I think his windmill does most of the battery charging.

Oh, then are they water panels?

A Nova show, The First Air War. About the evolution of aircraft during the WWI.
The twist is that there is an American guy in New Zealand with a workshop and team of guys that build the planes from scratch according to original blue prints so instead of just old pictures there is great footage of the planes being flown.

They could also test out some stuff like dogfighting two planes to see which is superior.

I'll have to ask him, I think he has both but the solar cells may be on his battery shed.

How cool is that? I'll answer that's pretty damn cool.

Way cool, NOVA, PBS, and the internet for that matter, have unearthed some long hidden treasures in photographs and film. Most of it not intentionally hidden, but just unknown outside a circle of the holder's friends. Companies fold and some employee grabs records being trashed for a keepsake, or an employee took behind the scenes photos of historic events, when there was no news organizations who wanted them. I mean who takes snapshots at events thinking they are a historic record, just souvenirs to show friends. Unfortunately the snapshots taken today have the owner's mug in every damn shot. :rolleyes:

I dont watch TV really anymore because its all RUBBISH but the last documentary I watched was NAKED STATES (2000) on VHS .. I got it @ salvation army....

www.imdb.com/title/tt0259453

It was beautiful seeing ppl NOT BE AFRAID to pose naked for this guy... Most people are so brainwashed they think its wrong to be seen nude.... Its a shame really.....

I think it was titled $chooled: The High Cost of College Sports.

Very educational

Yea most documentaries are :)

Agreed, I split documentaries into interesting or Zzzhttp://cellar.org/2015/Yawn.gif. But interesting is a very personal call. By saying a particular thing was interesting I'm voicing an opinion, and those listening to me would have to know something about me to make a judgment. That's why anything Patrick Stoner(critic for PBS) says is interesting, I'll only watch as a last resort.

The last documentary I watched was sort of a documentary - but also a pop-culture history clip show with celeb guests commenting. It was a continuation of the excellent 'It was alright in the 1970s'. This time it was looking at telly in the 80s and was fascinating.

I also watched, on the same evening, the first part of 'The Celts: Blood, Iron and Sacrifice', with Neil Oliver and Alice Roberts. I usually really like Oliver, and have watched quite a few of his documentaries. I quite like Alice Roberts too, as an academic, but I sometimes find the style of her documentaries a little grating. I found the programme interesting, but very slow and to be honest I could do without all the docudrama scenes wrapped around it. I'd have preferred the analysis to have been a little more compact and the delivery of headline findings a little less heavy-handed.

I've got one friend IRL and I love it when he tells me a movie is good because he has the worst taste you can imagine, and I know what to skip.

But when he saw the movie it was great, it's not his fault you picked a bad night to see it. :haha:

Saw one awhile back called "Approaching the Elephant," about an attempt at a very different alternative school (many wouldn't even call it that.) It was interesting, but very much proved that just because the current public schools are bad doesn't mean every other idea is better.

I saw a programme on Sky arts called "Finding Vivian Maier"
Or Mary Poppins with a camera,
When Vivian died she left over 150,000 images, negative and prints in storage, she was never published in her lifetime but it's only now being realised how important her pictures are.
Most of the stuff they showed was street shots of people and areas now long gone in New York and other towns she lived and worked in.
D
she seemed to be a total eccentric especially towards the end of her life but what a photographer eye she had, any one interested in photography should try and see some of her work you tube has stuff and there's lots on the net.
I was blown away by some of the images.

I've seen some of her work, she had a good eye. It's kind of mind boggling how many she accumulated, especially figuring she was working with film, and had to be throwing a percentage of the pictures she took away.

I saw that. Liked it so much I googled her work. Captivating stuff

"Welcome To Union Glacier"

Fullscreen is more better.



Or, watch it at Vimeo.

The Death of Superman Lives - What Happened? An interesting behind the scenes look at the collapse of a blockbuster movie.

RE: Post #78:

WTF happened with that second video getting put there? That was just a link to the vid's Vimeo page. And why does it look different than the other one?

ETA: In the preview it just looks like a link. Weird.

The truth behind the Nevada Triangle.
I watched it on Netflix,

Apparently over 2000 aircraft, small ones, have dissapeared over the Sierra Nevada mountains since 1962, that's a lot of planes, interesting...

One of these was Steve Fossett, super rich guy and avid aviator, I remember the hoo ha and huge search effort at the time, but not really any of the follow up.

The documentary does a good job of mixing the general story of the loss of planes and this one famous incident. The bit I didn't know, they found Fossetts plane a few years later, random discovery by a hiker, some remains, and explained why it went down, there's a very strong air condition that can occur in certain conditions due to the geography, if you get in it you're done.

