.html  

I always took the end of Battle to be a slight downer.

I think it's deliberately ambiguous.  Are men and apes doomed to the inevitable out come of their violent natures?  Lawgiver, who knows about the future?

<.html

The timeline in the box set is taken directly from the famed Marvel
chronology. And doesn't take into account that it HAS to be more than 10
years between "Conquest" and "Battle". Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "james611102" <JamesA1102@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 10:48 AM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues


> --- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > I don't think that applies in this case.
>
> The operative word here being 'think' cause you don't know. And
> neither do I for that matter. All we have are our own interpetations
> and assumptions. I admitt that both theories have validity. Why are
> you afraid to do the same? Reminds me of those that tried to forbid
> the teaching of evolution.
>
>
> > We may not know with 100% certainty what happens after BATTLE, but
> we do know
> > with 100% certainty that the timeline not only has been changed but
> has been
> > drastically changed. .
>
> No we don't know this. To quote Zaius, "Don't speak to me in
> absolutes the evidence is contestable".
>
> > The mention of Aldo's name in the scene where Cornelius is talking
> proves that
> > the Corrington's intention for BATTLE was to clearly show that
> Caesar had
> > "changed lanes". Paul Dehn took out Aldo's name from the scene (I
> can see the
> > revision in my script) but that doesn't change the fact that
> Cornelius still
> > said it in ESCAPE and therefore it is still "canon".
>
> You stated in another post that Cornelius was lying about the
> timeframe of Apes becoming slaves and revolting to protect his
> family. So why wouldn't he lie about the name of revolt leader and
> purposely pick a gorilla name for the same reason.
>
>
> >The bottom line is that
> > the "changed lanes" concept was so tightly connected to the
> Corrington's BATTLE
> > script that the only way Dehn could have credibly changed it back
> into a
> > circular timeline would have been to have Aldo kill Caesar instead
> of the other
> > way around. But that ending which Dehn wanted was rejected by
> Jacobs.
>
> The only reason Jacobs rejected it was that he didn't want the ending
> to be a downer. The Corringtons themselves have acknowledged the tear
> at the end was meant to indicate that they hadn't changed lanes and
> history would proceed as before. Dehn always said it was a circle and
> he wrote the final draft of Battle. Jacobs even commented that the
> intention was to show how the world of the first film was created. In
> the DVD box set the timeline included on the Battle DVD shows a
> circular timeline. So the writers, producer and studio all say it was
> a circular timeline. I think they carry more weight than either you
> or I on the subject.
>
>
>
>
> > None of the things you mentioned qualifies as "evidence" for a
> circular
> > timeline. Just because the virus happens in both timelines does not
> > make the timeline circular. Why would it? Just because the nuclear
> > war occurs in both timelines does not make the timeline circular.
> Just
> > because the apes become slaves in both timelines does not make the
> timeline
> > circular. There is simply no reason that either Caesar or the
> apeanauts
> > would affect any of these things. The effect that
> Caesar's "changing lanes" had
> > on the timeline was to his OWN culture, the same culture as the
> Lawgiver. The
> > statues point out that the Lawgiver was influenced by Caesar in the
> altered
> > timeline as greatly as Zaius was influenced by the Lawgiver in the
> original
> > timeline.
>
>
> Nothing you mention qualifies as evidence either. There is no
> conclusive evidence for either theory because there's over 1300 of
> untold history left at the end of Battle. Thus all we have are our
> own interpetations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And "Minority Report" was neck and neck with "Lilo & Stitch". Cruise isn't
going to have very many more $20 million paydays if he can't outdo cartoon
characters. Actually, it's too bad. We need the good sci-fi movies to be
hits. Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: <LordTZer0@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] OT: "Minority Report" is MAGNIFICENT!


>
> I agree with Patrick on this it is a good film, but don't have a lot on
your
> mind when you go and see it. You'll need all your powers of
concentration.
> The story is VERY convoluted. But a lot of that is the directors fault.
Not
> that it isn't written that way. But he should have been able to present
the
> story in a more straight forward manner and still kept the mystery feel
too
> it. Well, Hitchcock could have anyway. There is an awful lot to keep
track
> of with all the present/future shifts & peoples alternate futures etc . .
.
> Young children and old folks beware. You have to have your thinking caps
on
> to keep up with this! And I cannot stand Tom Cruise movies, but I
actually
> enjoyed this one.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: LordTZer0@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:10 PM

Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] "Sea", I told you....

What is that crash sight, a "lake" or a "sea?"

Well, since it was filmed in a lake I'd call it a lake.
But some inland seas aren't very big The Aral Sea
comes to mind.  Lake Baykal isn't much smaller than
that, though it is narrower.  But since the Ocean is off-limits
to the apes, maybe its a sea to them.  Perhaps its salt water
like The Great Salt Lake.

<.html

In my chronology the second timeline ends with the cartoon (don't hate
me!). That gives us a semi conclusion : the world survives past 3955 (the
destruction of Earth in "Beneath"), thus Caesar is triumphant, and the
mutants become the Underdwellers. Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Whitty" <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:14 PM
Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Timeline issues


> I still think the end of Battle was intended to be left OPEN.
>
> I also think this was in order to facilitate a further story, but not the
> following year as had been the trend.
>
> Who is to say that it is not possible that a month after the final Battle
> scene the Lawgiver's attitudes and subsequent writings changed?
>
> Maybe there is a series of Lawgivers.
>
> Nothing is concluded, but I am of the belief that there are 2 timelines.
I
> am also of the belief that while some things have changed, the outcome may
> be similar. Otherwise, why not kill off the Mutants? They left the
> possibility for the same bomb to one day destroy Earth.
>
> Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2002 3:48
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues
> >
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > > I don't think that applies in this case.
> >
> > The operative word here being 'think' cause you don't know. And
> > neither do I for that matter. All we have are our own interpetations
> > and assumptions. I admitt that both theories have validity. Why are
> > you afraid to do the same? Reminds me of those that tried to forbid
> > the teaching of evolution.
> >
> >
> > > We may not know with 100% certainty what happens after BATTLE, but
> > we do know
> > > with 100% certainty that the timeline not only has been changed but
> > has been
> > > drastically changed. .
> >
> > No we don't know this. To quote Zaius, "Don't speak to me in
> > absolutes the evidence is contestable".
> >
> > > The mention of Aldo's name in the scene where Cornelius is talking
> > proves that
> > > the Corrington's intention for BATTLE was to clearly show that
> > Caesar had
> > > "changed lanes". Paul Dehn took out Aldo's name from the scene (I
> > can see the
> > > revision in my script) but that doesn't change the fact that
> > Cornelius still
> > > said it in ESCAPE and therefore it is still "canon".
> >
> > You stated in another post that Cornelius was lying about the
> > timeframe of Apes becoming slaves and revolting to protect his
> > family. So why wouldn't he lie about the name of revolt leader and
> > purposely pick a gorilla name for the same reason.
> >
> >
> > >The bottom line is that
> > > the "changed lanes" concept was so tightly connected to the
> > Corrington's BATTLE
> > > script that the only way Dehn could have credibly changed it back
> > into a
> > > circular timeline would have been to have Aldo kill Caesar instead
> > of the other
> > > way around. But that ending which Dehn wanted was rejected by
> > Jacobs.
> >
> > The only reason Jacobs rejected it was that he didn't want the ending
> > to be a downer. The Corringtons themselves have acknowledged the tear
> > at the end was meant to indicate that they hadn't changed lanes and
> > history would proceed as before. Dehn always said it was a circle and
> > he wrote the final draft of Battle. Jacobs even commented that the
> > intention was to show how the world of the first film was created. In
> > the DVD box set the timeline included on the Battle DVD shows a
> > circular timeline. So the writers, producer and studio all say it was
> > a circular timeline. I think they carry more weight than either you
> > or I on the subject.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > None of the things you mentioned qualifies as "evidence" for a
> > circular
> > > timeline. Just because the virus happens in both timelines does not
> > > make the timeline circular. Why would it? Just because the nuclear
> > > war occurs in both timelines does not make the timeline circular.
> > Just
> > > because the apes become slaves in both timelines does not make the
> > timeline
> > > circular. There is simply no reason that either Caesar or the
> > apeanauts
> > > would affect any of these things. The effect that
> > Caesar's "changing lanes" had
> > > on the timeline was to his OWN culture, the same culture as the
> > Lawgiver. The
> > > statues point out that the Lawgiver was influenced by Caesar in the
> > altered
> > > timeline as greatly as Zaius was influenced by the Lawgiver in the
> > original
> > > timeline.
> >
> >
> > Nothing you mention qualifies as evidence either. There is no
> > conclusive evidence for either theory because there's over 1300 of
> > untold history left at the end of Battle. Thus all we have are our
> > own interpetations.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

That would be an interesting story to explore, but I don't think it fits.
I got the feeling Cornelius and Zira knew Milo very well. But certainly
would be an interesting alternate take! Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Whitty" <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: RE: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Escape Interior


> Mr Cougar
>
> I am not sure if you got this post.
>
> It offers some interesting ideas, but nobody has responded.
>
> Do you, or does anybody else, have a comment?
>
> I think it is a highly explorable idea.
>
> Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@...]
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2002 5:54
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Escape Interior
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

.html

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:19 PM

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

In a message dated 6/24/2002 7:50:28 PM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

Lawgiver states at the beginning of the film that Apes had become slaves before
Cornelius & Zira arrived.

I don't think he says that Apes were slaves before the arrival of Zira and Cornelius. Just because he mentions Caesar being their "savior" doesn't mean slavery existed before the Ape-o-nauts arrival. He may have sent "their Savior" to be born onto this Earth to grow up to be the leader of the revolt when he came of age and slavery "was" in place.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

<.html

The fighting is a good touch at the end, and really the point of the final
scene in "Battle", that there will never be a "happily ever after" (nor
should there be in an "Apes" movie). It will always be a struggle to get
along. Reminds me of a scene in "Terminator 2", where kids are fighting and
John Connor says, "We're not going to make it, are we? People, I mean". And
Arnie says, "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves". I think Cameron was
more influenced by "Apes" then he lets on. Etc. - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Whitty" <whitty@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Timeline issues


> I'm not sure, don't get me wrong, but I always took the end of Battle to
be
> a slight downer. The gorilla pulling the human girl's hair (or was it the
> other way around?) - why would they choose to do film if not to show that
it
> is in our nature to fight (even when we are young and the enemy is boys or
> girls)?
>
> And the tear of Caesar - why? If there is a definite happy future, why
> bother? Then again, the future is always uncertain. Who would have
> predicted September 11?
>
> I still think there were 2 timelines but I think some of the scriptwriting
> shows that different writers had different opinions, and when Dehn's
script
> was re-written, they forgot to change other things for the sake of
> consistency.
>
> Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: james611102 [JamesA1102@...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:31
> > To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Timeline issues
> >
> >
> > Very good points Michael. They were probably trying to keep their
> > options open.
> >
> > --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > I still think the end of Battle was intended to be left OPEN.
> > >
> > > I also think this was in order to facilitate a further story, but
> > not the
> > > following year as had been the trend.
> > >
> > > Who is to say that it is not possible that a month after the final
> > Battle
> > > scene the Lawgiver's attitudes and subsequent writings changed?
> > >
> > > Maybe there is a series of Lawgivers.
> > >
> > > Nothing is concluded, but I am of the belief that there are 2
> > timelines. I
> > > am also of the belief that while some things have changed, the
> > outcome may
> > > be similar. Otherwise, why not kill off the Mutants? They left
> > the
> > > possibility for the same bomb to one day destroy Earth.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: james611102 [JamesA1102@a...]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2002 3:48
> > > > To: pota@y...
> > > > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > > > > I don't think that applies in this case.
> > > >
> > > > The operative word here being 'think' cause you don't know. And
> > > > neither do I for that matter. All we have are our own
> > interpetations
> > > > and assumptions. I admitt that both theories have validity. Why
> > are
> > > > you afraid to do the same? Reminds me of those that tried to
> > forbid
> > > > the teaching of evolution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > We may not know with 100% certainty what happens after BATTLE,
> > but
> > > > we do know
> > > > > with 100% certainty that the timeline not only has been
> > changed but
> > > > has been
> > > > > drastically changed. .
> > > >
> > > > No we don't know this. To quote Zaius, "Don't speak to me in
> > > > absolutes the evidence is contestable".
> > > >
> > > > > The mention of Aldo's name in the scene where Cornelius is
> > talking
> > > > proves that
> > > > > the Corrington's intention for BATTLE was to clearly show that
> > > > Caesar had
> > > > > "changed lanes". Paul Dehn took out Aldo's name from the
> > scene (I
> > > > can see the
> > > > > revision in my script) but that doesn't change the fact that
> > > > Cornelius still
> > > > > said it in ESCAPE and therefore it is still "canon".
> > > >
> > > > You stated in another post that Cornelius was lying about the
> > > > timeframe of Apes becoming slaves and revolting to protect his
> > > > family. So why wouldn't he lie about the name of revolt leader
> > and
> > > > purposely pick a gorilla name for the same reason.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >The bottom line is that
> > > > > the "changed lanes" concept was so tightly connected to the
> > > > Corrington's BATTLE
> > > > > script that the only way Dehn could have credibly changed it
> > back
> > > > into a
> > > > > circular timeline would have been to have Aldo kill Caesar
> > instead
> > > > of the other
> > > > > way around. But that ending which Dehn wanted was rejected by
> > > > Jacobs.
> > > >
> > > > The only reason Jacobs rejected it was that he didn't want the
> > ending
> > > > to be a downer. The Corringtons themselves have acknowledged the
> > tear
> > > > at the end was meant to indicate that they hadn't changed lanes
> > and
> > > > history would proceed as before. Dehn always said it was a
> > circle and
> > > > he wrote the final draft of Battle. Jacobs even commented that
> > the
> > > > intention was to show how the world of the first film was
> > created. In
> > > > the DVD box set the timeline included on the Battle DVD shows a
> > > > circular timeline. So the writers, producer and studio all say
> > it was
> > > > a circular timeline. I think they carry more weight than either
> > you
> > > > or I on the subject.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > None of the things you mentioned qualifies as "evidence" for a
> > > > circular
> > > > > timeline. Just because the virus happens in both timelines
> > does not
> > > > > make the timeline circular. Why would it? Just because the
> > nuclear
> > > > > war occurs in both timelines does not make the timeline
> > circular.
> > > > Just
> > > > > because the apes become slaves in both timelines does not make
> > the
> > > > timeline
> > > > > circular. There is simply no reason that either Caesar or the
> > > > apeanauts
> > > > > would affect any of these things. The effect that
> > > > Caesar's "changing lanes" had
> > > > > on the timeline was to his OWN culture, the same culture as the
> > > > Lawgiver. The
> > > > > statues point out that the Lawgiver was influenced by Caesar
> > in the
> > > > altered
> > > > > timeline as greatly as Zaius was influenced by the Lawgiver in
> > the
> > > > original
> > > > > timeline.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nothing you mention qualifies as evidence either. There is no
> > > > conclusive evidence for either theory because there's over 1300
> > of
> > > > untold history left at the end of Battle. Thus all we have are
> > our
> > > > own interpetations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

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

.html

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:39 PM

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Chimp or Gorilla

In a message dated 6/25/2002 12:49:41 PM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

You stated in another post that Cornelius was lying about the
timeframe of Apes becoming slaves and revolting to protect his
family. So why wouldn't he lie about the name of revolt leader and
purposely pick a gorilla name for the same reason.

You know, it is never specified that Aldo in the original timeline was a gorilla. And whose to say just because Aldo is a gorilla in "Battle," that the original was too? I mean there's no saying what certain name would apply to whatever species of ape. And, though I don't consider it "canon" at all, (to me it's just a basis for the movies,) in Boulle's novel, the first ape that talked on Soror was a chimpanzee. Now, if you were to take the premise of the first speaking ape from that book, then it could very well be that a chimp was the first to speak in the Apes original timeline as well.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the .

