MovieChat Forums > MAGolding > Replies
MAGolding's Replies
My theory is while they were fighting near the Galiot they were overcome. Perhaps they will killed in away which didn't leave obvious marks on their bodies, and their bodies were then taken over.
So they pretended to retreat toward the ship with the other possesed ones petending to chase them.
And another possessed person was sent to circle around and shoot in the back the two persons defending their retreat.
Or another theory might be that Captain Sallis's dead body was foolishly left on the ship and not locked up. And Sallis might have later revived and maybe he killed the Captain and Sanya after they returned to the ship, allowing them to become possessed.
I may add that Fort Apache gets a telegram from Fort Grant saying that Diablo's band has left the reservation and is headed for Mexico. This implies that Fort Grant was North of Fort Apache. Actually Fort Apache was north of Fort Grant and north of the San Carlos Reservaton, though it was in the middle of the Fort Apache Reservaton.
Obviously the geography was changed so that Fort Apache could get a telegraphy warning of Apaches passing close by enroute to Mexico.
But I don't see any obvious reason why the movie depicts a huge canyon of the Rio Bravo river on the border between Arizona and Mexico. The border between Arizona and Mexico consists of straight lines through arid flat areas and regions of mostly north-south low mountains and valleys. There are no big rivers or canyons anywhere along the Arizona-Mexico border.
Asimov no doubt remembered reading that quote in something written by Friendrich Schiller and translated into English as:
<blockquote>“Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.” </blockquote> and various similr phrass.
<url>https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1039535-against-stupidity-the-gods-themselves-contend-in-vain </url>
From:
Die Jungfrau von Orleans (The Maid of Orleans) (1801), Act III, sc. vi (as translated by Anna Swanwick)
<url> https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schiller </url>*
That was a lesson which some actual boys during the age of piracy needed to learn.
<url> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Brigaut </url>
<url> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_King_(pirate) </url>
And today, May 15, 2015 in "The Phantom of Farth Auditorium", Gerta tells the others about the Phantom allegedly haunting Farth Auditorium, the ghost of the leading lady in a production 100 years earlier, whose jealous co star bribed a stagehand to drop a light on her.
So if Gertie's account of the death is correct, someone actually (in the story, at least) was killed by a falling light.
I note that Bianca didn't seem particularly upset at the thought of her narrow escape from death, and Oliver didn't show any guilt. Perhaps Gertie often makes up stories, and they believed that she was making up the story of an actress killed by a falling light.
If Gertie was making up the story, she might have deduced that Oliver was behind the falling light that barely missed Bianca and been inspired to make that the cause of the ghost's death.
Since I firsI saw them, I thought that the best four "invasion of Earth" movies from the fifties and sixties were (iin chronolgical order):
The War of the Worlds (1953)
<url>https://moviechat.org/tt0046534/The-War-of-the-Worlds</ulrl>
Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1955)
<url>https://moviechat.org/tt0049169/Earth-vs-the-Flying-Saucers </url>
The Mysterians (1957)
<url>https://moviechat.org/tt0050251/The-Mysterians </url>
Battle in Outer Space (1959)
<url> https://moviechat.org/tt0053388/Battle-in-Outer-Space </url>
And I don't think anyone should choose a favorite one until they see all of them.
I made another comment on May 12, 2021 elaborating on my question and explainng why that episode might be an example of bad television science.
Many years ago my family was sitting on the front porch of our vacation home at Cape May, New Jersey when water came pouring along the street in the direction from the beach. I don't know if it was fresh water or salt water. Decades later my mother talked about it and wondered whether that water going down the street from the beach could have been a tsunami.
I am pretty certain the water was not from a tsunami or any other large ocean wave.
There is a little ridge about 6 feet high running parallel to the shore near where our street, Windsor Ave., meets Beach Avenue which runs along the beach. So a wave of water coming from the ocean would have to run up the beach seveal feet above high tide level, across Beach Ave., and about 6 feet up the little ridge for even a few inches of water to spill over and run about a thousand feet along Windsor Ave past our house.
