• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

FT351

XEPER_

XEPER_

Death to all but metal
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
847
Looks a good one. Don't see a Jenny Randles piece but Barry Baldwin has an article.
 

Attachments

  • 20170225_133616.jpg
    20170225_133616.jpg
    150.2 KB · Views: 23
Strange, as an Australian, I've never heard of this story, but there's a lot out there I know nothing about!
 
Tigerhawk said:
Strange, as an Australian, I've never heard of this story, but there's a lot out there I know nothing about!
Click to expand...

There was a book about it from UNSW press a few years ago, and occasional articles. A very good topic for the Fortean Times.
 
XEPER_ said:
Yes, I probably won't get past the first paragraph.
Click to expand...
the content of his column is often compelling, but its so unrelentingly parenthetical in its expression i defy anyone to read it out loud without losing the sense of what theyre saying
 
HenryFort said:
the content of his column is often compelling, but its so unrelentingly parenthetical in its expression i defy anyone to read it out loud without losing the sense of what theyre saying
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's the irritating thing. The idea of the column, and the research, is excellent, but his style is basically unreadable.
 
I spent a good few months, maybe over a year, trying to work out Professor Baldwin's column (missus) and then it just clicked, and I've had no problems ever since, unless retaining much information from the masses of facts in each entry is a problem. I like the guy, he's exactly the kind of buff who suits the FT.

Best IHTM in ages, though reading the kids describing their memories of 2010 and later as ancient history made me feel a bit old. In fact it was a good letters section all round.

The Tamán Shud article was clear, informed and as fascinating as ever, even though I'd read up on it a while back it was good to reacquaint myself with the weirdness.
 
OK, so today I go into the one of two places I usually get FT from. Its usually found on one of two racks in the corner (90 degree corner), cos they are never quite sure where to put it, sound familiar?. I scan top shelf from left to right,second shelf right to left etc,repeat, next section,do it again,can't find it. Ask two shop assistants, "Has FT come out yet?", "Oh, thats that wierd magazine isn't it", "Yeah, sort off". All three of us looking, can't find it. "Looks like it's not come in yet".
"OK,thanks for your help". One last look, there it is in the middle of the first rack, middle shelf !, could'nt have been more obvious.
 
My wife asked me just now if I could see the faces in the assorted piles of cloth (Simulacra Corner, page 74). Yes I can but it turned out she couldn't - until last night when she had a glass of wine and she saw them straightaway.

For the record, she is also useless at recognising actors. Thinks I have some kind of super power because I can remember who Oona Chaplin is and that she was in GOT and an episode of Inside No.9.
 
Bullseye_v2_0 said:
Ask two shop assistants, "Has FT come out yet?", "Oh, thats that wierd magazine isn't it", "Yeah, sort off". All three of us looking, can't find it. "Looks like it's not come in yet".
Click to expand...
A magazine that investigates the paranormal might well be abnormally-difficult to find (even para-abnormally). This explains why FT always has radical front-cover artwork...that just brings it up to the level of standard visibility of, say, Popular Mechanics or Horse&Hound etc.

Bullseye_v2_0 said:
One last look, there it is in the middle of the first rack, middle shelf !, could'nt have been more obvious.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Proves my point. The sheer metaphysical gravitas of the content makes it almost invisible, on the physical plane, even when looked at directly. You've got to glance slightly to one side, as even an experienced paranomal magazine hunter can become confused.

Marketing nightmare. Highly-desireable item, becomes even more invisible the more you look for it.

davidplankton said:
For the record, she is also useless at recognising actors.
Click to expand...
Women often are. A sweeping generalisation, but more true than false. I have a radical anthropological hypothesis for explaining this phenomenon which is both sexist (well, unavoidably) and presumptive. But that doesn't make it incorrect.
 
davidplankton said:
My wife asked me just now if I could see the faces in the assorted piles of cloth (Simulacra Corner, page 74). Yes I can but it turned out she couldn't - until last night when she had a glass of wine and she saw them straightaway.

For the record, she is also useless at recognising actors. Thinks I have some kind of super power because I can remember who Oona Chaplin is and that she was in GOT and an episode of Inside No.9.
Click to expand...

That's weird - I thought the faces were instantly obvious in the clothes piles and assumed everyone would be able to see them.

On your other point - I was looking for a film to watch with the wife on Amazon Prime last night and she asked "who's that guy again?" It was Mel Gibson! FFS everyone knows Mel Gibson! :rofl: She also asked who the guy in Ender's Game was (Harrison Ford).
 
XEPER_ said:
That's weird - I thought the faces were instantly obvious in the clothes piles and assumed everyone would be able to see them
Click to expand...

Someone recently said on another thread that beer was a well-known Fortean facilitator. Or something close to that. As she could only see the simulacra after drinking wine it kind of backs that theory up.

Concerning confusion between actors, my OH used to think for a long time that these two were the same person. Michael C. Hall and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I can see a slight resemblance, they could be related but I can tell them apart.

Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 16.12.40jpeg.jpg Screen Shot 2017-03-05 at 16.13.41jpeg.jpg
 
davidplankton said:
Concerning confusion between actors, my OH used to think for a long time that these two were the same person. Michael C. Hall and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I can see a slight resemblance, they could be related but I can tell them apart.

