...because I will then have absolutely no friggin' reason to EVER turn to this network again.
I can remove it from my remote control, so I never have to pass over it on my way to better, more intelligent programming. I feel dirty just glimpsing at some of the crap they're airing. And that goes for new stuff as well as programs they've had on for more than 10 years.
I shall never again have to suffer through commercials for drek like "Who Wants to Marry a Celebrity Bachelor Boxer on Temptation Island?" while waiting to see if Futurama will be pre-empted - which it will be.
As of the end of this Futurama season, Fox is officially DEAD to me. Hell, I might as well go ahead and ditch it now, but I hold out the hope of catching at least ONE new episode before the switch to CN.
I dunno. Politics. Religion. Political correctness. The decay of morality. The erotion of family values. Rampant crime. Hell, the world's my friggin' oyster as far as bitchin' is concerned.
And if you considered my diatribe as "whining," you *really* haven't been on this newsgroup very long. I'm a rank amateur.
I'm with you. After Futurama is gone, I'll only have to feel slimy once a week when I tune in to the Faux network to watch The Simpsons. After that long of tooth show finally dies, I'll be Fox- free.
Don't forget the Moon landing hoax show. One of the most despicable uses of free speech I've seen since holocaust deniers.
On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 20:19:06 GMT, Larry spewed forth:
It pissed me off from Day 1....not because of the show itself, but because every drooling idiot I know was telling me all about it later on, as though they had a clue what they were talking about.
Woah! They actually did a serious program about that on Fox in the US? That's pretty funny, yet when you think about how many people are going to take that seriously, it's very sad...
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 04:17:36 +0100, "Geert Jan" wrote:
They gave several pieces of evidence that each "prove" the moon landing was fake. There was one that actually made me think for a few minutes, then I figured it out.
Here's a few examples:
If you speed up the film from the moon, the astronauts look like they are on earth in normal gravity.
This is true enough, but if you look closely, you will notice that the fine dust falls straight down. There is no indication that there is any air.
******
Well, perhaps they used a giant vacuum chamber for the filming. But then . . .
They show the flag moving as they set it up. This they attribute to the air conditioning in building.
When the Apollo missions were planned, they were desperate to save weight. Amongst other things, they removed some of the band aids from the first aid kit. The flag was a very light metallic film. Most of the movement occurs while Buzz Aldrin was still holding the pole. The rest of the motion was either momentum or static electricity. After a few minutes, the flag is motionless, even when the astronauts move right by it.
********
The LEM simulator went out of control proving the LEM was unstable and would never be able to land on the moon.
The simulator used three engines to give a feel, in earth gravity, similar to the LEM's one engine in lunar gravity. One of the engines stuck on full and began the throw the simulator over. The pilot, Armstrong, was able to control it enough to hold it sideways and eject. Demonstrating the ability to react under extreme pressure. He demonstrated that again when he landed on the real moon with less than 30 seconds of landing fuel left.
*****
There are no stars in the sky over the moon.
The moon itself is so bright, as are the space suits, that the cameras used dark lenses to prevent over exposing the film. If you look at the night sky with dark sunglasses on, you too can see no stars.
The rest of the evidence was similarly pure BS.
I spoke to two people that took some of the evidence seriously. I was forced to leer at them for accepting the evidence without really questioning it.
I really did laugh through most of the show. The evidence was so lame. I wish I had it on tape so I could shred it point by point.
On or about Wed, 04 Dec 2002 06:26:28 GMT, Larry made the sensational claim that:
There have been quite a few threads about this over in sci.space.*, including a few about just what it would take to accomplish such a hoax. The general concensus is the hoax would cost far more and be much more difficult than simply going to the moon. Add to this the fact that *not one single person* has come forward as a "whistleblower" in the 30+ years since. Some people are just idiots.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:11:27 GMT, LooseChanj wrote:
Probably not any more, but back in 1969 that was very true.
I remember watching the Apollo project and there is one detail I haven't seen discussed. There was a Soviet orbiter that arrived at the moon shortly before Apollo 11. The Soviets claimed it was a mere coincidence. NASA complained that it's orbit was dangerously low and passed too close to the landing sight. The general consensus was that they were watching to make sure we weren't faking. In a low lunar orbit, even with 1960's optics, they would have been able to tell if we really there. So, unless the Soviets were "in on it" too, the hoax theory bites even more dust.
