You may as well post a bunny with a pancake on it's head, it would prove just as much
That huge midplate sitting right beside the inset photo of the Wah Chang tiny midplate is very significant to me.
Last edited:
Star Trek Prop Authority
- Thread starter Room8
- Start date
That huge midplate sitting right beside the inset photo of the Wah Chang tiny midplate is very significant to me.
robn1
Master Member
I'll take the high road and overlook your nastiness, and focus on this. Wah made ten communicators, which apparently was enough for the production, other than the crushable model from I, Mudd. But he made only two tricorders, so the studio had to make more as needed. They were mostly fiberglass rather than vacuform, and at least one leatherette model. None were up to the quality of Wah's.
Here's the simulated Eta photo from HeroComm ...
Note its a tiny not a thick midplate all around. Definitely not Eta, IMHO.
Last edited:
It "apparently" was not enough for production since we clearly see a non- Wah Chang midgrade on Shatner's belt.
Last edited:
Nobby
Sr Member
Oh how this thread entertains me!
Gerald, I really don't understand why you refuse to post some up to date pics of your comm.
Please provide pics of your comm, or an explanation why you won't.
Without either, all of your written statements are just funnier and funnier.
And I hate to insult you further, but your site is as confusing and hard to navigate as your current argument towards the authenticity of something you may not even possess .
Having said that, thanks for the entertainment. I do love reading this thread every morning
Gerald, I really don't understand why you refuse to post some up to date pics of your comm.
Please provide pics of your comm, or an explanation why you won't.
Without either, all of your written statements are just funnier and funnier.
And I hate to insult you further, but your site is as confusing and hard to navigate as your current argument towards the authenticity of something you may not even possess .
Having said that, thanks for the entertainment. I do love reading this thread every morning
lmfao ok you are correct feel better? yeah why all the insults and why so nasty my friend? we just want to see pictures of the comm in your possession, nothing more if you can not produce them then good enough.
being a total a ss is uncalled for and just makes you look like a joke, i was trying to give you a chance as i had heard many bad things about you and your claims? this only helps support them as being true, now you are bad mouthing all of us and hero comm? wow what a piece of work, you can have all the trek knowledge in the world ( which you do not by the way ) but if you are a jerk no one wants to hear what you know.
now one more time can you produce a picture of the comm in more detail or not?
being a total a ss is uncalled for and just makes you look like a joke, i was trying to give you a chance as i had heard many bad things about you and your claims? this only helps support them as being true, now you are bad mouthing all of us and hero comm? wow what a piece of work, you can have all the trek knowledge in the world ( which you do not by the way ) but if you are a jerk no one wants to hear what you know.
now one more time can you produce a picture of the comm in more detail or not?
YenChih Lin
Master Member
As an outside neutral party enjoying this and not being an expert for TOS or the Comm, I'd like to chime in for short.
1. I combed again all five pages. Feek61 came over as polite as possible for asking hi-res pictures to verify your claim. He never came over as mockery like you or else stating slightly insulting remarks with hostility so far. Yet he IS patient enough to wait for some proper answers.
2. You instead started being mockery towards all who don't believe your point of view, shall I quote?
3. You only relied and referred only to your pages and screenshots. All Feek61 want to know is, if this Comm is as authentic as you claim? If you do have this Comm and can say it's the real McCoy, it can't be that hard to get out a 8 MP digicam and shoot this beauty like some detailed photos of the VOY Tricorder on you site in comparision to the 13 hole grill next to the 10/12 hole type. With ruler next to the props, scaled up screenshots of the alleged Comms in the episodes including correct angles and /or overlays.
Here's the catch: no reliance on comments from Wah/Dwyer or hearsay.
Let the evidence speak for itself!
Like newworld did here:
4. Stop being a jerk and a pr*ck with your continuous silly remarks that serves no purpose, other than substantiating the suspicion of people, that indeed you don't have the real Comm and not admitting it or not wanting to see the truth.
If you are an "authority" on TOS props as you claim, you won't fear the scrutiny of the Comms. Yet you have to deliver the factual comparison hi-res photos with recent timestamp, that yours is one used on-screen.
I quote again (the last time, it's getting tiresome):
5. And that's my personal opinion: no one is an authority. NO ONE. We all are human and we make mistakes. Our memory doesn't serve us well, that's a fact. We see things in retrospective with rose-tinted glasses, that's our nature. Our ego sometimes or most of the times stands in our way. You are only an expert in a field, when you studied something long enough backing your claims with FACTS.