I think that anytime that we were at Cape May, it would probably have been beach season and hundeds and thousands of people would have been at the beach during most of the daylight hours. A wave large enough to run up the beach and overtop the little ridge while people were at the beach would be a famous disaster in Cape May history, more so than the fires in 1869 and 1878, the hurricane of 1944, or the noreaster of 1962.
And that is why I asked about the Baywatch episode.
In the Baywatch episode the boat was a large cabin cruiser type boat and it was flipped over upside down by a large wave about ten feet high a few miles out and several characters were trappped in air pockets inside the boat.
I also remember that the wave was described as a tsunami. But I don't remember any scenes where the tsunami hit the beach, and some of the lifeguards got to be heroes, or any scenes where wreckage, debris, and bodies from Los Angeles were floating in the water, or any mention of a tsunami striking.
So why didn't the alleged tsunami devastate the shores of Los Angeles?
The mighty Indian ruler Harsha (reigned 606-647) was also known as Harshavardhana.
A number of cultures in south east Asia have long personal names.
For example, the current speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka is Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.
Rulers of the Khmer Empire in south east Asia had names like Jayavarman, Harshavarman, Rajendravarman, Udayadityavarman, Dharanindravarman, Thihuvanadityavarman, and Jayavarman IX was also known as Jayavarmandiparavamenesvar.
I remember reading a science fiction novel, Space Winners (1965) by Gordon R. Dickson where kids from Earth meet an alien named Panjarmeeklotutmurp, who was an Atakit from the planet Juseleminopratipup. They called him "Peep "for short.
The Landmark most often destroyed in the movies might have been the National Diet Building in Tokyo, Japan.
<url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Diet_Building</url>
there have been many Japanese movies about giant monsters in the last 70 years, and the National Diet Building has been destroyed in many of them.
<url>https://en.japantravel.com/tokyo/the-kaiju-diet-japan-parliament-tokyo/6504</url>
<url>http://city543.com/tokyo/2014/12/14/godzilla-landmarks-in-tokyo/</url>
<url>https://www.inverse.com/article/30488-godzilla-every-city-kaiju-attack-tokyo-new-york-ghidora-king-kong</url>
<url>https://wikizilla.org/wiki/National_Diet_Building</url>
See this question for a discussion of the chronological relationship between <i>BunK'd</i> and <i>Raven's Home</i>.
<url>https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111764/what-are-the-fictional-dates-of-ravens-home</url>
See this question for a discussion of the chronological relationship between <i>BunK'd</i> and <i>Raven's Home</i>.
<url>https://movies.stackexchange.com/questions/111764/what-are-the-fictional-dates-of-ravens-home</url>
Continued:
So if the true region of longer term stability is about 1/3 to 1/2 the Hill radius no moon of a giant planet orbiting its star at about the Earth's distance from the Sun should have an orbit more than about 16,666,666 to 25,000,000 kilometers from the planet.
So my rough calculations indicate the distance between the center of the moon and the center of the giant planet should be between about 60,000 and 25,000,000 kilometers.
And when the Death Star was approaching, the moon was on the other side of the planet. So the distance betweent he moon and the Death Star was 60,000 to 25,000,000 kilometers, plus one radius of the giant planet, or about 12,000 to 80,500 kilometers, for a total of about 72,000 to 25,080,500 kilometers, plus the unknown distance between the planet and the approaching Death Star.
I believe the Death Star was said to be orbiting the planet as it maneuvered to get a clear shot at the moon, and that implies that the Death Star was close to the planet. Thus I believe that when the Death Star got a clear line of sight to the moon, it would have been onlly a ltttle farther from the moon than the distance between the centers of the planet and the moon.
My conclusion is that the Death Star would fire on the moon at a distance of only a few thousand kilometes more than the distance of 72,000 to 25,080,500 kilometers between the centers of the planet and the moon.
Continued:
So if the moon had its own magnetic field, it could orbit a very small giant planet at a distance of 60,000 kilometers, outside the magnetic field of the planet, and still be protected.
