Star Trek Prop Authority

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

feek61 said:
Well, I'm no expert but I do know how to count and there are more holes across the lid from the screen cap than there are on his replica. He even points out the number on the screen cap and clearly his replica has fewer.

And you are apparently just as lacking in impartiality and have negative bias just as the others. It's 13 holes across the unique sheet of antenna grid that is the true measure; because the manually worked corner bends at the bottom can affect the hole count in that last row of holes. And the curvature along the sides (again manually worked) affects the central, flat area hole count.

Very Best,
Gerald

newworld · Jul 22, 2012

What happened to "This really is my last entry"?

If you wanted to insist that your comm is a real one and that you just hadn't found a match yet, fine. But you haven't done that. You've taken facts and twisted them to your liking, while ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

If you can demonstrate how the info in this photo can be reconciled, I for one would be happy to acknowledge your piece as authentic, just as I did with the Kirk tunic once an actual photo match was shown. That is, of course, impossible, but knock yourself out. This image is from YOUR photo which you claim shows an identical comm. Nothing was changed or retouched in any way. Anyone can reproduce these results.

If you are saying that the 2 "missing" holes are around the corner or one is the one in the lower corner, anyone can plainly see that is not the case. The 2 shots are done at a similar enough angle that these should seamlessly match if they were showing the same source material.

If you claim that these 2 photos show the same comm unit, then that is the end of it. Because that means you are incapable of seeing what the most ignorant person can see. Or more correctly, that you are unwilling to see it. Which is why your title of "Authority" is a joke.

Had you kept this claim to yourself, then who would care? If you made it on a forum, who would care? But you announce it on your blog under the title of "Authority" and that is somehow supposed to give it weight. Guess again.

For the record, years ago when Gerald was faced with the well-founded opinion that his piece was not authentic, he then put it on Ebay and tried to get his money back, while simultaneously and KNOWINGLY swindling someone else. That is the behavior of a thief, not an "Authority" and should not be respected in any way.

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

If you were in any way attentive to my earlier remarks or the content of my website article; you would know that I in no way claimed my communicator was the same identical communicator in that screenshot -- and I was just comparing certain construction features which were common between the two. That's the absolute truth - which I suspect you actually know but are deliberately trying to misrepresent. It is difficult to write "a last entry in this thread" when I see some followup thoughts that are so ill-conceived and totally misrepresent what I said in my earlier comments -- but I shall try to do so now. By the way, just curious about the provenance on your walking tribble - I think it might be a replica.

Kind Regards,
Gerald

And, as is usual for you, Don, you have misrepresented the facts about ebay. You can't win on an objective analysis of the facts; so you become profane and attempt character assassination. It is quite apparent why you have been banned in some internet forums.

feek61 · Jul 22, 2012

Gerald,

I have tried openly to discuss your claims about your comm without attack. I am sorry that you have decided to attack me apparently because I don't agree with you and because I want to see proof. I have been respectful to you and I only am asking for facts and proof which you seem unwilling to provide. Why?

You say: And the build variations found on Desilu manufactured props also leads to direct inferences about comm construction.

These are well known facts with other props but have never been proven with the comms. Are you using this "inference" as part of your proof? We all know a crude crushable comm was made for "I Mudd" but where are the others that confirm your assertions? That is why I am interested in your comm. In any case you obviously are not serious and could careless about proving your claims which is very strange behavior for someone making the claims that you are making. Your refusal to prove what you are saying is typical of internet B.S. Put your money where your mouth is and quit making the personal attacks and misdirected post and talk specifically about the comm. I can only guess that you are afraid that the truth will devalue what you think you have.

Why wouldn't you take this opportunity to prove that your comm is authentic? The blurry photos on your site prove nothing but you certainly have an open door here to prove the doubters wrong. I am hoping that you do that here with a reasonable tone and act like the "authority" that you say you are instead of continuing to hurl insults and accusations while side-stepping the subject at hand. Why are you avoiding proving your claims?

Be the professional you claim to be.

