Vic Mancini

Wow... this thread got all sorts of crazy. I don't understand where the racism and Stonehenge talks came in. It doesn't work because Stonehenge isn't as overtly spectacular as the pyramids so it's much easier to dismiss as the work of some really determined early men. Not only is Stonehenge itself no where near as impressive as the pyramids but it also isn't surrounded by similar seemingly miraculous feats. That's why people don't rush to the "aliens did it" conclusion, not because people believe early Englanders were more industrious. Want more proof? Look at crop circles. Those happened over really large areas with frequency in England and Europe and people thought they were alien events and didn't chalk it up to "those industrious white folks."

^

^

^

This.

I've seen TV shows that proved that a small team of ordinary men with wooden A-frames and a little bit of rope could build up enough leverage to make a full-scale replica of Stonehenge, no problem. That's what it's debunked so much more easily than the pyramids which are still a bit of a mystery.

But the fact that 2.2 million hits worth of whackos still promote alien intervention in regards to Stonehenge, a European monument, is proof that it's not a racist issue. There is no exclusivity for non-white cultures being targeted as candidates for alien intervention. Whites are targets too. Race has nothing to do with it.

To me it's the same.

Well I almost don't know what to say to that because they aren't the same, and that's non-debatable fact. The ironic part of this is that you are ignorant about the definition of the word ignorant....which in your books makes you a racist. lol. This is one of the most bizarre debates I've ever had, by the way. I mean we're talking about racism, and it's as if you don't actually know what the word means.

But my point here is that 2.2 Million hits on a search engine does not constitute as evidence in support or against anything.

We are not even on the same page. Sigh.

I think you are under the impression that I'm using 2.2 million google hits in defense of the alien-connection theories that they support. Please read this part carefully: I do not believe aliens had anything to do with Stonehenge. I am not trying to convince you of that. I am not providing these 2.2 million hits about aliens/stonehenge as evidence that they built it. I am providing these hits as simple proof that the theories simply exist...misinformed and ignorant as they may be. That's all. There they are...2.2 million of them....right there.

If alien-connection theories were driven by racism then they wouldn't exist for Euro/western things like Stonehenge and modern-day American technology. That's what you were implying in the first post you made about racism. But they do exist. And the fact that they do (to such an amazingly large extent) is evidence of equality and non-descrimination. Alien theories do not discriminate between the Druids, Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans, Caucasians, etc...etc... How do you not see this?

You fail to answer my original claim that the "number of hits" is independent of whether or not something is discriminatory or not. Tons of Americans supported slavery in the 19th century(quite a few million hits there!), was that not racist?

Of course it was racist because all the slaves were black and they were all owned by whites!

And please lol stop with the Google count. Based on the amount of sheer trash that is on the internet, the only thing that reflects is the sheer ignorance of internet users who have somehow managed to learn HTML.

The argument isn't about the validity of internet users, the argument is whether or not internet users are discriminatory. 2.2 million hits on Google proves that the ignorance out there is not discriminatory/racist.

Racism and ignorance are not the same thing...at all. Racism can come from ignorance, but you can't use the two words interchangeably.

Um.... I guess I took the part about "First of all, that's not true. There are plenty of theories involving Area 51 and how many modern day technologies, weapons systems, propulsion, etc...were all reverse engineered tech from the Roswell crash" ... a bit too literally? I fail to comprehend why you brought this up, but... anyways, I'm sorry?

It was in response about what you said about anything built by a non-euro/western civilization is attributed to aliens. People have alien-connection theories to modern day western technologies, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51

Scroll down to the "UFO and other conspiracy theories concerning Area 51".

That and we've already established that google has over 2 million hits for alien + Stonehenge, (almost 1/3 as many as Giza), and that's a European monument.

