DJ Kris

Totally loved the episode, but sadly I knew pretty much what was going to happen as at some point before Saturday someone posted on Facebook a transcript of what sounded like a letter from Amy to The Doctor explaining exactly what happened to them. I bloody hate people with the Facebook spoilers, but even more so before its even been shown!

First look at the new design for Robocop

 

decided not to put the pics directly on here in case people didn't want to see them. if it was a bit more silver i think it would look fine, the black just looks odd. it just looks a bit plasticy

 

I wasn't expecting Robocop to look like that. Suit reminds me of The Dark Knight/The Dark Knight Rises.

That's exactly what I was gonna say, just makes me think of Batman

 

EDIT: On reading the accompanying article it does that that's just one suit and that there are several in the film. Not sure how that's supposed to work, but I suppose it gives hope.

 

I bet you all want to watch this British film.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQOT4xsqlUA...feature=g-all-u

The video has been removed by the user! What was it?

Those comments from football 365 forum is just as bad as this place.

While I get where you're coming from, in amongst all these positive post show comments, none of which resembled any of those, why did you feel the need to try and drag things down? You failed, so well done

 

Looking forward to next week. More Tizer, please!

There's a next week? Please tell me there is!

 

The Knight's are a bit rough around the edges, but isn't that what you'd expect/want from a wrestling family?

Common as much and lovely as hell is what I thought, and I hope they're not offended by that. These are real people and they came across as real which is why I think this was so good, they didn't seem false.

 

I really felt for Zak when Britani got in and he didn't, Saraya said it right when she referred to it as his dream that she never gave a shit about to begin with, I could totally see how hard that would be for him but at the same time being please for his sister. I'm glad they didn't pretend that wouldn't hurt. I also liked his closing comments about people wondering if he really wanted it, really, because it's absolutely true, he isn't in the right shape for WWE, to be honest, he could do with being in a little better shape anyway. He's very talented, clearly, so maybe he'll give himself that extra push he needs because I'd love to see him in WWE, just as I'm waiting to see Britani.

 

I always loved the big Bret Hart matches where you'd have Stu and Helen in the crowd and I just think Roy, Zak and Britani making a sucess of themselves in WWE, a proper sucess could make for some interesting stories with Ricky and Saraya sat at ringside in much the same way or getting involved. I'm getting carried away now.

What's council TV? Sorry I can't answer you question, but I never heard that one before! Also, are you a Scrubs fan by any chance?

Anyone know what's going on with PWTorrents? It's either down or changed it's ULR. Just in time for No Way Out

 

It's down.

 

If you go to special.pwtorrents.net there's a message saying that they can't afford their hosting bills and have taken the site down while they raise funds.

Bummer, I knew things were getting tight, but they've been saying stuff like that for ages. First time I've know this to happen

Anyone know what's going on with PWTorrents? It's either down or changed it's ULR. Just in time for No Way Out

I am currently going through this tremendous box set

 

Shame they never released it over here. It's basically a best-of, divided into 6 4-disc subsets with a bonus disc tacked on featuring a few other of the mysteries that didn't fit with the other sets. Strongly recommended if you're into that sort of this. Which, if you're reading this thread, there's a good chance you are.

I used to love this in the '90s, I've got 4 DVD's that I managed to aquire a couple of years ago and I've just started watching the newer version that's on CBS. Same cool, creapy music, but whoever the presenter he's no Robert Stack, RIP

 

I agree with you about how much better this thread is too. Thing is when you have someone like Duane people are gonna get frustrated and go so far the other way. It's nice that the discussion is a little more interesting on both sides.

Awesome , will keep my eyes peeled for that.

 

If you can, it might be worth trying to find out which section of the army this came from, and when abouts it was taken. As to be fair, for a second I thought this bloke may of been in the actual picture,all be it a little bit further back in the stand, because of how clear you can see his face.

 

For what its worth, if he is on other pictures slightly older than this one, people may of thought he was actually in them due to exposure (that is of course if he is on them).

 

Barring that I'm sure there is a record of these pictures somewher, so happy hunting!

