ack is there any trutch to this website?

Share your views on the policies, philosophies, and spirit of Burning Man.

Postby Tiara » Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:19 pm

Perhaps someone with the details could post them here. . . I recall multiple trips that have been organized in the past year for the purpose of documenting the current state of the Frog Pond to create a baseline, and then to develop and carry out significant restoration efforts. The volunteers on these trips are "burners"
User avatar
Tiara
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:07 pm
Location: Richmond CA

umm frog pondin its current state is far from a baseline

Postby allanon2 » Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:45 pm

Tiara wrote:Perhaps someone with the details could post them here. . . I recall multiple trips that have been organized in the past year for the purpose of documenting the current state of the Frog Pond to create a baseline, and then to develop and carry out significant restoration efforts. The volunteers on these trips are "burners"



back when I firstwent to frog pong maybe in the early 1990's
their werebirds yes birds and all the aquaticwetlang vegetation to go alogn with them

and now?

none
zippo


so gettign a baseline now would not be scientific at all
allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

Postby Chai Guy » Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:52 pm

Could this discussion continue in a single thread? It seems that there are multiple threads with the same discussion taking place in all them. Valid points are being made on both sides, however, it's frustrating to have to jump around the board to read them all. Perhaps the StopBmorg people could create ONE new thread, or just choose one currently in progress and limit their postings that pertain to their enviromental concerns that single thread. This would make reading and responding to their posts much easier for everyone involved. Thanks- Chai : )
User avatar
Chai Guy
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby KellY » Mon Jan 19, 2004 7:31 pm

To all the stopburningman people, sock puppets, and/or multiple personalities:

The insane number of threads this whole discussion is happening on seems both detrimental to the board and the topic itself, with all the cross-postings, redundant questions, etc. If you are actually concerned about the environmental impact of the event and not just trying to fuck with our community, please pick one thread to carry on the discussion, or start a single new one, and let's proceed from there. Any post aside from saying "Let's go to this thread" will look suspiciously troll-like, I am thinking.

To everyone else on the board, I respectfully ask that you don't post on any more of these threads until a single one is chosen. I'm sorry about the multiple cross postings and if this seems high-handed. I suppose I could have asked the moderators to intervene, but you know...radical self-reliance and all that.
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes
User avatar
KellY
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

lets go here

Postby allanon2 » Mon Jan 19, 2004 8:14 pm

allanon2
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Very clever, but not very helpful

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:50 am

Rob the Wop wrote:And not all "fence-jumpers" are going out to do things illegal. A lot of people pick up friends from the Reno airport. I'm sure there are other pressing issues that would have people leaving/entering the event.

Including medical.
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Tue Jan 20, 2004 10:55 am

Whoops. I'm contributing to a thread that should be closed. Sorry.
Actually, I don't care. Because I don't want to talk to those bozos, so I"m perfectly happy to post in a thread that I hope they have abandoned to concentrate on their good works in one, well written, well researched, coherently argued and easily ignorable thread.
(They're probably happy to see the last of me too.)
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Re: Very clever, but not very helpful

Postby respecttheplanet » Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:06 am

Still, unless the rangers know if the people at the springs were burners- how do you know who to exclude? Alright, put someone from BMORG at the springs. Do they then follow the perpetrators until they try to re-enter? Who watches the springs while this is happening? What about people taking a dip before or after going to the event? How do you "prove" they are from the event without authority to search or detain/question?


It's quite easy to tell who is and isn't a burner. The burners are the ones that show up in the ART CARS. :P If it's before or after the event, it's legal. I can't say much about that. I just wish they'd pick up after themselves and practice proper hygiene.

And not all "fence-jumpers" are going out to do things illegal. A lot of people pick up friends from the Reno airport. I'm sure there are other pressing issues that would have people leaving/entering the event.

This is true, but I was under the impression that there were no in & out privileges during the event. So, they're still breaking the rules.


Without being granted some kind of authority to deny access, give out fines, or physically arrest suspects that become violent (sometimes happens when you try to fine people- especially when they are drunk, high, etc.)- I'm not sure we are the ones that should be meddling here.

The BLM Rangers have that authority.. fortunately. ;)

I think the most that we could do would be have a volunteer with a walkie-talkie overlooking the said site. If they see someone enter- they call the cops on a special channel. The cops (or BLM) comes out and arrests/fines the individual. Enough hefty fines and the word would get around. Otherwise, I don't see this as being a problem we could solve.


That's an excellent suggestion. Or, if people see fence-jumpers, they can inform the BLM or the "Black Rock City rangers" - not a bad idea at all.
respecttheplanet
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 11:32 am

Postby Tancorix » Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:35 pm

I thought all parties involved in this had agreed to move this conversation to General Discussion? The divide and conquer strategy won't work here.

Please consider going over there to post and quit posting here?
User avatar
Tancorix
 
Posts: 957
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 7:56 pm
Location: Not here, not there. I'm somewhere though.