So there you go...both a North American and a European example of mass alien connection theories, despite them both being far easier to debunk than Giza. Skin colour and discrimination have nothing to do with it, so far. In fact I find the racism accusation completely baseless. Not even one example of something that is Euro/Western, and semi-unexplainable, has been provided as something that should/would have a large share of alien-connections if not for it's Euro/Western origin.

Hey buddy,

Don't assume I believe in alien/human intervention theories, just because I disagree about it being a form of racism.

If I were ignorant, I could easily claim that "teh aliens" gave Rome its knowledge but I'm not, as there is clear historical evidence to suggest the opposite.

Don't you see that's exactly why Rome is excluded from links to aliens. Not because of racism.

That's my point.

Just because the historical trail is not clear for Giza, and other marvels, does not automatically mean that there was alien intervention.

Of course it doesn't. Did I say it does?

The Sumerians were not the forefathers of all modern civilization (arguably for the middle east yes). They were the earliest to make significant cultural and technological strides, but by the time that happened humans were already spread across the globe and well into the Americas as the last ice age had ended. The civilizations of Asia, Europe, and the Americas came into being relatively independently.

Again, the main theory is that alien intervention pre-dated the Sumerians. Most of the theories actually involve homo sapiens being a synthesized race. Hybrids of homo errectus and alien DNA. According to the popular theory, alien intervention would've been occuring maybe up to hundreds of thousands of years before the Sumerians. Some theories I've read claim the Sumerians and Mayans were part of the phase out strategy. Aliens decided to leave the planet and gave culture to the slave races around the globe before departing. ...Again, not a racist theory if it involves planting the genetic seeds and cultures of every race.

And again, don't assume I believe in these theories.

I just don't believe they are racist until you can find me Western/Euro equivalents to the Giza pyramids that UFO/Alien believers should by all means be associating with alien intervention if not for the supposed racist-factor.

It's pretty clear, there are people who are quick to debunk the alien + stonehenge myth, and just from breaking down the numbers, the euro+alien connection is a 1/3rd less popular than the non-euro+alien connection. Yet the same is not true for aliens + pyramids, in fact, many UFO conspiracy folk actively point to the pyramids as their "proof"

If your point is that alien conspiracy theories have a not so subtle undercurrent of racism then yes, I'm proving your point.

So you're saying people are debunking the alien/stonhenge connection because they are white supremacists and it has nothing to do with the fact that Stonhenge might be easier to debunk than Giza in a logistical way?

I'd say 2 million+ hits for a stonehenge/alien connection, (whether they are being more readily debunked or not), pretty much squelches any notion of racism being involved.

Besides Stonehenge, are there any other monuments/constructions/etc that aren't getting enough connection to aliens by the not so subtle racists of the UFO community?

sure, 2 million hits in google, compared to 6 million for "pyramids aliens"

for stonehenge + aliens, by the third entry we already have people debunking the alien connection

The first page for pyamids + aliens is almost entirely pro-alien sites, even going for aliens in china...

I don't understand. You're making this post as if it doesn't prove my point.

Yet when we have a euro mega work, stonehenge, it's all about how it was a prehistoric religious artifact and not some alien built something or other.

Are you kidding?

Do a google search for "Stonehenge + Aliens" and tell me how many hits you get.

On a more serious note, (and I stated the same thing on the 2012 thread), the whole alien influence thing is a thinly veiled form of racism in my opinion. Anything built by a non-European/Western civilization has supposedly been attributed to aliens since said incredibly works (pyramids, nazca lines, etc.) are supposedly tooooo advanced for the "local people" to do.

First of all, that's not true. There are plenty of theories involving Area 51 and how many modern day technologies, weapons systems, propulsion, etc...were all reverse engineered tech from the Roswell crash.

Secondly, that only seems true because only non-Euro things are too ancient and so amazing that we can't totally account for them. Aren't they? For example, it's not like anyone can claim Aliens built the Colosseum. What things in Europe and in the western civilization fall under both categories of:

A) Pre-dating history records

and

B) Being so amazing that we can't imagine how they were built?

