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

FT158

A

Anonymous

Guest
I see dead people.

On page seven of the new edition of FT is a picture relating to the Georgia crem. story. One of those pictures that you don't necessarily realise what it is for a second or so.

Result: Cursed having vivid nightmare re: corpses. :(

Mind you, I did turn into some mega-power Spring Heeled Jack half way through the dream, so it wasn't all bad.:D
 
You're lucky Cursed, last night I dreamed I was in a cafe in the US with Richard and Judy, when someone burst in and held them up at gunpoint. I hid befind the counter, and eventually the gunman left. Judy made me promise not to tell the police.
 
Am I the only person who thinks it would be nice to see Richard having a makeover?

That hair... :p
 
I won't see dead people, at least not every day....

Toying with the idea of a career change, as one does at this time of year, I briefly considered mortuary work- good pay, no danger of redundancy and quiet, co-operative patients.

But on thinking it through I saw the drawbacks.
Being around dead people limits conversation somewhat.
I might bump into, so to speak, someone I know well.
Worst of all, and this was the clincher, what if I dreamed about my work, as you tend to do? It'd be Nightmare On Elm Street with knobs on.

So I'm still scanning the jobs pages, but staying around living patients. They don't smell as bad and they do buy you toffees once in a while.
 
Re: I won't see dead people, at least not every day....

escargot said:
but staying around living patients. They don't smell as bad
Click to expand...

Not so sure about that, having been a hospital visitor of late.
 
beakboo said:
You're lucky Cursed, last night I dreamed I was in a cafe in the US with Richard and Judy, when someone burst in and held them up at gunpoint. I hid befind the counter, and eventually the gunman left. Judy made me promise not to tell the police.
Click to expand...

And you think yourself lucky, Beakboo! I actually saw Richard "obsessed with bras" Madely walking round London the other week. And yes, his mullet is as impressive in real life.
 
This months issue (Udersea Kingdoms)

Is it just me that's really disappointed with this months issue?
The cover story is just an extract of Graham Hancock's latest 'novel'. I've found no contrary opinion inside as yet; surprising given that there's hardly a lack of it.
I've yet to read the whole thing, but frankly the whole thing
is reminiscent of a Marie Clare 'Advertisement feature'.
Can anyone else recall if this has been done before?

PS: I missed out on the last issue. Typical, it sounded great.
 
I think it's getting harder for the magazine. It's not been as good since it went monthly - only half the time to prepare. Now it's got another problem - This website. We can do to death anything current and popular before the magazine hits the stands, and the level of debate can be very stimulating. Perhaps by creating the website, the magazine is bringing about its own downfall - but let's hope not.
 
The increased pressure on publication must make a difference somewhere. I wonder if the article writers are now forced to spend less time on each piece?
I'm mainly worried thatt John Brown pub. will force more and more film tie-ins, book extracts and that less obscure or less obviously popular subjects will be marginalised.
The new publishers claimed to they would leave well alone on the editorial side of things, but I don't imagine I'm alone in being
highly suspicious of any potential changes.
 
Quite right Garrick, maybe those who bemoan it's popularity liked belonging to an "exclusive club"? I can kind of understand that, I don't like every Johnny Sixpack and Sally Housecoat getting into the subject (Ha, especially when they post on this board!) (just ignore me, I'm foaming at the beak)
This months issue was perfectly fine I thought.
 
i thought the undersea article was great, i do realise it was a cheap way to fill the mag and a shameless plug but still entertaining ive been buying FT for 12ish years and i still look forward to every issue.

and i did wonder whether the real Bjorn Borg wrote a letter this months or is it just a coincedence?
 
Chris Spedding's on the letters page as well. Remember him? "Motorbiking, moving down the queen's highway looking like a streak of lightning":p
 
mrchopper said:
and i did wonder whether the real Bjorn Borg wrote a letter this months or is it just a coincedence?
Click to expand...

I had that thought too, but it was a bit like 'hmmm, was that the tennis players name?' Kinda Ronald Duck syndrome!

I too look forward to every issue. I was a bit disappointed when Fortean TV came out, cos then everyone had a slightly naf reference point for 'my' magazine (no offence LF) ;) I'm not really interested in UFO's and ghosts these days, but it was my entry point to Forteana. I spose that we have to take the rough with the smoth (as featured on Channel 4 wont mean much in Burundi!) FT will have to try and compete with the ever filling shelves of WH Smifs. Keep it going boyz n girlz, these pelicans don't feed themselves!!

There are mags like Wyrd and Fanthorpes out there, and there not bad either, but FT is still my fav.
 
BumEggs said:
I'm mainly worried thatt John Brown pub. will force more and more film tie-ins, book extracts and that less obscure or less obviously popular subjects will be marginalised.
Click to expand...
I'm not too worried about the tie-ins - Back when the X-Files started they had an issue dedicated to that, and quite good it was too. I've not watched Mothman but if as they usually do, Hollywood has corrupted this story it's nice to have an independant viewpoint. How many people will have watched Braveheart and thought that a true historic depiction?
No, if I've got a problem it's possibly familiarity breeding contempt.
 
