CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Ha! I remember the look of sheer terror than came across Captain Pickard's face every time Lwaxana Troi came aboard the Enterprise. I sometimes think he'd rather face a fleet of Borg Cubes than spend a minute alone with that terrible women.

I agree they certainly looked a very poor side when they played us at St Marys. I haven't seen this game, as yet, but the score line speaks for itself I suppose. However the record shows that Villa are still 3 points better off than we are, and coincidently our 'game in hand' is also against Chelsea. So let's not be planning our Premier League survival party just yet.

I sometimes wonder if you have ever sought treatment for your chronic Emoticon addiction my friend? I understand addiction specialists who deal regularly with EA sufferers recommend a 'Cold Turkey' approach to the problem - a more than ample supply of which will soon become available by the way ...

I shouldn't read too much into one (embarrassingly bad) result. Nevertheless from a Saints perspective it must be a good thing seeing a relegation rival getting beat quite this badly. To state the bleedin' obvious Paul Lambert will be looking for a decent reaction from his players in their next games - Spurs (H) Wigan (H) Swansea (A) This season finishes with Villa away at Wigan and us playing Stoke at St Marys - could be interesting.

I said something similiar to this after the Reading game and got bashed for it - but only by those who don't pay attention during games. It's as plain as the nose on your face that other PL teams have worked out that if you mark Rickie Lambert out of the game (this often takes two defenders on him) then our attacking threat is significantly reduced. This is not Rocket Science and lower league teams have been trying to do just that for years of course, but he's up against much better defenders now and he's starting to look dispirited and more than a bit lost frankly. We have to find a way of easing the burden on him. Even when Rickie does get free from his markers, far too often his good work is undone by teammates (Puncheon comes to mind) who can't bloody shoot properly!

At the risk of being criticized for watching old TV again, I've just seen the Star Trek 1st pilot episode 'The Cage', and what a interesting comparison it makes compared to the more familiar Star Trek episodes than came later. The Captain - No James T Kirk here so the USS Enterprise is under the command of Captain Christopher Pike, played by Geoffrey Hunter. Now don't get be wrong because I recall Bill Shatner's iconic Captain Kirk with great warmth, but Hunter is to be frank much less of a 'ham actor' than Shatner and his Captain Pike (although a conventional heroic leading man) is a much darker and more troubled man than Kirk. Capt Pike does however lack Kirk's undoubted charm, sense of humour, and fondness for ripping his shirt off. Not picked up for the second pilot episode, Hunter would sadly die as the result of a accident suffered while filming a B Movie in 1969. Mr Spock - Unlike Bill Shatner, Leonard Nimoy was in at the very start of Star Trek - with those ears - but I don't think he is ever refereed to as a 'Vulcan' and the distinct Vulcan logical philosophy that later became such a important element of the show is not shown here. Crew - A different (less irascible) doctor and no Scotty, Uhura, or Sulu. A equally key change perhaps is (instead of Spock) the second-in-command of this Enterprise (known only as 'Number one') is now played by producer Gene Roddenberry's wife Majel Barrett - Nurse Chapel in mainstream episodes. She is very good here methinks, and it's a bit of a shame she was subsequently relegated to such a minor role. I can only presume the studio executives thought the public were not ready to see a women holding down such a key position in what is after all a war fighting vessel. Set and Special Effects - The main bridge set is very similar to the one later portrayed, the Enterprise corridors however are strangely triangular for some reason. I must say the Special Effects on display here are distinctly inferior to those employed later. Script - This is a exceptionally well written story (by Roddenberry himself) that revolves around a alien race that can study and control people via their telepathic ability to implant powerful illusions into the mind. Much of 'The Cage' was later reused in the (very effective) first season episode 'The Menagerie'. Conclusion - So all-in-all you can see why this series (eventually) made it into production. Seen as a piece of TV history I can only echo Mr Spock's catchphrase and describe it as "fascinating".

I given myself time to sleep on it before posting on this occasion, but it makes no difference because I'm as dissatisfied with this limp performance now as I was yesterday evening. Now most sides would miss a player of Adam Lallana's quality, but for pity's sake all teams have to cope when key players become injured and we had a whole fortnight to rest and prepare for this important game. Not being adequately prepared is becoming the running theme of this season. Think back to how mediocre our preseason preparations went and then remember - indeed who could ever forget - just how amateur our defending was once the season proper had started. As it happens I think that Kelvin back in goal is probably the correct option for us at this time - but the constant chopping and changing of keepers is not a good sign. Yet again the bizarre substitution decisions made yesterday seemed to cause our performance to deteriorate, rather than improve. On the question of the manager, it is very obvious that Nigel Adkins retains the support of the majority of the fanbase. I also think it likely that any (short term) prospect of his dismissal has receded into the background. But is he really the great Premier League manager many on here seem so sure that he is? The jury's still out on that one if you ask me. So rant over and we move on to the next game - we better play better or we'll soon be up to our neck in it again.

That's a great clip, and yes the near linear low gravity acceleration evident is in marked contrast to (say) a Saturn V in the early stages of its awesome battle to overcome the Earth's 1G gravity. The lack of all that much in the way of visible emissions from the rocket motor has been employed in the past to claim that this film is a fake - but surely only by those who fail to comprehend the nature of the rocket fuel employed and the Lunar conditions pertaining. Before the LEM's ascent motor is ignited you can also clearly see that the whole site is brightly lit, with no evidence what-so-ever of any wires or gantry structure that (presumably) would be required to pull the craft up vertically on a cable being present. I have always wondered how the camera that filmed this impressive sequence was panned to capture the action, and I take it that the apparent descent of the module (seen in the last few seconds of this film) is in fact a pitch maneuver the craft performs to achieve the correct orbital entry angle? Re my clip, yes it is problematic perhaps to draw too firm a set of conclusions from any filmed evidence where the exact parameters are not exactly known. I must say however that your admirable degree of caution when analyzing evidence is not always shared be those on the other side of the argument.

I like your contributions to this thread. How refreshing it is to see someone adopting a reasoned analytical approach to the question, rather than resorting to a tiresome 'deny everything' policy (reminiscent of a criminal being interviewed) when confronted with evidence they find inconvenient to their belief system. With that in mind I'd be most interested to see your reaction to this - evidence based - critique of the old conspiracy theorist argument that Apollo film speed has been deliberately slowed in order to simulate a Lunar gravity effect: My maths is almost as bad as my spelling alas, but on the face of it at least, this does seem to be quite conclusive don't you agree?

But it's you the forum can see through my dear Pulp. You've been asked to address the evidence depicted in a short film clip and have (again) declined to do so. I'll be taking that as an admission of defeat.

So you've abandoned any discussion of the evidence yet again, and you are now reduced to a pathetic attempt to score a imaginary point by repeatedly pointing a spelling mistake? This amuses me. Why don't you point out how I sometimes enjoy watching vintage television again - I'm sure that devastating revelation convinced thousands that the Apollo landing were a fake ......

Post 350. Pulpy is invited to explain how this film was made (with only early 1970's special effect technology available) on any Earth bound film set: [video=youtube;7ciStUEZK-Y] I put it to you, and everyone else reading this, that the authenticity of this film shines through. But if any doubts do remain (employing the youtube time index) please identify the exact frame(s) that show any supposed 'wires'. What are these 'wires' hung from? If the alleged wires are painted black (to match the blackness of space) then why don't we see them against his (very white) space suit when the astronaut falls over? For that matter why does he fall over at all if he is being suspended on wires? Also provide any evidence he sees that shows this film speed has been slowed down to simulate an idea of what Lunar movement is supposed to look like - because it looks fine to my eyes.

My dear Pulp, this is more than a bit 'rich' The record shows that you have been shown time and time again real filmed (and other) evidence that proves the moon landings to be true beyond all reasonable doubt, but you have chosen to reject nearly all of it on the spurious grounds that you think (but cannot show) that it was all staged with the help of invisible wires, "dry beech sand" and (entirly fictonal) space probes. I have seldom, if ever, seen a more DISGRACEFUL, dishonest, and intellectualy vacuous argument put forward on here. If you are under the impression that by continuing to post a uninterrupted steam of BS this somehow means that you are on the verge of persuading other forum members to your bizarre point of view, you are very much mistaken.

