Blade Runner ID comparisons

[AnsonJames]

<div class='quotetop'>(MattMunson @ Sep 15 2006, 12:21 AM) [snapback]1320361[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 15 2006, 08:27 AM) [snapback]1320315[/snapback]

The one indisputable fact that's come out of this thread is that Phils ID is a reproduction of a fake.


[/b]

Thought I've agreed with virtually everything you've said so far, I must offer a contradictory opinion to that claim, only because it is not a proven or demonstrable fact that the id that phil used as a base is a fake. What I think we all feel confident in is that it wasn't the ID seen on screen in the Zhora scene, or the vid-fon scene. on that, i think we are all pretty confident.

But we don't know AS A FACT that the base for Phil's project was a fake. We seem to feel pretty confident in this assertion, but it certainly hasn't been PROVEN.

Unless I missed a post
[/b][/quote]

Hello Matt,

all you need to do is take the worldcon ID and using some photo software blur the image - the tri mark thing will magically appear before your eyes.
Why would Phil's ID have this specific mark appearing on his copies without being reproduced from a screencap?
If it had been a totally different object I probably would have thought this was a alternate ID that wasn't used in production but for the tri mark to appear can only mean one thing - there really is no other way to explain it.
Another point to note is if the tri mark is not the only thing that doesn't match - the font (explained by Phil only after it was pointed out) the oblong above the photo and the inclusion of the LAPD markings. Then you've got the Japanese lettering also. It's not a little off - it's plain wrong.
As far as the LAPD marking is concerned I don't even think the LAPD was even mentioned in Blade Runner was it?

 

[Noeland]

Would anyone mind sending me the photo of the original that was taken down? I didn't get a chance to see it.

Thank you in advance.

<div class='quotetop'></div>

But we don't know AS A FACT that the base for Phil's project was a fake. We seem to feel pretty confident in this assertion, but it certainly hasn't been PROVEN. [/b]

I feel that as long as we keep asking the right questions on this board, I think we're doing a decent job of disseminating information, and weeding through the BS. Even though we're a sweaty lot, bootleggers, thieves, unlicensed replicators, and picture traders, we do seem to have the truth finely focused as our goal here, and who can fault us for that?

:rolleyes The rich and powerful collection of screen used collectors society Vs. The poor and meek collection of replica prop forum collectors..

Tonight on DEATHMATCH... Let the clay fly.. :love

 

[outlander]

>The rich and powerful collection of screen used collectors society Vs. The poor and meek collection of >replica prop forum collectors..

I don't think "meek" is the adjective I would use.

You know that you're getting old when you can remember a time before "Victimology" :cry became the zeitgeist of the times....

:cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :

JAS

 

[franz bolo]

<div class='quotetop'>(outlander @ Sep 15 2006, 12:40 PM) [snapback]1320847[/snapback]</div>

>The rich and powerful collection of screen used collectors society Vs. The poor and meek collection of >replica prop forum collectors..

I don't think "meek" is the adjective I would use.

You know that you're getting old when you can remember a time before "Victimology" :cry became the zeitgeist of the times....

:cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :

JAS
[/b]

Is this considered baiting? It adds nothing to the thread at all. More appropriate for a PM I think.

Noeland, PM sent.

FB

 

[Noeland]

post edited because I'm stupid . . . :confused

 

[phase pistol]

Ok, chew on this. My drivers' license card is the same size as the Worldcon ID, BEFORE lamination

And the drivers license is also the same size as the card visible in Deckard's wallet in the screen grabs.

Therefore the prop card is the same size as the one seen at Worldcon.

Bishop to King 7 checkmate, I think.

- Karl

 

[Nexus6]

<div class='quotetop'>(phase pistol @ Sep 15 2006, 03:05 PM) [snapback]1320897[/snapback]</div>

Therefore the prop card is the same size as the one seen at Worldcon.

Bishop to King 7 checkmate, I think.

- Karl
[/b]

Quite a brainstorm. Milk & cookies kept you awake?

 

[Walter]

I said this privately, but it is worth mentioning that like the font issue, this size issue is a major breakthrough in our discussions. The size of the license is similar to the size of the Worldcon ID (minus the laminate material), which is not the same size as other ID's we have discussed.