Sort of a complaint

Am I am the only one to find the illustration on 'Necropolis Now' offensive? I am not squeamish in that sense, being able to examine SOC photos while eating, although I confess its not a favoured past time.

I feel that it is simply prurient, illustrating nothing more than the post-mortem degradation of one poor soul, who, I hope for the sake of his(?) family, remains anonymous, and three men who have one of the grimmest jobs in the world.

As they say, pornography is in the eye of the beholder, but you know it when you see it. With that picture, I feel I've seen it!

8¬)
 
Re: Sort of a complaint

harlequin said:
As they say, pornography is in the eye of the beholder, but you know it when you see it. With that picture, I feel I've seen it!
8¬)
Click to expand...

I wondered if anyone else would pick up on that image... Was there any need???

This months issue... So far I thinks it's pretty good, some nice reviews, and the article on the building of a 19th century New Mechanical Messiah is the sort of thing that keeps me buying FT every month, likewise the Space Cadets article... I Haven't read the Hancock peice yet though, so...

Bye
 
The same "necropolis now" picture was in the Sunday Telegraph several weeks ago, and Angry of Tunbridge Wells didn't complain about it there.
If it's the jaunty headline you're objecting to, FT have always done this, it's part of it's charm IMO.
 
No, the headline was fine. It appealed to my sense of the macabre. However, the picture is not amusing.

As to publication elsewhere... if I'd seen it there, I would have complained there. The Telegraph is no more soft strong and absorbant than anyother newspaper available in our sceptred isle, so I tend not to buy it. If no-one there found it prurient, or the editors chose not to publish them is not justification. It is still intrusive. Simple question...if it was your relative would you want them displayed in such a manner?

8¬)
 
harlequin said:
if it was your relative would you want them displayed in such a manner?

8¬)
Click to expand...

i have to agree with you on this one harlequin, i don't think I would be very happy if they had a picture of a dead member of my family.
Ive checked out sites like celebrity morgue and rotten.com and although I do find the pictures interesting as they give me a sense of mortality I do however feel that it is not right to display these pictures online so almost anyone can view them.
If it was my mum or dad they had that picture of i would be after someone's head, literally.
 
I object to the use of that distasteful picture too. Not just for the reasons given above but also it's placement as the first thing you see in the Strange Days section and it is one of TWO full page pictures. Couldn't they get anymore ads?

Having said that, is that the guy's penis hangng off the front there???

-J
 
From what I know of decay... I think its a sheet of sloughed skin, probably off the abdomen and part of the chest. Pretty typical behaviour for bodies kept in water
 
I have to agree with the general opinions above - there really was no need for this picture. Over 3 years of reading FT, I have never seen or read anything which I have considered gratuitous or tasteless, however, I did baulk at this picture.

Then again, I'm not going to lose too much sleep about it. One minor slip in 3 years is perfectly forgiveable.

As for the general standards of FT - as long as it keeps the more obscure subjects in the main article section (e.g. the god machine in this month) I think it will remain an outstanding publication.
 
As somebody with an overactive imagination, who is easily spooked I looked at the corpse picture and thought "Oh, it's a dead person" and kept on reading.

This in and of itself is very unusual...

Niles "not perturbed" Calder
 
I wasn't bothered either. And I'm quite a sensitive beak. I don't think he was recognisable.
 
One hopes that they were not recognisable...

I'm pleased that someone didn't regard the picture as post-mortem humiliation of the person being dragged out of the hole. I still don't see that its either news or worth reporducing. And I'm not noted for my sense of decorum when it comes to death

8¬)
 
Stereo Slides In 'God Machine' article - They Work

Has anyone tried mounting and viewing the stereograms which are reproduced in the 'God Machine' article?
 
I've got a small collection of stereogram cards (mostly saucy ladies in knickerbockers) but I've been trying for years to find the stereogram viewer itself. If I had one I would have definiately tried!!

I viewed some once at the Museum of the Moving Image and they are really eerie, it's like you've been transported back a century or so...
 
If have a Boer War set - not particular rare since they were issued as sets at the time. Very strange seeing rooms and groups of people in 3d.

Also have some slides of German damns bombed by the British during WW2. The RAF used stereo quite regularly I've heard - since of course a camera on each wing would do the trick perfectly.

I have a couple of viewers at my mothers house. Going to get them down later today - then cut out and mount the slides from the FT.

Incidentally - a viewer would be fairly simple to make. I'm sure there must be plans on the internet. Friend of mine made one a few years ago using a couple of loupes. Some people can 'do' the stereo effect simply by going kind of cross-eyed. I've heard. Never managed it myself.
 
So .. it works.

The stereo slides reproduced in the 'God Machine' article are excellent --> if cut out and mounted on card. In the article they have been reproduced at their original size. Which was good thinking.

The perspective effect is excellent - and the images really do come to life.

I've posted an image here showing what I'm on about .

Why are all those people standing on the hill in the image with a person sitting in the foreground looking towards the house? The image is quite weird.

I've been looking again at the Boer War slide set I have. The images of war seem and almost certainly are, posed. The most interesting images, for me, are empty of people and show street scenes and rooms - a deserted prison dormitory, the office of a regional governor, a dining hall etc. The apparently boring detritus of human existence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top