^

I'm not a history buff, so this is a genuine question.

In other words, what is the European equivalent of Giza that I would have to believe was built by aliens in order to make me a non-racist?

Thirdly, the theory being hinted at in the Fourth Kind is

...then where's the racism?

I liked it. But I'm a sucker for anything about aliens/abduction. I especially liked how

One thing that seems to polarize everyone I know who's seen the movie is the fact that the movie is basically a hoax. All the archival footage and archival audio that they claim is real in the movie is 100% fake according to my research. From what I've read, Dr. Abigail Tyler doesn't even exist. So if the knowledge of that bothers you - skip it. If you like movies about alien abduction, and you don't mind that all the archival footage is a hoax - see it. It's way better than the 17% rating on rottentomatos.com.

Yes.

In 1992, when it was released, Macross II was billed as a sequel to DYRL.

Then in 1994, when Macross Plus and 7 came out, DYRL was relegated to its current role as "just a movie" and Macross II was placed in an alternate universe.

But if Mac II is a sequel to DYRL, and DYRL was relegated to it's role of "just being a movie", doesn't Mac II get relegated to the same role by association of being a sequel to DYRL?

Maybe I should stop derailing this topic.

So Macross Fronier...who else can't wait for the movie version?

No...in the Macross II universe, DYRL "really happened," so neither of them are "just movies."

Now I'm totally confused.

So there are two universes?... The "SDFM/Plus/7/Zero/Frontier universe" in which DYRL was a film, and a second universe in which DYRL (and Mac II) were actual events?

COVER

Great image.

Typography needs work though.

On the otherhand according to Big West Macross II is a direct sequel to DYRL.

Wow, really?

So according to Big West, Macross II is just a film within the Macross universe starring actors and special effects like Do you Remember Love and Bird Human?

I didn't know that.

That would makes a lot of sense.

Then again...it could just be a convenient cop out to bring Macross II back into the cannon without disrupting the consistency of everything else. If Macross II is a movie/sequel to DYRL, then shouldn't it be called "Do You Remember Love II"?

I'm not setting up this thread to trash other Macross series, but I think there's something seriously wrong with me and I'm wondering what it is and if I'm alone on this.

I watched Robocrap when I was a kid (I was probably 9 or 10 when it came out back in 1984), hated the voices, hated some of the story concepts, but loved the action. I had an inkling that Robocrap the Macross Saga was based on a series called Macross, but that's about it. Macross II came out and I thought it was ok.......I had no idea why the SDF-1 looked different. Some time after that, I discovered DYRL and loved it.....oh, that's why the SDF-1 looks different. It also explained the Strike Packs I found on some Japanese model kits of Macross. I was now on a crusade to find out all I could about the original story. Macross Plus came out, watched it, liked it. When the Animeigo DVD series came out for the original series, I blew $400 and got it.

So, here I am, 34 years old in 2009 and I find myself hating Macross 7, not really liking Macross Zero all that much, though it was cool to see the new animation styles/techniques and of course, Fokker. I have to admit, I'm not really taking to Macross Frontier either. The animation, and the fight scenes are cool, but the mech designs don't sit right for me, when everyone else seems to love them.

When I think about it, I'm not even sure if I like the designs from Mac Plus. When I'm on the forums here, I find myself drawn to topics (especially toys and models) only related to SDF Macross and DYRL, completely ignoring MF toys/models.

What's wrong with me? It seems like all the new stuff seems to be working for everyone else except for me. Is it because I'm just too old for this stuff? If I am, why do I cling on to SDF and DYRL? The same thing happened with Transformers. Everyone I talked to loved the new Transformers.....I hate Michael Bay's new Transformers and I find myself searching for images of G1 figures and toys. There are others my age that seem to like the new stuff, so I don't think age is an issue here......