Postby Badger » Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:11 pm

At this point I don't know which is the consolidated topic.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

What I really want to know is

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:21 pm

Is there any truth (or even trutch) to these websites?

http://www.lennonmurdertruth.com/about.asp

http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/lightfoot.html

(And just be grateful that you didn't try and read it off an 80s xerox.)
Last edited by BlueBirdPoof on Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Postby Chai Guy » Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:23 pm

viewtopic.php?t=2771&highlight=

This is the new consolidated topic thread
User avatar
Chai Guy
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 1:37 am
Location: Los Angeles

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:12 pm

Now here's a website that's ranting about a TRULY scary organization:
http://www.geocities.com/bohemian_grove_dirt/
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Postby KellY » Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:13 pm

Bluebird,

Really, dude, this stuff is even less credible than allanon's garbage. Come on. THe Bohemian Grove is a vacation spot for rich old white men whose politics I generally really hate and who are doing a lot damage to th world. The hypocracy of their getting together to play camp-out (luxury style) in a beautiful redwood grove while their actions support environmental destruction in the rest of the planet frankly sickens me. But all this child-sacrifice demon-worship stuff is bullshit, and it should be especially obvious to Burners, since so many rumors abound that that's what we're doing.

BTW, any fans of the Tales of the City Books should know what the whole "child sacrifice" thing is really about; a big chunk of his fifth book, Babycakes, is set at the Grove. At the start of the week, they have a big old fire and an effigy representing the cares of the world is thrown in, so members can forget their responsiblitiers and have fun for the duration of their stay. Hmm, that kind of reminds me of something...And no, I don't believe Armistead Maupin is a member of a right-wing Satanic cabal doing a cover-up.
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes
User avatar
KellY
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Postby Badger » Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:45 pm

Good summary Kelly.
.
Desert dogs drink deep.

Image
.
User avatar
Badger
 
Posts: 3322
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 2:43 pm
Location: San Francisco

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Mon Jan 26, 2004 10:22 am

KellY
You are, of course, right. My oblique point was that anyone can put up a website about any sort of percieved atrocity. Also, I sometimes have reactions to those people who requard BM as some sort of pure wonder that will change the world. Bohemian Grove sort of stands as my counter example of an organization that has somewhat radical roots and is now as establishment as one can get.
And the Steven Lightfoot website? I remember him from Berkeley in the 80s. Unfortunately for the stopbmorg website, that was my instant flash on for completely uncredible arguements. Yes, again they are a little more credible, but the pure sloppiness of the arguement plus the defensiveness of its supporters is so Lightfoot to me. If I've learned nothing else from this brewhaha, it's that passion alone won't convince me of much.
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Speaking of Wacko Websites

Postby rodent » Mon Jan 26, 2004 6:17 pm

Check out Richard Hoagland's website http://www.enterprisemission.com for some great "photographic evidence" interpretations. (Hoagland use to be a respectable scientist but latched onto the Face on Mars and has been sliding downhill ever since). Most recently, they have "discovered" that the rocks around the Spirit lander are "Metal Cased Objects", "Mechanical bits" and "Artifacts". No sh!t, they're serious.
Oh yeah, and they STILL insist that the "Face" mesa in Cydonia is an "artificial structure" and (get this, sound familiar) "Needs More Study"

For an extra hoot, feel free to look up the Moon Landing Faked folks for even more "interpretation of photographic evidence".

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
User avatar
rodent
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California

Postby KellY » Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:07 pm

Hey Bluebird,

Sorry I misinterpreted your post. I do get a bit literal at times. And I definitely agree that the Bohemian Grove serves as a horrible warning of the dangers of co-option and assimilation. Far more disturbing, than, say, a few spiteful ex-burners trying to stir up trouble.
"Of what use is a philosopher who doesn't hurt anybody's feelings?" -Diogenes
User avatar
KellY
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2003 11:32 am

Hey Rodent! You mean this mockumentary?

Postby bgirl » Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:01 pm

I watched this last Nov. on CBC's Passionate Eye.Interesting ,goes to show that anything can be faked.Or was it faked?He,he.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE MOON: Brilliant mockumentary gives viewers
What if TV footage of the Apollo moon landing was faked by a nervous Nixon?

Alex Strachan
CanWest News Service


Saturday, November 15, 2003


VANCOUVER - The Apollo moon landing never happened. Or, if it did, the TV images
you saw were falsified, the images faked.

Got your attention? Good.

According to Dark Side of the Moon, the most important film of its kind since
Oliver Stone's JFK -- or since Rob Reiner's This is Spinal Tap, at any rate --
images of Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon on July 20, 1969, were shown to the
world through the lens of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick and were staged on
the very same Borehamwood, U.K., soundstage where Kubrick made his landmark
film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Don't believe it? You shouldn't, given that this is a mockumentary that shows
how "evidence" and "interviews" can be twisted wildly out of context to support
any thesis, no matter how ridiculous.

But what evidence!

Still images taken of the American flag on the moon showed it waving this way
and that, but, as Dark Side of the Moon points out, there is no wind on the
moon.The moon is affected by extreme temperature changes, which are exacerbated
by its lack of atmosphere.