<.html

I think the idea is to let them know we want Classic "Apes" stories.
They'll listen to what people want to buy. Etc. - - - Jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Handley" <handleyr@...>
To: <pota@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Digest Number 1124


> >From: "Melkor" <melkor@...>
> >Here is the Dark Horse contact info. If they start getting a bunch of
> >requests from ape fans they would at least start thinking about it.
>
> I hate to disappoint anyone, but Dark Horse has a very strict rule about
> not reading un-solicited ideas for franchised titles like Star Wars,
Buffy,
> POTA, etc. If anyone who isn't well-known sends pitches that weren't
> solicited, they're obligated to return them un-read. The only way to go
> about it is to send them a query letter asking permission to pitch an idea
> and explaining your background (they only use experienced writers). If
> they feel you're qualified, they'll send you their guidelines for
> submitting, at which point you can pitch. If these guidelines aren't
> followed, you probably won't get far. I hate to be a downer -- I'm just
> trying to be helpful to those serious about such an attempt. It's not
easy
> to break into comics, and Dark Horse has become very exclusive in recent
> years. Their current policy is to use big-name writers, which is why,
even
> though I've done work for them in the past, I can't seem to get the time
of
> day from them lately. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

.html

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

From: mlccougar@...

To: pota@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 8:47 PM

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

In a message dated 6/25/2002 9:01:03 PM Central Standard Time, JamesA1102@... writes:

As shown here, the Lawgiver states apes were slaves, THEN God sent a savior. This leads into the flashbacks from Escape. The indication is that apes were slaves before Cornelius & Zira arrived.

Yes, but that line is taken out of context. The entire line is: "But in the fullness of time evil men betrayed God's trust, and in disobedience to His holy word, waged bloody wars not only against his own kind, but against the Apes, whom they reduced to slavery."

To me, that just means that over time, Man warred with the Apes. At the time of the Ape-o-nauts arrival the Apes weren't anything but zoo creatures, circus performers, and dwelling in the wild. There is no indication (other than an interpretation of the line you submitted) that they were enslaved, or even being imported for domestication.

I see where you could interpret the line the way that you're implying it. I however don't agree. I'm sure had the Apes actually been enslaved at the time of Z&C's arrival, they would have more than likely been seen as a threat to Mankind from the get-go. There wouldn't have been the "celebrity treatment." I'm sure everything Hasslein said about them being a threat would have been taken a lot more seriously, as there would have been an actual "threat." He could have said "Look Mr. President, we have to destroy these two before they can influence the slave population." And I'm sure he would have gotten his way. Even without any of their testimony, just the existence of two talking apes amongst the slave population would not have been taken kindly to by those in charge.

<.html

Yes you and I know it happened years after they arrived. But it just
shows that after 700 years the Apes historical records had become
distorted.

--- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/25/2002 9:01:03 PM Central Standard Time,
> JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
> > As shown here, the Lawgiver states apes were slaves, THEN God
sent a savior.
> > This leads into the flashbacks from Escape. The indication is
that apes
> > were slaves before Cornelius & Zira arrived.
> >
>
> Yes, but that line is taken out of context. The entire line
is: "But in the
> fullness of time evil men betrayed God's trust, and in
disobedience to His
> holy word, waged bloody wars not only against his own kind, but
against the
> Apes, whom they reduced to slavery."
>
> To me, that just means that over time, Man warred with the Apes.
At the time
> of the Ape-o-nauts arrival the Apes weren't anything but zoo
creatures,
> circus performers, and dwelling in the wild. There is no
indication (other
> than an interpretation of the line you submitted) that they were
enslaved, or
> even being imported for domestication.
>
> I see where you could interpret the line the way that you're
implying it. I
> however don't agree. I'm sure had the Apes actually been enslaved
at the time
> of Z&C's arrival, they would have more than likely been seen as a
threat to
> Mankind from the get-go. There wouldn't have been the "celebrity
treatment."
> I'm sure everything Hasslein said about them being a threat would
have been
> taken a lot more seriously, as there would have been an
actual "threat." He
> could have said "Look Mr. President, we have to destroy these two
before they
> can influence the slave population." And I'm sure he would have
gotten his
> way. Even without any of their testimony, just the existence of
two talking
> apes amongst the slave population would not have been taken kindly
to by
> those in charge.

Go back and watch it again. He mentions slavery as a segue into the
flashback for Escape. If you had seen the two previous films you'd
know that ape slavery happened between Escape and Conquest. If you
hadn't you'd think it happened prior to Escape.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> Agreed. He means there's slavery when Caesar arrives on the
scene in the opening of "Conquest". (The writers weren't THAT out of
it). Etc. -- - Jeff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mlccougar@a...
> To: pota@y...
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 5:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Re: re:Timeline issues
>
>
> In a message dated 6/24/2002 7:50:28 PM Central Standard Time,
JamesA1102@a... writes:
>
>
>
> Lawgiver states at the beginning of the film that Apes had
become slaves before
> Cornelius & Zira arrived.
>
>
> I don't think he says that Apes were slaves before the arrival
of Zira and Cornelius. Just because he mentions Caesar being
their "savior" doesn't mean slavery existed before the Ape-o-nauts
arrival. He may have sent "their Savior" to be born onto this Earth
to grow up to be the leader of the revolt when he came of age and
slavery "was" in place.
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The history the Lawgiver is teaching
is accurate but he is getting the dates wrong.

--- In pota@y..., <veetus@e...> wrote:
> What James is getting at is maybe the Lawgiver (or ape
historians) are getting history wrong, which we do today.

Is Paul Dehn still alive?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Melkor [melkor@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:38
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] re:Timeline issues
>
>
> >and assumptions. I admitt that both theories have validity. Why are
> >you afraid to do the same? Reminds me of those that tried to forbid
> >the teaching of evolution.
>
> I am "afraid" to admit it simply because I believe that there is
> no way at all
> that the BATTLE Lawgiver wrote or spoke the same words "Beware of
> the Beast
> Man..." that he did in PLANET's Sacred Scrolls. And it just
> doesn't make sense
> to me that on such a crucial issue the Lawgiver's views could
> have been twisted
> around into their exact opposite beliefs. In my view this is
> simply stretching
> things too far past the bounds of credibility but you are free to
> disagree.
>
>
> >You stated in another post that Cornelius was lying about the
> >timeframe of Apes becoming slaves and revolting to protect his
> >family. So why wouldn't he lie about the name of revolt leader and
> >purposely pick a gorilla name for the same reason.
>
> Both the Corringtons and Paul Dehn meant for the BATTLE Aldo to be
> the same as the ESCAPE Aldo. I won't say that a character is lying or
> mistaken unless there is no other possible explanation. Cornelius would
> have no reason to lie about the name if the Sacred Scrolls had
> said "Caesar"
> instead of saying "Aldo" because Cornelius named his son "Milo".
>
>
> >>The bottom line is that
> >> the "changed lanes" concept was so tightly connected to the
> >Corrington's BATTLE
> >> script that the only way Dehn could have credibly changed it back
> >into a
> >> circular timeline would have been to have Aldo kill Caesar instead
> >of the other
> >> way around. But that ending which Dehn wanted was rejected by
> >Jacobs.
> >
> >The only reason Jacobs rejected it was that he didn't want the ending
> >to be a downer. The Corringtons themselves have acknowledged the tear
> >at the end was meant to indicate that they hadn't changed lanes and
> >history would proceed as before. Dehn always said it was a circle and
> >he wrote the final draft of Battle. Jacobs even commented that the
> >intention was to show how the world of the first film was created. In
> >the DVD box set the timeline included on the Battle DVD shows a
> >circular timeline. So the writers, producer and studio all say it was
> >a circular timeline. I think they carry more weight than either you
> >or I on the subject.
>
> Every official "timeline" I have seen about POTA has been a joke. The
> Corringtons didn't put the tear in, Joyce was speculating about what
> she thought Dehn could have wanted it to mean. Joyce Corrington also said
> "Wasn't that stupid?" [Russo p212] about Dehn putting in the tear. Joyce
> said that because the tear simply didn't make any sense without
> Dehn making
> other major changes to the ending. The tear can mean anything
> (it seems like
> a mutant illusion to me) or nothing so you have to look at the story.
>
> The story of the BATTLE script from what I've read went pretty
> much like this.
> Paul Dehn worked on the original script. He wanted a circular
> timeline so in
> his script he had Aldo kill Caesar, and thus Caesar became irrelevent to
> history. Note that Dehn himself created the "Aldo" character in ESCAPE,
> CONQUEST, and BATTLE and like the Corringtons had intended for
> them all to be
> the same. Jacobs didn't like Dehn's ending, and then Dehn left and the
> Corringtons were given the script. The Corringtons kept a lot of Dehn's
> characters and a few of his overall basic story concepts. The
> Corringtons then
> wrote a story where the concept of Caesar "changing lanes" was tightly
> integrated into the story line itself. (See the Marvel adaptation
> which makes
> more sense). At the very end of the process Dehn was given the
> script again.
> Dehn couldn't do much without major changes at that point so he made a few
> tweaks like the tear (and changing Breck to Kolp?) and he also
> polished up a
> lot of the dialogue. Unfortunately since Dehn couldn't make a circular
> timeline without butchering the story because of the way the
> Corringtons had
> made the "changing lanes" tightly integrated with the story the
> overall effect
> of Dehn's last minute changes was simply to dumb down the story
> and make it
> harder to understand than it was supposed to be.
>
> I bet Dehn didn't want BATTLE to cancel his cool BENEATH ending. But I
> like both endings. Both an optimistic ending and a pessimestic ending
> is okay with me as long as it is a *good* ending.
>
>
> >Nothing you mention qualifies as evidence either. There is no
> >conclusive evidence for either theory because there's over 1300 of
>
> Besides the Lawgiver and the Sacred Scrolls? The BATTLE timeline
> has at least
> 700 YEARS of "humans and apes living in peace and harmony." That
> is a *big*
> achievement on the POTA. So we already have a huge deviation from the
> centuries of "carniverous gorillas" of the PLANET timelne to the
> centuries of
> peaceful coexistence in the BATTLE timeline.
>
>
>

No he died in 1976.

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> Is Paul Dehn still alive?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Melkor [melkor@m...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2002 10:38
> > To: pota@y...
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] re:Timeline issues
> >
> >
> > >and assumptions. I admitt that both theories have validity. Why
are
> > >you afraid to do the same? Reminds me of those that tried to
forbid
> > >the teaching of evolution.
> >
> > I am "afraid" to admit it simply because I believe that there is
> > no way at all
> > that the BATTLE Lawgiver wrote or spoke the same words "Beware of
> > the Beast
> > Man..." that he did in PLANET's Sacred Scrolls. And it just
> > doesn't make sense
> > to me that on such a crucial issue the Lawgiver's views could
> > have been twisted
> > around into their exact opposite beliefs. In my view this is
> > simply stretching
> > things too far past the bounds of credibility but you are free to
> > disagree.
> >
> >
> > >You stated in another post that Cornelius was lying about the
> > >timeframe of Apes becoming slaves and revolting to protect his
> > >family. So why wouldn't he lie about the name of revolt leader
and
> > >purposely pick a gorilla name for the same reason.
> >
> > Both the Corringtons and Paul Dehn meant for the BATTLE Aldo to
be
> > the same as the ESCAPE Aldo. I won't say that a character is
lying or
> > mistaken unless there is no other possible explanation.
Cornelius would
> > have no reason to lie about the name if the Sacred Scrolls had
> > said "Caesar"
> > instead of saying "Aldo" because Cornelius named his son "Milo".
> >
> >
> > >>The bottom line is that
> > >> the "changed lanes" concept was so tightly connected to the
> > >Corrington's BATTLE
> > >> script that the only way Dehn could have credibly changed it
back
> > >into a
> > >> circular timeline would have been to have Aldo kill Caesar
instead
> > >of the other
> > >> way around. But that ending which Dehn wanted was rejected by
> > >Jacobs.
> > >
> > >The only reason Jacobs rejected it was that he didn't want the
ending
> > >to be a downer. The Corringtons themselves have acknowledged
the tear
> > >at the end was meant to indicate that they hadn't changed lanes
and
> > >history would proceed as before. Dehn always said it was a
circle and
> > >he wrote the final draft of Battle. Jacobs even commented that
the
> > >intention was to show how the world of the first film was
created. In
> > >the DVD box set the timeline included on the Battle DVD shows a
> > >circular timeline. So the writers, producer and studio all say
it was
> > >a circular timeline. I think they carry more weight than either
you
> > >or I on the subject.
> >
> > Every official "timeline" I have seen about POTA has been a
joke. The
> > Corringtons didn't put the tear in, Joyce was speculating about
what
> > she thought Dehn could have wanted it to mean. Joyce Corrington
also said
> > "Wasn't that stupid?" [Russo p212] about Dehn putting in the
tear. Joyce
> > said that because the tear simply didn't make any sense without
> > Dehn making
> > other major changes to the ending. The tear can mean anything
> > (it seems like
> > a mutant illusion to me) or nothing so you have to look at the
story.
> >
> > The story of the BATTLE script from what I've read went pretty
> > much like this.
> > Paul Dehn worked on the original script. He wanted a circular
> > timeline so in
> > his script he had Aldo kill Caesar, and thus Caesar became
irrelevent to
> > history. Note that Dehn himself created the "Aldo" character in
ESCAPE,
> > CONQUEST, and BATTLE and like the Corringtons had intended for
> > them all to be
> > the same. Jacobs didn't like Dehn's ending, and then Dehn left
and the
> > Corringtons were given the script. The Corringtons kept a lot
of Dehn's
> > characters and a few of his overall basic story concepts. The
> > Corringtons then
> > wrote a story where the concept of Caesar "changing lanes" was
tightly
> > integrated into the story line itself. (See the Marvel adaptation
> > which makes
> > more sense). At the very end of the process Dehn was given the
> > script again.
> > Dehn couldn't do much without major changes at that point so he
made a few
> > tweaks like the tear (and changing Breck to Kolp?) and he also
> > polished up a
> > lot of the dialogue. Unfortunately since Dehn couldn't make a
circular
> > timeline without butchering the story because of the way the
> > Corringtons had
> > made the "changing lanes" tightly integrated with the story the
> > overall effect
> > of Dehn's last minute changes was simply to dumb down the story
> > and make it
> > harder to understand than it was supposed to be.
> >
> > I bet Dehn didn't want BATTLE to cancel his cool BENEATH
ending. But I
> > like both endings. Both an optimistic ending and a pessimestic
ending
> > is okay with me as long as it is a *good* ending.
> >
> >
> > >Nothing you mention qualifies as evidence either. There is no
> > >conclusive evidence for either theory because there's over 1300
of
> >
> > Besides the Lawgiver and the Sacred Scrolls? The BATTLE timeline
> > has at least
> > 700 YEARS of "humans and apes living in peace and harmony." That
> > is a *big*
> > achievement on the POTA. So we already have a huge deviation
from the
> > centuries of "carniverous gorillas" of the PLANET timelne to the
> > centuries of
> > peaceful coexistence in the BATTLE timeline.
> >
> >
> >

>From: mlccougar@...
>I'm sure you're right about their policies regarding unsolicited material.
>However, what we are trying to do is get them to just do a line of Classic
>Apes comics. Sure, it'd be cool if they'd take our suggestions, and/or if

any

>writers in the group had anything published, but you're probably right: It
>more than likely won't happen. We can however write them, email them, (call
>even) and suggest that they do a line of comics based on the original
>concepts and ideas.

Oh, certainly -- it's worth a try. I didn't mean to imply you shouldn't
try. I was just posting their policy for those ambitious enough to try to
pitch anything. I'd LOVE to see stories about the original concepts and
ideas, much more than the new ones. I wish you luck!