I've gotta get on with some work so will get back onto this later. What I've established so far is this seems to be one of the more famous ghost photos and is widely excepted as being real or at least not proven otherwise. However, one website give a little information on the man who took and published the photo Sir Victor Goddard. It would seem Victor developed a keen interest in the paranormal and told some interested stories from his life including a time when he believed that he time traveled and one where his life was saved because someone had a premonition. Not sure how true these claims are, but they certainly don't give me a lot of confidence in his back story to the photo. After all, at this stage all we have is a man who like to tell fantastic stories claiming the photo was taken after this man died and claiming that members of the Squadron (served at the HMS Daedalus training facility) had easily recognised him. Of course as yet there's also little to suggest non of this is true, but I'd like to at least find some quote from some of these other people and perhaps a photo and some more information on Freddy Jackson (the ghost) himself.

Doesnt it depend on the exposure of the picture itself, like it can only be the odd thing that pops up on the picture, rather than two whole pictures overlapping, (which also does happen depending on what goes on with the picture).

 

As for the taking of the pictures, I would of thought they took everybodys picture at some point (as they do now really) and the fact he may of died X ammount of days later may not be very suprising at all, as many people didnt last very long at all from what I'm aware. As Loki said the exposure can still take effect a few days or so later, so his personal picture may of been a few days prior. Adding on top of that, that he may of turned up in other pictures (i would of thought) but nobody else noticed.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong, although there are alot of more likely cases to what is going in these types pictures

Possibly so, I'm trying to find some more information on it, as to what "experts" had to say about it, whether it's known an other photo of him was taken that could have tainted this one. I'll let you know if I find anything, but so far every site seems to have cut an pasted the same paragraph.

What do you mean by "You would say that"? I actually forgot to include a copy of the photo I was talking about If you have a pretty vague looking photo then sure it makes sense someone might see a dead relative when infact it's just a dodgy blur or whatever, but in cases where the picture is actually reasonably clear, such as the one I've now posted above I think it's clear enough to identify the person.

 

I personally think even if you could full on make out the face, some relatives might still "Want" to see that person, and just say "Yes that is 100% him". I personally think it still might be a case of double exposure or something along those lines, it just seems a bit to easy to have that particular idea give some form of false identification.

People see a lot of things they want to, but in the case of the WWI photo I don't think people were imagining seeing him.

 

Where on the photo is the enlarged section taken from?

Top row, fourth from the left.

 

As someone who regularly managed to appear in school photos twice, once at each end, I know group photos are easily fucked around with! To me, that looks like someone's taken a photo over the top of an earlier group photo, and the guy's face has remained in the new photo as it happens to appear in a space. If there's only a couple of days between photos, that could easily have happened.

Yeah I heard about the way that used to happen in older photos, suprisingly from the film The Awakening, which is pretty good by the way. I don't know how often group photos like this would have been taken during WWI, I thinking not very often? But the guy was killed 2 days earlier so I would be suprised if a photo such as this was taken that day and then another so close. Surely though mif it was a case of 2 photos on top of each other would there not be other indications of this in the picture?

 

EDIT: Quick bit of research on the car photo gives some background. I wasn't aware the person was supposed to be someone's relative, but apparently the photo was taken when Mabel Chinnery was visiting her Mother's gravesite in 1959. Her husband in the driver and she believe's the person in the back is her Mother. Now in this instance I agree with Bowyo that she is probably seeing what she wants to see as in my opinion the face isn't clear enough to make out anymore than it being a person. Supposedly the photo was examined by an expert who was certain it wasn't a reflection or a double exposure.

That's always the line with ghost photos though: "The story goes...". The story goes that it's not my mate in a sheet dancing around in the background.

This thing with ghosts though is what would be considered hard evidence? Obviously you get the photos and videos that can be easily discredited as double exposure, and other logical explanations, but when you get the ones that can't. For example that photo with the man in the backseat of the car, surely all you can really have is the photo along with the witness statement that no one else was in the car?

 

I'm quite a fan of photos where someone can actually be identified such as a dead relative.

 

I find this one interesting from WWI. The story is that face belongs to an air machanic who had been killed days before the photos was taken. I would argue that there is enough of his face showing for those that knew him to be able to make a good identification.

See you would say that, although I might say that it could be a double exposure still, and with a bit of blur in there, a relative might make a face out of nothing due to them wanting to see that person. (if that makes any sense).