-Bryan

 

[AnsonJames]

I don't think this thread finished without a proper conclusion.
Have we agreed the ID in the wallet set was reproduced from a forgery?

 

[Nexus6]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]1326572[/snapback]</div>

I don't think this thread finished without a proper conclusion.
Have we agreed the ID in the wallet set was reproduced from a forgery?
[/b]

Unless I've missed some things, I would think that the most accurate statement we could make would be that: the ID in the wallet set is likely NOT the one present in the Zhora retirement scene. *shrugs*

 

[Blad]

<div class='quotetop'>(Nexus6 @ Sep 26 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]1326587[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]1326572[/snapback]

I don't think this thread finished without a proper conclusion.
Have we agreed the ID in the wallet set was reproduced from a forgery?
[/b]

Unless I've missed some things, I would think that the most accurate statement we could make would be that: the ID in the wallet set is likely NOT the one present in the Zhora retirement scene. *shrugs*
[/b][/quote]

You can say that it's clearly not the Zhora wallet and you could add that it's 'unseen in any other scene in the actual movie'.

I don't think you can prove that it wasn't made for the production, but information from Spinner44 showed that even the badge is suspect.

It seems that the best anyone can hope for is that the wallet and contents were a design rejected by Ridley for the hero prop.

The most accurate statement until someone comes up with more proof then the now tenuous 'Take my word for it' is:

"May have been made for the production, but not screen used or screen seen."

 

[franz bolo]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 08:25 AM) [snapback]1326572[/snapback]</div>

I don't think this thread finished without a proper conclusion.
Have we agreed the ID in the wallet set was reproduced from a forgery?
[/b]

It is 100% clear that Phil's ID is not based on the screen used one at all. At best it was reproduced from another source which has yet to be determined but with all the damning evidence, it seems like it was based on a forgery or made up entirely.

<div class='quotetop'>(philippes @ Sep 8 2006, 09:50 AM) [snapback]1315669[/snapback]</div>

But now, it seems that the ID I was given wasn't the screen-used one Deckard shows the police officers after dispatching Zhora.

Phil
[/b]

FB

 

[AnsonJames]

<div class='quotetop'>(Nexus6 @ Sep 26 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]1326587[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 09:25 AM) [snapback]1326572[/snapback]

I don't think this thread finished without a proper conclusion.
Have we agreed the ID in the wallet set was reproduced from a forgery?
[/b]

Unless I've missed some things, I would think that the most accurate statement we could make would be that: the ID in the wallet set is likely NOT the one present in the Zhora retirement scene. *shrugs*
[/b][/quote]

Obviously you didn't see the blurred worldcon image which creates the illusion of the trimark seen in the wallet set.
How else are you going to explain this without coming to the conclusion that this part of the ID was created using screencaps?

Please explain how this amazing coincidence occured - come on, really?

I would think that the most accurate statement we could make would be that: the ID in the wallet set is likely NOT present in the movie at all because it's fake.





Edited for bad speeling.

 

[Clutch]

Sometimes, I'm grateful that I don't have the money to make knee-jerk purchases.

 

[voice in the crowd]

I am glad this hasn't fizzled away something is really a miss with the ID. Has the producer of the inaccurate ID given any decent explanation as to why his are not like the screen used ones.

Remember that he may not be the real scammer possibly he may have been scammed by his original source.

Either way silence appears to be a great protector at the moment.

I would love to see a real conclusion on this as well.

Chris.

 

[Nexus6]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]1326613[/snapback]</div>

Obviously you didn't see the blurred worldcon image which creates the illusion of the trimark seen in the wallet set.
How else are you going to explain this without coming to the conclusion that this part of the ID was created using screencaps?[/b]

Oh I saw the blurred worldcon mark. Quite damning. So I concur that the trimark on the wallet set ID appears to have been created from analyzing screencaps.
<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]1326613[/snapback]</div>

Please explain how this amazing coincidence occured - come on, really?[/b]

My opinion is that it is NOT a coincidence.