The camera supposedly used to take the lunar stills, a Hasselblad 500, would not
operate at temperature extremes that cause chemical changes in film emulsion.
Mechanical parts expand and lenses loosen in extreme heat. Exposure meters fail
and film shatters like glass in extreme cold.

X-rays from the sun would fog the film, and ultraviolet rays would distort the
colours -- yet the colours in the moon landing pictures are perfect.

Gravity on the moon is one-sixth that of the Earth, which means that an
astronaut who would weigh 140 kilograms in his space suit on the ground would
weigh only about 30 kilos on the moon. And yet the depth of the astronauts'
footprints in the sand on the moon suggest they weighed much more than that.

None of the photos taken on the moon showed evidence of a flash. You would have
seen a flash, experts in Dark Side of the Moon insist, because the astronaut
taking the photograph would have been reflected in the visor of the other
astronaut.

Remember now, as they say on CSI: people lie; the evidence doesn't.

Dark Side of the Moon, airing Sunday on Newsworld's Passionate Eye at 8 p.m.,
was written and directed last year by 63-year-old historical documentary
filmmaker William Karel for France's Point du Jour Production and Arte France
(the film's original, French title was Operation lune).

It uses documentary evidence, archival footage and extensive interviews with
Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick, astronaut Buzz Aldrin and former and
present-day U.S. government officials and luminaries such as Henry Kissinger,
Lawrence Eagleberger, Al Haig and Donald Rumsfeld, to lay bare the lie.

(The official CBC press release refers to the film's subtle blend of facts,
fiction and hypothesis as a navigation through fact and fiction, and asks
rhetorically whether "Neal Armstrong's famous walk on the moon" (sic) was
another Stanley Kubrick production. I can't tell if the misspelling of Neil
Armstrong's name is incompetent or meant to be ironic.)

Dark Side of the Moon suggests that, given the turmoil of the day -- the Vietnam
War, civil unrest, a newly elected president warily eying his prospects for a
second term -- the Nixon administration understood that it was more important
that astronauts be seen to be walking on the moon than actually walk on the
moon.

If the astronauts landed safely, but could not televise live images back to
Earth because of some unforeseen technical glitch, then the entire expensive
enterprise would have been a waste of time, from a public relations standpoint.

The Nixon administration approached Kubrick -- an American expat and avowed
recluse, living in seclusion in a palatial estate somewhere in the suburbs of
London -- with a mind to stage the moon landing in advance, so that if worse
came to worse, the Apollo program would still have pictures to show a doubting
public.

The administration knew Kubrick would jump aboard, the film's makers suggest,
because it was widely known that Dr. Strangelove, which Kubrick directed five
years earlier, in 1964, was one of Nixon's favourite films.

The original idea was to have the CIA stage the event and film it themselves on
the same soundstage where Kubrick recreated the lunar surface for 2001: A Space
Odyssey. But when Kubrick -- a notorious perfectionist, with a temper to match
-- saw how incompetent the CIA camera operators were, he demanded that he be
allowed to film the scene himself.

Twisted testimony from Kissinger, the late Vernon Walters (speaking in Russian,
and dead, under suspicious circumstances, just hours after conducting his
interview for the film), Rumsfeld ("I'm going to tell you a fascinating story"),
Eagleberger, Haig and others -- real people in real interviews, not actors
playing a role -- brings Dark Side of the Moon to life.

It is a mammoth undertaking. It seeks nothing less than to expose the
incongruities between rhetoric and reality, by disclosing how the camera's lens
can be manipulated to suit any ends, and it achieves its goal with wit, style
and verve. It is a thoroughly entertaining and revealing film, and well worth
seeing.

Oh, and one other thing. According to the final credits, any resemblance to
actual living persons is purely coincidental.

That's important to know. After all, the camera lies. It's not always easy to
tell.
User avatar
bgirl
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 7:42 pm
Location: Deep Cove, North Vancouver , B.C.

Re: Hey Rodent! You mean this mockumentary?

Postby rodent » Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:06 pm

bgirl wrote:I watched this last Nov. on CBC's Passionate Eye.Interesting ,goes to show that anything can be faked.Or was it faked?He,he.


<<SNIP>>

here are some great "Moon Landing" sites...
---
http://www.smaug.org.uk/apollohoax/
Great at getting it's point across and most applicable to the SBM.com folks
---
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~akapadia/moon.html
Very obvious parody but great anyway
---
I was looking for this one parody site in particular but the only link I can find seems to have been defaced/URLgrabbed'n'modified. If anyone can point me to a restored/archived version please let me know.
http://brainsluice.tripod.com/moonlanding.html
---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)
User avatar
rodent
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 12:21 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, California

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:13 am

Wasn't OJ in that movie?
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Postby BlueBirdPoof » Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:14 am

KellY wrote:Hey Bluebird,

Sorry I misinterpreted your post.

No problem KellY. You got kudos from Badger. Impressive. It's been a bad period on the board, and I deliberately left very little trail for our agony aunts.
User avatar
BlueBirdPoof
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:44 am
Location: SF Bay Area

Previous

Return to Politics & Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests