robn1
Master Member
It would do no good. Industry professionals have endorsed it as genuine, nothing said by us neck bearded basement dwelling fanboys will matter to anyone.
Alleged Screen Used Hero TOS Phaser up for auction (now the aftermath)
- Thread starter Anakin Starkiller
- Start date
- Status
Yep.
But our little conspirators will surely try to pull off another fraud, since they've had such success, so far. We just need to be vigilant. Maybe distill all of the data we've accrued, here, and make it handy and easy to understand for any parties dealing with future fraud.
I wonder who they will use now that Greg is no longer with us. Although I'm sure there are a bunch of so called experts that would be only too willing to play along.
What you are describing sounds like yet another “cabal”.
How many of these Star Trek Cabals are out there?
Is STAR TREK: CABAL the name of a new show that Bad Reboot announced on their STAR TREK Day livestream which I actively didn’t watch?
The reality is that only a small percentage of people interested in these things are REALLY interested in these things. Us, in other words. Very few people deep-dive into the nuances of construction, timelines, or variances between props.
Most people will see a phaser that looks convincingly old and beat up, hear a story that sounds reasonable, and just buy into it. They don’t have intimate knowledge of the show’s production, the timeline and construction details of the props, or insider info which will allow them to be discerning.
For example, look at the fake Fred Frieberger letter which “proves” the Nichols phaser’s authenticity. We all know that the famous kiss in “Plato’s Stepchildren” has been talked about for decades. It has been a key reference point in cultural discussions of TOS. So, when you have a letter that appears to have been typed on vintage (albeit deliberately distressed) paper stock, makes casual use of names of people who were involved in the show, and casually mentions “the kiss”, it would all seem plausible to a layman.
But, to expert eyes, it clearly reads like someone outside-looking-in trying to simulate a real vintage letter by adding in a casual reference to a TV executive involved with the show, and casually mentioning “the kiss” to make it seem like an off handed reference to something which would become a big deal. Of course, it’s ridiculous to think that Frieberger would casually write to Ms. Nichols and say, “Hey, we just filmed this historically-relevant episode with an interracial kiss, which one of our execs now admits wasn’t such a big deal. Coincidentally, here’s a phaser prop from this episode which I somehow know will become an icon in pop culture history, so you can commemorate being part of that soon-to-be-legendary interracial kiss!”
I have to be careful about what I say, here, but I’d like to note that documents involved in the HA phaser auction (which were not made public, but which I was discretely made privy to) feature a similar modus operandi, as well as other major red flags that only experts and hardcore fans would pick up on.
ID10T
Sr Member
I know we are farting against thunder here, but I'm suggesting each detail of the fake prop being compared to known actual prop examples. Maybe even going into: not only is this front piece not original, you can buy one today on eBay...
Just lay the facts out. No need to "prove" anything; let people decide for themselves.
That's all I was suggesting be done. Don't lower to "their" level to fight. Keep the high ground.
"This doesn't look like this, this doesn't look like this and this doesn't look like this. You decide if it is genuine, or not."
Just lay the facts out. No need to "prove" anything; let people decide for themselves.
That's all I was suggesting be done. Don't lower to "their" level to fight. Keep the high ground.
"This doesn't look like this, this doesn't look like this and this doesn't look like this. You decide if it is genuine, or not."
robn1
Master Member
That's already been done in this thread, but it does no good if those who need to see it most refuse to look at it.
ID10T
Sr Member
Well, WE know that, but how many Ewe-Toob viewers know about this web site?
I was just thinking a video that addresses the differences we can clearly see, and concretely identify, succintly made and uploaded.
I'm not that guy, but I'm sure there are others here who could do that rather quickly.
That's all I was saying.
I was just thinking a video that addresses the differences we can clearly see, and concretely identify, succintly made and uploaded.
I'm not that guy, but I'm sure there are others here who could do that rather quickly.
That's all I was saying.
I don’t mean to step on any toes here, and I must admit I’m still slowly making my own way through this thread, but I like the idea of distilling your main points into a single summary post or video to which an interested party may be directed, as opposed to the thread in general.
This was part of my reasoning for posting a letter I’d written to journalists on the ANH DL-44 Pawn Stars / RIA thread. Not to imply that my letter represents the be-all and end-all of the community’s arguments in that case; I’d only like to think that in the absence of a better summary, it may serve as an adequate foundation for the rare – yet meaningful – layperson who is understandably intimidated by a 40-page thread but willing to read a dozen paragraphs. At 90 pages and continuing to grow, almost no one (even among new RPF members) is going to have the time or patience to dive headlong into this thread, absorb hundreds of interrelated and sometimes conflicting points, and coalesce them into useful takeaway conclusions. Most people will probably ignore a single post or video just the same, but at least you might have a chance at reaching a few.
