UFO on Family Room HD

--- In [hidden email], "Tom & Pam McCaughey" <mccaug@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear gentlefolk: well, usually I don't have much to say on UFO
issues in this forum but this crap about Ed Bishop and Mike
Billington either being gay in real life or in the series is a
unbelievably unrealistic. First of all, the issue of gayness was not
one even broached in TV shows in the 1960's. Due to censorship, it
just wouldn't have been approached let alone suggested. Also, it is
none of OUR business if either actor WAS gay in real life or not.
Being gay does not make anyone LESS of a person. However, that being
said, I have not come across anything that postulated either actor
or character was gay, and I did ask Mike in our e-mailed
correspondence about such things (due to the dumb and poorly written
slash stories which were posted on the SHADO Library at the time),
and he stated to me that the only reason he didn't sue the writers
or make trouble for them was because they were NOT worth it to his
peace of mind! I'd also like to remind people that both Ed and Mike
were parents and one should consider their families before rattling
off with such unsubstantiated excrement.
>
> Disgustedly, Pam the Canuck

Looks like some sicko has decided to promote a lifestyle by using
two people who sadly cannot speak out against such allegations, even
if they should have wished to. Possibly picking an easy target?  
I'm not homophobic as a rule, but I resent what you might term
extremeists of that ilk hijacking someone else's name and/or
reputation, as I said, to promote a style of life, or to ram their
beliefs down your throat, so to speak.  

As others have said, who has it been "suggested by"? Or is the
originator of these filthy lies posting them in the third person, so
as to then say "Well, it's on such-and-such a discussion group, so
there must be some credibility to it" later on, thusly confirming a
rumour they started as fact. How come they didn't mention this
while the gentlemen named were still alive?

As with Pam the Canuck, yours disgustedly, etc.

I usually don't answer such topics - because they are harmless fantasy or an
attempt at getting an emotional response. I certainly didn't expect to read
about such unsubstantiated claims in the shado forum.

I am affraid this assertion steps over the line at trying to start a rumor
that may some day taken as fact by future SHADO Fan/historians. I do not
believe there is a shred of proof or the tiniest inkling of fact to support any
claim that "Billington/Straker Gay?" was EVER an issue in the cannon script
or in the actors lives. The only thing that might be possible is that a
splinter group writing fan fiction "SLASH" might have a fantasy about such a
thing. But that has NOTHING to do with the real TV series, production, or actors.

I would say it is poor taste to try to attempt to make that assertion
"Billington/Straker Gay?" Just to start a rumor, or further an AGENDA, or create
emotion havoc in a main line loyal fan SHADO group.

Nice try......

I will step off my soap box.

GC



**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I won't repeat my previous post - but I think our group is a victim of
another "False ID fan" - A post such as this filed by a new member "Sue Smith"
from Yahoo.com is about as generic as you can get. If I am wrong, I apologize
- but I have had other malicious postings in other fan groups - simular to
this rumor mill. If anyone wants to respond to my post email me directly - @
_John_Doe_99@Yahoo.com_ (mailto:[hidden email]) . (Just kidding...but I
think I make my point. We are victims of a prank!

GC


In a message dated 11/28/2007 4:05:30 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[hidden email] writes:

I don't know if you've discussed this topic before on
this forum, but it has been suggested in future
scripts that went unshot due to the cancellation of
the series, that Foster and Straker were at odds at
times due to the strain of a gay relationship between
the two.

This allegedly contributed to the breakup of Straker's
marriage and accounted for the fact that
Foster)himself was unmarried, and in real life Michael
Billington was gay and the cancer that killed him
relatively young and fast was related to a deficient
immune system caused by the AIDS retrovirus.

Again, since these are bona fide but unshot scripts it
may be irrelevant to this forum BUT in looking back
with hindsight I do see this tension there.

If this has been discussed, I apologize as I am new
here- could someone point me in the direction of the
topics if previously posted?