The Chinese have announced plans to send a manned mission to the moon. It will be interesting to see if they photograph any Apollo sights from orbit. Considering that we can see a small car from a 250 mile orbit, through the atmosphere, I'm certain they could see the base of a LEM on the moon from a 50-75 mile orbit. In fact, they should be able to see foot prints.
But back to the conspiracy:
If the facts don't fit the conspiracy, build a bigger conspiracy. And here's mine:
NASA was working on a project to fake moon landings on orders from the president. However, they couldn't get it right here on earth so they did the fake moon landing on the moon. So, the fake moon landings are a hoax that were actually done on the moon.
Now, is that any crazier than the original theory?
There was one "whistleblower" on a radio talk show back in the mid 70's. He swore to have been involved in fake moon landings. He worked on the sets etc. No one could back up his claims and anyone who disputed him was either brainwashed or "in on it".
He did lead me to one interesting thought. There is some real evidence of faked moon landings. That is because there were faked moon landings. Lots of them. In fact of the hundreds of moon landings, only a small number were real. NASA will confirm this if you ask the right questions. First, don't use the word faked, they don't like that. They called them rehearsals or simulations. Yes there were mock landing sights, as he claimed there were. They just weren't secrets.
If this idiot worked on the mock ups, he could take a lie detector test and say "I worked on fake moon landings" and pass.
--Larry
"There's a metal flag beside me Someone planted long ago. Old glory standing stiffly, Crimson white and indigo."
On or about Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:38:00 GMT, Larry made the sensational claim that:
Hmmm, don't think so. Luna 15 was launched about the same time as Apollo 11, in sort of a last ditch attempt to at least get a piece of the moon back, but it wasn't there to make sure the US landed. You could do that from the ground.
*chortle* And the Russians have announced plans to land on Mars. But seriously, if the real landings don't convince these kooks, do you really think some vague pictures are going to? It's easy enough to fake those.
I like my hoax theory: Apollo 13 never had any problems, it was all just a stunt to get people worked up about the moon landings again. In fact, they actually landed, just covered up the fact.
Really? This is the first time I've ever seen anyone even claim to have heard someone claim to have been in on the faked landings.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:22:34 GMT, LooseChanj wrote:
They knew we were there, but was Apollo 11 manned? I remember the discussion of the probe at the time. I remember when they said the Soviets assured us that it would not interfere with our landing. Admittedly, I was 7 years old at the time.
I think the Chinese have a better chance to get the moon than the Russian have of getting to Mars. They have been testing life support systems and they should have a manned orbital launch in a year or so.
It took us about 8 years from orbital missions to a moon landing. The Chinese will have it much easier. All the big engineering problems have been solved and they have much better computers.
Good one!
Yes, it's old hearsay twice removed!
It was on KRIZ - FM in Phoenix. Probably between 1974 and 1977 on a call in show called "The ZBS Cross Talk". They would have a subject to call in about and sometimes a guest.
The guy had nothing as far as real credentials. He said the NASA would deny he ever work for them. So if NASA denies that he worked for them, it proves his story is true. (ugh)
Since none of his co-workers came forward and all his work history is secret it is hard to totally disprove him.
As best I remember it, his story went like this:
"I worked for a company (un-named) that was contracted by NASA to create a movie set for a moon landing. We were told it was a secret and we had to swear not to talk about. But the country needs to know etc."
Giving him far more credit than he could possibly deserve, he might have worked on a mock up in northern AZ or NV. (They did train at meteor crater, near Winslow AZ. ) They told them it was a secret because they didn't want the Soviets to copy our training methods.
Even back then I just laughed at him. The show was on after my bed time and my brother and I used to listen with earphones. I couldn't call in and argue with him. It was the first time I ever heard any moon landing hoax theories.
On or about Thu, 05 Dec 2002 00:32:02 GMT, Larry made the sensational claim that:
It'll be interesting to see how the world reacts. Or maybe not.
There is absolutely no pressure on the Chinese, and all signs point to their being extremely thorough and cautious. They have all the time in the world, and no one to beaT in any sort of race. I wouldn't be expecting a Chinese lunar mission for quite some time. Another point: they haven't actually announced a *manned* lunar mission at all, IIRC. Basically the press took manned spaceflight+lunar mission(unmanned) and came up with that rumor.