So a large, Earth sized, habitable moon with its own magnetic field could orbit a very gigantic giant planet far outside of the protective magnetic field of the planet. It could orbit as far out as the planet's gravity could keep it in orbit, as far as the planet's Hill sphere extended.
At Earth's distance from the Sun, its Hill radius is approximately 1,500,000 kilometers. Jupiter's Hill radius is approximately 50,000,000 kilometers. But Jupiter is about 5.2044 times as far from the Sun as Earth is, and would have a much smaller Hill radius if it was as close to the Sun as Earth is, and had a moon as warm as the Earth. If JUpiter ws as close to the Sun as Earth is the Hill radius of Jupiter would be much smaller, and even a giant planet with 13 times the mass of Jupiter wouldn't have a Hill a radius of 50,000,000 kilometers that close to the Sun.
<blockquote>The Hill sphere is only an approximation, and other forces (such as radiation pressure or the Yarkovsky effect) can eventually perturb an object out of the sphere. This third object should also be of small enough mass that it introduces no additional complications through its own gravity. Detailed numerical calculations show that orbits at or just within the Hill sphere are not stable in the long term; it appears that stable satellite orbits exist only inside 1/2 to 1/3 of the Hill radius.</blockquote>
<url>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_sphere#True_region_of_stability</url>
Continued:
Continued:
But they say that Mars sized exomoons orbiting Neptune sized planets would be either too close, inside the habitable edge, and suffer runaway greenhouse effects, or else be outside the planetary magnetic field.
<lbockquote>Mars-sized exomoons of Neptune-sized exoplanets in the stellar HZ of K stars will hardly be affected by planetary magnetospheres if these moons are habitable from an illumination and tidal heating point of view</blockquote>
But exomoons orbiting Jupiter sized planets can have safe orbits.
<blockquote>Saturn-like planets have stronger fields, and Jupiter-like planets could coat close-in habitable moons soon after formation. Moons at distances between about 5 and 20 planetary radii from a giant planet can be habitable from an illumination and tidal heating point of view, but still the planetary magnetosphere would critically influence their
habitability.</blockquote>
<url>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L33/pdf</url>
Since Jupiter has a radius of 69,911 kilometers, the safe zone for habitable moons of Jupiter would be about 349,555 to 1,398,220 kilometers. I suppose that planets a bit smaller than Jupiter coud protect their moons with magnetic fields, and so the absolute minimum distance for a habitable moon of such a planet might be as low as 250,000 kilometers.
Those calculations indicate that the orbital distance range for a habitable moon of a giant planet might range from 250,000 kilometers to about 1,610,000 kilometers.
But those calculations assume that no habitable moon could ever have a magnetic field of its own to protect it from radiation. If a moon was large enough, and rotated fast enough, it might generate its own magnetic field. Thus it might orbit outside the protection of the planetary magnetic field.
Continued:
Continued:
Scienctific discussions of the possibility of life on large exomoons orbiting giant exomplanets in other star systems have introduced the concept of a "habitable edge" around a gas giant planet. Moons orbiting closer to the planet than the habitable edge would get so much light reflected from their planets and get so much tidal heating - in addition to the light they receive from their stars - that they would become too hot and suffer from runaway greenhouse effects and become uninhabitable
The potentially habitable exomoons orbiting exoplanets would receive a lot of cosmic rays and stellar wind radiation, which would tend to slowly strip away their atmospheres, unless they were protected by magnetic fields which would divert the charged particles. Many or most of the potentially habitable exomoons wouldn't have their own magnetic fields. Thus those habitable moons wold need to be within the magnetic fields of their planets to be protected from cosmic rays and stellar wind.