Sue

__________________________________________________________






**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I won't repeat my previous post - but I think our group is a victim of
> another "False ID fan" - A post such as this filed by a new member "Sue Smith"
> from Yahoo.com is about as generic as you can get.

Yes, I agree -- I think this is the same person who claimed to be Ed Bishop's
son-in-law a few months ago. "Sue" joined the group on the same day "James
Williams" was thrown off the group. Also, the posting IP addresses both
trace back to the same general location -- North Arlington New Jersey.

Send in the Mobiles!

Marc

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:

>
> Send in the Mobiles!
>
> Marc
>

Excellent response, Marc. Looks like Sue now has as much cover as a
G-String on a belly dancer.

David

CONTENTS DELETED

:-))
LOL!!!


>
> Send in the Mobiles!
>
> Marc
>

Excellent response, Marc. Looks like Sue now has as much cover as a
G-String on a belly dancer.

David

Somebody else tried to make this point a while back, Sue.

There's only one possible unshot script flaoting around,
called "Patriot", or something like that, and that had no
such gay references. You might want to check your
sources about that whole "future scripts/ bonafide scripts"
thing, as that sounds like a lot of B.S.

The only gay referencing I've ever seen in UFO was in some
of the very wierd FAN FICTION posted on this forum.

Straker's marriage broke up because of business strains
due to his job, cracking apart a young and vulnerable
marriage. A gay relationship w/ Col Foster had nothing to
do with it, especially since he wasn't even in the
organisation yet.

Dave H.




----- Original Message -----
From: Susan Smith
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: [SHADO] Billington/Straker Gay?


I don't know if you've discussed this topic before on
this forum, but it has been suggested in future
scripts that went unshot due to the cancellation of
the series, that Foster and Straker were at odds at
times due to the strain of a gay relationship between
the two.

This allegedly contributed to the breakup of Straker's
marriage and accounted for the fact that
Foster)himself was unmarried, and in real life Michael
Billington was gay and the cancer that killed him
relatively young and fast was related to a deficient
immune system caused by the AIDS retrovirus.

Again, since these are bona fide but unshot scripts it
may be irrelevant to this forum BUT in looking back
with hindsight I do see this tension there.

If this has been discussed, I apologize as I am new
here- could someone point me in the direction of the
topics if previously posted?

Sue

__________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal.
Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:
>
> > I won't repeat my previous post - but I think our group is a
victim of  
> > another "False ID fan" - A post such as this filed by a new
member "Sue Smith"
> > from Yahoo.com is about as generic as you can get.  
>
> Yes, I agree -- I think this is the same person who claimed to be
Ed Bishop's
> son-in-law a few months ago. "Sue" joined the group on the same
day "James
> Williams" was thrown off the group. Also, the posting IP addresses
both
> trace back to the same general location -- North Arlington New
Jersey.
>
> Send in the Mobiles!
>
> Marc
>
Gee, Imagine that. A nutter from New Jersey! LOL That accounts for
one (under two aliases). Now if you can help us locate the other
81,265 that are roaming around here maybe we can make this a better
state. :) I can say this because I'm from NJ. :)

Sorry for the O.T.comment I just hate people that don't have better
things to do with their lives than agitate other people.
Lorraine

I feel what Marc has said vis a vis this poster is very interesting - someone with a real axe to grind evidently. But sad IMHO because the said person has nothing better to do than to annoy UFO fans. Wonder if they're locked up in a penitentiary or a loonie bin and woefully unchallenged...? Pam the Canuck


> I won't repeat my previous post - but I think our group is a victim of
> another "False ID fan" - A post such as this filed by a new member "Sue Smith"
> from Yahoo.com is about as generic as you can get.

Yes, I agree -- I think this is the same person who claimed to be Ed Bishop's
son-in-law a few months ago. "Sue" joined the group on the same day "James
Williams" was thrown off the group. Also, the posting IP addresses both
trace back to the same general location -- North Arlington New Jersey.

Send in the Mobiles!