What do you mean by "You would say that"? I actually forgot to include a copy of the photo I was talking about If you have a pretty vague looking photo then sure it makes sense someone might see a dead relative when infact it's just a dodgy blur or whatever, but in cases where the picture is actually reasonably clear, such as the one I've now posted above I think it's clear enough to identify the person.

That's always the line with ghost photos though: "The story goes...". The story goes that it's not my mate in a sheet dancing around in the background.

This thing with ghosts though is what would be considered hard evidence? Obviously you get the photos and videos that can be easily discredited as double exposure, and other logical explanations, but when you get the ones that can't. For example that photo with the man in the backseat of the car, surely all you can really have is the photo along with the witness statement that no one else was in the car?

 

I'm quite a fan of photos where someone can actually be identified such as a dead relative.

 

 

I find this one interesting from WWI. The story is that face belongs to an air machanic who had been killed days before the photos was taken. I would argue that there is enough of his face showing for those that knew him to be able to make a good identification.

 

EDIT: Forgot to actually post the photo

That's spot on Pitcos. In the absence of verifiable facts, not all theories carry the same weight. We can't prove what that thing is in those photos to anything like scientific rigour. However, there is some visual evidence that it could be a cleverly constructed underwater hoax, and that theory is hugely more plausible and re-creatable than it being a previously undiscovered giant sea creature, for which the only evidence is this photo.It's a similar problem with the "argument" for UFOs. "Well", says the believer, "with all these sightings and photos and suchlike, there's definitely SOMETHING out there". Whereas in fact an accumulation of unverifiable and plausibly reinterpreted data means absolutely nothing.

That's fair enough, I understand your point a lot better now. On the UFO subject the insistance that "all these sighting" is hard evidence of existance is very poor, but so is the flip side of the arguement that I've heard a lot of, that being because we don't have the technology to travel any significant distance in reasonable time it's assumed no one else has or the arguement of if someone out there did, they wouldn't be interested in us.

It probably is a hoax, but one guy's "it's plastic" carries no more weight with me than some other guy's "it's a giant sea monster".

But we know for sure that plastic exists, while we don't know for sure that giant tadpoles exist. So in the absence of any further evidence either way the application of Occam's Razor means the former hypothesis does carry more weight than the latter, no?

Not necessarily. Is it not true that the oceans are believed to be full of yet to be discovered creatures? Like Astro I think this is probably a hoax too, but someone saying it's plastic doesn't mean it is and I don't see the fact that we know plastic exists adds anything to it that arguement.

Bad news everybody...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...ie-is-dead.html

Television psychic Derek Acorah has claimed Madeleine McCann is dead, after a messenger from the spirit world told him:

What's fucking going on here? So we're getting a Spiderman reboot and a Superman re-reboot? How many fucking versions of this shit do people need in their lives?

There's never enough!The spidey one has something to do with rights though, if Sony don't make another one in a certain amount of time the rights go back to marvel or something. And it's about fucking time they made a decent superman film, the last one sucked. The avengers is looking to be the biggest film of all time too so thankfully they'll keep coming.

I'm pretty sure the same applies to Superman too.I was sceptical of a Spider-man reboot so close to the brilliant recent movies, but both trailers look good and I'm really looking forward to watching it. Superman not so much. I'm a huge Superman fan and the last film was a let down. This one I'm already not liking what I'm seeing.

The last KFC video I watched, the Batista's dick question cracked me up. I can't remember who was being interviewed, it was someone who had no connection to Batista (possibly Shane Douglas), and the lead-in to it from the Youtuber was fantastic.

So what is the deal with Batista's dick? You're right it was Shane Douglas, but I saw a shoot with Sean Waltman where someone asked the same question!

 

EDIT: On a side note, 4 shoot interviews I'd love to see is Hulk Hogan, Vince McMahon, The Undertaker and Triple H. Actually Shane McMahon would maybe be an interesting one.

So this is me in June 2009:

 

December 2009:

 

and last month in my 17 year old nephews size small t-shirt. FUCK YOU Weightwatchers!

Why would anyone be thinking of dropping it though? It's only a few years into a very sucessful run and unless I'm mistaken it went nearly 30 years before it took it's first proper break. It's a concept that can just go on and on IMO.

Got to agree with everyone here, there's no need for a reboot on the big screen, especially as it's highly likely there's still going to be a TV show.

