I mean for crying out loud, I know they had to not do anything practical or use any common-sense for the sake of the movie, but honestly. That is the first thing any actual academic/scientist would do. USE ACTUAL SCIENCE TO TRY TO VERIFY/REFUTE THIS TALE. Anything else is just wasting time, getting worked up, being unnecessarily dramatic.
shareWhat are you suggesting, holding the man against his will and administering physiological tests? Is that what actual academics/scientists do?
share[deleted]
Well not necessarily but I mean certainly the biologist could have said "hey buddy if you actually want us to take you seriously and not assume youve gone loony, maybe let us do some tests?"
I mean there is a spectrum between "come to my government lab and be a sedated rat" and "lets just talk and not do any science at all". You know? There is a middle point they could have taken
by abnormallynormal001 » Well not necessarily but I mean certainly the biologist could have said "hey buddy if you actually want us to take you seriously and not assume youve gone loony, maybe let us do some tests?"
I mean there is a spectrum between "come to my government lab and be a sedated rat" and "lets just talk and not do any science at all". You know? There is a middle point they could have taken.
[deleted]
by Stanley_Spadowski » You're talking to a troll who think alien possession and bigfoot represents the cutting edge of technology.
[deleted]
Maybe your reading comprehension problems are simply a result of you needing glasses.
It's "skeptics", in quotation marks...the same as I've typed it EVERY time I've been talking about you "skeptics" on this message board and others.
Skeptics
"Skeptics"
There's a difference.
[deleted]
It's "skeptics", in quotation marks...the same as I've typed it EVERY time I've been talking about you "skeptics" on this message board and others.
by Stanley_Spadowski » I guess it's your comprehension that's deficient. Skeptics is the same word, with the same definition, whether or not you put quotation marks around it. Where did you go to school? I imagine there are a whole lot of tax paying citizens who want their money back!
Skeptics.
"Skeptics".
There's a difference.
by Stanley_Spadowski » Only in your delusion.
[deleted]
Did you even watch the movie? Harry specifically said "stop by my lab before you leave and let me administer a few tests". John specifically stated he hates labs as he is afraid he will go in and never come out, that men in white coats will wind up studing him for some god awful amount of time. Not to mention, the entire premise of the film was that it took place in one setting, in his house in the final hours before he leaves. That allowed the film to wholly concentrate on the dialogue.
So the film did exactly what you suggested it should do. Maybe next time you watch a film, you will actually pay attention. Its amazing how different films are when you actually pay attention. And no there isn't a middle point they could have taken, not without completely ruining the entire premise of the film.
Still Shooting With Film!
Well not necessarily but I mean certainly the biologist could have said "hey buddy if you actually want us to take you seriously and not assume youve gone loony, maybe let us do some tests?"
Good idea! In fact... that's what happened in the film.
The biologist invited Oldman the chance to prove himself in his lab, but Oldman then states that he is wary of labs, in case he spends a thousand years there.
The biologist did offer that.
But Oldman was all ready in the moving process.
He actually did prove himself to the old psychologist / psychiatrist (he was labeled both in the film) because he actually knew him sixty years ago and John was his chemistry teacher.
[quote]He actually did prove himself to the old psychologist / psychiatrist (he was labeled both in the film) because he actually knew him sixty years ago and John was his chemistry teacher./quote]
He may have been his teacher(although I think not given the 10 year thing), but more importantly by far, he was his father. How else would he have known the name of a dog that pre-dated his birth? I thought 'Woofy' was a poor name choice, personally.
Yeah that's how I understood it as well, that he was his father.
shareI agree.
Even a simple blood test would have shown some things that would be highly unlikely to show up in a modern 30-something human (such as antibodies to bubonic plague). The first thing I would done is asked him if I could have a blood sample, and I would have agreed to keep it anonymous.
Didn't the biologist ask about doing exactly that, and get turned down?
shareExcept as soon as you suggest that he says, "never mind. you guys have a nice life. i'm out"
not an interesting story
______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.
A agree. What he put them through was really cruel. Why do it if nobody will believe him? It's damaging for everyone.
shareby chondrule-537-957394 » A agree. What he put them through was really cruel.
I don't think their reactions is anywhere near as irrational as what he expects to get out of telling them with no intention of proving anything. That's just asking for trouble/to be resented. Their reactions I can understand. He really should be wiser when it comes to human behavior after all those years. If he truly cared for them he would eliminate all doubt or not bother at all.
shareby chondrule-537-957394 » I don't think their reactions is anywhere near as irrational as what he expects to get out of telling them with no intention of proving anything. That's just asking for trouble/to be resented. Their reactions I can understand. He really should be wiser when it comes to human behavior after all those years. If he truly cared for them he would eliminate all doubt or not bother at all.
And see, I thought they reacted poorly.
If it were an associate or friend of mine, I would go along with the ride. I don't see any reason to take offence or get all freaked out about especially if I can see that my friend was not displaying any pathological disorder or displaying any agitation.
I think it would be a fun discussion and Q&A session. But I would need proof to believe the story, more than John was telling.
In this day he would have to be a master at creating identities. One would have to live a life of crime in the USA to live so long undetected. The crime would be getting illegal social security numbers. Think about it.
We just can't live and live and live or move and go about our business because Big Brother has to know we exist and how long. That is, even if one could like our John.
oh crap... reading this discussion board I just missed Forever. A series about a 200 year old guy that can't die.
In more recent times he could have just transferred from one location to the next, dropping older degrees off his resume as he went, to be around people who didn't have familiarity with him. If he's not breaking laws and getting into trouble, the age of his Social Security number might not get noticed.
shareAnd what test would that be, exactly?
His claim is that he does not age. Aging is barely understood as it is.
So, please, enlighten me, how would you try to verify that somebody is or is not 14000 years old?
So in other words you failed to grasp the point of the movie for what it is. Best you stick to summer blockbuster sir. Movies like this are clearly out of your reach.
shareHe wouldn't have let them do that.
shareThis makes no sense as John stated many times that the last thing he wanted was to scientifically prove was he was saying. It would threaten his very existance as if anyone found out, he could be stuck in a room the rest of his life while scientists try and figure how how his body is able to continue living on.
Not to mention, as I have stated before, this whole film basically took place in real time, during a single evening in john's living room. Doing any of these scientific tests would have been out of context for the film itself.
Still Shooting With Film!