Back to the normal program on channel 4:
PS: No one here in this thread is baiting your, we all wait for the facts to come. I'll wait…
1. I combed again all five pages. Feek61 came over as polite as possible for asking hi-res pictures to verify your claim. He never came over as mockery like you or else stating slightly insulting remarks with hostility so far. Yet he IS patient enough to wait for some proper answers.
2. You instead started being mockery towards all who don't believe your point of view, shall I quote?
Hear hear!!! Who is that dastardly gbg1701!!! Off with his head!!! How dare he disagree with the omnipotent and brilliant mind of Dhan; thereby invoking "The Wrath of Dhan!!!"
Don, you have a very nice web site, BTW! You folks are all certainly entitled to your own opinions; as I am to mine.
Very Kind Regards,
Gerald
3. You only relied and referred only to your pages and screenshots. All Feek61 want to know is, if this Comm is as authentic as you claim? If you do have this Comm and can say it's the real McCoy, it can't be that hard to get out a 8 MP digicam and shoot this beauty like some detailed photos of the VOY Tricorder on you site in comparision to the 13 hole grill next to the 10/12 hole type. With ruler next to the props, scaled up screenshots of the alleged Comms in the episodes including correct angles and /or overlays.
Here's the catch: no reliance on comments from Wah/Dwyer or hearsay.
Let the evidence speak for itself!
Like newworld did here:
"Several might even be deemed sufficient to establish a perfect match with a particular on screen prop; "
to mean you were showing matches, but you are correct – "several" does not mean "all". Since that's not the case, but only SOME are matches, please show us which ones. Again, I do NOT want to put words in your mouth. Please show us a shot like this:
4. Stop being a jerk and a pr*ck with your continuous silly remarks that serves no purpose, other than substantiating the suspicion of people, that indeed you don't have the real Comm and not admitting it or not wanting to see the truth.
If you are an "authority" on TOS props as you claim, you won't fear the scrutiny of the Comms. Yet you have to deliver the factual comparison hi-res photos with recent timestamp, that yours is one used on-screen.
I quote again (the last time, it's getting tiresome):
5. And that's my personal opinion: no one is an authority. NO ONE. We all are human and we make mistakes. Our memory doesn't serve us well, that's a fact. We see things in retrospective with rose-tinted glasses, that's our nature. Our ego sometimes or most of the times stands in our way. You are only an expert in a field, when you studied something long enough backing your claims with FACTS.
Back to the normal program on channel 4:
PS: No one here in this thread is baiting your, we all wait for the facts to come. I'll wait…
Last edited:
^^^
I totally agree.
gbg1701, I've never seen a more immature series of replies on any forum... ever!
In all honesty, with your lack of co-operation (after being asked politely), I think you have something to hide and you may very well know that what you have is a fake. I don't think that I'd be the only one who's watching this thread with that opinion either.
Man up and prove us wrong and stop with the childish replies. By the way, how old are you?
Kraig
I totally agree.
gbg1701, I've never seen a more immature series of replies on any forum... ever!
In all honesty, with your lack of co-operation (after being asked politely), I think you have something to hide and you may very well know that what you have is a fake. I don't think that I'd be the only one who's watching this thread with that opinion either.
Man up and prove us wrong and stop with the childish replies. By the way, how old are you?
Kraig
gbg1701 appears to be using the same method of answering questions I have seen elsewhere on Star Trek threads on this forum and on other Star Trek forums. Any body who asks relevant questions is instantly labeled (i.e. mean-spirited; deaf, dumb and blind; had a lobotomy; ignorant; etc.) and called names (***, jerk, etc.) instead of answering the question at hand.
At the risk of being labeled mean-spirited, I offer this word of the day (by the way, I hate when people use definitions from the dictionary to describe something- so I will do it anyway):
ob·fus·cate
verb (used with object), ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing. 1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.
I hope the moderators are not threatened with legal action to take this very informative thread down.
James
At the risk of being labeled mean-spirited, I offer this word of the day (by the way, I hate when people use definitions from the dictionary to describe something- so I will do it anyway):
ob·fus·cate
verb (used with object), ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing. 1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.
I hope the moderators are not threatened with legal action to take this very informative thread down.
James
There .... are .... 12 .... holes
feek61
Sr Member
Well yes I understand that but those other individuals are not professing that they are the "Authority" on TOS props and mouthing off.
I always respect someone who puts their money where their mouth is. These shenanigans with the prop authority are typical of what you found many many years ago on the internet with Trek when there were but a few who had a little more knowledge than everyone else and they used it like a sword. Luckily those days are over but apparently there are a few hold-outs. Some folks find it difficult to change with the times and also find it difficult to grow-up.