--- In pota@y..., "Anthony B. McElveen" <abmac@i...> wrote:

> 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

*** I don't know if I can buy the idea that the Mutants feel "naked"
without their masks on. They take them off when their religious "Mass
of the Bomb" ceremony culminates, which suggests that there is a
religious taboo against keeping the masks on, rather than the other
way around. Their "inmost selves", their true appearance, is caused by
radiation exposure--which they obviously link with their
yet-to-be-detonated Bomb (the "Holy Fallout"). And who knows--maybe
they continue to be exposed to radiation which emanates specifically
from the Bomb? Perhaps, if they were to encase the Bomb in a lead
silo, they might not suffer ANY radiation exposure other than the
residual effects of the nuking of the New York/New Jersey area; given
that you can go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki today and not suffer
horrible radiation sickness--since it's been almost 57 years since
those sites got nuked in the first place--perhaps the Forbidden Zone
would be not so bad a place for humans to pass through. Remember in
PLANET, when Taylor asks Dodge if there's any trace of "dangerous
ionization"? Dodge answers, "No." This implies that although the soil
may be "poisonous" (as Cornelius says) due to the irradiation of the
Nuke War, it may just mean that it is incapable of sustaining plant
life ("...nothing will grow here..."), yet is NOT necessarily
cancer-causing, etc.

And there's really no way for us to know explicitly whether or not the
Mutants (in BENEATH) are fertile or infertile. Just because they have
children and infants doesn't mean that the wombs of Mutant females
bore them--they may very well have gestated within the wombs of
surrogate mothers: the wombs of the mute, primitive human women whom
the Mutants (perhaps) occasionally abduct just for that purpose.
Furthermore, we don't know that radiation caused the Mutants'
telepathy, either. It's a fair bet, granted; but it could very well be
that way back when (i.e. even BEFORE the Nuke War) there was a man (or
a woman) who was already genetically predisposed to telepathy, perhaps
due to a birth defect or to the prenatal ingestion (through the
placenta) of a mind-altering substance. If that individual were to be
one of the survivors of the Nuke War, and if he/she were to be able to
pass that "mutant gene" on to his/her child(ren), then that "telepathy
gene" would spread into the gene pool of the Nuke War survivor group.
The exposure to post-Nuke War radiation might, then, have had nothing
whatsoever to do with the emergence of telepathy amongst the
Kolp-Mendez group.
Exposure to radiation, however, DOES tend to have a negative result,
such as the malformation of the fetus. A pregnant woman exposed to
radiation would have a much higher tendency to bear malformed children
(and not necessarily children with the rare "good" mutation, such as
a telepathy gene); continued exposure to such radiation would be
dangerous for the long-term survivability of the population of people
who continue to inhabit the radioactive landscape of the "forbidden
zones"--hence, the POSSIBILITY that that group might make use of the
occasionally abducted human female who dwelt nearby (in the forested
areas)in order to ensure that the pre-planned "test-tube babies" would
have a healthy uterus in which to gestate.

Mind you, this is all just speculation. I don't necessarily endorse
the Mutants Abducting Non-Mutant Women theory, but there's no evidence
that explicitly rules it out, as far as I can tell. Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence, as they say.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002

>
> 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!

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

> In a message dated 6/23/2002 11:18:02 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... 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."

*** Does that mean that not only Alma but ALL of the irradiated women
dwelling in that bombed-out city's ruins with Mendez would latch on to
that idea, that whatever they should end up looking like THAT would be
thought of as "beautiful"? Although the "uglification" of the
"Mutants" has obviously started by the time BATTLE occurs, eventually
(in BENEATH) we see just how damned ugly they will get. In other
words, as the centuries go by the Mutants get uglier... and uglier...
and uglier...
Is it any wonder that they would resort to creating masks which show
their faces as they WOULD be if not for the radiation? I don't buy the
idea that they wear those masks in order to fool outsiders into seeing
them a certain way. Just how many outsiders make their way into the
Mutants' underground cities? The Apes have the Lawgiver's "ancient
taboo" which keeps them away; the deteriorating humans who dwell in
the forests would tend to stay where the food is--which rules out the
desert Forbidden Zone areas. It makes much more sense that the Mutants
make their masks in order to satisfy their need to perceive themselves
as different from each other; without their masks, they all look
hideously alike--you can't even tell any racial differences. But with
the masks on, not only can you tell that "Negro" is a black man, but
that the robe-clad Albina is a female (with a wig of blonde hair, to
make her more feminine).
The Mutants take off the masks only (as far as we know) when they are
in the presence of their "god" (when "Negro" is about to die, he too
takes his mask off, knowing that he will be going to "meet his Maker"
in the afterlife: taking off his mask at the last moment is like an
"extreme unction"/"last rites" kind of thing).

This covering-over of their true appearance with the latex illusion of
their past physical appearance is similar to their use of audible
voices when they "pray", when they "sing to [their] God". Although
they can communicate telepathically, evidently their "inner voices"
cannot produce harmonies, which they require VOCALIZATIONS to produce.
Each telepathic statement or question is "beamed" into the recipient's
mind as a sort of "meme", all-at-once, when they nod in Brent's
direction, for instance, during the Interrogation scene. Contrast that
depiction of telepathy with the telepathic Talosians from STAR TREK's
"The Menagerie", where their lips don't move yet Captain Pike hears
their voices (as does the audience). In BENEATH, the audience hears
only those peculiar "MEEP!" noises (which, for those of you who don't
know, can be obtained on the BENEATH soundtrack CD offered through
FilmScore Monthly). Hard to harmonize a hymn to the Bomb when the
whole song is just one monosyllabic tone--hence the need to use the
"primitive accomplishment" of audible speech. And, in the "All Things
Bright and Beautiful..." song, the Mutants refer to the "fact" that
their Bomb God "gave us EYES to see with, and LIPS that we might tell
/ how great the Bomb Almighty who made all things well". Their EYES
and LIPS are parts of their anatomy that their ancestors had BEFORE
the Nuke War; they still use their lips in order to Pray and to Sing,
yet they--as telepaths--don't need them to communicate with each
other. They still use their eyes, even though they can "see"
telepathically--as in those scenes where Mendez and his fellow Mutants
"see" the projections of Taylor during the Brent interrogation, or the
projections of the Ape army during their Lawgiver-bleeds illusion. Do
they actually NEED their fleshly eyes? Probably not. Yet they still
make use of those "primitive" parts of their anatomy, considering them
to have been made by their Bomb God.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002

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

> 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.

*** The "scrolls" in question that I mentioned (in the 6-23-2002
posting below) are not the "Sacred Scrolls" which are quoted by Zaius
and Cornelius in PLANET (i.e. "And Proteus brought the upright beast
into the garden..." and "Beware the beast Man..."), but are the
"secret scrolls" which Cornelius tells Hasslein about in ESCAPE.
Cornelius never explicitly quotes from them, and we have no way of
knowing ANYTHING about them save what he tells Hasslein (and us, the
audience). Cornelius specifically mentions the Dog-and-Cat Plague, a
period of "two centuries" afterwards during which humans take Apes as
pets, then the onset of Ape Slavery--and then Zira adds that "after
three more centuries" of servitude the Apes "turn the tables" on their
human masters; then Cornelius mentions an ape (he doesn't specify a
gorilla or a chimp--or an orangutan, either, for that matter) named
"Aldo" who "did not grunt" but spoke the word "No!"
Were Cornelius and Zira telling the truth? Were they just making all
this up? WERE there any so-called "secret scrolls" that were "kept
hidden from the masses"? What does the ensuing "future history" show
happening?
1.) A plague strikes "every dog and cat on Earth" eight years prior to
CONQUEST, or in 1991 - 8 years = 1983; that plague was said, by
Armando, to have been brought back from outer space by one of the
astronauts, and it killed off all the dogs and cats on Earth "within a
month". This alone would be an extraordinary coincidence--given that
Cornelius told Hasslein that in his "prehistory" there had been just
such a plague. It would be like Cornelius saying that a plague struck
which caused all badgers born thereafter to have two heads... and then
for exactly that two-headed badger plague to have happened before
CONQUEST.
2.) Apes are taken in as pets; again, Cornelius' statement about an
event recorded in the "secret scrolls" comes to pass.
3.) Apes are eventually turned from Pets into Slaves; yet again,
Cornelius' statement comes true.
4.) An ape named "Aldo" appears on the scene, and he vocalizes the
word "No!" Not only does "an ape" appear with this name, but TWO apes
do: the chimpanzee whose beating prompts Caesar to yell out "Lousy
human bastards!" in CONQUEST, and the gorilla played by Claude Akins
in BATTLE. This event is "fully documented in the Secret Scrolls,"
according to Cornelius [Note: the original script has "secret
scrolls", although the subtitling of the DVD has him allegedly saying
"Sacred Scrolls"--which doesn't make sense, since the Sacred Scrolls
would not have mentioned a prior, superior HUMAN civilization which
once enslaved Apes... since the 1st Article of Faith is that God
created the Ape in His own image, etc., and made him [the Ape] to be
the Lord of the Planet. The DVD subtitling is in error, and the
wording in the script is to be preferred; unfortunately, the words
"sacred" and "secret" sound so much alike that the error is an easy
one to make, and it doesn't help that Roddy McDowall's delivery of the
line sounds like it could be either word.]

I'm sure there are those out there (mlccougar, to be sure) who will
interrupt me and point out the 500 years bit; granted, in ESCAPE
Cornelius tells Hasslein that there was 200 years of Apes as Pets, and
Zira mentions 3 more centuries of Apes as Slaves--but IF both
Cornelius and Zira knew that the "secret scrolls" had ACTUALLY said
that those two time periods were "2 YEARS" and "3 more YEARS", and IF
they knew that the Plague would strike in only 10 years time (i.e.
1973 + 10 = 1983), and IF they knew that their unborn son would
possibly be alive (provided, of course, that Hasslein doesn't
murder them right then and there in Camp Eleven) during those years of
turmoil... then wouldn't it make sense for Cornelius (firstly,
followed by Zira taking his lead) to purposefully alter the word
"year" to the word "centuries" in order to give Hasslein (and his
cronies) the false expectation that their society would have half a
millennium of time to look forward to? After all, they DO have their
unborn child to think about.

As for comparisons with the Bible and its disputed accuracy, I'm not
one to claim that the Bible is "inerrant", as "Bible-believing"
Christians tend to do. I'm not omniscient in this regard, and neither
is anybody else. But, the chronometric information aside, the "secret
scrolls" ARE accurate, since what Cornelius said those scrolls
revealed as having happened DID happen (or WILL happen, from
Cornelius' viewpoint in 1973). I think it's better to compare the
"secret scrolls" not with the Bible but with the unnamed scroll from
which the John Huston "Lawgiver" reads in 2670, in the frame-sequence
from BATTLE ("In the beginning, God created Beast and Man..."). Both
seem to be more accurate depictions of the Past, telling of the prior
advanced Human civilization, the Ape Slavery, the Revolution, etc. The
"Sacred Scrolls," which gloss over that "prehistory" and re-interpret
the "genesis" period of Simian history, were written 1,200 years prior
to PLANET (according to Zaius, who is not contradicted by Cornelius,
hence is probably telling the truth as the Apes see it), which would
place its writing at circa 2755 A.D. to 2778 A.D. (depending on which
date for PLANET--3978 or 3955--you prefer). Since this date
[2755-2778] is about a century AFTER the scene in BATTLE [2670], it
shows that there had to have been a re-writing of the "simian
scriptures" by ANOTHER "Lawgiver"--one who isn't in favor of equality
with humans, as his predecessor had been.
Unless, of course, you feel free to just throw away any and all of the
chronological information given in the movies. That's not what I
prefer, but, hey, that's just me.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002

>
> --- 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

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

> OK then maybe after the war a space probe returned to Earth with the
> virus.
> As to Cornelius' comment about English, you're assuming that he had
> an exact point of reference before Escape. Maybe he had assumed that
> the plauge was 2,500 years or more in the past and that the Ape
> revolt was 500 years after that. Maybe he himself didn't even
> realize the discrepency himself at first and only did so later (off
> screen). You have to admit he had more important things to think
> about at the time.
>

*** Prior to the Presidential Commission scene, before Milo is killed
by the gorilla in the next cage, prior to Dixon and Branton finding
out that these "Ape-onauts" can speak English, Milo reminds Cornelius
and Zira about the "date meter" on the ship (the EARTH-TIME
chronometer), telling them that after the shockwave which hit the ship
after the explosion, the date meter went BACKWARD. Cornelius exclaims,
"Yes...!", obviously remembering that odd moment. Then Milo
specifically mentions a period of "some two thousand years hence"
between that moment (sometime in 1973) and the Destruction of the
Earth "in an Ape war of aggression", which had been their Present
(i.e. 3955). So, then, BEFORE the Commission hearing, Cornelius
already knows that they've gone backwards through Time about 2000
years--he himself saw the chronometer clicking backwards, just as Zira
did--she drunkenly tells Hasslein the date moved backwards from
"thirty nine... fifty... something" to "1973". In other words, "some
2000 years", rounded off to the nearest hundred.
Knowing about this nearly 2000-year epoch separating their time from
1973, Cornelius LATER tells the Commission about his language
(English) being the language of his people (the Apes) for "2000 years,
roughly". By his "people" he isn't just talking about chimpanzees who
can speak, but also about orangutans and gorillas--which Zira
humorously denigrates then and there as "blinkered, pseudoscientific
geese" and "militaristic nincompoops".
Cornelius knew that there were "English"-speaking Apes on Earth, as
far as he knew, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, in 1973. Only later on, when his
celebrity status has changed, and when he is being harshly
interrogated by Hasslein and his NSA/CIA goons, does he suggest the
"500 years" duration between the Plague and Aldo saying "No!"

Patrick

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

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

> In a message dated 6/23/2002 11:37:26 AM Central Standard Time,
> patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
>
> > ...yet have different Presidents in 1972...).
>
> One thing you have to remember, "Escape" was released in 1971, but

supposedly took place in ' 73... So, since there was no election in '
71, the then president would have still been in office at that time.
The president in 'Escape" would have been a "generic" president that
would have been voted in in the 1972 election. And you really
couldn't have expected Fox to go to Nixon and say, "Hey, would you
like to be in our new 'Apes' film?"

*** So, then, I should just assume that the President whom Hasslein
talks to is Richard M. Nixon? Au contraire, mon frere.
Not only is this U.S. President in the "POTA universe" in 1973 NOT
Nixon, but he's also a different kind of man. Nixon wouldn't have
hesitated to have Hasslein's goons slip poison into Zira's food,
killing her and her unborn baby. The character played by William
Windom, however, is demonstrably different than Nixon--he has enough
of a sense of Right & Wrong to give the "Ape-onauts" the benefit of
the doubt. It's only after Hasslein convinces him that the Apes should
be questioned by interrogators who are not "unprofessional" that the
shocking revelations are made by Zira under the influence of sodium
pentothal. Even then, Windom's character "stands by" the
recommendations of the Commission--specifically ordering Hasslein that
the Apes NOT be killed, as Hasslein wishes.
I don't see Nixon batting an eye at having the Apes killed--especially
given that it could be made to look like an accident, what with CIA
assassination techniques like food-poisoning, etc.

Patrick

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

> Umm...it's winter Rory! Well it is in Australia, so I can't throw a

shrimp

> on the Barbie for you!
>
> HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!
>
> Michael

"How in hell did that upside-down Aussie civilization get started?"

(Just joking, buddy!)

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Haristas@a... [Haristas@a...]
> Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2002 12:46
> To: pota@y...
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Happy Birthday, Rory!
>
>
> In a message dated 6/22/02 7:34:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> sand_hill_school@y... 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
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of

Service.

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

> Patrick,
>
> This post is too long.
>
> I think you might "win" a lot of arguments because people just give
> up trying to communicate and you have the nature of a Politician.
> That's not a compliment but I think it is an accurate observation.
>
> I guess essentially what I am saying is that there are degrees of
> believability and I find almost anything far more believable than
> your mothership Earth idea. From that basis, I find nothing anyone
> could put forward would be unbelievable, just less believable to

some.