I love the fact that there's still new Macross products coming out, Yamato and Hasegawa have been doing a great job with that. When Hasegawa released pics of the 1/48 scale YF-19, I was mildly amused. I'd probably buy one, but it was one of those things that didn't excite me all that much. When I saw the test model for their 1/48 VF-1, I $hit myself. Maybe I'm just getting really closed-minded. I really tried to like Macross Zero and Macross F, but I don't find myself wanting to buy the toys and models.......maybe it's a good thing....for my wallet. Am I alone or am I just old?

I'm about the same age as you and have a similar story - growing up with Robotech, kind of knowing it was adapted from something else, finding Mac Plus, searching for the real macross and what it's all about, learning what a bastardization RT was and how much better the original is...etc..

But the ending of my story is the opposite of yours. I find all the SDFM and DYRL designs dated. Every time someone posts a new thread about some new VF-1 CG, toy, or model I cringe. I just don't get where the undying love for the VF-1 and those old characters comes from. I'm a bigger fan of Plus, Zero, and Frontier than the original series.

Point is, it's not an age thing obviously. It's just personal preferences.

There's nothing about Halo I find particularly distinctive, therefore I can call it generic. I didn't say poster-child. I said generic. There is a difference...

I thought the poster child of being generic opinion was implied when you joked about how it should have been titled "Generic First Person Shooter" and come in a white box. Perhaps I misunderstood.

I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder, but I am allowed to call something generic when I had seen the conventions previously.

I think that's taking liberties with the usage of the term generic. Just because you've seen something once, or even a few times, before doesn't necessarily qualify it for the label of "generic". For something to be generic it has to represent most of the standard fare norms of the time. It has to be doing the things that most other games were doing before it...not things that one or two other games before it had sort of done.

For Halo to be the poster child of all generic FPS games it would've needed a standard life meter with med packs scattered around for you to pick up, the ability to collect and simultaneously carry all the usable weapons of the game, a standard method of switching to your melee weapon or grenades, the save anywhere feature, etc...etc... You get it.

Graphics? Maybe for consoles.

3 is the only thing on that list that I hadn't seen before or matters at all in my mind.

1 - Been done.

2 - Never had a problem, but been done.

3 - Now this, is interesting in an FPS. I actually liked that. Feels kinda weak, but really no different than med kits.

4 - As well? Ok. But it was bound to happen.

5 - Again, been done.

6 - Increased difficulty doesn't really make it unique.

Music is subjective. Half Life & System Shock 2 stand out to me. Co-Op had been done in SS2 as well. It's disturbingly rare though. I'm glad that Halo is pushin the dependably full co-op experience.

It's just not my cup of tea. Believe me, I wanted to like it. It's what everyone was playin!

Even if those things had "been done" before, they weren't popular. Bungie made some very bold choices for Halo. It was a very different game than most of the FPS's out there for those reasons. I don't care if you're not a fan of Halo, that's fine by me, but I don't agree with criticizing it for being "generic first person shooter" when it actually an extremely distintctive and non-generic game.

My gripe with Halo is that I'd been playing FPS games for yearrrrsssss & whenever I played Halo it just felt like it should have been titled "First Person Shooter" and come in a white box. It's so generic to me.

Not very many FPS games before Halo had:

#1 Strict limitations on the number of weapons you can carry.

- In almost all FPS games before Halo, and still most of them afterward, you can carry an unlimited number of weapons. Somehow your character sprints around while carrying a chainsaw, a pistol, a shotgun, a machine gun, a rocket launcher, and a gigantic laser bazooka, all at the same time. But not in Halo. In Halo you get to carry only two weapons. That's it. Limitations sometimes make for creative game play and strategy.

#2 Instant melee attacks and grenade tosses.

- In most FPS games you had to cumbersomely switch away from your firearm to your melee weapon or grenade. Not in Halo. Halo was the first game I saw that made it so easy to pistol whip or butt-end someone or throw a grenade the instant you needed to, and with such ease.

#3 No life bar.