That's all nonsense, it's aliens I tell you, snatching planes right out of the air. They beam them up, transmogrify the planes into common air pollution and anal probe the pilots until they refuse to leave. honest. :crone:

Star Wars: A New Gaming Era on Fusion followed by Bears on Starz Kids & Family.

Vorlons?

Not on tv - via Youtube, but this was really fascinating (I thought). A case study in moral panic and censorship from 1980s Britain. As someone who both remembers this particular moral panic very clearly, and has an abiding interest in schlocky horror movies, i found it particularly interesting - but anyone with an interest in censorship and questions of freedom of artistic expression would also find it interesting I think.

We stayed at the house Wednesday night on our way up North. He has 12 panels and a windmill which generally does the job. There is a generator tied in to top off the batteries if needed but it apparently doesn't come on often. The battery bank is in the basement. I was there when he did his monthly maintenance topping off the batteries that need more water.

What kind of batteries for that setup, big like forklift batteries, or like car batteries, or something special?

$5k a year for electricity and heat? $5,000 a year????

Yumpin' Yiminy.:eek:

What was the most recent documentary you watched on TV?
 

Something on public television about elephants.

Deep cycle marine batteries


I don't know where that $50k number comes from.

On episode 7 of Making a Murderer - a Netflix original.

Highly recommend

Oh man, so compelling and so fucking depressing.

Not reallyadocumentary but close enough:p

Don't know if this is playable outside the UK.I hope sobecause it made me laugh and I think it might be of interest toa non brit.

Couldn't find ep1 on the toob, so here's ep2 (am currently watching ...well,listening to this ep..as I post this.I shall go back and watch the rest now:P)

I just watched that and, there are just too many rules. And people seem to take things too seriously.

Oh, and! After you finish the whole thing, make sure you read the online writeups about the evidence shown at trial that they did not include in the documentary. And then you'll just curl up in a ball on the floor because you won't have any idea what is real anymore.

I'm not convinced he's innocent, but the case needs more, and unbiased, investigation, at least.

Kratz struck me as a sleazeball, which he turned out to be and I wouldn't trust Lenk as far as I can throw him.

Did you finish it? I want to ask you what you thought about a spoiler from a late episode...

Yeah, finished Monday evening. Started on Friday or Saturday AM.

Ask away!

Okay, so I have this theory. The only good and smart people in the whole thing were Stephen Avery's trial lawyers, right? The shorter one with the full head of hair seemed to be slightly more in charge. And he said two things that really caught my attention, only because he proved himself in other places to be SO VERY careful with his words, as lawyers must be.

1.) In the closing arguments, they got into a weird back and forth where the prosecution was basically like, "Why would the police pick Avery out of nowhere to frame him?" And the defense responded with the logical argument that of course the police are not inherently evil, and they would only plant evidence if they believed him to be guilty and wanted a slam dunk, but that doesn't actually make him guilty... Except what he said was, "The police don't frame innocent people." And then he sort of elaborated into the point he actually meant. But that seemed like a really boneheaded verbal slip for a defense lawyer, to me.

2.) In the post trial discussion with all five lawyers in the room, he was the one who said that on some level he hopes that Avery did really do it, because otherwise the system is so depressingly broken, etc. Again, a relevant point, but not really the way one's own lawyer best phrases it.

Conclusion: I think he knew/believed Avery was guilty, or at least a terrible person (did you find the not-presented-in-the-documentary stuff online about Avery molesting Brendan Dassey when he was younger?) and didn't actually slip up at all, but instead showed the excellent, excellent control of language that he had in the rest of the series to very subtly make sure that he lost the case in the end.

The question being, I guess, does that strike you as plausible?

I don't remember his exact words in the closing arguments, but what I took away was "The police don't frame people they believe to be innocent."

I was shocked when he said he almost hopes Steven is guilty, but I think he was trying to salvage something, anything, from the whole mess. He got choked up, which I think added to his show of frustrated indignation.

I guess it's plausible, but I think he truly believed that Avery was mistreated.

I read a couple of articles about the "ignored" evidence. Unfortunately, it all appears to me to be hearsay. It would be nice if someone did the kind of investigation into those accusations as they did in the series. Still, if he was an evil guy early in his life, it doesn't mean he killed Halbach, any more than it meant he raped Beernsten in 1985. There was no indication, even by the cops, that he did anything bad after getting out of jail for the rape.

I think the most damning evidence against the cops is the tampering of the vial of Avery's blood that was in the police evidence room, in police custody.

Keryx has been watching The Making of a Murderer, on Netflix. She can only watch 2 episodes at a time, because it pisses her off.

Some, yeah, but one of the pieces of evidence was non-blood Avery DNA underneath the hood of Halbach's car (Brendan said they pulled out the battery cable after moving her vehicle,) and another was the fact that Avery had one week earlier purchased handcuffs and leg irons like the kind Brendan described. (Avery claimed they were for sex play with his girlfriend Jodi.)