I've just checked and I'm sorry to say that this BBC programme (The Most Courageous Raid of WWII) is not on that Iplayer thingy anymore. No doubt it will be repeated. Like your relative, my old dad served in the RN during WWII. Had his ML been allocated to the St Nazaire operation then I might not be here today - methinks some on here might think that a good thing. Oh and thanks to Delldays too. But I think Haslar hospital has nothing to do with Major Hasler the officer. But what a magnificent bloody hero/nutter he certainly was!

I wonder if you saw the excellent programme Paddy Ashdown made last week about the 'Cockleshell Heroes'? Just like the St Nazaire raid a almost suicidal mission without anything resembling a decent extraction plan arranged. Just how ruthlessly we fought that war and just what that generation sacrificed for us all never fails to astound me.

The above is so very true. I read an harrowing account of the infamous PQ17 convoy some time ago. The Admiralty believed this convoy was facing a imminent attack from the mighty German Battleship Tirpitz, so they ordered the joint RN/USN escort screen to leave the convoy behind and sail off to confront the Tirpitz. In the meantime the merchant shipping scattered and were left to make their own way to Murmansk independently. Well as it happens the Tirpitz never came and the (now defenseless) cargo vessels were at the mercy of deadly Luftwaffe bombers and U-Boats. Most of the merchantmen were sunk, in the cold Arctic Ocean when a ship is sunk its crew faces a terrible fate. If you have to jump into the water your survival prospects are measured in minutes, a ghastly end. But even those fortune enough to find themselves in a lifeboat will certainly perish in a matter of hours as exposure takes its icy grip on even the strongest of constitutions. I'll spare you the details but how these poor men suffered - I say 'men' but some were mere cabin boys of 16 - suffice it say I think they deserve every honour and mark of respect we can possibly show them. Remember the men of the Merchant Marine - almost forgotten now but we'd have lost that war without them.

'tis true I don't suffer fools gladly - only one of my numerous faults. But if you're committed to this thread now Pulpy then please carry on - I'm starting to think that committal would probably be a good idea in your case.

You have succeeded in that ambition, not only with me, but with (more or less) the entire forum it would seem.

Winning more converts over every day I see Pulp. But to address your so-called 'proofs': 1 - Any alledged maps of the Japanese islands would not prove current inhabitation to my satisfacton 2 - The existence of the Apollo moon landings has also been recored internationally 3 - And the history of the Apollo moon programme is both well understood and freely available to all too 4 - So what? One of your fellow forum members has personnaly spoken to Buzz Aldrin 5 - Hour after hour of film has been shot on the moon by NASA astronauts 6 - All of them Chinese imposter's traveling on fake Japaneses passports 7 - This would then mean that one person (you) were visiting Japan - not the "millions" you claim If you want to convince me of your argument you will have to try a lot harder than this my Pulpy boy.

But you have as yet presented absolutely no evidence that anybody lives in Japan. If you have any incontrovertible proof that they do, then you better make that case now. I will of course refute any evidence you care to offer that supports your hypothesis, employing exactly the same (utterly unreasonable) tactics you have seen fit to employed on here. This is only fair.

I fully intend to - just wait until the Xmas holidays start and I can devote more time to the cause. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Well as you posted on it twice now it would seem to be a direct hit - this pleases me. From now onwards you will always be 'Pulp' - it kinda fits you somehow.

Go on Pulp - tell us your theory about the 'magic bullet' and how it did in fact both Kill JFK and wound the Governor. Methinks you and fanboy probably have a top class imagine of the gunman on the grassy knoll too. We all know you want to.

Umm.... Some of the reasons the scientific community displays such a resolute refusal to entertain preposterous ideas such as those proposed by Pulp: 1 - they are intelligent people 2 - they have real work to do 3 - they are over the age of 15

Good to have you back aboard. The truth marches on !!!!