 

I think a big screen adventure for whichever current Doctor is on screen at that moment would be better. Hey, if it gets them happier about paying big screen money, bring in someone like Johnny Depp as the villain.

 

They could even have the series end with a hint to the film. Put the series on earlier in the year, and then release the film in the summer, or have the series at the regular time and release the film late summer early autumn

 

 

Im fairly certain theres some kind of rule that bans the BBC from having a film of a show as they cant have something that means people have to watch the BBC to fully understand it. I could be wrong, but Im sure I'd read that before.

That makes no sense, I film can be done without people having to watch the show to understand it. You make it so it fit between 2 serious but stands alone storywise. If it's felt necessary to give any kind of backstory to first time viewers they simply need to write in a scene where The Doctor is seeing flashbacks of his life. It's not complicated at all.

 

Would it have a wobbly special effect and that harp sound effect and Matt Smith looking thoughtfully off into the sky while rubbing his chin as well?

I prefer that to be saved for episodes of Scooby Doo

Got to agree with everyone here, there's no need for a reboot on the big screen, especially as it's highly likely there's still going to be a TV show.

 

I think a big screen adventure for whichever current Doctor is on screen at that moment would be better. Hey, if it gets them happier about paying big screen money, bring in someone like Johnny Depp as the villain.

 

They could even have the series end with a hint to the film. Put the series on earlier in the year, and then release the film in the summer, or have the series at the regular time and release the film late summer early autumn

 

 

Im fairly certain theres some kind of rule that bans the BBC from having a film of a show as they cant have something that means people have to watch the BBC to fully understand it. I could be wrong, but Im sure I'd read that before.

That makes no sense, I film can be done without people having to watch the show to understand it. You make it so it fit between 2 serious but stands alone storywise. If it's felt necessary to give any kind of backstory to first time viewers they simply need to write in a scene where The Doctor is seeing flashbacks of his life. It's not complicated at all.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15730665

 

Doctor Who 'to be made into film'

 

Dr Who is to be taken to the big screen by Harry Potter director David Yates.

 

Yates, who directed the last four Potter films, told Variety that he is about to start work on developing a "Doctor Who" film with the BBC.

 

He told the showbiz magazine that the film would take a fresh approach to the cult sci-fi show.

 

"We're going to spend two to three years to get it right. It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena," he said.

 

"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch," he said.

 

Yates is reported to be working with the head of LA-based BBC Worldwide Productions, Jane Tranter.

 

A BBC spokesman said: "A Doctor Who feature film remains in development with BBC Worldwide Productions in Los Angeles. T

 

"The project is unlikely to reach cinemas for several years and as yet there is no script, cast or production crew in place."

 

Doctor Who began in 1963, and seven actors played the Doctor before the show was dropped in 1989.

 

After a TV movie in 1996 - starring Paul McGann - the TV series returned in 2005 with Christopher Eccleston in the lead role. David Tennant took over in the same year.

 

The sixth series of Doctor Who, starring Matt Smith as the Doctor, broadcast on BBC earlier this year.

 

I surely can't be the only one who thinks if you're gonna make a big screen version of a show that is currently massively successful you should do so as an accompaniment to the series (as X-Files did) not do something that's not only totally seperate but also "radically transforms" something that is actually very good as it is! That doesn't mean they have to do it in a way that puts off people who don't follow the show, but surely your core audience is going to be people who watch it now?

Sorry to interrupt the banter but i told her i cheated and now she is no longer my girlfriend, so oh well i guess. time to move on now...truly a low point for me, never cheated on anyone before and i went and cheated on the person that looked like she could be really good for me. Shit.

If she's willing to give up on the relationship so easily you have to ask yourself if it meant that much to her in the first place? Mind you, that could be said the other way too I suppose but at least in your case it meant enough for you to be honest with her about you minor discretion.

thanks for the responses dudes, i feel like total shit, but i think i gotta tell her as the guilt would tear me up i think, i'd def never ever do it again but i think i should let her know and let her decide if she can trust me again, argh i dunno

Fair enough dude, but don't leave us hanging, make sure you let us know how you get on! Good luck!

Myself as Robin, the pose strangely reminds me of an ever so camp william regal

 

You're no Rodney though