http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/search.html You can buy the film: IN SEARCH OF THE EDGE is a comprehensive documentary proving, fairly conclusively, that the earth is flat!

How about this one?

Berry, I really wish you wouldn't open boards just to make a point.

JD,

I'm glad you have the same rules for all "documentaries".

$200 to rent a 26-minute film? $50 to rent it? Um.........no thanks.

Berry, JD is absolutely right. You need to knock this off. Besides, the documentary that set you off (with my admittedly firey rhetoric in the last paragraph of the opening post), WAS released in some theatres, mostly art house ones. It's also available on DVD (where I saw it with a bunch of like-minded friends who laughed their asses off at the Pres's backpedlaing, but I digress). It's not an INTERNET documentary, which you appeared to use as a basis to discredit the film. It just has a website, like many many movies do. I mean, the fact that the Matrix Trilogy has a website doesn't damage those films in your eyes does it? No, I think Revolutions took care of that all by itself. *wink*

Brian Webber,

Thanks for finally telling me that. Did any of you gentlemen think of saying something that as simple as "It was released in my area."

The difference between your film and the Matrix is I saw ads for the Matrix. I saw theaters near me run the Matrix.

I ask for evidence and I get you, Luigi, Darth, and Fitzgerald claiming it was a valid movie because you said so. (I'll accept a claim that can be checked over one that cannot be anyday.) I'm amazed I had to go to this length to get someone to say it was in a theater.

I said no such thing, Blue.

I simply said that the fact that the film may not have been released theatrically didn't discredit it as a topic or discussion in the movie boards (IMHO, of course).

Blue, if you're going to distort what I say so much, then I would really rather speak for myself.

I hate to bring this up, Darth, but speaking of distortions you made the biggest one I've seen yet. It is way off topic, but perhaps I should insisst you uderstnd.

It is hard to summarize the positions of three posters in one sentance, Darth. I would appreciate it if you cut and pasted where you said a movie does not have to be in theaters instead of that Berry is trying to bend the rules.

It is way off topic, but perhaps I should insisst you uderstnd. - Blue

You're right... it is way off topic. But I'm sure you of all people understand the need to correct posters who distort your position.


It is hard to summarize the positions of three posters in one sentance, Darth. - Blue

Then you shouldn't try... especially when you're putting words in the "mouth" of another poster. Your statement wasn't even close to a summary of anything I said.

And to answer your previous question: Did any of you gentlemen think of saying something that as simple as "It was released in my area." No, I didn't think to say that because to my knowledge it hasn't been released in my area. So why would you expect me to say something like that? Instead I stated that whether it was released theatrically makes no difference to me.


I would appreciate it if you cut and pasted where you said a movie does not have to be in theaters instead of that Berry is trying to bend the rules. - Blue

Well, you're the one making the contention that I said something I didn't. But for the sake of ending this:

Second, Brian F... I think Blue's, though admittedly unclear, contention is that this documentary isn't (and has never been) a theatrical "silver screen" documentary. And he's trying to establish the rules over what constitutes a film that should be discussed in these boards.

For my part, I have no issue with the documentary being discussed in this forum if there's no other place for it. I think that limiting the "movies" discussed here to theatrical or "silver screen" releases is too limiting (again, assuming that there isn't already a place for it somewhere else). - Darth Sarcasm

Blue Berry: I ask for evidence and I get you, Luigi, Darth, and Fitzgerald claiming it was a valid movie because you said so.
Luigi Novi: Nope. Didn't say that. As Darth himself stated, all I said was that that movie was an appropriate addition to the Documentary boards. I didn't say anything about it being "valid," or about "my saying so."

Luigi,

My mistake. You did not write 'valid' you wrote 'appropriate'. I apologize. I forgot they are not close in meaning.

I also apologize because when I asked for evidence you posted that it was appropriate without evidence. It wasn't because you said so it was just because.

You have a problem with "". I'm being sarcastic.

Blue Berry: My mistake. You did not write 'valid' you wrote 'appropriate'. I apologize. I forgot they are not close in meaning.
Luigi Novi: One more time: The issue is not the word used, it was the fact that I was talking about its validity/appropriateness as an addition to the boards. Not the validity/appropriateness of its content.

Bowling for Columbine contains much materials whose veracity is seriously in question. But that has nothing to do with the question of whether it belongs on the Documentary boards. It's a movie, and it's a documentary. Therfore, it is an acceptable topic of discussion on those boards. That is entirely separate from whether its content is verdically valuable.

I don't have any "evidence" that its content is valid for the simple reason that I haven't formed the opinion that is. I haven't seen it.

I've seen it (years ago), and can say that it was poorly produced. Each of the various "experts" interviewed/showcased had contradictory information they presented, as well as information that either has been disproven (for years before this documentary was made) or could never be proven because it was so fantastic.
One example: there is space and time, so it stands to reason there is non-space and non-time; therefore, as the sun moves over the flat Earth from east to west, when it reaches the edge, it instantly goes through non-space/non-time back to the other side to start over, which is why to us on Earth, there appears to be no "missing sun" at any time. Or something to that effect. I'm not kidding, one of the guys actually was saying this stuff.
Another point (from which guy I don't remember) is that the Earth is a flat disc with the "north" pole at the center and Antarctica at the edge. Another guy believed similarly, but instead of a disc, assumed Earth was like a spinning top (you know, the old children's toy), which accounted for "wobbles" (I think he meant the phenomenon known as precession). What both guys failed to take into account (among many things) was just how HUGE southern hemisphere continents would be in relation to northern hemisphere continents.
Oh, and the one of the funniest points brought up was the first guy I mentioned talking about how a plumb bob "proves" the Earth couldn't be spherical: sure, if you're standing at the top of the globe, the bob points straight down to the ground, but as you move down the side of the globe, the bob doesn't keep pointing toward the globe. He even illustrated this with a large globe and a plumb bob in his office!
Other things:
Some woman had travelled to Antarctica to find The Edge (not the U-2 member), and was lost. Years later, her camera was recovered with her journal, saying "I've found it!", but conveniently enough, someone opened the camera and exposed the film!
Einstein's theories about gravity and light help "prove" that the "apparent" curvature of the Earth, as seen from space, is due to gravity just bending light waves; it's nothing more than an illusion.
The host of the show even claimed that the Earth doesn't spin, or else we'd always feel wind; he demonstrated this while riding on a spinning merry-go-round, which slowed to a stop... wow, sure enough, his hair was no longer blowing!

I've forgotten more than I remember about this show, but the whole thing was like this, and these guys appeared to be serious.

By the way, I forgot to point out that I saw it years ago on The Learning Channel or The Discovery Channel, with no discalimers about it being satirical. At the time, I was stunned that it was apparently a serious endeavor, but knew of "Flat-Earthers" who had made similar arguments (and still do to this day).

Darn it! I hit "post" too soon...
The reactions/review points I made above are based upon my recollections of the show as I perceived it when I first viewed it, btw.