Marc




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:
 
> It could be -- the digital compression does degrade the picture, but
> 30 years ago you had ghosting images or noisy cable feeds.  
> You're just trading one set of degradation for another <snip>

Very true :-) With analogue "airwaves" there used to be problems
with "atmospherics" during high pressure spells, where foreign
television signals would disrupt the picture and sound to the point
where it was completely unwatchable; sometimes this would affect
three channels out of four ;-O  

But as you say, going digital has it's own set of problems. On top of
excessive compression by the channel providers, there's pixelation,
freezing - until you change channel or reboot – not much use though
when you've set the timer! Loss of lipsynch, the fact you need two
(or more) receivers if you want to record a channel whilst watching
another – and probably some others :-/ Because of all this, I'm
not convinced we're better off than the old days of analogue – it's
just - different!

The only aspect of the digital `revolution' to really impress me is
the picture quality of DVDs over videotapes – so much better,
especially in respect of commercial releases. Home DVD recording –
now that's very different.. talk about frustrating! Am I the only
one with loads of DVD `coasters'…? ;-D


 
> Well, in the good old days of analog CRT systems, your broadcast
> channels and video systems assumed that you had a certain number
> of lines of vertical resolution (576 lines for PAL, 480 lines for
> NTSC). And the TV's you have were designed for that, too. Now,
> we have cable systems and video discs that put out 480/576 lines,
> or it might put out 720 lines or 1080 lines. And you have TV
> sets which might have yet another resolution -- I own an HDTV
> which has 786 lines! <snip>

Thanks for this – I see what your saying :-) It seems odd that some
HD televisions have less than full HD resolution though – what's the
reason for this? Doesn't it just confuse everything even more?


Sarah

--- In [hidden email], "Rob Neal" <tryptych@...> wrote:

> I think one must also appreciate that DVD's are now pretty old
> technology, and still use MPEG1 or 2 compression codecs.
> (A codec is the coder/decoder software algorithm that actually
> crunches and restores the data)<snip>


I don't think I'll ever quite understand compression, but accept it
as a necessary `evil'. What concerns me is how there seems to be so
many variations with it's use. Is it regulated in any way? I mean,
is there any legal requirement for TV companies to broadcast either
at or better than a defined acceptable level of compression? Ditto
with DVD releases - in either SD or HD? Is there any way for a
consumer to know how good the quality of the product (especially DVD
releases) are? I know what I'm trying to ask, but am unsure if I'm
making sense...! :-}



> One other point, Marc, is I think you will find now that LCDs versus
> Plasmas is really 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, and there is
>very little to choose between them. I know Sony have ceased
>manufacture of all their plasma TVs, and many others are due to
>follow, simply because LCDs are generally cheaper to make and have a
>lower failure rate, along with all the environmental issues of power
>consumption etc.


Does this mean that plasmas have lost the `war'?

I happened to be in a large electrical store recently for something
totally unrelated, but went over to look at the rows of LCD TVs - the
last time I'd visited there were mainly CRTs with only one or two
small-ish flatscreen TVs. Now LCDs are ranging from 14 to 50" – all
widescreen. I saw no plasmas. The only CRTs were portables – 14"
and 4:3 - and had the best picture in the shop.    

I've watched plasma TVs and LCDs at other people's homes; plasma was
better than LCD, but neither was as good as CRT. Some of the LCD
pictures in this shop were *terrible*..!!! If LCD is all that's
available now, it's such a shame that this technology is a downgrade -
well, imho :-}


Thanks Rob and Marc :-) Sorry this is off-topic, but still kind of
relevant ;-)


Sarah

PAL = 625 lines of resolution, and NTSC = 525 lines.
   