>
> When I say: "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." I am
> referring to Taylor. He is cruel and negative. He does toy with
> Landon. He may not be thinking logically when he awakes from a

sleep

> of many hundreds of years to find he is in a sinking ship [on an
> unknown planet. Agreed?
>
> Michael
>

*** Agreed? Well, sorry, Mike, but No. Taylor comes across in the
post-opening credit scenes as matter-of-fact. He's the one who is
looking at things in a way that he considers to be realistic. Landon
pines over the dead Lt. Stewart: Taylor doesn't bother crying over it,
since he knows she's been dead "nearly a year" of Ship-Time. Landon
holds out hope that SOMEHOW they can eventually get back to Earth,
thinking that Hasslein's Theory MAY be false, and if they can just
"get a fix" on their position (etc. etc.): but Taylor says, "It's a
fact, Landon; buy it: you'll sleep better," and later on he drills it
into him: "We are HERE and it is NOW; you get ahold of that and hang
onto it or you may as well be dead."
I don't see ANY trace of panic from Taylor. If anything, he's
nonchalant about it all. He's got enough wits to be able to subtract
1947 (Landon's birthdate) from 3978 (the EARTH-TIME date Taylor sees
before the ship sinks) and tell Landon that he "look(s) pretty chipper
for a man who's 2,031 years old..." It takes logic to do that.

As I've said before, feel free to disbelieve in my "mothership Earth"
scenario. I've never insisted that all other POTA fans adopt it as
"gospel"; it's a scenario which "unflubs" the flubs, and makes much
more sense, in my opinion. In addition, it ties in the movie POTA with
the Boulle source, in which the orbiting "mothership" circles Soror
whilst its 3 crewmembers land on the planet in "une chaloupe" (i.e. "a
launch" or SHUTTLECRAFT), like Star Fleet personnel landing a
shuttlecraft (such as the GALILEO) onto a planet while the ENTERPRISE
orbits overhead.
We can argue till the cows come home over the plausibility of the
alternative--that Brent & Skipper could somehow follow Taylor's ship
for MONTHS of Ship-Time and over HUNDREDS of LightYears... and
incredibly find their way to landing not only on the same planet
Taylor's ship landed on, but WITHIN A HORSE-RIDE'S DISTANCE of his
landing site. I've argued elsewhere (on the "goingfaster" discussion
board) that this is impossible, since the planet Earth, between the
time Taylor's ship lands and the time Brent lands the BENEATH ship,
has to have moved away from the position it was in in its orbit by
millions of miles. If Brent were following "Taylor's trajectory"
across hundreds of lightyears of space, then that trajectory would be
to the spot where Earth had been when Taylor landed on it, and NOT to
the spot where Earth would eventually be when Brent's ship got back to
the solar system. It makes infinitely more sense that the trajectory
Brent followed (which he calls "Taylor's trajectory") was the RE-ENTRY
trajectory--the path from orbit down to near the surface coordinate
where Taylor's ship was KNOWN to have landed. If Brent had approached
the planet Earth from interplanetary space, then he would have KNOWN
that it was Earth (unless he couldn't recognize the continents below
him--remember, he was awake prior to re-entry, since he "took an
Earth-Time reading" beforehand). And even IF he couldn't tell that the
planet in front of him was the Earth, how could he know where to land
his ship? Taylor's ship landed WEEKS beforehand (Taylor to Zira: "...
it's been WEEKS..."); as far as Brent knows, he could have landed
ANYWHERE on the surface of the planet. How does Brent know to land his
ship where he does land it--in the desert near the Ape City area? How?
The ONLY way he could possibly know where to land his ship is if he
knew that "Taylor's trajectory" was a RE-ENTRY trajectory leading down
from a specific orbital position to a specific geodetic coordinate.
The ONLY scenario I've seen out there that addresses this aspect of
the "logic" necessary to make this saga even remotely believable, is
my own scenario. Maybe there's somebody out there who can make better
sense of this; I'd like to see a scenario that does, and compare &
contrast it with mine. I've yet to see it. If you, Mike, have a better
scenario to explain this particular aspect--the "flight dynamics" of
these ANSA ships--then please, by all means, post it. Landing a
spaceship onto a planet is like shooting skeet: you have to have an
idea of WHERE the skeet thingy is going to be prior to pulling the
trigger of the gun you aim NOT at where it is but where it WILL BE. In
Brent's case, not only do you have to hit the same skeet, but you also
have to hit it at the exact same point, otherwise there's nothing to
prevent the probability that your ship will re-enter and land
thousands of miles away.
This is gettin' rather long, and I don't want to irk "T" any more than
I've already done, so I'll let it rest with that.

Patrick

> > *** 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?

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

> I always thought Taylor's report was simply a recording that stayed
> on the ship, just as civil servants make and file reports all the
> time and as trekkies do in their "Captain's Log". Is there any
> evidence that these reports were being sent anywhere?
>
> Michael

*** Taylor, speaking to whomever will eventually hear his "final
report" says, "You who are reading me now are a different breed--I
hope a better one. I leave the Twentieth Century with no regrets. But,
one more thing... if anybody's listening that is..."

Later on, Taylor tells Landon, "Even if you COULD get back [i.e. to
the planet Earth], they'd think you were something that fell out of a
tree."

I don't think it's likely that Taylor would address anybody on his own
crew (after another 12 months of Ship-Time hibernating) as "a
different breed" whom he hopes will be "a better one" than the breed
of humanity he left behind in the 20th Century. He, knowing that
"almost 700 years" have gone by on Earth, can only be sending out a
report to whomever is still there on planet Earth, centuries ahead of
the time he left it, in 1972.

I think that clinches it.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002

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

> Is the application of mathematical formulae here an attempt to
> suggest you have authority? Why would you feel it is necessary to
> give figures here?
>
> Michael

*** Mike, it's an attempt to use LOGIC in order to deduce other
relevant "facts" regarding the POTA scenario. Any theory which cannot
make sense out of simple mathematics deserves skepticism; at a bare
minimum, any theory that seeks to be taken seriously should be able to
make sense out of the numbers. Too much of what passes for "sci-fi"
out there is sloppy as hell with the logic--mathematical or otherwise.
The writers of SF that I admire take the care to get their facts
straight (such as Asimov, in his novel "NEMESIS", where he gets a
little bit technical in his hyperspace-drive descriptions); otherwise,
it's nothing more than "science fantasy", where the numbers don't
matter, really, because it's all just pseudoscientific technobabble
meant to give a science-fictional "color" to the background.

And, really, what's so difficult about the math I described below?
Everybody knows that there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an
hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; and anybody can get out a stopwatch
and time the period during the opening scene of PLANET where the
EARTH-TIME clock clicks ahead first from 3-23-2673 to 3-24-2673
and then from 3-26-2673 to 3-27-2673, during which about ninety three
seconds of SHIP-TIME transpire. Those 3 days of EARTH-TIME, the 24th,
25th, and 26th of March, 2673 last only about 93 seconds of SHIP-TIME.
The math is SIMPLE: 3 x 86,400 / 93 = 2,787 (rounded to the nearest
whole number). From that you can calculate the Einsteinian
relativistic Time Dilation Ratio (and, hence, the percentage of
Lightspeed according to Einstein's theory). Taking that in conjunction
with all sorts of other details, I was able to concoct a plausible SF
hypothetical "warpdrive"/" Hassleinian hyperdrive" which makes sense
out of ALL of the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME numbers in the movies and
the TV series. In addition to that, I was able to concoct a plausible
reason as to why Taylor somehow ends up back on Earth, rather than on
the planet he thought he'd landed on, hundreds of Lightyears away. All
of that... because of the Logic of Number.
Math can be your friend, Mike; it's worked for me, in MY scenario. If
it doesn't work for you or for your scenario, then maybe your scenario
doesn't have as much logic to it. In my opinion, a theory/scenario is
useful if it is able to satisfactorily EXPLAIN THE FACTS. The numbers
given in the POTA saga are, as far as I'm concerned, FACTS which my
scenario had to deal with. I couldn't just sweep them under the rug
and ignore them, or hope that potential readers of my science fiction
POTA novel-in-progress would gloss over them, too. That might be good
enough for others out there, but it ain't good enough for me (as a
reader of SF) or for many others out there who also read SF with a
critical eye.

Patrick Michael Tilton
EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002

>
> --- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
>
> 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".

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

> The clocks are theoretical. This journey is the first of its kind.

> Hasslein's "theory" is referred to. Anything from the "theory" is
> theoretical (anything in science, according to Einstein, is
> theoretical).
>
> Because "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", it does not follow that they did
> this and there is nothing in the story that suggests they did***.
>
> Nowhere does Taylor prove Hasslein's theory to be synchronised with
> the accuracy of the clock. Hasslein's theory may be correct, but

the

> time on the clock may not be percise. Taylor's may have
> malfunctioned, or Brent's for that matter. Water may effect the
> accuracy.
>
> Michael

*** ...and there is nothing in the story that suggests that they did
not. And, c'mon! Answer me this: what the hell ELSE did they have to
do during that 6 month period between Liftoff and Hibernation? Don't
you think that they would have had as one of their priorities the
TESTING of "Hasslein's hypothesis"? Christ Almighty! but the success
or failure of that very theory is at the HEART of their mission. I
should think that the most responsible thing for them to do--at the
earliest possible & convenient time--is to do just such a test of
Hasslein's theory, just in case what Hasslein THOUGHT would probably
happen (in accordance with what he'd theorized would happen) was
drastically DIFFERENT from what the astronauts could perceive to be
happening... merely by looking out the damn front window!
Are you seriously suggesting that after they lift off from Cape
Kennedy, after their ship blasts out of Earth orbit and heads out
toward the constellation Orion... that Taylor and his crew just sit
back FOR SIX MONTHS and just ASSUME that the engines are working
properly, that their navigational computer is A-okay, that the
perceived movements of stars (as they fly past them) just happen to
match Hasslein's educated guesses? Look at Dodge from the moment they
are in the lifeboat, after their ship sinks. Not one second goes by
that he isn't busy examining something or other with one of his
"sensors", trying to understand the environment he finds himself in.
Taylor doesn't have to order him to do any of this--he's "on the job"
from the get-go (Landon has to be reminded to "join the expedition").

The time on the clocks MATTERS. When Zira can see the accurate
year-date (1973) AFTER the back-through-Time "jump", that can ONLY be
because the year-date she saw BEFORE the "jump" was also accurate:
3955. If the chronometer had been malfunctioning, then the odds of the
year-date "1973" showing up are 1 in 9999. It's as simple as that.

Patrick

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

> Certainly they would become used to each other, particularly over

the centuries. They would probably even find humans repulsive before
mutation. There is not only one possible reason they would wear a
mask.

>
> I'm still amazed how passionately you dismiss so much when you are

the guy who can offer the "mothership earth" scenario!!

>
> Michael

*** You speak of my "mothership earth" scenario as if it is undeniably
implausible and far-fetched; I've listed a score of reasons why it
not only makes sense out of the details given in the POTA saga
itself, but also makes infinitely more sense from a logistical
standpoint than any alternatives offered up by you or by others.

Here's yet one more.
1.) Those who assume that Brent & Skipper were sent out from the
planet Earth to follow AFTER Taylor, along his "trajectory" which was
to a destination 320 Lightyears away across interstellar space (a
"trajectory" that Taylor had been following for 6 months of SHIP-TIME
prior to him going into hibernation), also have to account for the
"cargo" Taylor mentions by assuming that somewhere behind the aft
bulkhead of his ship, behind the pressure door, that THERE is where
all the cargo for the mission was being kept (rather than in an
orbiting mothership, as my scenario suggests).
2.) But the ship allegedly sent from planet Earth after Taylor (to
"rescue" him) can be seen IN ITS ENTIRETY: it is the ship we see in
BENEATH, with its extremely limited amount of room; it isn't sticking
its nosecone out of a murky lake--we can see the entire ship, from
the tip of the nosecone to the rocket bell on the back. Does anybody
here actually believe that the ship in BENEATH is equipped with a
Toilet AND a Kitchen AND enough Food and Supplies to sustain at least
2 astronauts (Brent & Skipper) for AT LEAST 6 MONTHS? Maybe if the
damn thing were like Dr. Who's TARDIS, with a skyscraper's worth of
room tucked away into the 4th dimension, MAYBE! But it just ain't BIG
enough, so I don't buy it.
3.) My "mothership U.S.S. Earth" scenario makes infinitely better
sense of this. In my scenario, the "Earth" which sends Brent on the
"rescue mission" is the big ship up above them, a superior officer on
the orbiting mothership having given them the mission. The ship sent
down is big enough to carry at least 6 other people, if it is a
"sister-ship" to the one seen in PLANET: 2 others in the other two
cockpit seats, and 4 in the hibernation bunks. Plenty of room for
Taylor, Dodge, Landon, and Stewart, with room to spare for 2 more
passengers... provided it lands safely and can then take off without
incident. Imagine a "STAR TREK" without transporters, with only
shuttlecraft to get personnel onto a planet: imagine one shuttlecraft
crash-landed on a planet, and Kirk ordering two guys to take down
ANOTHER shuttlecraft in order to rescue the 4-man crew down on the
surface. It makes PLENTY of sense.

In regards to your suggestion that the Mutants "probably even find
humans repulsive", I have to point out the obvious: WHY WOULD THEY
WEAR MASKS THAT MAKE THEM LOOK LIKE NON-MUTATED HUMANS? Do the Mutants
WANT to appear repulsive to each other?
Yeah, there are a number of reasons why people wear masks; on
Halloween, people wear masks either to be scary or just to get into
the festive mood of the holiday; it's that rare, once-a-year moment
when EVERYBODY tends to "dress up" and party. Actors sometimes wear
masks on stage, like in Greek theater.
So, what's the reason the BENEATH mutants wear THEIR masks? Do they
think of everyday as being Halloween? I remember in MONTY PYTHON'S
"THE MEANING OF LIFE" how every day is Christmas day in Heaven... is
THAT how Mendez' mutants think of their Masks? As Halloween masks?
Is life amongst the Mutants one big Greek theatrical drama? Is THAT
why they wear masks?
When they take the masks off, they "reveal [their] inmost selves unto
[their] God". Ergo, when they put them ON, they--in effect--are
CONCEALING their inmost selves FROM their God. They "reveal" when they
are in their God's presence (as the Verger is doing when Brent first
enters St. Patrick's Cathedral), or when they are on "death's door"
(as "Negro" does just after Taylor & Brent scrunch him between the
cell door & cell wall-bars' huge barbs), about-to-be in the presence
of their "God". They wear the masks, concealing their "inmost selves,"
when they are amongst their fellow people.
What makes the most sense? What need does mask-wearing serve? Is it
merely to protect from harmful radiation? If so, then why does Albina
need a wig of blonde hair (and, one has to wonder, WHERE does she get
that hair from, since it's obvious it can't have come from her own
head?)? The presence of the HAIR suggests that it is there for
COSMETIC reasons--to make her look attractive.
In order for Albina to go to that trouble, to purposefully have not
only a face mask which masks her veiny, bald head, but also a wig of
(false?) hair, she must be doing so in order to present a pleasing
image either to herself (in a mirror), to others (who have "eyes to
see with" according to their church song), or to BOTH.
Yeah, there are scores of reasons why Mendez & Co. might be wearing
their masks... but the most OBVIOUS and LOGICAL reason is that it
makes their ugly faces look beautiful, from a standard of beauty that
they had inherited from their distant ancestors back in the 20th
Century, who had evolved that standard over the course of thousands of
years.
But, hey, feel free to argue for something else; I have a feeling that
there are some out there who go out of their way to latch onto
anything that differs from what I suggest, just for the sake of not
agreeing with me!

Patrick

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

> In a message dated 6/23/2002 8:16:57 PM Central Standard Time,
> whitty@c... writes:
>
>
> >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.

>
> With all this talk, I've yet to see an answer to the question I

posed to Patrick on this matter.

*** Check out message #18359, Subject: "The Reasons for Cornelius' few
untruths..." It's my position that Cornelius tells lies ONLY when
there is an over-riding REASON to do so--such as self-preservation or
the protection of someone whom he loves (like his unborn child).
The very first indication we have of Cornelius being "fuzzy" with the
truth is when Zaius and Maximus suddenly walk in on Cornelius and
Zira, who had been doing a Q-&-A with Taylor (the famous "map" scene).
Zaius asks, "Did you forget our appointment, Dr. Cornelius?" Cornelius
replies, "Uh, no, sir... I was just collecting my notes."