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

Yes, Will.

feek61 · Jul 22, 2012

Gerald,

I am disappointed with the above response. You obviously are not serious about this discussion and most definitely are not a professional. Typical internet behavior and I must say I expected more from you. Your unwillingness to prove what you say completely discredits you. I gave you the respect and opportunity to prove what you have with the comm but you cant seem to understand that or perhaps you know what you have and can't prove what you are saying. Your position as any type of "authority" is very much in question but your perception as a professional is very clear; you are not. I was trying to help you and your reputation by giving you a stage to prove your assertions. I am sorry to say that I guess what they say about you is true. In any event I act like a professional and deal with professionals which you sir certainly do not act like; so adieu.

Please prove this with screen caps if you can: "and a couple of points regarding comm screenshots that further establish the presence of non-Wah built comms in TOS"

newworld · Jul 22, 2012

gbg1701 said:
you have a lovely replica walking tribble.

Thanks. Since it's a dead ringer for yours, I was afraid it might be. The difference between you and me is that I'm actually trying to figure out whether or not it's real.

gbg1701 said:
And, as is usual for you, Don, you have lied again about ebay. You can't win on an objective analysis of the facts; so you become profane and attempt character assassination. It is obvious why you have been banned in some internet forums.

I see you chose your words carefully. You are correct. I went from memory and I should know by now that I should never do that. It was actually a fake Tricorder and you were trying to sell it on the Prop, Costume & Auction Forum, not Ebay. My apologies for misrepresenting your sale – it was not my intent. I also note that as a result of that attempted sale, you were banned from that Forum and your new best friend Alec had this to say at the time:

"he is very insistent that ME (Mark English, well-known prop forger) does not exist and that his fakes are real. He was a real pain in the ass on my forum, and as pointed out, refuses to accept logic or fact."

And you also have my apologies for misconstruing your photo. I took this statement:

"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:

Similar shots were shown of the Kirk tunic which finally proved the claim. If you can do this same thing here you will have my sincere admiration and heartfelt congratulations.

And BTW, I'm banned from ONE forum because I choose to be. If the Emperor has no clothes, I'll be damned if I'll say otherwise.

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

Do you mean my Tricorder which just happens to be made of 1966 Vacuuform???

The haircell pattern changed in the early '70s. Go read up about TOS tricorders on my site, Don. You may learn something. Mine are absolutely authentic.

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

The good thing, if any, about all this very good natured and highly diplomatic debate is that I completed my 20 post requirement as a new member rather quickly.

Gerald

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

Don, the color of the fur on your walking tribble looks nothing like mine and appears quite different from all the tribble fur visible in TOS screenshots. Going from memory, I think the photo on your site showed some distinct yellowish regions. Please provide an episode screencap to absolutely confirm authenticity. (And please don't show the one with the yellow-ish looking tribble in the food replicator that actually is proved to have white fur in the very next screenshot when the tray is removed from the replicator.) Did I mention my dog has adorable white fur ... could make a fine tribble!

Gerald

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

See this ... tribble fur material!!!!

Gerald

newworld · Jul 22, 2012

gbg1701 said:
Do you mean my "fake" Tricorder which just happens to be made of 1966 Vacuuform???

Yep, that's the fake I'm talking about. The one with a nice texture and no photo proof or provenance.

It's great that your material matches something from the 60's, really. Now show us something that is meaningful – like a screen cap that EXACTLY matches your piece – and then you're the man.

You should note that every post that you make WITHOUT that screen cap match confirms my opinion of you to anyone reading. Don't dazzle us with research, simply SHOW THE PHOTO match.

Concerning my Tribble, I'm painfully aware that it might not be the real deal, but you're the LAST source of info I'd trust. To that end I'm doing ongoing research on it and would never EVER try to sell it as real without absolute proof. That's what people with integrity do. Make a note.

Now, please, post some more nonsensical claims, Mr. Authority. It's really really helping your cause. You keep bringing a knife to a gun fight.

feek61 · Jul 22, 2012

gbg1701 said:
And Will; your total lack of professionalism and unwillingess to jump through an ever-changing unrealistic series of arbitrary hoops has made it unfortunately necessary to strip you of all your credentials as a TOS fan and you are hereby NOT allowed to even watch an episode on television. The ghost of Gene Roddenberry has just appeared out of the fog (the fog of Don's mind) and ordained it so. Ooops, you probably don't recognize the name Gene Roddenberry. Your thoughts are still very vague and unprofessional, Will. Please help us understand.

Wow! I'm speechless. This sort of grade school behavior is the worst thing about these forums and not a very good start here for you.