Last edited:
sorry if i come across as dumb or mean! i know quite a bit about Star Trek props and have a lot of friends in the know.
I was hoping after your first post you would have more to say or better more recent pictures for us to look at? it just seems as though you want to tell us how it is and have us bow down to you? i don't want to see a picture of a communicator on Kirks pants and be told see! it was made by Paramount! lol i want to see your communicator that was allegedly made by them and i want some clear shots of the inside, I don't want to be called dumb, stupid or anything else just because we will not take your word for it, sorry life doesn't work that way.
Now if we can start over here with out you getting upset, we would like to see some better Pictures of the comm in question, do you have any? can you take any?? if not we are truly wasting our time here because you are just trying to beat us until we give in and agree. no harm meant to you but we as trek fans and prop builders like a little proof, thanks for helping us out!
I was hoping after your first post you would have more to say or better more recent pictures for us to look at? it just seems as though you want to tell us how it is and have us bow down to you? i don't want to see a picture of a communicator on Kirks pants and be told see! it was made by Paramount! lol i want to see your communicator that was allegedly made by them and i want some clear shots of the inside, I don't want to be called dumb, stupid or anything else just because we will not take your word for it, sorry life doesn't work that way.
Now if we can start over here with out you getting upset, we would like to see some better Pictures of the comm in question, do you have any? can you take any?? if not we are truly wasting our time here because you are just trying to beat us until we give in and agree. no harm meant to you but we as trek fans and prop builders like a little proof, thanks for helping us out!
... cue Prop Authority with 'witty' post shortly.....
(I can't believe you guys are still feeding it :lol)
gbg1701, post the pics of your communicator if you want to salvage what little credibility you seem to have left here :rolleyes
(I can't believe you guys are still feeding it :lol)
gbg1701, post the pics of your communicator if you want to salvage what little credibility you seem to have left here :rolleyes
Hi folks:
My apologies, especially to robn1, for the less than completely respectful remarks. To me, it was a way of countering what I honestly consider to be an even more dismissive and disrespectful treatment of my positions presented here and in great length on my site.
I can't help but strongly feel that I have been the subject of much in the way of mocking and disrespectful conduct in this and other threads - especially from Mr. Hillenbrand who attacks the authenticity of my TOS props in one fell swoop without any detailed analysis or any details about questionable design characteristics - he just calls them all fakes; and he instantly dismisses (along with Will / feek61 ) any meaningful info I present like the use of 1966 vacuuform on my Tricorder or the authentication of my communicator and tricorder by John Dwyer or all of the info I published on my site in lengthy articles.) - instantly dismissed as useless info that is not the slightest bit meaningful. And when I publish a screenshot that I honestly believe shows a Desilu midgrade communicator which has a midplate that extends away from the shell 400% or 500% wider than that in the Wah Chang pieces ... all I get back from nearly everyone is talk of tricks of light or light flares or blurriness - which I honestly don't agree with in the slightest. It just confirms to me a lack of reasonableness in assessing the info I present. (Though WNMHGB I believe seems to say he agrees with my assessment of the midplate in that Shatner photo.)
I do believe my communicator was authentically screen used and built by Desilu -- just like they built all the phasers and many Tricorders for TOS. To me it doesn't make sense to blindly rule out the existence of any Desilu communicators; and I think I have shown several times on my site with different screenshots - and in that Shatner screenshot here - evidence of Desilu midgrade communicators in TOS. I already know my communicator has some features that do not conform with Wah Chang pieces. That's because I don't contend it is a Wah Chang piece but a Desilu piece. I also know there are some modern photos of it on my site as well as the older photos taken in John Dwyer's home. I'm not inclined to post more photos here because all that will happen (I am absolutely certain) is that people will just point out areas where there are differences with the Wah Chang pieces -- automatically brand it a fake -- and blindly ignore the evidence that Desilu made midgrade communicators for TOS. HeroComm has done some great work specifically focusing on the creation of the Wah Chang communicators -- but they have ignored the evidence supporting Desilu made comms and even tried to vehemently deny the existence of any Desilu comms - even those stunt ones in "I, Mudd" for a long time before finally realizing how foolish they were insisting the WC pieces met every need, including the need for stunts, in TOS.
I know there are many veteran, old time major TOS collectors who hold similar views as me and find value in my analysis who do not publicly speak out for fear of the same, ill conceived taunting and ridicule that I have been met with. I find their knowledge much more credible and insightful - many have told me of their direct conversations with the production crew of TOS - to me their insights are much more valuable than that of the fans behind HeroComm who speak in absolute terms and insist on remaining anonymous; thereby failing to reveal any credible history or background.