Liar!

But what possible reason could Cornelius have for lying to Zaius?
Well, OBVIOUSLY, it just wouldn't do to tell him the TRUTH: "Uh, sir,
we've just been reading this human's WRITTEN responses to our
questions, as well as answering the questions that he has written down
on all this paper..."
And the paper airplane, remember that? Zaius asks what it is, and Zira
tells him part of the truth ("It's a toy... it floats on the air...)
... yet neglects to tell him that it was made by a HUMAN! Why doesn't
Zira tell him, "This remarkable human folded that paper himself and
tossed it across the room--proving that Flight is NOT a scientific
impossibility!"?
Obviously, telling Zaius the complete truth then and there would be
like taking a long trip off a short pier.

Although I accidentally erased it in this "reply" box, I must point
out that you erroneously state that I said that Cornelius "lied" about
the English language. I did NOT say that: I said that Cornelius told
the Commission the TRUTH that his people had spoken the same language
(English) that had been passed down for roughly 2000 years. Cornelius'
only misrepresentation of the Truth, I contend, is when he LATER tells
Hasslein that between the time when Apes-as-Pets begins and the first
ape to speak ("Aldo") says "No!", is a period of "two centuries" plus
"three more centuries" (i.e. about 500 years), rather than "two YEARS"
plus "three more YEARS" (i.e. an "original" documented bit of
chronological data from the "Secret Scrolls" kept hidden from the
masses, equaling 5 actual years, not centuries). And the REASON
Cornelius says "centuries" instead of "years", I've interpreted as his
(and Zira's) way of giving Hasslein a false sense of security, leading
them on to think that their civilization has another 500 years or so
left to it--rather than a mere 5 YEARS (after Apes are first turned
into Pets). Hasslein is worried that the world is running out of time
("...how much time has the world got?!" he bellows); imagine how
desperately he would act--regardless of the orders his President had
given him--to murder Cornelius, Zira, and their unborn baby in that
very interrogation room, if Cornelius had told him that human
civilization had less than one generation left to it!
Cornelius can only hope that Hasslein forgot his PREVIOUS testimony to
the Commission regarding the English language having been spoken by
Apes for "2000 years, roughly".

Patrick

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

>
> > *** 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
>
>
> Ok, let me ask you this, if Cornelius refers to the body of water

that

> Taylor's ship crashed (and sank) in as a "lake", then what does

Zaius mean by

> this line from "Planet": "Dr. Zira, you state here that a ship from

outer

> space sank in an inland SEA of our eastern desert." Zaius, Zira,

(and

> Taylor?) refer to the body of water his ship crashed into as a

"sea." Yet you

> rule out the possibility of the "Escape" ship being Taylor's ship

(or an

> escape/exploration ship carried within it) because you contend that

the only

> body of water Taylor's ship could have crashed in was a "lake", yet

in the

> original movie, they refer to Taylor's crash sight as an inland

"sea."

>
> Soooo, we have a dilemma here now don't we? Hmmm, how can we

"unflub" this

> 'lil tidbit? What is that crash sight, a "lake" or a "sea?"

*** Don't count your chickens before they're hatched...
I'm well aware of Zaius' comment from the Hearing/Trial scene. But
what matters most, here, is what CORNELIUS says. It is Cornelius who
mapped the Forbidden Zone; he's the one who calls Taylor's landing
area as "Dead LAKE" (Cornelius is probably the only ape--other than
those "in the know" who knows that the even IS a lake in the Forbidden
Zone: after all, apes are "forbidden" to travel there; Cornelius
"exceeded his orders" and traveled where he had been forbidden to go,
and during his travels the year before he was actually AT "Dead Lake"
since he tells Taylor, "The terrain around that LAKE is poisonous.");
in BENEATH, Cornelius tells Brent that the last place they saw Taylor
he was "between the LAKE and the SEA". We KNOW which body of water
he's referring to by the word "lake": "Dead Lake", where Taylor's ship
splashed down. The OTHER body of water he calls "the sea"--and it can
ONLY be the OCEAN which is at/along the bottom of his map.
So, then, when CORNELIUS, later on in ESCAPE, tells the Commission
that Milo found the ship "on our SEA-board", provided he's telling the
truth (and why should he lie about this? no reason at all), to be
consistent with HIS prior depictions of the Forbidden Zone and the
bodies of water in question, we must conclude that the "seaboard" he
refers to is indeed the shoreline of the Ocean--and NOT the "lake". It
doesn't matter that Zaius refers to "Dead Lake" (a name which
Cornelius probably coined himself--a name he can't divulge to just
anybody, since it would prove that he knew about its existence and,
hence, had broken the law (the "ancient taboo") and gone into the
Forbidden Zone) as "an inland sea". Cornelius consistently refers to
"Dead Lake" as a LAKE, and differentiates that from "the SEA".

No dilemma at ALL, as it turns out.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:

> >>You don't mind if I call you "Pat", right?
>
> >*** 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'.
>
> Since you don't like it when people here call you "Pat", why do you

mess up

> names on other people? Doesn't that make you seem hypocritical?

*** By "messing up names of other people" are you referring to my
re-naming your 'Net "handle" of "Melkor" into "Melkie" or "Morgoth"?
That's like changing "John" into "Johnnie" or "Juan/Jean/Giovanni/
Y'han/etc." No offense was meant by it; as I said, I was being
"familiar".
I don't recall "messing up" the names of anybody else on this site.
Oh, I've called Michael "Mike" (is that offensive?). Mostly, I've had
to contend with bizarre Internet pseudonyms like "mlccougar" and
"LordTZero" and "MTotzkie" (sorry if I misspelled that last one). I
don't have a clue what the REAL first names of those individuals is,
so what do I call them? In an ideal world, they would indicate how
they want others to refer to them (as when "LordTZero" suggested "T").
Why don't you, "Melkor", tell me which name you'd prefer me to use to
refer to you? If it's "Melkor", then fine--it works for me. If you'd
prefer something else, let me know and I'll call you by that other
name. We may not agree on much, but I WILL get your indicated name
right, out of respect. How's about making it mutual?

>
> >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).
>
> Cornelius and Zira are the main liberals but ALL of the "good guys"

in Mike Wilson's satire are liberals, including Taylor. Right away in
its very first scene the movie establishes to its liberal 1967
audience that Taylor shares their views on the two most important
liberal issues of 1967, the Vietnam War and LBJ's War on Poverty, when
he asks "Does man still make war against his brother?" "Keep his
neighbors children starving?".

*** Does it follow that conservatives were not concerned with the
threats of War and Poverty? Although I'm of the "libertarian"
persuasion (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), let me suggest
that even die-hard conservatives who advocated a firm stance against
Communism did so out of motives that--in their own way--were as pure
as the so-called liberal "good guys". The foundations of Communist
philosophy are a recipe for disaster--for endless class warfare (the
Bourgeois vs. the Proletariat) and for mass hunger. Ever see a photo
of a breadline in the old U.S.S.R.? That "anti-Commie conservative"
President JIMMY CARTER once said that a man who works on a State-owned
farm will not work hard to produce a good crop if he doesn't profit
from his own labor, whereas a man who owns the farm himself WILL work
harder, in order to benefit from the fruits of his own labor. Heston
was not in favor of the HUAC witchhunts, but he DID say that he
opposed the Communist philosophy that those witchhunts were in
opposition to. Heston likened it to this: what if McCarthy had
targeted a stratum of Pro-Fascist/Nazi sympathizers in Hollywood?
Would all those who deplore "McCarthyism" have had the same reaction?
How many people would shed tears for a bunch of Hollywood types who
were (presumably) injecting Pro-Nazi propaganda into their films?
Even conservatives are opposed to War and Starvation; it's just that
they think the solution to those Problems lies in combatting Communist
ideology, rather than tolerating the anti-Americanism inherent in
Marxism.

> Taylor's status as one of the liberal good guys of the movie is

reinforced on later occasions such as when he tells Lucius "Don't
trust anyone over 30" [***Hah! Heston himself--as well as the
character he played--was "over 30" when he said this! Taylor was
tossing out a popular cliche to that rebel-with-a-cause Lucius, a
cliche that Lucius himself--when HE turned 30--would later laugh at
(if not for the Bomb killing him soon afterwards...)], calls "Chief
Defender of the Faith" Zaius a "fanatic" [*** And just what "Faith"
is Zaius a "Defender" of? Certainly not a religion that Taylor could
ever view as anything but a sick joke! And this presupposes that ALL
liberals view ALL "believers" in a negative light, as "fanatics",
when a great many liberals themselves are Christians or Jews.], and
when he mocks Landon for his "golden boy" "all American image".

>
> Would Heston oppose the Vietnam War today? [***Probably.] Did he

oppose the Afghan War? [*** Don't think so.] The Gulf War? [*** Nope.]
Would Heston support LBJ's War On Poverty today? [***It depends: the
Welfare system has proven itself to have had more of a detrimental
effect on the lower-income groups, rewarding those who lack any real
work ethic at the expense of those who DO work hard. Heston would
probably support a "war" on Poverty--but a War that not only could be
won, but would also not be the cause of other problems that are just
as bad in the long run.] Would Heston tell people "Don't trust anyone
over 30"? [*** See above.] Call religious authority figures
"fanatics"? [*** A fanatic APE, sure!] Would Heston mock people who
have an "all American image"? [*** Landon not only HAD an
"all-American image", but he was scared to turn down the nomination
for "The Big One" for fear that he would LOSE that image... THAT is
what Taylor found fault with.] Laugh at people for putting up American
flags? [*** Landon was, in effect, claiming the planet on behalf of
the United States of America... with the only available female with
which to breed DEAD; it is the WORTHLESSNESS of the effort that
Taylor cynically guffaws at, in my opinion.] Will Australia ever be
renamed "New America"? [*** To quote Frank Zappa's "Thing-Fish":
"Awww... do de Pope shit in de woods?"]

>
> >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

>
> Zaius obviously made a deal with Zira and Cornelius. In exchange for

their keeping silent about the human doll, Zaius dropped the charges
of heresy and allowed them access to the secret scrolls. [*** The
"deal" you're referring to had to have been made BEFORE this scene,
in the "between-PLANET-and-BENEATH" time when Cornelius marries Zira,
Ursus' scouts disappear, etc. The fact that Cornelius and Zira are
present at the "Citizens' Council" meeting--rather than serving their
"two-years" sentence for Heresy--proves that the "deal" had been made
some time before Brent gets to Ape City.]

>
>
> >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

>
> In case anyone in the audience still couldn't figure out that the

bad guys are conservatives BENEATH is even more blunt. Zira says
about Zaius "He has but one motive. To keep things exactly the way
they have always been". Which is the very definition of
"conservative". [*** Actually, the word "conservative" refers more to
the idea of LESS-government; a "conservative" approach means that
which involves a MINIMUM of effort/input. Zira states that Zaius
wants to keep the "status quo"--where he and the other "top
orangutans" are in control of the government. Zaius accompanies Ursus
into the Forbidden Zone--in part--because there's no other way he
could hope to have any control over that war-monger whatsoever.
Should he just sit by and let the entire gorilla army go off into the
FZ and discover whatever's there to be found? By being with them, he
can exert at least SOME kind of influence over the situation
and--given his knowledge of "the terrible secret"--Zaius can make
himself not only USEFUL to the Gorillas, but a RIVAL to their
General: as when Zaius proves the "vision" of the bleeding Lawgiver
to be "false".]

>
>
> >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.

>
> Zaius didn't give Landon a lobotomy because of his flag planting.

But Mike Wilson made his Landon character get a lobotomy (unlike in
the book) because of his flag planting and his conservative "golden
boy" "all American image". [*** I disagree.]

> That's part of the reason the movie wasted time on the Taylor/Landon
> interaction. [*** "...wasted time..."? The time was NOT wasted--it

served to give the audience more of a background as to Taylor's
character. It is in this very "interaction" where we find out that
Taylor, in his own way, is not a very likable guy. Later on he admits
to Nova that "back on Earth" he could never find Love. What kind of
guy does THAT suggest? Taylor became a misanthrope, in part, because
he couldn't find a woman to hold him--it made him distance himself
from the rest of the human race, so much so that he was willing
to--as Landon accuses--"run out" because he "despised people". Not
much of THIS aspect of Taylor's character sounds like he should be
lumped in with all the other "good old liberals", now, does it?]

>
>
> >Granted, Wilson probably wasn't the "gung-ho flag-waving patriot"
>
> That would be an understatement.
>
> >type, but neither is Landon, necessarily.
>
> Yes necessarily. Landon himself admits to having an "all American

image". [*** No, Landon admits that Taylor "reads [him] well enough"
regarding his reasons for going along on the mission: somebody
nominated Landon for "The Big One" (the interstellar voyage), and
Landon was afraid that his IMAGE of being "all-American" would be
tarnished if he were to decline the offer. Landon didn't join the
"Orion" mission all "gung ho": he didn't WANT to go on it... but he
had an IMAGE to uphold, and he was more afraid of losing THAT. It is
the way Landon holds onto that "image", and the reasoning for it that
Taylor ridicules.]

>
> >In other words, the 3 male astronauts were intended to beget

children borne by Stewart

>
> Then they would have had 2 females and 2 males. Or better still, 3

females and one male.

*** If Stewart had NOT died, and if she could pop out a baby once
every year (in Frontier times, that often happened), then it would be
preferable for her to have 3 different sperm donors. If she had 9 kids
in 9 years' time, 3 each with the 3 males, then after another dozen
years not only could the 4 or 5 daughters she had borne begin
procreating with their non-father astronauts, but also with their
half-brothers (from different fathers). The "1 female, 3 male"
breeding pool scenario DOES work (provided the female doesn't die): in
Arthur C. Clarke's novel "Rama II", just such a scenario is presented
towards the end of it--with 1 woman and only 2 men.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:

> >Patrick, be fair would you? This doesn't rule out ANYTHING!!!!

Just like nothing anyone here says makes any difference to your ideas,
it only gives you more motivation to find more reasons you could be
right based on things as far fetched as a mothership called Earth.
Really, after your mothership scenario which is the most far
fetched idea I have heard of, you cannot discount anything anyone
says!!

>
> I think Pole-Shifted Australia wins out over Mothership Earth for

the "most far fetched idea" title.

*** "Far fetched" could be used to describe ANY "Pole-Shift" theory.
Unfortunately, there is a body of evidence that there indeed WAS a
Pole Shift about 12,500 years ago, although irrefutable PROOF of it,
of course, does not exist. It's all a matter of interpreting the
evidence. For those of you who might care to read up on some of the
more recent books that deal with the "Earth crust displacement"
theory, I'd suggest Graham Hancock's "FOOTPRINTS OF THE GODS" and Rand
Flem-Ath's books "WHEN THE SKY FELL" and "THE ATLANTIS BLUEPRINT". The
fact that temperate zone Wooly Mammoths were flash-frozen with
undigested buttercups in their mouths... and then SOMEHOW wound up at
the tundra of the Arctic Circle, should, perhaps, give scoffers of the
"pole shift" theory some pause.

Patrick

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

> Well what's the evidence of two timelines other than some theorizing
> by Hasslien and Virgil about changing lanes.
> The evidence of the circular timeline is simple. Planet and Beneath
> show an Earth destroyed in the late 20th/early 21st Century by
> nuclear war where intelligent Apes rule on the surface and mutants,
> led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-Omega bomb, live in the
> territory next to them in the underground ruins of a nuclear
> destroyed city. In Battle we see an Earth destroyed in the late
> 20th/early 21st Century by nuclear war where intelligent Apes rule
> on the surface and mutants, led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-
> Omega bomb, live in the territory next to them in the underground
> ruins of a nuclear destroyed city. Add to that that pretty much
> everything Cornelius & Zira predicted in Escape came true in
> Conquest and you have a good case for a circular timeline.
>

*** BRAVO! Well put, James! Sock it to 'em!

Patrick

> --- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> > In this case I agree with mlccougar that you haven't provided any
> canonical
> > evidence of a circular timeline. Some casual fans think this but
> there just
> > isn't any actual evidence for it and I don't think a tear is
> evidence. Saying
> > that Paul Dehn wanted a circular timeline is not enough. Paul
> Dehn's BATTLE
> > script (where Aldo kills Caesar so that Caesar changes nothing)
> DID have a
> > circular timeline (because Caesar didn't change anything) but that
> script
> > of Dehn's with the circular timeline was rejected by Jacobs.
> >
> >
> >

I think FATE had a hand in Brent finding Taylor.
What's that Patrick? You don't believe in FATE?
Even fake FATE in a piece of fiction?
Then I leave you to your FATE?