I apparently have my answer regarding your comm. Maybe ten years ago you could have pawned it off as an original but times have changed and obviously you can't prove it so you must resort to these sort of pathetic attacks. I made the mistake of thinking that you were really a professional and interested in the truth but you have proven that you are just an immature pathetic self-important person who has no desire to discuss anything relevant. Your total unprofessional behavior will be on the internet forever which in turn destroys your credibility as any sort of "authority." You don't even know who I am but yet you attack me as if I'm a nobody, lol. Good luck, I wish you the best although I don't believe you will be around here very long with your attitude.

Take care,
Will

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

You both deserve to be treated with the same lack of respect that you show to others.

Gerald

feek61 · Jul 22, 2012

It's sad when a person cannot distinguish a civil conversation and apparently perceives anyone who questions him as an attack against him. I have not shown any lack of respect to you at all. If you perceive my questions of proof as an attack there is little hope that you will be able to comprehend anything approaching the concept of a group discussion. I don't know you but it is obvious from this thread that you do need to grow-up however at your age that apparently wont happen Gerald. The internet is a great place for you and your kind. Again, good luck and I no longer have any questions for you since apparently you have not intention of answering any questions with facts and proof. I have no desire to waste my time with this sort of foolishness.

Take Care.

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

It became apparent to me very quickly that you instantly dismiss any relevant information that is presented, deeming it to be of no consequence, when it doesn't conform to your version of the truth.

Keep well,
Gerald

feek61 · Jul 22, 2012

Your perception is completely wrong and is typical of a paranoid insecure person. I repeatedly tried to engage you in a civil, fact finding discussion which you would have no part of. No relevant information was provide by you despite repeated request for exactly that by myself. I have read your blog entries on the subject and they are far from definitive. There are problems with your assertion that your comm is a screen-used piece. In the photos of your comm with the Dywer, your comm is conveniently out of focus so they mean nothing. You refuse to post any telling photos I suspect because as an authority you certainly know the truth; that it is a fake. If not why would you continue to refuse to prove what you say. It is obvious that you can't prove it. My mind is open. Your behavior and refusal to address simple questions regarding the prop and resorting to attacks shows you are afraid to have a discussion about what appears to be a fake comm that you were fooled by when you bought it. Hey, it happens and has happened to G.J. but to keep this charade up is ridiculous. You are not fooling anyone. Truth is truth backed up with facts which you have provided none. The reason you provide no facts is completely transparent and it is obvious to anyone reading this thread. Prove me wrong; I would love that but I'm sure you wont (and cant) and you will most likely resort to more of the foolishness that you have displayed previously. I am open to a real discussion but again have little desire to engage in the sort of silliness that you continue to perpetuate. I feel sorry for you.

gbg1701 · Jul 22, 2012

In truth I've provided much significant information on my site and in this thread; which was immediately dismissed by you without any thoughtful examination and certainly with a great lack of professionalism. The photos taken in the Dwyer home were taken decades ago and, while not hi-res, are certainly sufficiently clear to identify the communicators involved and many significant aspects of their construction details. Your facade of open mindedness is merely that - a facade - as proven by your own unreasonable comments in this thread. It is quite pathetic and demonstrates a fundamental lack of expertise in TOS.

Very Best,
Gerald

Sporak · Jul 23, 2012

Hi Gerald...
I've enjoyed the pics on your site and consider it a valueable resource.
The pics of the new movie stuff were especially appreciated.
After reading through this thread I can tell that what you're saying is that your comm is A real comm...just not THAT real comm.

You mention that the pics you have of it were taken a while back?
Do you plan to take some new pics now ?

I for one would love to see them.
You could do some great high rez shots now days.
I'm personally interested to see the jewel bezels and hinges.

Now the hinges do seem a bit thick to me.
What is the texture on the shells?
The pics mostly make it look smooth but I can see a hint of texture there I think.

Welcome to the forum...

Bill

feek61 · Jul 23, 2012

Gerald,

Your perception of me is completely untrue but you are entitled to your opinion.

Good luck,
Will

Star Trek Prop Authority

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Sr Member

Active Member

Sr Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Sr Member

Active Member

Sr Member

Active Member

Sr Member

Active Member

Sr Member

Sr Member

Similar threads