- Instead of having a traditional life meter or health percentage indicator, Halo used a creative self-regenerating shield. What?...infinite life as long as you find cover for a few seconds?...way to suck the challenge out of the game, right? Wrong.

#4 Vehicles.

- Nobody back then was doing vehicles as well as Halo did.

#5 Checkpoints instead of save anywhere.

- Lots of games before Halo were using checkpoints instead of the save anywhere method, but checkpoints definitely weren't in vogue when Halo came out. Bungie made a bold decision to consciously go with checkpoints and it ended up making the game way more challenging and way more fun.

#6 Legendary mode.

- Maybe I didn't play enough FPS games back then, but I don't remember anything being as difficult as Legendary mode in Halo...(The only mode Halo should really be played on). ...Simultaneously frustrating as you get killed over and over again, and infinitely fulfilling when you finally pass that next checkpoint and can finally take a breath.

Because of these things, I thought Halo was very innovative at the time and the exact opposite of "generic". Not to mention the smooth controls and the great story/lore.

This is the first time I've actually bothered looking in this thread. Dang.

The ex gear looks waaay better than I expected.

I didn't check through all 8 pages of this thread, but has anyone mentioned the dude from No Country for Old Men? He's got to be one of the best bad guys in recent film.

As a matter of fact, that is in my queue for my next Netflix rental. I just finished watching the revenge trilogy, and my favorite out of the three was Old Boy. The ending was kind of messed up though. If I had found out what he did, I would have killed myself.

Old Boy = Probably my favorite fight scene of all time.

That one-take fight scene in the hallway where he takes on like 20 goons in a battle of attrition.

Question. Where exactly do Klan Klan's legs slot into the Q-Rea?

I asked that 10 posts up.

Anime magic I guess.

I can understand that.

However, we aren't the demographic that they are trying to sell Macross to.

I'm not so sure about that. We are the prime demographic for Yamato, after all. Even if we're not, maybe we should be. Battlestar Galactica grew up. Metal Gear grew up. Why can't Macross? Besides, it already has been gritty. Plus and Zero were fairly gritty...were they on the absolute fringe of the "Macross gritty meter"?...as in - you can't possibly make anything grittier and still call it Macross? I think they can, and I think it would be great, and I don't think the "Teenage boys" demographic would be lost either. This is 2009...our teenage boy counterparts are playing Grand Theft Auto at the same age that we used to play Megaman.

I'm sure lots of people scoffed at the idea of permanently killing of Roy as an important part of Hikaru's character arc so that he could slowly grow into that leadership role. They probably said, "It's a kid's show...why are you trying to do something sophistocated? Fans like Roy. Killing him would be stupid." But those very elements were what attracted us to the series in the first place and made us still respect/appreciate it 25 years later.

One final point on this...

Macross 7 was a bold departure towards the opposite end of the spectrum, so why can't a series that explores the far end of the gritty/mature side of the spectrum be successful?

Not sure if i agree with 'darker and gritty' in Macross. Why does everything have to be gritty and depressing nowadays?

Anyway, i'd like to see some of these in Macross:

Maybe a female pilot main character

Some big insight into protoculture

What the hell happened to Sara Nome

And finally, can we get a love triangle that actually has a resolution at the end of the series?

A gritty series doesn't necessarily have to be "depressing".

The reason why so many fans are asking for this is because as fans of the original SDFM in the 80s, we're all grown up now in the year 2009. We're in our 30s now and a lot of us aren't entertained/stimulated by naive sexual innocence jokes, panty-chasing, bubblegum popstars, and kawaii Zentradi pilots.

Also, a big reason a lot of us were attracted to Macross in the first place was because the mature undertones appealed to us even as youngsters....mature undertones that we weren't getting from shows like Transformers or GI Joe. It's only natural that this fan base that originally sought out Macross in the first place for it's maturity, want to see that same maturity pushed further to match our own evolving maturity/sophistication.