Rick

moonbasegirl <[hidden email]> wrote:
         
--- In [hidden email], "Marc Martin" <marc@...> wrote:

> It could be -- the digital compression does degrade the picture, but
> 30 years ago you had ghosting images or noisy cable feeds.
> You're just trading one set of degradation for another <snip>

Very true :-) With analogue "airwaves" there used to be problems
with "atmospherics" during high pressure spells, where foreign
television signals would disrupt the picture and sound to the point
where it was completely unwatchable; sometimes this would affect
three channels out of four ;-O

But as you say, going digital has it's own set of problems. On top of
excessive compression by the channel providers, there's pixelation,
freezing - until you change channel or reboot – not much use though
when you've set the timer! Loss of lipsynch, the fact you need two
(or more) receivers if you want to record a channel whilst watching
another – and probably some others :-/ Because of all this, I'm
not convinced we're better off than the old days of analogue – it's
just - different!

The only aspect of the digital `revolution' to really impress me is
the picture quality of DVDs over videotapes – so much better,
especially in respect of commercial releases. Home DVD recording –
now that's very different.. talk about frustrating! Am I the only
one with loads of DVD `coasters'…? ;-D

> Well, in the good old days of analog CRT systems, your broadcast
> channels and video systems assumed that you had a certain number
> of lines of vertical resolution (576 lines for PAL, 480 lines for
> NTSC). And the TV's you have were designed for that, too. Now,
> we have cable systems and video discs that put out 480/576 lines,
> or it might put out 720 lines or 1080 lines. And you have TV
> sets which might have yet another resolution -- I own an HDTV
> which has 786 lines! <snip>

Thanks for this – I see what your saying :-) It seems odd that some
HD televisions have less than full HD resolution though – what's the
reason for this? Doesn't it just confuse everything even more?

Sarah



                         

       
---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! &#45; the World&#39;s favourite mail.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have a 42" Plasma (Panasonic, Vieta) and it is definately much better than my old 16x9 widescreen CRT. It has upscale technology which simulates HD, and is HD ready. The upscaler improves any image coming through. Sadly,most TV stations cram their broadcasts out on lower bandwidth, so broadcast images are not anywhere near as good as DVD.
   
Rick

moonbasegirl <[hidden email]> wrote:
--- In [hidden email], "Rob Neal" <tryptych@...> wrote:

> I think one must also appreciate that DVD's are now pretty old
> technology, and still use MPEG1 or 2 compression codecs.
> (A codec is the coder/decoder software algorithm that actually
> crunches and restores the data)<snip>

I don't think I'll ever quite understand compression, but accept it
as a necessary `evil'. What concerns me is how there seems to be so
many variations with it's use. Is it regulated in any way? I mean,
is there any legal requirement for TV companies to broadcast either
at or better than a defined acceptable level of compression? Ditto
with DVD releases - in either SD or HD? Is there any way for a
consumer to know how good the quality of the product (especially DVD
releases) are? I know what I'm trying to ask, but am unsure if I'm
making sense...! :-}

> One other point, Marc, is I think you will find now that LCDs versus
> Plasmas is really 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other, and there is
>very little to choose between them. I know Sony have ceased
>manufacture of all their plasma TVs, and many others are due to
>follow, simply because LCDs are generally cheaper to make and have a
>lower failure rate, along with all the environmental issues of power
>consumption etc.

Does this mean that plasmas have lost the `war'?

I happened to be in a large electrical store recently for something
totally unrelated, but went over to look at the rows of LCD TVs - the
last time I'd visited there were mainly CRTs with only one or two
small-ish flatscreen TVs. Now LCDs are ranging from 14 to 50" – all
widescreen. I saw no plasmas. The only CRTs were portables – 14"
and 4:3 - and had the best picture in the shop.

I've watched plasma TVs and LCDs at other people's homes; plasma was
better than LCD, but neither was as good as CRT. Some of the LCD
pictures in this shop were *terrible*..!!! If LCD is all that's
available now, it's such a shame that this technology is a downgrade -
well, imho :-}

Thanks Rob and Marc :-) Sorry this is off-topic, but still kind of
relevant ;-)

Sarah



                         

       
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Answers - Get better answers from someone who knows. Tryit now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], Marc Martin <marc@...> wrote:
 
> Thanks for that, John -- I was thinking that the quality of the UFO
> DVD's is so good that the film stock COULDN'T be THAT bad!


Yes, thanks, very interesting :-)  

It seems any future HD DVD release of UFO could well eclipse the SD,
that is assuming over zealous compression, differences in source and TV
resolution not to mention the overall quality of the LCD TV/HD DVD
player/cables being used don't cancel it all out..! ;-/

Still off-topic but I'm curious to know - is film still used in the TV
and movie making industry? Or do they now use a digital format of some
kind?


Sarah

--- In [hidden email], "Tom & Pam McCaughey" <mccaug@...>
wrote:
>
> I feel what Marc has said vis a vis this poster is very
interesting - someone with a real axe to grind evidently. But sad
IMHO because the said person has nothing better to do than to annoy
UFO fans. Wonder if they're locked up in a penitentiary or a loonie
bin and woefully unchallenged...? Pam the Canuck
>
> Yes, I agree -- I think this is the same person who claimed to
be Ed Bishop's
> son-in-law a few months ago. "Sue" joined the group on the same
day "James
> Williams" was thrown off the group. Also, the posting IP
addresses both
> trace back to the same general location -- North Arlington New
Jersey.
>
> Send in the Mobiles!
>
> Marc
>
Is this whole debate a red herring that failed, or a decoy that
worked?

(Well, as long as some quotes from the series are being bandied
about...)

> Thanks for this – I see what your saying :-) It seems odd that some
> HD televisions have less than full HD resolution though – what's the
> reason for this? Doesn't it just confuse everything even more?

For small TV sets, using less resolution makes them less expensive
to manufacture and cheaper to buy. Also, if watched from normal
distances, you probably can't tell the difference anyway...

Marc

richard curzon wrote:
> PAL = 625 lines of resolution, and NTSC = 525 lines.

I was referring to the resolution of the MPEG-2 files which
are encoded on the UFO DVDs. In this case, PAL = 576 x 720
pixels, NTSC = 480 x 720 pixels.

Marc

Sarah:
"Still off-topic but I'm curious to know - is film still used in the TV
and movie making industry? Or do they now use a digital format of some
kind?"

The majority of US network (and I stress network) TV dramatic series are
still shot on 35mm film. There are a growing number of HD series
especially those made for cable.

In the UK the use of 35mm for dramatic TV series largely died out in the
early 1970s. Even during the 1960s it was mainly confined to ITC
series because of Lew Grade's ambitions to sell to the US networks who
at the time insisted on 35mm. (The main non-Lew Grade series to use 35
was The Avengers). Since then, those UK TV series shot on film have
mainly used 16mm or latterly Super 16.

Very recently the BBC technical standards drones decided that Super 16
wasn't sutable for originating HD images. There has been much uproar
about this amongst cinematographers and others and there may be some
re-thinking, but for the moment BBC dramas are being shot either on
Standard Def PAL Digibeta or on HD.

Some ITV series such as Midsommer Murders (aka Barnaby) and Poirot
continue to be shot on Super 16.

Regards
John

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:26:40 -0000
"docmed03" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> --- In [hidden email], "Tom & Pam McCaughey" <mccaug@...>

> Dear gentlefolk: well, usually I don't have much to say on UFO
> issues in this forum but this crap about Ed Bishop and Mike
> Billington either being gay in real life or in the series is a
> unbelievably unrealistic.

Firstly: No-one suggested that Ed Bishop was gay, and Michael
Billington himself once commented that the scene between Straker
and Foster in the armoury from Kill Straker was homo-erotic.

While "Sue's" comments were unrealistic, I might point out that
this is also true for most of the overanalytical speculation about
the UFO characters that is posted on the list.

> > I'd also like to remind people that both Ed and Mike
> were parents and one should consider their families before
> rattling off with such unsubstantiated excrement.
> >

An absurd overreaction Pam frankly, and one that smells more than
faintly of homophobia, to be frank.

James