I definitely believe the cops planted numerous pieces of evidence against him, and completely railroaded the kid. I also don't know for certain that he's innocent--but reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt, and there's plenty of that.

The thing I kept screaming at the screen was why in the hell they couldn't get the phone records--Brendan claimed to have received and answered multiple phone calls that evening when he was supposed to have been helping Avery dispose of the body. Does Wisconsin not have modern phone technology? Were the friends who called him not willing to testify that they had spoken with him?

I don't trust anything Brendan said. The interrogators fed him everything they wanted him to say. He could have said something about the hood latch, and the cops, who had full access to Avery's house, could have swabbed sweat and placed it on the latch. Avery had a cut on his finger. How could blood not have been on the latch? When the cops found the handcuffs, they could have easily gotten Brendan to say how they were used. They got him to say that he slit her throat on the bed, yet there was no blood evidence.

I know he has a 70 IQ, but he doesn't seem stupid enough to leave her car on his property when he has a car smasher at hand. He can't be smart enough to clean up all the (alleged) blood from the bedroom and garage, but leave a smear in the car. Can he?

Re the phone. Maybe it was a cell phone and they figured he would have had it with him, so it wouldn't place him at home, and thought he could talk calmly while he was raping and murdering. Just spit balling.

Come to think of it, they had phone records showing that Avery called Halbach, even that he used *67, so they definitely have the technology. Strange that neither prosecution nor defense determined Brendan's records to be useful.

I'd like the cops to take polygraph tests.

That's true, it probably was a cellphone, I didn't think about that.

J and I watched Amy

What a sadly troubled soul and what a loss. From the very introductory scene, they are shooting a birthday party of 14-year-olds and she sings happy birthday, and you realize two things: one, she's already got that spark; she is going to be the real deal Amy Winehouse. And two, this is like a nature documentary and you are watching the playful young antelope... the lions will be here soon enough. Nobody could save her, a terrible modern tragedy.

What a brilliant description, UT.

I loved Winehouse. First time I heard Back to Black, I was mesmerised. She's up there with Joplin and Hendrix, for me, as a tragic loss to music.

I was blown away by the amount of footage there was of her in private moments. Much of it had to be provided by the boyfriend, and little of it showed him in a flattering light. Is he that much of an attention whore or was the price that high that he couldn't refuse?

In any event, I was moved by that documentary. I really felt like I knew her after watching that and I was really sympathetic. What a beautiful but tragic life.

There were a few parts of this documentary that made want to cry. This stuff baffles me. I sort of know some of the reasons why it is the way it is - economics plays a large part I guess. But - it's so extreme and counterproductive, at a societal and species level, it is baffling.

The level of internalisation of a lack of value of the self, for a woman to kill her girl babies and keep trying for the son, is heartbreaking. Communities that kill their own girls, and then have to kidnap other girls to be brides, because they haven't any of their own to marry. If it wasn't so brutal and tragic it would be funny in its absurdity.

These people are animals.

Nope. They're people. Most of them aren't even bad people - they are products of a social system that tells them from the second they are born, and throughout every part of life, that boys are valuable and girls are a drain. Bearing a son brings plaudits and celebration. Bearing a daughter brings grief and recrimination.

If you and I had each been born to that system, we'd probably believe the same thing.

Prolly but I don't have to like it.

Hah. Fair enough.

Don't know if this will play outside uk - I hope so. I've liked all of Worsley's series so far. She's an excellent historian and a really engaging presenter. Russian history is interesting, but I don't know that much about it. I did an a-level history course years ago with the road to the Russian Revolution as one of the topics, and I know odds and sods from the 18th and 19th centuries. This is the first ep of Worsley's history of the Romanovs:

(clip sadly deleted)

I bought the Amy video. Wow. It was a perfect marriage of real footage and editing. What I mean to say is that the video was real but it was so well done that a critical person might have not felt the beauty of it. She was one talented woman.

Night of the Grizzlies. Summer of '67 (wo)man and beast collide. Not great film-making but the story is gripping. Puts our current National Park programs in perspective. Apparently there is a book by the same name which should be good if a little dated. They talked about these two conflicting and wrong-headed ideas about nature we have. The older religious strain of wild being evil and the hippy dippy strain of rainbows and cuddly animals. Anyway the grizzly population was backed into a corner, huge numbers of tourists, lots of trash, lots of food waste, a hot dry summer, forest fires, and a lack of berries during the crucial late summer feed. Throw in outdoorsy young people, a Vatican II priest, a Vietnam trained helo pilot, a Native American kid, a couple of doctors, and some park rangers and you've got quite a morality play.

Could one of the mods kindly remove the youtube clip above, please - the account that posted it has been suspended

The Death Of "Superman Lives": What happened? on TMC

That was a pretty good one.