.html  

I was able to concoct a plausible SF hypothetical "warpdrive"/" Hassleinian       

   hyperdrive" which makes sense out of ALL of the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME

numbers in the movies and the TV series. In addition to that, I was able to concoct a plausible reason as to why Taylor somehow ends up back on Earth, rather than on the planet he thought he'd landed on, hundreds of Lightyears away.

Planet of the Apes was concocted to give people like Patrick who's brains are on HYPERDRIVE something to do. This cat has too much TIME on his hands.  Now is that SHIP-TIME or EARTH-TIME?
<.html

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:

> >>Well what's the evidence of two timelines other than some

theorizing

> >>by Hasslien and Virgil about changing lanes.
>
> Cornelius identifies Aldo, not Caesar, as the "fully documented"

leader of the ape revolution in the original timeline.

*** Cornelius could very well have been reading a "secret" history
scroll that was written by an ape who disapproved of Caesar's
"human-loving" ways, and purposely glorified the role of Aldo,
"rehabilitating" Aldo's reputation--perhaps for an all-gorilla
audience, who would prefer to look back on Aldo NOT as the first Ape
to commit the murder of another ape, but as the Ape who was RIGHT
about those dangerous humans. Compare what historians say about the
historical Pontius Pilate as opposed to what the Gospels say about
him: the Gospels portray him as someone reluctant to crucify Jesus,
whereas "the Jews" are portrayed as calling out for it; Roman
historians portray Pontius Pilate as a corrupt jerk who almost
instigated a Zealot revolution during his procuratorship of Judea.
Some ape--maybe even a literate gorilla--may very well have "written
Caesar out" of the "official" history of the Revolution, generations
after the fact. It's par for the course when you're dealing with
documents that are not only "history" and "religion" but also
PROPAGANDA.

Caesar "changes lanes" when he grants full equality to humans. In an
earlier version of the BATTLE script Caesar doesn't know what exactly
what he needs to do to change lanes and save the world from
destruction until he hears Cornelius say Aldo's name.

*** The bit with Aldo's name is NOT in the actual film--it's as if the
tape that MacDonald played was either edited or defective, and neither
he nor Caesar and Virgil actually hear Cornelius mention the name
"Aldo".

Caesar's actions lead to at least 700 years of "apes and humans living
in friendship and harmony" according to the Lawgiver in the altered
timeline, instead of the "carniverious gorillas" found by Cornelius in
the original timeline.
When Taylor asks Zaius why he is hates and fears man, Zaius says it
is because of the Lawgiver's dogma. The Lawgiver's morphing from
conservative bigot in the original timeline to enlightened liberal
(because of Caeser's earlier actions in the altered BATTLE timeline is
the absolute biggest change that is possible to the timeline, because
his influence on the ape culture was comparible to Confucius or Jesus
and his Sacred Scrolls were like the Bible. The apes "Bible" was
almost certainly different in the new timeline, containing none of the
bigoted dogma "beware of the beast man, for he is the devil's pawn" in
the original timeline. No doubt individual bigotry still exists,
but bigotry is no longer ingrained into the culture and solidified
into dogma which is the difference between the USA and
Palestine/Israel.

*** I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the "Lawgiver" played
by John Huston preaches tolerance between the "races" in 2670 A.D.
This is around a CENTURY before the writing of the "Sacred Scrolls"
from which Zaius has Cornelius read the passage: "Beware the beast
Man, for he is the Devil's pawn..." Subtract 1200 years from either
3955 or 3978 (pick a date), and you get the Sacred Scrolls being
written c. 2755-to-2778, well after the scene from BATTLE. A lot can
happen in one century--such as, an Ape-vs-Human race war, which would
very well prompt a human-hating ape to take upon himself the mantle of
"Lawgiver" and write a REVISED scripture, and prompt those who support
him to declare all "rival" scriptures to be Heretical (just as
happened with the Gnostic literature of the Egyptian branch of Early
Christianity, under the heel of Roman Catholicism).

Patrick

> >The evidence of the circular timeline is simple. Planet and Beneath
> >show an Earth destroyed in the late 20th/early 21st Century by
> >nuclear war where intelligent Apes rule on the surface and mutants,
> >led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-Omega bomb, live in the
> >territory next to them in the underground ruins of a nuclear
> >destroyed city. In Battle we see an Earth destroyed in the late
> >20th/early 21st Century by nuclear war where intelligent Apes rule
> >on the surface and mutants, led by Mendez and possessing the Alpha-
> >Omega bomb, live in the territory next to them in the underground
> >ruins of a nuclear destroyed city. Add to that that pretty much
> >everything Cornelius & Zira predicted in Escape came true in
> >Conquest and you have a good case for a circular timeline.
>
> None of that is evidence for a circular timeline, only that both

timelines

> had some common things. That makes perfect sense because Caesar's

existence

> would have changed some things and left some things the same,

especially

> all the basic things you describe.
>
>
>

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

> In a message dated 6/24/2002 4:00:17 PM Central Standard Time,
> melkor@m... writes:
>
>
> 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?

>
> > Is that another Patrick concoction?
>
> Yes, those are both "scenarios" created by Patrick.

*** The "Roswell" incident is part of my scenario as a way, partly, to
explain how the U.S.A. could plausibly develop an interstellar
propulsion system: Answer: they "back-engineered" technology from a
"crashed disc" vehicle in the Summer of 1947. The old orangutan
Mandemus is portrayed as OLDER than Caesar, who was born in 1973. How
could ANY ape not begotten by Caesar acquire the "evolved" physiognomy
that allows for speech, let alone the intelligence to use speech
intelligibly? Nowhere in the POTA saga is this conundrum addressed.
Suddenly, OUT OF THE FRIGGIN' BLUE, Lisa and all the other slave apes
from Breck's city develop the physical ability to TALK... and the
intelligence to use that language as well as any average human. How
did this happen?
The fact that Dehn (& the Corringtons) neglected to satisfactorily
explain this aspect of the POTA saga, leaves all of us free to wonder
just exactly HOW that situation could plausibly come to pass. In my
scenario, the Roswell Incident of June/July 1947 comes on the heels of
an incident earlier that year--in January/February 1947: the
"invasion" of Antarctica by "Operation HIGHJUMP", which was launched
(some people think) in order to root out a secret cadre of Nazis who
had fled the Fall of Germany in U-boats to the Nazi-claimed territory
of "Neuschwabenland" (Queen Maud Land, just south of the southern tip
of Africa, in Antarctica), where--it is said--the Nazis had built "a
new Berchtesgaden" for the Reich. In my scenario, Captain George
Taylor is a B-17 pilot, a young veteran of WWII, who takes part in
Operation HIGHJUMP, during which the presence of those enigmatic "foo
fighters" is noticed...

Patrick

Thank you, Mr. Whitty. And yes, perhaps it does make one think...too
much, LT. However, in my "out-of-the-box" scenario:

1.) Planet of the Apes (#1) stands on a pedestal of it own. It
remains in its own original timeline.

2.) It solves the question of which timeline, circular or divergent,
by creating a time loop. (A curiosity of mine since I first began to
think about time travel as a kid.)

3.) It creates a dilemma that would need to be satisfied -- or not in
PotA fashion.

4.) It answers questions about the ship, Dr. Milo, the relationship
of these comrades...

5.) It stops trying to unflub the flubs and boldly presents as a new
storyline to an already diverse series of movies, etc.

6.) It leaves opportunities for all sorts of follow-up.

I'm not as versed about artistically correct PotA discussion as you
all are, and I really just threw it out there, but if it requires
thought, it beats most of what you guys chew about here.

(I'm practicing my group skills, Michael. Thanks for the lead in.)

--Helen

--- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> Mr Cougar
>
> I am not sure if you got this post.
>
> It offers some interesting ideas, but nobody has responded.
>
> Do you, or does anybody else, have a comment?
>
> I think it is a highly explorable idea.
>
> Michael
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sand_hill_school [sand_hill_school@y...]
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2002 5:54
> > To: pota@y...
> > Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Escape Interior
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

> >
> >
> >

You know the answer Patrick - the poles are shifting!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2002 1:36
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Happy Birthday, Rory!
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "Michael Whitty" <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Umm...it's winter Rory! Well it is in Australia, so I can't throw a
> shrimp
> > on the Barbie for you!
> >
> > HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!
> >
> > Michael
>
> "How in hell did that upside-down Aussie civilization get started?"
>
> (Just joking, buddy!)
>
> Patrick
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Haristas@a... [Haristas@a...]
> > Sent: Sunday, 23 June 2002 12:46
> > To: pota@y...
> > Subject: Re: [Planet of the Apes] Happy Birthday, Rory!
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 6/22/02 7:34:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> > sand_hill_school@y... 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
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

But this is after he gets off the ship Patrick.

You can't accept that Taylor could be in shock, or at least a little
disorientated, at that point where he wakes up on a sinking ship?

This isn't a game where there has to be a winner or a loser.

You come up with the most unbelievable ways to explain these "flubs", but
you almost certainly dismiss anything anybody else says. Is this because
you need to show how thoroughly you have thought things through or do you
just have to take a contrary stance?

Again your reasoning is unsound Patrick. Just because Taylor plays it cool
for a lot of the movie, it does not mean he is not human. For example when
he finds Liberty....is he cool about that? Does he calmly say "it's a
madhouse"? No. It certainly is not unbelievable in any way that he is in
shock when the ship is sinking.

I am getting a little frustrated with your posts Patrick but I am trying not
to be insulting. I do however need to make these points in hope that you
will think about what I am saying. Please don't be offended, but please try
to "listen".

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2002 2:17
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Believability of rival scenarios...
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Patrick,
> >
> > This post is too long.
> >
> > I think you might "win" a lot of arguments because people just give
> > up trying to communicate and you have the nature of a Politician.
> > That's not a compliment but I think it is an accurate observation.
> >
> > I guess essentially what I am saying is that there are degrees of
> > believability and I find almost anything far more believable than
> > your mothership Earth idea. From that basis, I find nothing anyone
> > could put forward would be unbelievable, just less believable to
> some.
> >
> > When I say: "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." I am
> > referring to Taylor. He is cruel and negative. He does toy with
> > Landon. He may not be thinking logically when he awakes from a
> sleep
> > of many hundreds of years to find he is in a sinking ship [on an
> > unknown planet. Agreed?
> >
> > Michael
> >
> *** Agreed? Well, sorry, Mike, but No. Taylor comes across in the
> post-opening credit scenes as matter-of-fact. He's the one who is
> looking at things in a way that he considers to be realistic. Landon
> pines over the dead Lt. Stewart: Taylor doesn't bother crying over it,
> since he knows she's been dead "nearly a year" of Ship-Time. Landon
> holds out hope that SOMEHOW they can eventually get back to Earth,
> thinking that Hasslein's Theory MAY be false, and if they can just
> "get a fix" on their position (etc. etc.): but Taylor says, "It's a
> fact, Landon; buy it: you'll sleep better," and later on he drills it
> into him: "We are HERE and it is NOW; you get ahold of that and hang
> onto it or you may as well be dead."
> I don't see ANY trace of panic from Taylor. If anything, he's
> nonchalant about it all. He's got enough wits to be able to subtract
> 1947 (Landon's birthdate) from 3978 (the EARTH-TIME date Taylor sees
> before the ship sinks) and tell Landon that he "look(s) pretty chipper
> for a man who's 2,031 years old..." It takes logic to do that.
>
> As I've said before, feel free to disbelieve in my "mothership Earth"
> scenario. I've never insisted that all other POTA fans adopt it as
> "gospel"; it's a scenario which "unflubs" the flubs, and makes much
> more sense, in my opinion. In addition, it ties in the movie POTA with
> the Boulle source, in which the orbiting "mothership" circles Soror
> whilst its 3 crewmembers land on the planet in "une chaloupe" (i.e. "a
> launch" or SHUTTLECRAFT), like Star Fleet personnel landing a
> shuttlecraft (such as the GALILEO) onto a planet while the ENTERPRISE
> orbits overhead.
> We can argue till the cows come home over the plausibility of the
> alternative--that Brent & Skipper could somehow follow Taylor's ship
> for MONTHS of Ship-Time and over HUNDREDS of LightYears... and
> incredibly find their way to landing not only on the same planet
> Taylor's ship landed on, but WITHIN A HORSE-RIDE'S DISTANCE of his
> landing site. I've argued elsewhere (on the "goingfaster" discussion
> board) that this is impossible, since the planet Earth, between the
> time Taylor's ship lands and the time Brent lands the BENEATH ship,
> has to have moved away from the position it was in in its orbit by
> millions of miles. If Brent were following "Taylor's trajectory"
> across hundreds of lightyears of space, then that trajectory would be
> to the spot where Earth had been when Taylor landed on it, and NOT to
> the spot where Earth would eventually be when Brent's ship got back to
> the solar system. It makes infinitely more sense that the trajectory
> Brent followed (which he calls "Taylor's trajectory") was the RE-ENTRY
> trajectory--the path from orbit down to near the surface coordinate
> where Taylor's ship was KNOWN to have landed. If Brent had approached
> the planet Earth from interplanetary space, then he would have KNOWN
> that it was Earth (unless he couldn't recognize the continents below
> him--remember, he was awake prior to re-entry, since he "took an
> Earth-Time reading" beforehand). And even IF he couldn't tell that the
> planet in front of him was the Earth, how could he know where to land
> his ship? Taylor's ship landed WEEKS beforehand (Taylor to Zira: "...
> it's been WEEKS..."); as far as Brent knows, he could have landed
> ANYWHERE on the surface of the planet. How does Brent know to land his
> ship where he does land it--in the desert near the Ape City area? How?
> The ONLY way he could possibly know where to land his ship is if he
> knew that "Taylor's trajectory" was a RE-ENTRY trajectory leading down
> from a specific orbital position to a specific geodetic coordinate.
> The ONLY scenario I've seen out there that addresses this aspect of
> the "logic" necessary to make this saga even remotely believable, is
> my own scenario. Maybe there's somebody out there who can make better
> sense of this; I'd like to see a scenario that does, and compare &
> contrast it with mine. I've yet to see it. If you, Mike, have a better
> scenario to explain this particular aspect--the "flight dynamics" of
> these ANSA ships--then please, by all means, post it. Landing a
> spaceship onto a planet is like shooting skeet: you have to have an
> idea of WHERE the skeet thingy is going to be prior to pulling the
> trigger of the gun you aim NOT at where it is but where it WILL BE. In
> Brent's case, not only do you have to hit the same skeet, but you also
> have to hit it at the exact same point, otherwise there's nothing to
> prevent the probability that your ship will re-enter and land
> thousands of miles away.
> This is gettin' rather long, and I don't want to irk "T" any more than
> I've already done, so I'll let it rest with that.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> > > *** 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?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>Who is to say that it is not possible that a month after the final Battle
>scene the Lawgiver's attitudes and subsequent writings changed?
>
>Maybe there is a series of Lawgivers.

Both of these go against the writers intentions. They called their character
"Lawgiver" in BATTLE because the original movie had established that the
"greatest ape of all" was called that. They made the Lawgiver look very old
in BATTLE to establish that he didn't change his views back to what they are in
PLANET later in life.

Since James wants me to, I will admit that ANYTHING in POTA can be true if you
want it to be true. Mothership Earth can be true if you want for it to be
true. Continents can "pole-shift" around the globe if you want that to be
true. But some ideas, to put it mildly, are more plausible than others.