I wish everyone well, and am certain that we will continue to disagree on this issue.
My apologies, especially to robn1, for the less than completely respectful remarks. To me, it was a way of countering what I honestly consider to be an even more dismissive and disrespectful treatment of my positions presented here and in great length on my site.
I can't help but strongly feel that I have been the subject of much in the way of mocking and disrespectful conduct in this and other threads - especially from Mr. Hillenbrand who attacks the authenticity of my TOS props in one fell swoop without any detailed analysis or any details about questionable design characteristics - he just calls them all fakes; and he instantly dismisses (along with Will / feek61 ) any meaningful info I present like the use of 1966 vacuuform on my Tricorder or the authentication of my communicator and tricorder by John Dwyer or all of the info I published on my site in lengthy articles.) - instantly dismissed as useless info that is not the slightest bit meaningful. And when I publish a screenshot that I honestly believe shows a Desilu midgrade communicator which has a midplate that extends away from the shell 400% or 500% wider than that in the Wah Chang pieces ... all I get back from nearly everyone is talk of tricks of light or light flares or blurriness - which I honestly don't agree with in the slightest. It just confirms to me a lack of reasonableness in assessing the info I present. (Though WNMHGB I believe seems to say he agrees with my assessment of the midplate in that Shatner photo.)
I do believe my communicator was authentically screen used and built by Desilu -- just like they built all the phasers and many Tricorders for TOS. To me it doesn't make sense to blindly rule out the existence of any Desilu communicators; and I think I have shown several times on my site with different screenshots - and in that Shatner screenshot here - evidence of Desilu midgrade communicators in TOS. I already know my communicator has some features that do not conform with Wah Chang pieces. That's because I don't contend it is a Wah Chang piece but a Desilu piece. I also know there are some modern photos of it on my site as well as the older photos taken in John Dwyer's home. I'm not inclined to post more photos here because all that will happen (I am absolutely certain) is that people will just point out areas where there are differences with the Wah Chang pieces -- automatically brand it a fake -- and blindly ignore the evidence that Desilu made midgrade communicators for TOS. HeroComm has done some great work specifically focusing on the creation of the Wah Chang communicators -- but they have ignored the evidence supporting Desilu made comms and even tried to vehemently deny the existence of any Desilu comms - even those stunt ones in "I, Mudd" for a long time before finally realizing how foolish they were insisting the WC pieces met every need, including the need for stunts, in TOS.
I know there are many veteran, old time major TOS collectors who hold similar views as me and find value in my analysis who do not publicly speak out for fear of the same, ill conceived taunting and ridicule that I have been met with. I find their knowledge much more credible and insightful - many have told me of their direct conversations with the production crew of TOS - to me their insights are much more valuable than that of the fans behind HeroComm who speak in absolute terms and insist on remaining anonymous; thereby failing to reveal any credible history or background.
I wish everyone well, and am certain that we will continue to disagree on this issue.
Last edited:
Not really.
His last post tells me he knows, or at the very least, is very suspicious, that his communicator is not an original; and if he is sure it is an original (somehow), he lacks the knowledge and / or evidence to prove it.
Ergo, better not to post pics at all.
Mystery solved.
You have just supported my last post well ... I am not suspicious at all about the originality of the comm. It seems to me you have just overlooked much of the content of that last post.
Last edited:
I have overlooked nothing. You conveniently overlooked the second half of my post, which said : if you are sure it is an original (somehow), then you lack the knowledge and / or evidence to prove it.
Unless you are willing to prove your communicator is an original, with hard facts and clear, concise evidence, then I suggest it is wiser for you to stop posting nonsensical replies that only serve to fuel speculation and suspicion.
Unless you are willing to prove your communicator is an original, with hard facts and clear, concise evidence, then I suggest it is wiser for you to stop posting nonsensical replies that only serve to fuel speculation and suspicion.
IMHO you have overlooked much. How do you explain that non-Wah Chang midgrade on Shatner's belt which has a very obvious much-too-wide midplate? Do you feel that John Dwyer was totally incorrect when he authenticated my comm after closely examining it side-by-side with his own comm? Are you associated with the creation of HeroComm? Why do you firmly deny it's possible that Desilu made midgrade communicators when they made stunt comms and all the other props and there are clear screenshots showing non-Wah Chang comms in TOS? Please stop ignoring all of these questions but answer them directly.
Very Best,
Gerald
Similar threads
