liar, how do you know his "methods of dating the past" are to be taken so seriously? Is he not a liar because these things fit your story?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

*** Armando tells Caesar that the Plague which killed off "every dog
and cat on Earth" was brought to Earth from outer space, from one of
the astronauts--a "mysterious virus". It would be an enormous
coincidence if in the "first" timeline (which I'm assuming you're
referring to here) the SAME effect--the killing of all dogs and cats--
were to have a different cause (i.e. post-Nuke radiation instead of a
"mysterious virus" from space).
This still doesn't jive with Cornelius' earlier testimony to the
Commission regarding his people speaking English for "2000 years,
roughly". That rules out Mlccougar's "26th Century" human civilization
prior to the Ape Revolution.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "james611102" <JamesA1102@a...> wrote:
> Had you ever considered that the radiation from the nuclear war is
> what caused the plauge of dogs & cats. The humans left living on the
> surface, in rather rustic conditions, took apes as pets. Then since
> life was so hard with no electricity, they slowly started to use
> Apes as servants to help them rebuild civilization. After time the
> Apes became intelligent enough to take over.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/22/2002 9:15:27 AM Central Standard Time,
> > JamesA1102@a... writes:
> >
> >
> > > My contention has been that when these films were made that
> > > the filmmakers intention was that mankind destroyed itself in
> the
> > > late 20th Century. This is supported by the visual evidence in
> the
> > > films, the dialogue from the cave scene in Planet and Taylor's
> line
> > > in Beneath.
> >
> > Okay, I'll give you this... If you're going strictly by the ship's
> dates vs.
> > our society's "existence" that'd give you the 2,000 yrs.
> they "play" with in
> > the movies, and the war being roughly "now."
> >
> > BUT, my own beliefs are that I throw the ship times/dates to the
> side, and I
> > built my theory on the story Cornelius says in "Escape", that of
> the Apes
> > being enslaved for 500 years. Starting in "our time', plus adding
> the 500
> > yrs. to that, that'd give the 26th century. I believe that "our"
> (well, a
> > somewhat "advanced" version of "us") has gone on for at least that
> long, with
> > no nukes, and no mass destructive holocaust. That's where I come
> from with my
> > theory.

That's kinda what they did in the new "The Fall" novel (for POTA2001).
After the crash of the Oberon, the humans were in poor shape so they
genetically altered the apes to be a slave force and after 20 years they
rebelled. But centuries would be more realistic. But that doesn't get past
my beef that the 20th Century is over. Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 8:42 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Timeline issues


> Let me play devil's advocate because I think the 2 timelines theory
> has equal validity. Everyone assumes that the nuclear war and the
> rise of apes are simultaneous events because that's how it was
> depicted in Conquest & Battle (the alleged 2nd timeline). But what
> if the war still took place in late 20th/early 21st century and
> radiation from the nuclear war is what caused the plauge of dogs &
> cats. The humans left living on the surface, in rather rustic
> conditions, took apes as pets. Then they slowly started to use Apes
> as servants to help them rebuild civilization (maybe even building a
> new New York City in Northern New Jersey as seen in the TV series).
> Then after centuries of slavery the Apes became intelligent enough
> to take over.
>
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...>
> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > > In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:41:25 AM Central Standard Time,
> > > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> > >
> > >
> > > > If you're partial to the
> > > > "two timelines" theory, then you must accept that the Nuke War-
> -by
> > > > Cornelius' expert archaeological testimony--occurred roughly
> 2000
> > > > years prior to PLANET, in 3978 or 3955 (whichever).
> > >
> > > To say that to believe there are two timelines I "have" to
> accept this is bullsh*t. First of all, I don't take the timeclock
> date readings as gospel like you do. Who the hell knows how really
> accurate they are? Maybe the survivors of "the war" in New America
> know? Maybe those aliens from the Roswell incident that gave the
> apes (like Mandemus) their intelligence know the clocks accuracy?
> Anyway, in my opinion, they're not to be taken as "the truth" as to
> what year it really is. I'm more of the opinion of what Burke states
> in "Escape From Tomorrow" (paraphrased here) "It may be further,
> that's when it stopped working..." Right there you have an astronaut
> doubting the accuracy of them. Who's to say he isn't right? I'd say
> he just might be...
> > >
> > > You're always making things up to make your ideas more suitable
> to you, well, you taught me how to do this too. Here's something
> then, let's just say that the clocks hit the date 12-31-9999 and
> then "flipped over" like a car's odometer does? Then it'd be at
> least the year 12,055 (1972 to the yr. 9999=8,027 years+ the
> additional yrs. from the clock "turnover" (3,978)= 12,055). Now what
> I just said here is not my "real" theory, but let's face it, it's
> definitely as feasible as 95% of what you dream up. I do however
> believe that the clocks are inaccurate, and that it may indeed be
> further than what the clocks indicate. I guess I'm saying I do
> believe it is further than the yr. indicated, but maybe not as far
> as my bullsh*t "theory" would say.
> > >
> > > Your "date" theory has nothing to do with whether or not there
> are two timelines. It only points out the "hypothetical" date of
> the war.
> >
> > *** I beg to differ--it isn't "bullsh*t"--it's a fact, and here's
> the
> > proof.
> > ESCAPE takes place in 1973, as evidenced by the Chairman of the
> > Presidential Commission of Inquiry dissolving that same
> Commission "in
> > the year of our Lord NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE" ("1973").
> Zira
> > tells Hasslein that the "date meter" (as he calls the EARTH-TIME
> > chronometer) read "nineteen seventy... three" AFTER the "bright
> light
> > and the tornado" (i.e. AFTER the Ape-onauts time-travelled back
> from
> > their Present (our Future) to ours (their Past). That same EARTH-
> TIME
> > clock which ACCURATELY depicted the date "1973" AFTER the
> > "retrotemporal" journey 1,983 years into the Past, read the date
> > "3955" BEFORE the detonation of the Doomsday Bomb. If the EARTH-
> TIME
> > clock were malfunctioning, then it could NOT have displayed the
> > accurate year--1973--after going through the Time warp. It MUST be
> > telling the time accurately, given this evidence; and THAT means
> that
> > both PLANET and BENEATH take place in the year 3955, and that the
> > "3978" reading Taylor sees just before his ship sinks requires an
> > explanation (which I've given on prior occasions, linking this 23-
> year
> > discrepancy and Virdon's EARTH-TIME discrepancy of 115 days to the
> > distance each ship travelled (320 LY and 4.34 LY) when they both
> zip
> > back to Earth after activating the "Automatic Homing Device" and
> > accelerating their hyperdrives to the limit... and I'm sure you've
> > heard all that before, so I'll move on).
> >
> > I don't accept the "2 timelines" theory, but let's assume that
> there
> > ARE two separate timelines, the second one being created by the
> > actions of Caesar to "change lanes" in order to avoid a destroyed
> > Earth in 3955.
> > The "second" timeline (i.e. the one in which ESCAPE, CONQUEST and
> > BATTLE take place) has a Nuke War happening between 1991
> (CONQUEST)
> > and 2018 (BATTLE--Mandemus' "27 years" after CONQUEST), probably
> in
> > 2006 (Mendez' "12 years" line).
> > The "first" timeline (i.e. the one in which PLANET and BENEATH
> take
> > place) has a Nuke War happening--as Cornelius figures it, due to
> his
> > archaeological findings--roughly 700 years prior to the 1300-years-
> ago
> > artifacts (the fossilized bones of carnivorous gorillas, etc.).
> > Added up, that makes roughly 2000 years, and the artifacts
> Cornelius
> > finds from that "more ancient" and "more advanced" culture are
> 20th
> > Century articles: Eyeglasses, False Teeth, Prefabricated Heart-
> Valves,
> > and a Talking Doll. Either Zaius is right about Cornelius' methods
> of
> > dating the Past ("crude to say the least"), or he isn't. Feel free
> to
> > agree with Zaius on this point, but I'd put my money on Cornelius.
> > So, the evidence from BOTH of the so-called "two timelines" points
> to
> > a Nuke War aroung the year 2000 (some 2000 years prior to the time
> of
> > Zaius, Cornelius, Zira, & Ursus). There is no evidence whatsoever
> that
> > the Nuke War prior to PLANET was 1500 years earlier (i.e. circa
> 2503),
> > given Cornelius' dating of the artifacts. It happened about 2000
> years
> > before PLANET, in "our" time. Whether or not Caesar was able to
> > prevent the Doomsday Bomb outcome of BENEATH is another argument,
> but
> > the dating of the Nuke War is provable--as I've just shown (and as
> > others have shown, citing the BENEATH evidence--the Bus, the
> Subway
> > station Phone, etc.). And, besides, the whole point of the first
> film
> > was to indite the PRESENT generation, with its policy of "Mutually
> > Assured Destruction"--the ever PRESENT possibility of an all-out
> > Nuclear War, which WAS not only achievable in the late 1960's but
> was
> > also considered by many (perhaps most) at the time to be the
> PROBABLE
> > outcome of the Cold War. "Does Man, that Marvel of the universe...
> > that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars... still make war
> on
> > his brother? keep his neighbour's children starving?" In other
> words,
> > does Man STILL do what he HAD BEEN DOING in the late 20th Century?
> > Taylor saw the trends, and--ever the cynical misanthrope--probably
> > thought that Man would keep on its course... but he HOPES that Man
> > evolves into something better, a "new breed... I hope a better
> one".
> > He tells Landon that even IF Landon could get back to Earth,
> they'd
> > think that he was "something that fell out of a tree"--they'd look
> > down on him just as we look down on primitive apes--if, that is,
> > Mankind had successfully evolved into something "better".
> > Unfortunately, Mankind splits into two known groups:
> the "devolved"
> > primitives (like Nova) and the "Mutants" who acquire Telepathy...
> and
> > the Madness of Bomb-worship.
> >
> > Insofar as Burke isn't totally sure about the actual Earth-Time
> > reading [3-21-3085], that's beside the point. The fact is that the
> > clock which Zira sees both before the Timewarp and afterwards had
> to
> > be accurate, since the date it ends up with IS accurate, and could
> > ONLY be so if it had been working properly beforehand. Maybe the
> > clocks on Virdon's ship ARE wrong--that has nothing to do with the
> > clocks on Milo's ship.
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 10:20:25 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Yeah, the "mutants have women", sure... and just take a look at
'em. They're UGLY AS SIN. When they have their masks on, they look
alright, sure. But when they're "revealing their inmost selves unto
their God" they take 'em off, and every male in the group can see how
ugly those women really are.

Ok then, answer this one: If this is true, then how can the bomb (something whose "ancestors" made them what they are) be so revered by them? I mean in the extended "Battle" it has Mendez saying (very paraphrased here,) "The bomb made us what we are, and from this day forward, it will be called "beautiful."

In "Beneath" they worship that Alpha-Omega bomb and sing "...The Good Bomb made us all..." Well, if they think this bomb is so great, and worship it, and praise it for "making them" (what they are), I'd really doubt they'd see themselves as "ugly."<.html

> But his methods of dating the past are crude, to say the least. There

are

> "Ape" fans on my staff who'd laugh at your speculations. Etc. - - -

Jeff

I've been laughing for weeks. Lets change the record, folks. ;)
Imagine a toy line from Hasbro/Kenner as detailed and expansive as the STAR
WARS line. A PLANET Icarus with lights, sound fx, a removable top section
for figure placement and all about 2 & 1/2 feet long. Then of course, there
would be the the playsets:
The Courtroom. Comes with Judge's Table/Chairs, Defense/Prosecution Tables
and an exclusive Dr. Honorius figure.
The Zoo. Indoor set with cage and exclusive Julius. Features a hand powered,
squirting fire hose.
Forbidden Zone Cave. This is the biggie. Full interior detail with tools,
artifacts and wooden platform/porch along the outside. Features esclusive
Zaius in his "Manhunt" outfit.
Other film-inspired items:
Ursus Speech Playset. Platform for Ursus figure, and chairs for council
members, with push-button activated "talking" feature for select lines from
the speech.
Ah, the toys that will never be. It saddens the heart.
Gristle P.

>

Ok, so if Cornelius lies completely to the Commission, then he lies about
English being their language for 2000 years (the quote that suggests the
apes took over in the 20th Century) and lies about where Milo found the
ship. He tells the truth to Hasslein about the apes taking over during
centuries. Zinggg! - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 8:52 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] The Reasons for Cornelius' few untruths...


> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:04:57 AM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > *** Just one problem with this take on it: Cornelius tells the
Presidential Commission that Milo found the ESCAPE ship "on our
seaboard"--in other words, on the beach or shoreline of the Ocean.
Cornelius previously referred to the lake where Taylor's ship splashed down
as "Dead Lake", and he tells Brent that the last time they saw Taylor he
was headed deep into the Forbidden Zone "between the LAKE and the SEA". We
know that Cornelius refers to Dead Lake as a "lake", so that means that the
Ocean is what he means by "sea" (he tells Taylor that the river in the
Forbidden Zone empties into "a SEA some miles from here... that's where
we'll find the diggings"). The Cave with the Human Doll is on a cliff
overlooking this same beach/ shoreline/SEAshore. Further along this beach is
the half-buried Statue of Liberty... and perhaps a bit further along there
is another stretch of beach where the mysterious astronauts who landed the
ESCAPE ship parked their vehicle. "...on our seaboard..." This rules out
the PLANET ship (which sank to the bottom of Dead LAKE) and the BENEATH
ship (which crashed onto the ground, far enough away from any body of water
that you can neither see any or hear the waves lapping along the beach).
Milo discovered an INTACT and working ANSA shuttle--Taylor's shuttle would
have been irreparably trashed by water corrosion, and Brent's shuttle's
computer is "shot"--so that they wouldn't be able to use it regardless. If
the computers don't work, then it's hopeless. But an intact ANSA shuttle,
correctly landed on a stretch of beach a few miles further down from the
Statue of Liberty (and unfortunately missed by Taylor and Nova, obviously),
COULD be discovered by Milo, and put to use...
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > Question: How come when it suits your wants/ or needs to back your
"story", then Cornelius isn't a liar? But then at the same time you say he
lied all the time about things? Which is it? Is he a liar or does he speak
the truth to suit you? If he's a liar like you say he is, then who's to say
he wasn't lying about where the ship was "discovered"?
>
> *** I never said that Cornelius "lied all the time about things". All
> the time? Where did you get that?
>
> In ESCAPE, after the first scene with the Presidential Commission,
> Lewis Dixon and Stevie Branton gush over how well everything went, how
> great Zira and Cornelius had been... and then Lewis says, "But...
> there was one moment when--" and Zira admits to this, which prompts
> the secret admission ("... but ONLY to Lewis and Stevie...") that
> they, indeed, HAD known Taylor... and that they lied to the Commission
> about that BECAUSE THEY HAD A REASON. The reason, of course, was that
> IF they had admitted to knowing Taylor (even that they had "loved"
> him), the Commission would have wanted to know if he were still
> alive... which would lead to them describing the Destruction of the
> Earth (IF, that is, they were to be TOTALLY truthful).
>
> Remember in BENEATH when Zira and Zaius argue over "Innocence" and
> "Ignorance"? Zira is PASSIONATELY honest--she ends up being GLAD that
> the truth finally comes out, after Hasslein had her drugged up with
> sodium pentothal. I think that Cornelius, too, shares her attitude
> about honesty... but he also has the future safety of his unborn child
> to think about. I think that Cornelius ALWAYS tells the truth...
> unless he has an over-riding REASON to tell a lie. He HAS such a
> reason when he denies ever knowing Taylor. He also has a reason to lie
> about the 5 "centuries" between the Plague and the Revolution,
> provided that he knows that the period in question lasted only 5
> YEARS: he has an unborn son, and he knows that his son may very well
> be alive in the year when the Plague happens, and later on, when apes
> will be enslaved by Mankind. Cornelius knows that the Plague will
> happen, that Ape Slavery will happen--and he also knows that Hasslein
> wouldn't blink at murdering him, Zira, and their unborn child right
> then and there if he were to believe that the overthrow of Mankind
> were eminent, that it was a mere 13 years until the Plague (c. 1986),
> a mere 18 years until the Ape Revolution (c. 1991), and a mere 33
> years until the Nuclear War (2006 - 1973 = 33). Hasslein later on
> seems to know that there's a Nuclear War on the horizon, since he says
> that "later we'll do something about the nuclear war--we think we have
> all the time in the world... How much time has the world got?!"
> Notice: "... THE nuclear war...", not "...the possibility of there
> being a nuclear war..."
> If Cornelius, due to his having read the "secret scrolls" that were
> "hidden from the masses", actually knew that there would be a Nuclear
> War in a mere 33 years' time, and if he wanted his unborn child to
> have a chance to be one of that War's survivors, then that would be
> reason enough for Cornelius to sneak a Lie into the overall Truth he'd
> been telling to Hasslein during the interrogation, regarding the
> duration of Ape Slavery (i.e. 5 centuries instead of years).
> You think that this "suits [my] wants/ or needs"--when it should be
> obvious to you (as it is to me) that it suits the wants and needs of
> CORNELIUS and ZIRA and their unborn CHILD. Cornelius is willing to mix
> in a Lie to give Hasslein a false sense of security regarding the
> longevity of Human Civilization (500 anticipated years after the
> Plague, as opposed to 5 actual years) for the sake of his unborn
> child; hell, he's willing to (accidentally) kill their orderly and
> vamoose into the forest outside Camp Eleven--just as Zira is willing
> to switch babies with Heloise: to ensure the survivability of their
> child. It "suits" them to do so. Telling one or two necessary lies
> does not make somebody a total and complete liar who NEVER EVER tells
> the truth. When Holly Gennaro keeps her relationship to John McClane a
> secret from Hans Gruber (in "DIE HARD"), it is because she has a
> REASON to do so--a good one. So, too, does Cornelius (and Zira), when
> they purposely mislead the Commission (regarding their knowing Taylor)
> and their interrogators later on (regarding the time interval between
> the Pet Plague and the Ape Revolution).
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 9:00 AM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re:Mutants

In a message dated 6/23/2002 10:20:25 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

*** Yeah, the "mutants have women", sure... and just take a look at
'em. They're UGLY AS SIN. When they have their masks on, they look
alright, sure. But when they're "revealing their inmost selves unto
their God" they take 'em off, and every male in the group can see how
ugly those women really are.

Ok then, answer this one: If this is true, then how can the bomb (something whose "ancestors" made them what they are) be so revered by them? I mean in the extended "Battle" it has Mendez saying (very paraphrased here,) "The bomb made us what we are, and from this day forward, it will be called "beautiful."

In "Beneath" they worship that Alpha-Omega bomb and sing "...The Good Bomb made us all..." Well, if they think this bomb is so great, and worship it, and praise it for "making them" (what they are), I'd really doubt they'd see themselves as "ugly."

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/23/2002 10:20:25 AM Central Standard

Time,

> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
>
> > *** Yeah, the "mutants have women", sure... and just take a

look at

> > 'em. They're UGLY AS SIN. When they have their masks on,

they look

> > alright, sure. But when they're "revealing their inmost selves

unto

> > their God" they take 'em off, and every male in the group can

see how

> > ugly those women really are.
>
> Ok then, answer this one: If this is true, then how can the bomb

(something

> whose "ancestors" made them what they are) be so revered by

them? I mean in

> the extended "Battle" it has Mendez saying (very paraphrased

here,) "The bomb

> made us what we are, and from this day forward, it will be

called

> "beautiful."
>
> In "Beneath" they worship that Alpha-Omega bomb and sing

"...The Good Bomb

> made us all..." Well, if they think this bomb is so great, and

worship it,

> and praise it for "making them" (what they are), I'd really doubt

they'd see

> themselves as "ugly."

*** There's a difference between finding the BOMB to be
"beautiful" and finding their radiation-scarred, ugly-ass FACES to
still be beautiful. And it STILL begs the question: WHY do they
wear masks at all? Why don't they walk around down there with
their "inmost selves" revealed unto each other, and not just to
their God? Remember that shot of Alma, in BATTLE, dabbing
makeup onto her face? She KNOWS she's getting ugly, due to
the effects of the radiation... and she's trying to do something to
counteract that effect. The making of Masks which portray you as
you WOULD BE if you weren't radiation-scarred is a logical
extension of that act of putting on makeup.
In my opinion, at any rate. Feel free to disagree with it, if doing so
fulfills your own "inmost self", pal.

Patrick

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 10:46:15 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

Yes, perhaps the intention was for it to be in the 20th Century, and if
this was 1968 I wouldn't have a problem with it. But It's no longer the 20th
Century so such a scenario is no longer relevant, just as after 1991
"Conquest" became dated and I moved it to another timeline (to my mind). But
I don't consider Cornelius' "evidence" as proof. I already incorporated his
findings into my chronology, I'll have to look for it. Don't make me get out
my chronology, boy! Etc.              - - - Jeff

Well, you know, as time goes on, I'm finding you and I have more in common than I thought we did on this subject. I agree with you and what you just said here. That's why I don't get a certain someone's undying devotion to the dates in the movies. As I pointed out when I posted my "timeline" in another Apes group, I throw the dates mentioned to the side... I mean since these dates and years already occurred, why emphasize them? We didn't have the Ape revolt (which starts the second timeline) in 1991, which would have been led by an ape who was born in (as someone ALWAYS stresses when he speaks of it) "in the year of our Lord NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY THREE" ("1973").

I'm with you on this one: Those dates are over with now, so why not move things up a bit? <.html

<<the "Taylorites">>

i kinda like the idea of the taylorites. (if of course you are
talking from the "urchak's folly" mini series). it is no more crazy,
stupid, silly, whatever, than any other group who beleives in the
return of a savior in any other relig.... uh, better not open up that
can of worms. :) eddie

I just saw "Minority Report" yesterday. It's one of the 10 best SF
movies ever made, in my opinion, and easily one of Spielberg's
best. Not surprising, given that it's based on a Philip K. Dick
story.
What's particularly good about it is that it doesn't "feel" like a
Spielberg movie. Spielberg, when he made "Schindler's List",
purposely stripped it down, not using any of his "tricks" as he
called them--his way of using the camera, the shot-angles, the
dolly-tracking, etc. Similarly, "Minority Report" has a completely
different feel from the "standard" Spielbergian action/adventure
movie. Parts of this reminded me of Hitchcock, of Terry Gilliam,
of John Boorman... not that he stole from them, mind you, but
that he directed this particular film differently than his previous
genre flicks, in a way that was singularly appropriate for this
movie.

I heartily recommend it. It's the best flick I've seen in over a year,
and that includes the wonderful "Fellowship of the Ring" and
"Spider-man", both of which I was more than happy with. I think
MR deserves to be nominated for Best Picture at all the awards
shows. It's about time that an intelligent SF picture won the
Oscar--and NOT just for effects work. This film is MAGNIFICENT!

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/23/2002 10:46:15 AM Central Standard

Time,

> veetus@e... writes:
>
>
> > Yes, perhaps the intention was for it to be in the 20th

Century, and if

> > this was 1968 I wouldn't have a problem with it. But It's no

longer the 20th

> > Century so such a scenario is no longer relevant, just as

after 1991

> > "Conquest" became dated and I moved it to another timeline

(to my mind). But

> > I don't consider Cornelius' "evidence" as proof. I already

incorporated his

> > findings into my chronology, I'll have to look for it. Don't make

me get out

> > my chronology, boy! Etc. - - - Jeff
>
> Well, you know, as time goes on, I'm finding you and I have

more in common

> than I thought we did on this subject. I agree with you and what

you just

> said here. That's why I don't get a certain someone's undying

devotion to the

> dates in the movies. As I pointed out when I posted my

"timeline" in another

> Apes group, I throw the dates mentioned to the side... I mean

since these

> dates and years already occurred, why emphasize them? We

didn't have the Ape

> revolt (which starts the second timeline) in 1991, which would

have been led

> by an ape who was born in (as someone ALWAYS stresses

when he speaks of it)

> "in the year of our Lord NINETEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY

THREE" ("1973").

>
> I'm with you on this one: Those dates are over with now, so

why not move

> things up a bit?

*** When they made BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES,
Taylor's launch date (mid-January of 1972) was also in the Past
of the "real" universe and its Timeline (in which we all are living).
I think of the "POTA universe" as a branch-off of our "real"
universe, a different lane in the "old motorways" that Hasslein
and Virgil chatted about. A parallel universe with its own Timeline
which diverged from ours somewhere around 1964 or so (since
both our "real" universe and the "POTA universe" have a "Cape
Kennedy" yet have different Presidents in 1972...).
So, given that the last of the 5 films was already beyond the
"starting date" by a year or so, we Apes fans have been dealing
with this "alternate timeline" since 1972.
My "undying devotion" to the dates given in the POTA saga is due
to the fact that sense can be made out of them (given an
"alternate universe" scenario), and if you can just "throw out"
THOSE details, then why not just throw out any and all
inconvenient details of the series? I prefer to keep the details in
my scenario, and make sense out of them--"unflubbing" what
seem to be mistakes so that they are NOT mistakes.
It works for me, if not for you.

Patrick

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 10:58:47 AM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Let me play devil's advocate because I think the 2 timelines theory
has equal validity. Everyone assumes that the nuclear war and the
rise of apes are simultaneous events because that's how it was
depicted in Conquest & Battle (the alleged 2nd timeline). But what
if the war still took place in late 20th/early 21st century and
radiation from the nuclear war is what caused the plauge of dogs &
cats. The humans left living on the surface, in rather rustic
conditions, took apes as pets. Then they slowly started to use Apes
as servants to help them rebuild civilization (maybe even building a
new New York City in Northern New Jersey as seen in the TV series).
Then after centuries of slavery the Apes became intelligent enough
to take over.

You may have a theory worth "investigating" here. After all, the plague that killed ("most of") the dogs and cats in the original timeline is never specified. I mean it's never specified "where" it came from, so perhaps it was caused by fallout. The plague that causes the primate domestication in the second timeline is alleged to have been brought back to earth by astronauts, but you're correct, the original plague's origins are unknown, so your point has some validity.

And, I like the way you say that over the centuries, they (the Apes) are gaining intelligence. You may have something to consider here, and if your whole "idea" isn't considered, there are bits and pieces that may have validity.<.html

The mutants wear masks for the same reasons most people wear clothing;
to hide their "true selves" from their peers. It may not be law, but
it's probably a taboo, as is public nudity for us.

The mutants aren't all infertile. Remember the "Ring Around A Positron"
scene and Mendez's instructions for an announcement that all infants and
children were to remain indoors? There's no evidence that the radiation
caused any changes other than transparent skin and telepathy.