Also, if I may suggest a title: “The Cabalance of Probabilities” could be appropriate...
A quick addendum:
This has probably been said already, but to reiterate if nothing else, I think if anyone does decide to put together a summary post or video, it may be tactful to use extra care with absolutist language, especially words like “fake.” I realize that “fake” is already safer than “forgery,” and I totally get that it's primarily used here in the sense that one should logically assume something is fake until it is proven – or at least minimally substantiated – as authentic. I wholeheartedly agree with this philosophy. But the general public isn’t going to make those semantic distinctions, and however you cut it, calling anything “fake” is going to sound absolutist to most people... hence the YouTuber’s claim that “they are 100% sure that the phaser is a fake.” I know that’s an unfair caballegation, but it’s a hard mindset to change.
Therefore, I hope I don’t come across as patronizing – you guys have access to thesauruses the same as I do – but for the sake of example, I’d suggest that in a lot of cases where “fake” might be used casually in discussion, a summary post or video may find more success and less pushback with cabalternatives like unproven, unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unlikely, doubtful, questionable, problematic, suspicious, etc. I’m not saying don’t ever use absolutist language; if a particular component is definitely 100% fake, then by all means. Just if it’s 99%, probably best to avoid handing an easy (if flawed) counterargument to the cabalarmists.
Just my two cents!
This has probably been said already, but to reiterate if nothing else, I think if anyone does decide to put together a summary post or video, it may be tactful to use extra care with absolutist language, especially words like “fake.” I realize that “fake” is already safer than “forgery,” and I totally get that it's primarily used here in the sense that one should logically assume something is fake until it is proven – or at least minimally substantiated – as authentic. I wholeheartedly agree with this philosophy. But the general public isn’t going to make those semantic distinctions, and however you cut it, calling anything “fake” is going to sound absolutist to most people... hence the YouTuber’s claim that “they are 100% sure that the phaser is a fake.” I know that’s an unfair caballegation, but it’s a hard mindset to change.
Therefore, I hope I don’t come across as patronizing – you guys have access to thesauruses the same as I do – but for the sake of example, I’d suggest that in a lot of cases where “fake” might be used casually in discussion, a summary post or video may find more success and less pushback with cabalternatives like unproven, unverified, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, unlikely, doubtful, questionable, problematic, suspicious, etc. I’m not saying don’t ever use absolutist language; if a particular component is definitely 100% fake, then by all means. Just if it’s 99%, probably best to avoid handing an easy (if flawed) counterargument to the cabalarmists.
Just my two cents!
ID10T
Sr Member
Honestly, I don't think "we" (whoever makes the video) need to say anything.
Regurgitate the story in their words about how "this is screen used..." whatever, and then post a similar photo of the object on-screen. Then move onto the next detail. Systematically.
The emitter: Show their "screen used" prop, followed by the eBay auction for the replica.
You don't have to "say" anything. Just show the pictures and let people decide for themselves. But, if we don't lay the true facts out there, they will be "forgotten".
Yes, they are all here, but close to 100 pages of information, banter, jokes etc.- it's not clear to wade through it. Especially for someone new who comes along, just to evaluate the particular prop and the claims attached to it.
Regurgitate the story in their words about how "this is screen used..." whatever, and then post a similar photo of the object on-screen. Then move onto the next detail. Systematically.
The emitter: Show their "screen used" prop, followed by the eBay auction for the replica.
You don't have to "say" anything. Just show the pictures and let people decide for themselves. But, if we don't lay the true facts out there, they will be "forgotten".
Yes, they are all here, but close to 100 pages of information, banter, jokes etc.- it's not clear to wade through it. Especially for someone new who comes along, just to evaluate the particular prop and the claims attached to it.
finalfrontier
Well-Known Member
Probably getting ready to auction off another "found" phaser ...
Macnmike
Member
Gregatron: There are some things we may never know...and that's okay. Best. Mike.
Attachments
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
By now we all have come to know that there were 75 mid-grade phasers made for the series.
finalfrontier
Well-Known Member
Its funny how all these have the same weathering no matter where they come from. Kind of fishy in and
Lot of folks have been cheated (not me) and its really sad so its really not ok imho.
NakedMoleRat
Legendary Member
My cousin in California owns his own electric repair company. I was visiting him about 15 or 20 years ago and he was doing repairs in an apartment building in Pasadena that was owned by George Takei. George gave his son a phaser that he told him was used in Star Trek. It was a Richard Coyle replica, though. I spotted it at right away but couldn’t break the kids heart, but I did pull his father off to the side and let him know.
- Status
Similar threads