>Nothing is concluded, but I am of the belief that there are 2 timelines. I
>am also of the belief that while some things have changed, the outcome may
>be similar. Otherwise, why not kill off the Mutants? They left the

There was no need for Caesar to kill off the mutants and no reason that
he would have. All Caesar needs to do to save the world from destruction
is to change his own culture. In BENEATH it is pretty clear that the
mutants aren't going to attack anyone. The world only gets destroyed
because the ape culture attacks the mutants culture. The bomb scenes
were important to the movie because their purpose is to bluntly remind
us how high the stakes are in Caesar's mission to "change lanes".

>possibility for the same bomb to one day destroy Earth.

I think as you do that one reason was to leave open a sequel possibility.
We don't have any guarantees that the bomb will never be used in the
altered BATTLE timeline, but in my opinion we know for sure that the events
in BENEATH are erased, and so Caesar accomplishes his mission to save
the world. But I think there was just enough room to support another movie
after BATTLE if they had decided they really wanted to.

-Tom

I don't know how you draw the conclusion that anything you say here clinches
anything.

What you say here is evidence that Taylor believes they are "in the future".

The reference to whether anyone is listening certainly IMPLIES a "live"
broadcast, but could also mean that Taylor thinks makind has destroyed
itself and there is nobody left to listen.

Give me some evidence that his recording could not be a "Captain's Log" - ie
a ship's log that would stay with the ship.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: patrickmichaeltilton [patrickmichaeltilton@...]
> Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2002 2:26
> To: pota@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: The Hatch of the ship
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > I always thought Taylor's report was simply a recording that stayed
> > on the ship, just as civil servants make and file reports all the
> > time and as trekkies do in their "Captain's Log". Is there any
> > evidence that these reports were being sent anywhere?
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Taylor, speaking to whomever will eventually hear his "final
> report" says, "You who are reading me now are a different breed--I
> hope a better one. I leave the Twentieth Century with no regrets. But,
> one more thing... if anybody's listening that is..."
>
> Later on, Taylor tells Landon, "Even if you COULD get back [i.e. to
> the planet Earth], they'd think you were something that fell out of a
> tree."
>
> I don't think it's likely that Taylor would address anybody on his own
> crew (after another 12 months of Ship-Time hibernating) as "a
> different breed" whom he hopes will be "a better one" than the breed
> of humanity he left behind in the 20th Century. He, knowing that
> "almost 700 years" have gone by on Earth, can only be sending out a
> report to whomever is still there on planet Earth, centuries ahead of
> the time he left it, in 1972.
>
> I think that clinches it.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You have a point but maybe Cornelius had more pressing things on his
mind at the time than the discrepency. If I were testifying in front
of a presidential commission; I doubt I'd remember my own birthday.

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

> *** Prior to the Presidential Commission scene, before Milo is

killed

> by the gorilla in the next cage, prior to Dixon and Branton

finding

> out that these "Ape-onauts" can speak English, Milo reminds

Cornelius

> and Zira about the "date meter" on the ship (the EARTH-TIME
> chronometer), telling them that after the shockwave which hit the

ship

> after the explosion, the date meter went BACKWARD. Cornelius

exclaims,

> "Yes...!", obviously remembering that odd moment. Then Milo
> specifically mentions a period of "some two thousand years hence"
> between that moment (sometime in 1973) and the Destruction of the
> Earth "in an Ape war of aggression", which had been their Present
> (i.e. 3955). So, then, BEFORE the Commission hearing, Cornelius
> already knows that they've gone backwards through Time about 2000
> years--he himself saw the chronometer clicking backwards, just as

Zira

> did--she drunkenly tells Hasslein the date moved backwards from
> "thirty nine... fifty... something" to "1973". In other

words, "some

> 2000 years", rounded off to the nearest hundred.
> Knowing about this nearly 2000-year epoch separating their time

from

> 1973, Cornelius LATER tells the Commission about his language
> (English) being the language of his people (the Apes) for "2000

years,

> roughly". By his "people" he isn't just talking about chimpanzees

who

> can speak, but also about orangutans and gorillas--which Zira
> humorously denigrates then and there as "blinkered,

pseudoscientific

> geese" and "militaristic nincompoops".
> Cornelius knew that there were "English"-speaking Apes on Earth,

as

> far as he knew, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, in 1973. Only later on, when

his

> celebrity status has changed, and when he is being harshly
> interrogated by Hasslein and his NSA/CIA goons, does he suggest

the

> "500 years" duration between the Plague and Aldo saying "No!"
>
> Patrick

Maybe in the Apes universe McGovern won the election in '72. There
is a resemblance.


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

> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 6/23/2002 11:37:26 AM Central Standard Time,
> > patrickmichaeltilton@y... writes:
> >
> > > ...yet have different Presidents in 1972...).
> >
> > One thing you have to remember, "Escape" was released in 1971,

but

> supposedly took place in ' 73... So, since there was no election

in '

> 71, the then president would have still been in office at that

time.

> The president in 'Escape" would have been a "generic" president

that

> would have been voted in in the 1972 election. And you really
> couldn't have expected Fox to go to Nixon and say, "Hey, would you
> like to be in our new 'Apes' film?"
>
> *** So, then, I should just assume that the President whom

Hasslein

> talks to is Richard M. Nixon? Au contraire, mon frere.
> Not only is this U.S. President in the "POTA universe" in 1973 NOT
> Nixon, but he's also a different kind of man. Nixon wouldn't have
> hesitated to have Hasslein's goons slip poison into Zira's food,
> killing her and her unborn baby. The character played by William
> Windom, however, is demonstrably different than Nixon--he has

enough

> of a sense of Right & Wrong to give the "Ape-onauts" the benefit

of

> the doubt. It's only after Hasslein convinces him that the Apes

should

> be questioned by interrogators who are not "unprofessional" that

the

> shocking revelations are made by Zira under the influence of

sodium

> pentothal. Even then, Windom's character "stands by" the
> recommendations of the Commission--specifically ordering Hasslein

that

> the Apes NOT be killed, as Hasslein wishes.
> I don't see Nixon batting an eye at having the Apes killed--

especially

> given that it could be made to look like an accident, what with

CIA

> assassination techniques like food-poisoning, etc.
>
> Patrick

All this talk made me think about the subject. Both time reading
that said 3955 were made from orbit while the 3978 reading was done
on the surface. Since the most logical way for such a clock to work
would be to have it track the relative positions of 3 or 4 stars
over centuries, measuring the interstella drift. Thus, it's possible
that Taylor's clock was thrown off slighty by distortion from the
atmosphere. Taylor might of been aware of the problem with the
clocks while would explain his "give or take a decade" comment.


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

> --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > Is the application of mathematical formulae here an attempt to
> > suggest you have authority? Why would you feel it is necessary

to

> > give figures here?
> >
> > Michael
>
> *** Mike, it's an attempt to use LOGIC in order to deduce other
> relevant "facts" regarding the POTA scenario. Any theory which

cannot

> make sense out of simple mathematics deserves skepticism; at a

bare

> minimum, any theory that seeks to be taken seriously should be

able to

> make sense out of the numbers. Too much of what passes for "sci-

fi"

> out there is sloppy as hell with the logic--mathematical or

otherwise.

> The writers of SF that I admire take the care to get their facts
> straight (such as Asimov, in his novel "NEMESIS", where he gets a
> little bit technical in his hyperspace-drive descriptions);

otherwise,

> it's nothing more than "science fantasy", where the numbers don't
> matter, really, because it's all just pseudoscientific

technobabble

> meant to give a science-fictional "color" to the background.
>
> And, really, what's so difficult about the math I described below?
> Everybody knows that there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an
> hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; and anybody can get out a

stopwatch

> and time the period during the opening scene of PLANET where the
> EARTH-TIME clock clicks ahead first from 3-23-2673 to 3-24-2673
> and then from 3-26-2673 to 3-27-2673, during which about ninety

three

> seconds of SHIP-TIME transpire. Those 3 days of EARTH-TIME, the

24th,

> 25th, and 26th of March, 2673 last only about 93 seconds of SHIP-

TIME.

> The math is SIMPLE: 3 x 86,400 / 93 = 2,787 (rounded to the

nearest

> whole number). From that you can calculate the Einsteinian
> relativistic Time Dilation Ratio (and, hence, the percentage of
> Lightspeed according to Einstein's theory). Taking that in

conjunction

> with all sorts of other details, I was able to concoct a plausible

SF

> hypothetical "warpdrive"/" Hassleinian hyperdrive" which makes

sense

> out of ALL of the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME numbers in the movies

and

> the TV series. In addition to that, I was able to concoct a

plausible

> reason as to why Taylor somehow ends up back on Earth, rather than

on

> the planet he thought he'd landed on, hundreds of Lightyears away.

All

> of that... because of the Logic of Number.
> Math can be your friend, Mike; it's worked for me, in MY scenario.

If

> it doesn't work for you or for your scenario, then maybe your

scenario

> doesn't have as much logic to it. In my opinion, a theory/scenario

is

> useful if it is able to satisfactorily EXPLAIN THE FACTS. The

numbers

> given in the POTA saga are, as far as I'm concerned, FACTS which

my

> scenario had to deal with. I couldn't just sweep them under the

rug

> and ignore them, or hope that potential readers of my science

fiction

> POTA novel-in-progress would gloss over them, too. That might be

good

> enough for others out there, but it ain't good enough for me (as a
> reader of SF) or for many others out there who also read SF with a
> critical eye.
>
> Patrick Michael Tilton
> EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002
>
> >
> > --- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> >
> > 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".

Of course you're assuming that Cornelius would be very precise every
time he spoke. Maybe Dead Lake was just a name he gave the inland
sea and maybe he used a simple term in front of the commission as to
not waste time on a long explaination.

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

> --- In pota@y..., mlccougar@a... wrote:
> >
> > > *** 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
> >
> >
> > Ok, let me ask you this, if Cornelius refers to the body of

water

> that
> > Taylor's ship crashed (and sank) in as a "lake", then what does
> Zaius mean by
> > this line from "Planet": "Dr. Zira, you state here that a ship

from

> outer
> > space sank in an inland SEA of our eastern desert." Zaius, Zira,
> (and
> > Taylor?) refer to the body of water his ship crashed into as a
> "sea." Yet you
> > rule out the possibility of the "Escape" ship being Taylor's

ship

> (or an
> > escape/exploration ship carried within it) because you contend

that

> the only
> > body of water Taylor's ship could have crashed in was a "lake",

yet

> in the
> > original movie, they refer to Taylor's crash sight as an inland
> "sea."
> >
> > Soooo, we have a dilemma here now don't we? Hmmm, how can we
> "unflub" this
> > 'lil tidbit? What is that crash sight, a "lake" or a "sea?"
>
> *** Don't count your chickens before they're hatched...
> I'm well aware of Zaius' comment from the Hearing/Trial scene. But
> what matters most, here, is what CORNELIUS says. It is Cornelius

who

> mapped the Forbidden Zone; he's the one who calls Taylor's landing
> area as "Dead LAKE" (Cornelius is probably the only ape--other

than

> those "in the know" who knows that the even IS a lake in the

Forbidden

> Zone: after all, apes are "forbidden" to travel there; Cornelius
> "exceeded his orders" and traveled where he had been forbidden to

go,

> and during his travels the year before he was actually AT "Dead

Lake"

> since he tells Taylor, "The terrain around that LAKE is

poisonous.");

> in BENEATH, Cornelius tells Brent that the last place they saw

Taylor

> he was "between the LAKE and the SEA". We KNOW which body of water
> he's referring to by the word "lake": "Dead Lake", where Taylor's

ship

> splashed down. The OTHER body of water he calls "the sea"--and it

can

> ONLY be the OCEAN which is at/along the bottom of his map.
> So, then, when CORNELIUS, later on in ESCAPE, tells the Commission
> that Milo found the ship "on our SEA-board", provided he's telling

the

> truth (and why should he lie about this? no reason at all), to be
> consistent with HIS prior depictions of the Forbidden Zone and the
> bodies of water in question, we must conclude that the "seaboard"

he

> refers to is indeed the shoreline of the Ocean--and NOT

the "lake". It

> doesn't matter that Zaius refers to "Dead Lake" (a name which
> Cornelius probably coined himself--a name he can't divulge to just
> anybody, since it would prove that he knew about its existence

and,

> hence, had broken the law (the "ancient taboo") and gone into the
> Forbidden Zone) as "an inland sea". Cornelius consistently refers

to

> "Dead Lake" as a LAKE, and differentiates that from "the SEA".
>
> No dilemma at ALL, as it turns out.
>
> Patrick

But the writers' intention, which you seem to deny, was to create a
circular timeline. Even the Corringtons' version ended with a
playground fight between an ape and human with all the other
children yelling KILL to suggest a circular timeline. Joyce
Corrington states they played up the Alpha-Omega bomb sequences for
the same purpose.

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:
> Both of these go against the writers intentions. They called
their character
> "Lawgiver" in BATTLE because the original movie had established
that the
> "greatest ape of all" was called that. They made the Lawgiver
look very old
> in BATTLE to establish that he didn't change his views back to
what they are in
> PLANET later in life.

.html <.html

To say that Cornelius got his facts wrong is not to say that he lied,
but it certainly could be the case and it does make sense when you
put it this way (although it does not rule out many other
alternatives either).

Patrick, do you really think that Cornelius thought there were other
english speaking apes at the time? I thought all 3 apes realised
that the apes of the time were the equivalent of humans in the
future - not speaking and not evolved in their intellect. This may
just be something I have assumed though.

Michael

--- "james611102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

> You have a point but maybe Cornelius had more pressing things on

his

> mind at the time than the discrepency. If I were testifying in

front

> of a presidential commission; I doubt I'd remember my own birthday.
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"

<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:
> > *** Prior to the Presidential Commission scene, before Milo is
> killed
> > by the gorilla in the next cage, prior to Dixon and Branton
> finding
> > out that these "Ape-onauts" can speak English, Milo reminds
> Cornelius
> > and Zira about the "date meter" on the ship (the EARTH-TIME
> > chronometer), telling them that after the shockwave which hit the
> ship
> > after the explosion, the date meter went BACKWARD. Cornelius
> exclaims,
> > "Yes...!", obviously remembering that odd moment. Then Milo
> > specifically mentions a period of "some two thousand years hence"
> > between that moment (sometime in 1973) and the Destruction of the
> > Earth "in an Ape war of aggression", which had been their Present
> > (i.e. 3955). So, then, BEFORE the Commission hearing, Cornelius
> > already knows that they've gone backwards through Time about 2000
> > years--he himself saw the chronometer clicking backwards, just as
> Zira
> > did--she drunkenly tells Hasslein the date moved backwards from
> > "thirty nine... fifty... something" to "1973". In other
> words, "some
> > 2000 years", rounded off to the nearest hundred.
> > Knowing about this nearly 2000-year epoch separating their time
> from
> > 1973, Cornelius LATER tells the Commission about his language
> > (English) being the language of his people (the Apes) for "2000
> years,
> > roughly". By his "people" he isn't just talking about chimpanzees
> who
> > can speak, but also about orangutans and gorillas--which Zira
> > humorously denigrates then and there as "blinkered,
> pseudoscientific
> > geese" and "militaristic nincompoops".
> > Cornelius knew that there were "English"-speaking Apes on Earth,
> as
> > far as he knew, RIGHT THEN AND THERE, in 1973. Only later on,

when

> his
> > celebrity status has changed, and when he is being harshly
> > interrogated by Hasslein and his NSA/CIA goons, does he suggest
> the
> > "500 years" duration between the Plague and Aldo saying "No!"
> >
> > Patrick
>
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

~-->

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

I agree James.

And Patrick, now I understand why you feel it is necessary to be so
thorough.

I agree that there is a lot of sloppy sci-fi out there and it is
annoying, but I would not take it quite as far as you do because that
is being extreme on the other end of the scale (but that is your
choice and power to you). I honestly thought you might be trying to
isolate your audience with an equation or to. I am a public (civil)
servant and I see false authority daily and it bugs me more than
sloppy sci-fi! Sorry if I read you wrong.