ABMAC

On Sunday, June 23, 2002, at 10:19 AM, patrickmichaeltilton wrote:

> *** Yeah, the "mutants have women", sure... and just take a look at
> 'em. They're UGLY AS SIN. When they have their masks on, they look
> alright, sure. But when they're "revealing their inmost selves unto
> their God" they take 'em off, and every male in the group can see how
> ugly those women really are. If they were "alright" with that
> ugliness, they'd have no need to wear masks in the first place. They
> wear masks for a reason--to appease their perceptions of the surface
> features, which they inherited from their distant ancestors who
> evolved to be genetically predisposed to find certain features
> attractive--and varicose-veined, bald, epidermis-stripped skin is NOT
> what the males would find attractive!

They would just recycle the "Landon Lobotomy Confrontation Playset," and
include an exclusive Ursus figure.

ABMAC

On Sunday, June 23, 2002, at 11:03 AM, Jeff & Susan Stringer wrote:

> Ursus Speech Playset. Platform for Ursus figure, and chairs for council
> members, with push-button activated "talking" feature for select lines
> from
> the speech.

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 11:00:09 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

This still doesn't jive with Cornelius' earlier testimony to the
Commission regarding his people speaking English for "2000 years,
roughly".

Does he not say "roughly?" He does, and as such, "roughly" is not an exact date. He never says to them, "You know, my kind have spoken this language you refer to as 'english' for 1,987 years..." (made up number of course.) With things such as dating your origins, nothing is exactly dated. With a number like 2,000 years, they are given enough "play" that the way I look at it, it can be give or take a century, up to 500 years plus.

And again, I'm not so convinced that the clocks dates are to be believed. I still think that the Apes world we see in "Planet" and "Beneath" could be further in the future than what is projected on the clocks.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 11:07:19 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

 Ok, so if Cornelius lies completely to the Commission, then he lies about
English being their language for 2000 years (the quote that suggests the
apes took over in the 20th Century) and lies about where Milo found the
ship. He tells the truth to Hasslein about the apes taking over during
centuries. Zinggg!                            - - - Jeff

Right on.<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 11:12:32 AM Central Standard Time, veetus@... writes:

 The masks could just be a form of modesty, like cover the body in the Middle East. Or a form of protection, since their faces are more sensitive (to say the least). Etc.                                  - - - Jeff

I agree with you yet again. I'm also of the opinion that the masks may be some form of "protection."

And another thing, if they're "all about illusions" then these masks are just more of that. Giving the outsiders (the astronauts) the "illusion" that they are normal humans, but underneath the masks, they're anything but...

<.html

.htmlIn a message dated 6/23/2002 11:18:02 AM Central Standard Time, patrickmichaeltilton@... writes:

Why don't they walk around down there with
their "inmost selves" revealed unto each other, and not just to
their God? Remember that shot of Alma, in BATTLE, dabbing
makeup onto her face? She KNOWS she's getting ugly, due to
the effects of the radiation... and she's trying to do something to
counteract that effect. The making of Masks which portray you as
you WOULD BE if you weren't radiation-scarred is a logical
extension of that act of putting on makeup.

You'll find a few possibilities to the first question in the post just put up by Jeff, and added onto by me...

As far as the makeup bit, yeah, she does that at first, but then at film's end, Mendez says that the bomb made them what they are, and from that day forward, that would be (considered) "beautiful." <.html

You're making the assumption here that the scrolls document history
as well as an issue of the New York Times. From the passages that
were spoken in Planet they sound like they were written in a more
poetic style. The history in them is probably about as accurate as
the history in the bible. Unless you believe that Moses lived for
500 years and the Hebrews wandered in the Sinai for 40 years.

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

> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/22/2002 11:04:57 AM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> >
> > *** Just one problem with this take on it: Cornelius tells the

Presidential Commission that Milo found the ESCAPE ship "on our
seaboard"--in other words, on the beach or shoreline of the Ocean.
Cornelius previously referred to the lake where Taylor's ship
splashed down as "Dead Lake", and he tells Brent that the last time
they saw Taylor he was headed deep into the Forbidden Zone "between
the LAKE and the SEA". We know that Cornelius refers to Dead Lake
as a "lake", so that means that the Ocean is what he means by "sea"
(he tells Taylor that the river in the Forbidden Zone empties
into "a SEA some miles from here... that's where we'll find the
diggings"). The Cave with the Human Doll is on a cliff overlooking
this same beach/ shoreline/SEAshore. Further along this beach is the
half-buried Statue of Liberty... and perhaps a bit further along
there is another stretch of beach where the mysterious astronauts
who landed the ESCAPE ship parked their vehicle. "...on our
seaboard..." This rules out the PLANET ship (which sank to the
bottom of Dead LAKE) and the BENEATH ship (which crashed onto the
ground, far enough away from any body of water that you can neither
see any or hear the waves lapping along the beach). Milo discovered
an INTACT and working ANSA shuttle--Taylor's shuttle would have
been irreparably trashed by water corrosion, and Brent's shuttle's
computer is "shot"--so that they wouldn't be able to use it
regardless. If the computers don't work, then it's hopeless. But an
intact ANSA shuttle, correctly landed on a stretch of beach a few
miles further down from the Statue of Liberty (and unfortunately
missed by Taylor and Nova, obviously), COULD be discovered by Milo,
and put to use...

> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > Question: How come when it suits your wants/ or needs to back

your "story", then Cornelius isn't a liar? But then at the same time
you say he lied all the time about things? Which is it? Is he a liar
or does he speak the truth to suit you? If he's a liar like you say
he is, then who's to say he wasn't lying about where the ship
was "discovered"?

>
> *** I never said that Cornelius "lied all the time about things".

All

> the time? Where did you get that?
>
> In ESCAPE, after the first scene with the Presidential Commission,
> Lewis Dixon and Stevie Branton gush over how well everything went,

how

> great Zira and Cornelius had been... and then Lewis says, "But...
> there was one moment when--" and Zira admits to this, which

prompts

> the secret admission ("... but ONLY to Lewis and Stevie...") that
> they, indeed, HAD known Taylor... and that they lied to the

Commission

> about that BECAUSE THEY HAD A REASON. The reason, of course, was

that

> IF they had admitted to knowing Taylor (even that they had "loved"
> him), the Commission would have wanted to know if he were still
> alive... which would lead to them describing the Destruction of

the

> Earth (IF, that is, they were to be TOTALLY truthful).
>
> Remember in BENEATH when Zira and Zaius argue over "Innocence" and
> "Ignorance"? Zira is PASSIONATELY honest--she ends up being GLAD

that

> the truth finally comes out, after Hasslein had her drugged up

with

> sodium pentothal. I think that Cornelius, too, shares her attitude
> about honesty... but he also has the future safety of his unborn

child

> to think about. I think that Cornelius ALWAYS tells the truth...
> unless he has an over-riding REASON to tell a lie. He HAS such a
> reason when he denies ever knowing Taylor. He also has a reason to

lie

> about the 5 "centuries" between the Plague and the Revolution,
> provided that he knows that the period in question lasted only 5
> YEARS: he has an unborn son, and he knows that his son may very

well

> be alive in the year when the Plague happens, and later on, when

apes

> will be enslaved by Mankind. Cornelius knows that the Plague will
> happen, that Ape Slavery will happen--and he also knows that

Hasslein

> wouldn't blink at murdering him, Zira, and their unborn child

right

> then and there if he were to believe that the overthrow of Mankind
> were eminent, that it was a mere 13 years until the Plague (c.

1986),

> a mere 18 years until the Ape Revolution (c. 1991), and a mere 33
> years until the Nuclear War (2006 - 1973 = 33). Hasslein later on
> seems to know that there's a Nuclear War on the horizon, since he

says

> that "later we'll do something about the nuclear war--we think we

have

> all the time in the world... How much time has the world got?!"
> Notice: "... THE nuclear war...", not "...the possibility of there
> being a nuclear war..."
> If Cornelius, due to his having read the "secret scrolls" that

were

> "hidden from the masses", actually knew that there would be a

Nuclear

> War in a mere 33 years' time, and if he wanted his unborn child to
> have a chance to be one of that War's survivors, then that would

be

> reason enough for Cornelius to sneak a Lie into the overall Truth

he'd

> been telling to Hasslein during the interrogation, regarding the
> duration of Ape Slavery (i.e. 5 centuries instead of years).
> You think that this "suits [my] wants/ or needs"--when it should

be

> obvious to you (as it is to me) that it suits the wants and needs

of

> CORNELIUS and ZIRA and their unborn CHILD. Cornelius is willing to

mix

> in a Lie to give Hasslein a false sense of security regarding the
> longevity of Human Civilization (500 anticipated years after the
> Plague, as opposed to 5 actual years) for the sake of his unborn
> child; hell, he's willing to (accidentally) kill their orderly and
> vamoose into the forest outside Camp Eleven--just as Zira is

willing

> to switch babies with Heloise: to ensure the survivability of

their

> child. It "suits" them to do so. Telling one or two necessary lies
> does not make somebody a total and complete liar who NEVER EVER

tells

> the truth. When Holly Gennaro keeps her relationship to John

McClane a

> secret from Hans Gruber (in "DIE HARD"), it is because she has a
> REASON to do so--a good one. So, too, does Cornelius (and Zira),

when

> they purposely mislead the Commission (regarding their knowing

Taylor)

> and their interrogators later on (regarding the time interval

between

> the Pet Plague and the Ape Revolution).
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-23-2002