View attachment 4276 View attachment 4277
Click to expand...

Well, Mike's ginger and Phil was blond, so there's a difference. A well known mix-up at the time (though I haven't heard it much recently) was that Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio were the same person in Martin Scorsese's gangster movie The Departed.
 
davidplankton said:
... Concerning confusion between actors, my OH used to think for a long time that these two were the same person. Michael C. Hall and Philip Seymour Hoffman. I can see a slight resemblance, they could be related but I can tell them apart. ...
Click to expand...

Some people simply engage with, and remember, the characters actors play and never put any effort into identifying / remembering the actors themselves. I've known otherwise quite perceptive and intelligent folks who could rattle off a sizable list of movies (etc.) 'that guy / woman' appeared in, but who were still clueless as to the actor's name.

This approach ties actor recognition to the works (TV shows, movies, etc.) rather than personal identification. These works may not be viewed until long after their original production (especially true of TV shows), resulting in reasonable recognizability for the actor per se but only a loose grip on when that actor was active (and / or how old the actor may be).

I mention this because there's another dimension (time) across which mis-identification can understandably occur. Unless you make a point to stay up to date on actors and their works, it's easy to get confused and wonder if actor A is the same as actor B - only noticeably younger or older ...

Hall and Hoffman had enough shared resemblance that a casual viewer might have mistaken the beefier, lighter-haired Hoffman for an age-advanced Hall (or vice versa).
 
plus the middle/last name combo could be the source of the confusion ... once we latch on to these things theyre hard to shake ... fortean daughter confuses seymour hoffman with another actor based on similarly formed name, cant for life of me recall now ... and neither can she ... film addict "obvs"
 
The only time I've watched nearly a whole film thinking that an actor was someone else was Johnny Harris in Black Death (2010). I thought he was Eddie Marsan.

Johnny Harris.
Screen Shot 2017-03-07 at 09.12.35jpeg.jpg
 
cant see it myself ... ive always thought chris cooper was secretly aaron eckhart though

or vice versa
 
henry said:
cant see it myself ... ive always thought chris cooper was secretly aaron eckhart though

or vice versa
Click to expand...

I wasn't too familiar with either actor at the time and a lot of it had to do with lighting and they way he spoke.

I once thought that Aaron Eckhart was the guy who played Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones.
 
davidplankton said:
The only time I've watched nearly a whole film thinking that an actor was someone else was Johnny Harris in Black Death (2010). I thought he was Eddie Marsan.

Johnny Harris.
View attachment 4290
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw Johnny Harris in Welcome to the Punch and thought, hey, I don't remember Eddie Marsan in the credits. But oddly I didn't make that mistake when I saw Harris as the bad 'un in This is England on TV.
 
Read the Tamam Shud piece yesterday and thought it was really good. Quite sad reading about the little boy in the sack though. :(
Was surprised to find the entire article had previously been published on the author's blog.
 
Absolutely gutted to hear that this is the last ever Illustrated Police News article! It's been my favourite part of the mag ever since it debuted, and I'm genuinely saddened to see it go. I think it says a lot about FT's recent decline in quality that we lose this hilarious, informative and entertaining feature, but we still keep Jenny Randle's dead horse blog, Barry Baldwin's unreadable column and S D Tucker's monthly 'I hate Russia' feature.

Not finished the entire mag yet, but the Taman Shud article was excellent. Gave up on Barry Baldwin's part way through (I'm baffled how he can make such interesting topics as dull as ditchwater. Also I really wish he'd stop making gay rape jokes, it's really unsavoury). Never heard of the Mexican female phantom before, so that article was interesting. Also, did anybody spot the guy in one of the Ghostwatch photos wearing a Ghostbusters tshirt to a séance? Not sure if inappropriate or hilarious :evil:

davidplankton said:
For the record, she is also useless at recognising actors. Thinks I have some kind of super power because I can remember who Oona Chaplin is and that she was in GOT and an episode of Inside No.9.
Click to expand...

Sounds a lot like facial blindness. I'm awful at recognising actors too. Mr Urvogel won't let me live down the time we watched Batman Begins, we got to the end credits and I exclaimed "I didn't know Liam Neeson was in this film!" :oops:
 
Yes, I was disappointed to see it's the final IPN piece. It's always interesting.
Credit where it's surprisingly due though - I really enjoyed the Barry Baldwin article. I thought it was great!
Didn't think much of the UFO column - the guy's wife had some dreams and he wrote an entire column about them. Pointless.

As a long-time experiencer of sleep paralysis I appreciated the Hierophant's Apprentice section, and also rather liked the bit about the Irish fairy doctor. The school kiddies' IHTM was a fun feature.

Overall, a damn good issue!
 
Hi all. How long after publication is it taking nowadays to hit the doormat? I've recently re-subscribed; got the mug last week; just missing the mag. Thanks!
 
OriginalHermes said:
Hi all. How long after publication is it taking nowadays to hit the doormat? I've recently re-subscribed; got the mug last week; just missing the mag. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Subs issues normally arrive long before they hit the shelves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top