Also, doesn't it bother you how, by absolute coincidence, there is a
mathematical forula to prove something that was never intended to be
proven? It frightens me!

Michael

--- "james611102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

> All this talk made me think about the subject. Both time reading
> that said 3955 were made from orbit while the 3978 reading was done
> on the surface. Since the most logical way for such a clock to work
> would be to have it track the relative positions of 3 or 4 stars
> over centuries, measuring the interstella drift. Thus, it's

possible

> that Taylor's clock was thrown off slighty by distortion from the
> atmosphere. Taylor might of been aware of the problem with the
> clocks while would explain his "give or take a decade" comment.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"

<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > Is the application of mathematical formulae here an attempt to
> > > suggest you have authority? Why would you feel it is necessary
> to
> > > give figures here?
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > *** Mike, it's an attempt to use LOGIC in order to deduce other
> > relevant "facts" regarding the POTA scenario. Any theory which
> cannot
> > make sense out of simple mathematics deserves skepticism; at a
> bare
> > minimum, any theory that seeks to be taken seriously should be
> able to
> > make sense out of the numbers. Too much of what passes for "sci-
> fi"
> > out there is sloppy as hell with the logic--mathematical or
> otherwise.
> > The writers of SF that I admire take the care to get their facts
> > straight (such as Asimov, in his novel "NEMESIS", where he gets a
> > little bit technical in his hyperspace-drive descriptions);
> otherwise,
> > it's nothing more than "science fantasy", where the numbers don't
> > matter, really, because it's all just pseudoscientific
> technobabble
> > meant to give a science-fictional "color" to the background.
> >
> > And, really, what's so difficult about the math I described

below?

> > Everybody knows that there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in

an

> > hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; and anybody can get out a
> stopwatch
> > and time the period during the opening scene of PLANET where the
> > EARTH-TIME clock clicks ahead first from 3-23-2673 to 3-24-2673
> > and then from 3-26-2673 to 3-27-2673, during which about ninety
> three
> > seconds of SHIP-TIME transpire. Those 3 days of EARTH-TIME, the
> 24th,
> > 25th, and 26th of March, 2673 last only about 93 seconds of SHIP-
> TIME.
> > The math is SIMPLE: 3 x 86,400 / 93 = 2,787 (rounded to the
> nearest
> > whole number). From that you can calculate the Einsteinian
> > relativistic Time Dilation Ratio (and, hence, the percentage of
> > Lightspeed according to Einstein's theory). Taking that in
> conjunction
> > with all sorts of other details, I was able to concoct a

plausible

> SF
> > hypothetical "warpdrive"/" Hassleinian hyperdrive" which makes
> sense
> > out of ALL of the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME numbers in the movies
> and
> > the TV series. In addition to that, I was able to concoct a
> plausible
> > reason as to why Taylor somehow ends up back on Earth, rather

than

> on
> > the planet he thought he'd landed on, hundreds of Lightyears

away.

> All
> > of that... because of the Logic of Number.
> > Math can be your friend, Mike; it's worked for me, in MY

scenario.

> If
> > it doesn't work for you or for your scenario, then maybe your
> scenario
> > doesn't have as much logic to it. In my opinion, a

theory/scenario

> is
> > useful if it is able to satisfactorily EXPLAIN THE FACTS. The
> numbers
> > given in the POTA saga are, as far as I'm concerned, FACTS which
> my
> > scenario had to deal with. I couldn't just sweep them under the
> rug
> > and ignore them, or hope that potential readers of my science
> fiction
> > POTA novel-in-progress would gloss over them, too. That might be
> good
> > enough for others out there, but it ain't good enough for me (as

a

> > reader of SF) or for many others out there who also read SF with

a

> > critical eye.
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002
> >
> > >
> > > --- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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".
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

~-->

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

To me, not difficult at all. To many (most?), well do you recall the
early episode of the Simpsons "Bart the Genius" where Bart is taking
an IQ test and he is trying to visualise one of the problems? It
turns into a numbers nightmere and he falls off the chair. Point is
most people switch off at the word "mathematics".

I guess your explanation is also lengthy, which is also interpretable
as complicated, and it is unnecessary (nobody would dispute your
claim without the mathematical evidence), and we all no it is a
coincidence anyway, not a proof.

QED

> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"

<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:

> > And, really, what's so difficult about the math I described

below?

> > Everybody knows that there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in

an

> > hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; and anybody can get out a
> stopwatch
> > and time the period during the opening scene of PLANET where the
> > EARTH-TIME clock clicks ahead first from 3-23-2673 to 3-24-2673
> > and then from 3-26-2673 to 3-27-2673, during which about ninety
> three
> > seconds of SHIP-TIME transpire. Those 3 days of EARTH-TIME, the
> 24th,
> > 25th, and 26th of March, 2673 last only about 93 seconds of SHIP-
> TIME.
> > The math is SIMPLE: 3 x 86,400 / 93 = 2,787 (rounded to the
> nearest
> > whole number). From that you can calculate the Einsteinian
> > relativistic Time Dilation Ratio (and, hence, the percentage of
> > Lightspeed according to Einstein's theory). Taking that in
> conjunction
> > with all sorts of other details, I was able to concoct a

plausible

> SF
> > hypothetical "warpdrive"/" Hassleinian hyperdrive" which makes
> sense
> > out of ALL of the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME numbers in the movies
> and
> > the TV series. In addition to that, I was able to concoct a
> plausible
> > reason as to why Taylor somehow ends up back on Earth, rather

than

> on
> > the planet he thought he'd landed on, hundreds of Lightyears

away.

> All
> > of that... because of the Logic of Number.
> > Math can be your friend, Mike; it's worked for me, in MY

scenario.

> If
> > it doesn't work for you or for your scenario, then maybe your
> scenario
> > doesn't have as much logic to it. In my opinion, a

theory/scenario

> is
> > useful if it is able to satisfactorily EXPLAIN THE FACTS. The
> numbers
> > given in the POTA saga are, as far as I'm concerned, FACTS which
> my
> > scenario had to deal with. I couldn't just sweep them under the
> rug
> > and ignore them, or hope that potential readers of my science
> fiction
> > POTA novel-in-progress would gloss over them, too. That might be
> good
> > enough for others out there, but it ain't good enough for me (as

a

> > reader of SF) or for many others out there who also read SF with

a

> > critical eye.
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002
> >
> > >
> > > --- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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".
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

~-->

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

Yes mathematics can be your friend, but you are dry raping it here
Patrick, not being friendly.

You are applying logic to prove a coincidence and that is not
logical. What you are doing is trying to logically prove how a
coincidence ocurred. This is either unnecessary (eg a car crashes
into another and you explain how this happens by reverting to the
speed the cars were travelling at and the distance they covered) or
contrived (eg you try to prove someone is a witch by weighing them
against a duck - I'm sure you know what I'm talking about from Monty
Python and the Holy Grail).

A lot of your arguments remind me of that "Witch Hunt" scene in Holy
Grail, mathematical or otherwise (ie they wanted to prove she was a
witch so they could burn her, so they did just that).

Michael

-- "james611102" <JamesA1102@...> wrote:

> All this talk made me think about the subject. Both time reading
> that said 3955 were made from orbit while the 3978 reading was done
> on the surface. Since the most logical way for such a clock to work
> would be to have it track the relative positions of 3 or 4 stars
> over centuries, measuring the interstella drift. Thus, it's

possible

> that Taylor's clock was thrown off slighty by distortion from the
> atmosphere. Taylor might of been aware of the problem with the
> clocks while would explain his "give or take a decade" comment.
>
>
> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"

<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:
> > --- In pota@y..., "whitty@c..." <whitty@c...> wrote:
> > > Is the application of mathematical formulae here an attempt to
> > > suggest you have authority? Why would you feel it is necessary
> to
> > > give figures here?
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> > *** Mike, it's an attempt to use LOGIC in order to deduce other
> > relevant "facts" regarding the POTA scenario. Any theory which
> cannot
> > make sense out of simple mathematics deserves skepticism; at a
> bare
> > minimum, any theory that seeks to be taken seriously should be
> able to
> > make sense out of the numbers. Too much of what passes for "sci-
> fi"
> > out there is sloppy as hell with the logic--mathematical or
> otherwise.
> > The writers of SF that I admire take the care to get their facts
> > straight (such as Asimov, in his novel "NEMESIS", where he gets a
> > little bit technical in his hyperspace-drive descriptions);
> otherwise,
> > it's nothing more than "science fantasy", where the numbers don't
> > matter, really, because it's all just pseudoscientific
> technobabble
> > meant to give a science-fictional "color" to the background.
> >
> > And, really, what's so difficult about the math I described

below?

> > Everybody knows that there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in

an

> > hour, and 60 seconds in a minute; and anybody can get out a
> stopwatch
> > and time the period during the opening scene of PLANET where the
> > EARTH-TIME clock clicks ahead first from 3-23-2673 to 3-24-2673
> > and then from 3-26-2673 to 3-27-2673, during which about ninety
> three
> > seconds of SHIP-TIME transpire. Those 3 days of EARTH-TIME, the
> 24th,
> > 25th, and 26th of March, 2673 last only about 93 seconds of SHIP-
> TIME.
> > The math is SIMPLE: 3 x 86,400 / 93 = 2,787 (rounded to the
> nearest
> > whole number). From that you can calculate the Einsteinian
> > relativistic Time Dilation Ratio (and, hence, the percentage of
> > Lightspeed according to Einstein's theory). Taking that in
> conjunction
> > with all sorts of other details, I was able to concoct a

plausible

> SF
> > hypothetical "warpdrive"/" Hassleinian hyperdrive" which makes
> sense
> > out of ALL of the EARTH-TIME and SHIP-TIME numbers in the movies
> and
> > the TV series. In addition to that, I was able to concoct a
> plausible
> > reason as to why Taylor somehow ends up back on Earth, rather

than

> on
> > the planet he thought he'd landed on, hundreds of Lightyears

away.

> All
> > of that... because of the Logic of Number.
> > Math can be your friend, Mike; it's worked for me, in MY

scenario.

> If
> > it doesn't work for you or for your scenario, then maybe your
> scenario
> > doesn't have as much logic to it. In my opinion, a

theory/scenario

> is
> > useful if it is able to satisfactorily EXPLAIN THE FACTS. The
> numbers
> > given in the POTA saga are, as far as I'm concerned, FACTS which
> my
> > scenario had to deal with. I couldn't just sweep them under the
> rug
> > and ignore them, or hope that potential readers of my science
> fiction
> > POTA novel-in-progress would gloss over them, too. That might be
> good
> > enough for others out there, but it ain't good enough for me (as

a

> > reader of SF) or for many others out there who also read SF with

a

> > critical eye.
> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002
> >
> > >
> > > --- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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".
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

~-->

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

I don't have a scenario Patrick.

I explore a variety of scenarios and all of them have flaws, as do
yours (eg the Mothership Earth scenario - I would not be the first to
say that this is the LAST scenario would offer, would I?).

You however seem to think that the scenario you offer is the only
one, and that bothers me (so I hope I am wrong).

I wonder if you think we are "battling" over whose scenario is best.
I hope not, because they are all crap! I do wish however that
instead of using your energy to disprove others' theories you would
instead look at ways they might work and stop being so competitive
(and a bit co-operative) about it. The fact that you so consistently
stick to dismissing everything but your take reaaly concerns me as to
your motives.

Michael

> --- In pota@y..., "patrickmichaeltilton"

<patrickmichaeltilton@y...>

> wrote:

> > Math can be your friend, Mike; it's worked for me, in MY

scenario.

> If it doesn't work for you or for your scenario, then maybe your

scenario doesn't have as much logic to it. In my opinion, a
theory/scenario is useful if it is able to satisfactorily EXPLAIN THE
FACTS. The numbers given in the POTA saga are, as far as I'm
concerned, FACTS which my scenario had to deal with. I couldn't just
sweep them under the rug and ignore them, or hope that potential
readers of my science fiction POTA novel-in-progress would gloss over
them, too. That might be good enough for others out there, but it
ain't good enough for me (as a reader of SF) or for many others out
there who also read SF with a critical eye.

> >
> > Patrick Michael Tilton
> > EARTH-TIME 6-26-2002
> >
> > >
> > > --- "patrickmichaeltilton" <patrickmichaeltilton@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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".
>
>
> ------------------------ ---------------------

~-->

> Free $5 Love Reading
> Risk Free!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/3PCXaC/PfREAA/Ey.GAA/9_IolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-~->

>
>
>
>

>
>
>

>The Lawgiver in Battle lived 1300 year before Planet. Zauis states
>that the Sacred Scrolls were written 1200 years before. Thus it's
>not the same Lawgiver. And as the Germans and Russians can tell you,
>a lot can happen in a 100 years.

Huston's character in Battle wouldn't have been called "Lawgiver" if they
didn't mean for him to be the same character mentioned in PLANET that
Zaius refers to as "The greatest ape of all, our Lawgiver". There is
only one Lawgiver because Zaius refers to "ape" and "Lawgiver" and not
"apes" and "lawgivers". The New Testament was recorded 50-200 years
after Jesus lived and spoke, so the Scrolls could have been easily recorded
after the Lawgiver had died. Plus Zaius could have had the date wrong,
and there could have been rounding errors, and the astronauts time clocks
surely had a margin or error.

>> Besides the Lawgiver and the Sacred Scrolls? The BATTLE timeline

has at least

>> 700 YEARS of "humans and apes living in peace and harmony." That

is a *big*

>> achievement on the POTA. So we already have a huge deviation from

the

>> centuries of "carniverous gorillas" of the PLANET timelne to the

centuries of

>> peaceful coexistence in the BATTLE timeline.

>Who said there were centuries of carniverous gorillas? Even if there
>were they lived in the Forbidden Zone not in Ape City. Maybe they
>were followers of Aldo that had been exiled by Caeser and had been
>mutated by the radiation.

On the first level of the cave in PLANET Cornelius finds "an early ape
creature, in a stage of primitive barbarism". On the next lowest level
Cornelius found "carniverous gorillas". The next lowest level he finds
the human artifacts. The Forbidden Zone was not forbidden until the
Lawgiver declared it so. The cave was only a few days from ape city
and I don't see any "primitive barbarism" at the end of BATTLE.

It looks obvious to me that the PLANET timeline doesn't have 700 years of
"humans and apes living in peace and harmony". That is an extraordinary
achievement -- completely unlike anything even hinted at in any of the earlier
movies. How the heck could they achieve 700 years of peace with carniverous
gorillas only a few days away from their capital? Any society that can
achieve 700 YEARS of "peace and harmony" like they did in BATTLE is doing
a hell of a lot better than we are, so I wouldn't worry too much about
what happens later.

Agreed, but it is a bit of a stretch for you to claim that they
definitely did because they could. I am not saying they didn't. I
am saying that offering a possibility is not proving a scenario.
Agreed?

Michael

Subject: [Planet of the Apes] Re: Theoretical Clocks

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

Because "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", it does not follow that
they did this and there is nothing in the story that suggests they
did***.

Michael

*** ...and there is nothing in the story that suggests that they did
not.

Patrick

--- In pota@y..., "Melkor" <melkor@m...> wrote:

> Huston's character in Battle wouldn't have been called "Lawgiver"

if they

> didn't mean for him to be the same character mentioned in PLANET

that

> Zaius refers to as "The greatest ape of all, our Lawgiver".

And what is your evidence to prove this?????

> On the first level of the cave in PLANET Cornelius finds "an early

ape

> creature, in a stage of primitive barbarism". On the next lowest

level

> Cornelius found "carniverous gorillas". The next lowest level he

finds

> the human artifacts. The Forbidden Zone was not forbidden until

the

> Lawgiver declared it so. The cave was only a few days from ape

city

> and I don't see any "primitive barbarism" at the end of BATTLE.

Not in Ape City, but do you know what was going on in the Forbidden
Zone at the time?

> It looks obvious to me that the PLANET timeline doesn't have 700

years of

> "humans and apes living in peace and harmony".

Again, what is your evidence to support this???