Oh well then, I'll take it as gospel.
<snippage> Still, considering the manpower that would have been needed for a hoax, it's a pretty pathetic showing.
This thread puts me in mind of an Art Bell show I heard, with a guest that was convinced the moon landing was a hoax. What made it funny was that Richard C. Hoagland (The "C" stands for "Lunatic") was also a guest.
They spent most of the show arguing back and forth, the one guy claiming the landing was a hoax and Richard C. claiming we really DID land, but NASA was covering up all the alien artifacts they found. There was a real sense of competition, since Richard C. has carved out NASA conspiracies as his own bailiwick, and will fight anyone who tries to move in on his own turf.
By the way, I've always wanted to spread my own hoax theory. About Elvis:
When Elvis's mother gave birth to twins (true -- the other was called
Aaron), the doctor knew she couldn't afford to raise two kids, so he told
her one was stillborn and gave it away to a childless couple. (This really
did happen in those times.)
When Elvis eventually joined the Army and went to Germany, the CIA
discovered the living twin during a background check. They did nothing
about it until one day Elvis accidentally drove into East Germany while on
leave.
The Soviets knew capturing Elvis was a great propeganda victory. So
did the CIA. So while Elvis was on a train to Moscow the CIA contacted his
twin and flew him to Germany as a replacement.
Of course, since there was a replacement Elvis the real Elvis'
propeganda value plummeted. So after keeping him in a goolag for a few
years, the Soviets allowed him to settle in Minsk, where he became a
plumber.
Meanwhile Elvis' talented twin continued in his new life. But his
lack of talent, evidenced by "Blue Hawaii" and "In the Ghetto," led to a
life of drugs, alcohol, and fried bananas. He died in 1977.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the real Elvis emigrated back to the
united states under his new identity. He now lives in Yuma, Arizona, in a
small apartment complex. He goes by the name Illianich Bollinski, and
occassionally has screaming fights with the elderly woman next door who
has 14 cats.
Is it True? Or did we make it up? Stay tuned to Fox TV for the answer after the commercial.
=v= They also aired an "alien autopsy" video. I laughed *my* ass off when _The_X-Files_ showed Agent Scully doing an autopsy that was clearly a hoax (she discovered it was a guy in a rubber suit), after which the Fox Network aired it as an alien autopsy video. :^) <_Jym_>
On 09 Dec 2002 06:52:47 GMT, [email] (Gyumaoh) wrote:
I was afraid of that.
They were actually exposing a hoax rather than perpetuating one. Oh well, the "as long as the production costs don't go over $12.95 we'll run it network" strikes again.
I won't be, no matter how banal Fox is or how badly they mistreated Futurama - only because I don't get Cartoon Network. Thank Ellis for Usenet binary groups and friendly rippers, I guess.
Does anyone have concrete information on how this move will affect Futurama qua Futurama, BTW? I've read that CN performs well in the young male demographic (12-22?), but overall does Futurama have a chance of matching even its worst Fox rating consistently on CN? What's the difference in homes reached? It has to be massive... so how much less ad-based revenue will it generate on CN? And will its budget be significantly lower as a result? (And if so, will that mean less episodes and longer wait time between seasons, or lower-quality episodes?) Or will AOL-TW just pump money into it no matter what, to, uh, "grow the brand"? Anyone know?
"Kevin M. Grand" wrote in message news:asscco$u7uqp$[email]...
I don't know, but they can't get nearly as many viewers. CN can pull in a few million for their best-rated stuff, like Dragonball Z, but that's substantially lower than Futurama's worst ratings I believe on Fox.
In alt.tv.futurama, on the "Re: I will be so glad when Fox drops Futurama..." thread, Kevin M. Grand wrote:
Not really, but that probably doesn't matter. Ratings for cable shows are nearly always lower than for network shows, but cable channels also earn revenue from the fees they charge cable operators. (And, I'm assuming, satellite providers like Dish TV or Direct Network, or whatever they're called.) They can afford to pitch shows to a small, dedicated audience.
Right now, the only budget they need is to buy the rights to air old episodes. CN isn't making new ones, and I don't think there are plans to do so in the near future.