MAGNETIC SHIELDING OF EXOMOONS BEYOND THE CIRCUMPLANETARY HABITABLE EDGE
Rene Heller ´ 1 and Jorge I. Zuluaga2 (2013)
<url>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2041-8205/776/2/L33/pdf</url>
Calculates that a moon of a Jupiter like planet would be beyond the circumplanetary habitable edge but within the shielding of the planetary magnetic field ar a distance of between 5 and 20 planetary radii. A giant planet should have a radius roughly in the range of about 12,000 to 80,500 kilometers. So a habitable moon could orbit the smallest size giant planet between the distances of about 60,000 and 240,000 kilometers. And a habitable moon could orbit the largest size giant planet at a distance between 402,500 and 1,610,000 kilometers.
Continued:
Short Comment:
My conclusion is that the Death Star would fire on the moon at a distance of only a few thousand kilometes more than the distance of 72,000 to 25,080,500 kilometers between the centers of the planet and the moon.
Long Comment:
The Moon of Yavin was a giant, approximately Earth sized moon orbiting a gas giant planet in the Yavin system. (I am a little uncertain whether Yavin was the name of the star, and the planet was Yavn IV, and the moon was Yavin IV something, or if Yavin was the name of the planet and Yavin IV was the name of the moon. <url>https://moviechat.org/tt0076759/Star-Wars-Episode-IV-A-New-Hope/58c7334d5ec57f0478f88754/Yavin-IV-Star-Planet-or-Moon</url>).
What is the size range of giant planets?
I am not certain of the minimum diameter of giant planets.
The Earth, a terrestrial planet, has a radius of 6,371 kilomaters, and a diameter of 12,742 kilometers.
The giant planet with the smallest size in our solar system is Neptune, with a radius of about 24,764 kilometers and a diameter of 49,528 kilometers. And in other star systems the largest terrestrial type planet or the smallest giant planet might have a radius of about 12,000 kilometers and diameter of about 24,000 kilometers, or somewhere about there.
The largest giant planet in our solar system is Jupiter, with a radius of 69,911 kilometers and a diameter of 139,822 Kilometers.
The mass of Jupiter is about 317.8 time the mass of Earth. It is possible for giant planets to have several times the mass of Jupiter, The dividing line between the most massive giant planets and the least massive brown dwarfs (the objects intermediate between planets and stars) is about 13 times the mass of Jupiter or about 4,131.4 time the mass of Earth.
But giant planets don't get much larger than Jupiter, no matter how massive they get. Their increased mass and gravity compresses their matter more and more, so giant planets don't get to have more than 15 percent larger radius and diameter than Jupiter, very roughly about a radius of about 80,500 kilometers and a diameter of about 161,000 kilometers.
So the radius of a giant planet should be in the range of about 12,000 to 80,500 kilometers.
Continued:
I do not know how long Star wars takes place over.
But apparently the trip fro the Alderansystem to Yavintakes less than a Star Wars day.
Darth Vader says: "This is a day that willlong be remembered. It has seen the end of Kenobi and it will see the end of the rebellion."
Actually there s avery big plot hole in "Catspaw", one which I think is the biggest and most obvious in all of TOS.
Continued:.
Here is a list of some of the best and most out of this world extrterrestrial people in 1950s films.
The head Martian invader in Invaders from Mars (1953), carried around in a glass sphere by the Martian foot soldiers.
The aliens in It Came from Outer Space (1953).
The Martians in The War of the Worlds (1953).
The Metalunan mutants in This Island Earth (1955) are supposed to be sub intelligent, but they have giant brains and might possibly be oppressed people.
Moviegoers might try to imagine what the Krell looked like from a few clues in The Forbidden Planet (1956).
It had an interesting design in It Conquered the World (1956).
The aliens in Warning from Space (1956) were genuine "starfish aliens" <url>https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishAliens</url>
The Brain from Planet Arous (1957) definately didn't look like a human.
The aliens in Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957) had a humaoid shape but were highly non human looking.
The aliens in I Married a Monster from Outer Space (1958) were also humanoid but very exotic.
The alien in The Space Children (1958) is alien.
The aliens in The Crawling Eye (1958) are among the best.
The Angry Red PLanet (1959) had Martian monsters and I think a Martian person.
The alien in The Atomic Submarne (1959) is good.