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 10:21 AM) [snapback]1326613[/snapback]</div>

I would think that the most accurate statement we could make would be that: the ID in the wallet set is likely NOT present in the movie at all because it's fake.[/b]

^This^ is where I was making my distinction. You used the word: "forgery", which I was defining as: criminal falsification by creating (or altering) an object with intent to defraud, which I personally don't believe their is conclusive proof to believe.

If that is your opinion (and/or the opinions of others) that's your prerogative, just as it's mine to withhold that kind of gavel-banging judgment (in the absence of more concrete proof of intentional deceit), concerning someone who has done some good things for our hobby.

There's no need to get sporty with me about it.

 

[AnsonJames]

<div class='quotetop'></div>

^This^ is where I was making my distinction. You used the word: "forgery", which I was defining as: criminal falsification by creating (or altering) an object with intent to defraud, which I personally don't believe their is conclusive proof to believe.

If that is your opinion (and/or the opinions of others) that's your prerogative, just as it's mine to withhold that kind of gavel-banging judgment (in the absence of more concrete proof of intentional deceit), concerning someone who has done some good things for our hobby.

There's no need to get sporty with me about it.[/b]

I tend to get sporty with people when they choose to ignore pretty solid facts placed before them, also when I'm at sporting events.

If you bought an item for $300 which was supposedly an exact duplicate of the original and then found out it was nothing of the sort wouldn't you consider this an act of fraud?

At no point did I accuse Phil of perpetrating the fraud himself - it's more than likely that he produced this ID thinking that the ID he was working from was real.
I'm perfectly aware Phil has done some great things for the hobby but this certainly isn't one of them and not admitting in all likelyhood that he was duped doesn't help his case.
As for using the word 'forgery' unfortunately I didn't look up the word in my Websters English dictionary when I typed that post.
I stand by it even after reading the definition you so kindly posted.

I'd also like to know why isn't this my proof to believe exactly?
When like-minded people to myself pay huge sums of cash for misrepresented items I tend to bang my gavel - I don't like to see people getting ripped off.




Anson

 

[Nexus6]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 26 2006, 01:48 PM) [snapback]1326768[/snapback]</div>

I tend to get sporty with people when they choose to ignore pretty solid facts placed before them, also when I'm at sporting events.

If you bought an item for $300 which was supposedly an exact duplicate of the original and then found out it was nothing of the sort wouldn't you consider this an act of fraud?

At no point did I accuse Phil of perpetrating the fraud himself - it's more than likely that he produced this ID thinking that the ID he was working from was real.
I'm perfectly aware Phil has done some great things for the hobby but this certainly isn't one of them and not admitting in all likelyhood that he was duped doesn't help his case.
As for using the word 'forgery' unfortunately I didn't look up the word in my Websters English dictionary when I typed that post.
I stand by it even after reading the definition you so kindly posted.

I'd also like to know why isn't this my proof to believe exactly?
When like-minded people to myself pay huge sums of cash for misrepresented items I tend to bang my gavel - I don't like to see people getting ripped off. [/b]

*sigh*

I don't have the time OR desire to get into an intarwebtron debate on ANY subject, much less THIS one. Consequently, this will be my last post in this current sarcastically-drenched little banter.

I'll try to clarify things in the order they were presented:

Get sporty whenever you want, but it will serve no purpose in this instance. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm withholding judgment concerning circumstantial evidence that some people are stating proves that Phil and/OR sources willfully/knowingly deceived them. It's as simple as that.

If I had bought an "exact duplicate" that turned out not to be, I would feel "screwed". But since fraud typically involves INTENTIONAL deception, I'm not sure I could say I would feel defrauded. I believe Philippes thought it was genuine. His source may have believed it was genuine, as well as the next source (depending on how many people actually had possession of said "original").

I never said you accused Philippes himself, but when people are discussing the idea that his wallet is: "fraudulent" & a: "forgery" without first plainly stating the NON-accusation, his guilt will tend to be inferred by the reader.

I didn't look up the word "forgery" either, but you're welcome for the definition.

No one said it wasn't your "proof to believe". In fact, I stated that it was your choice to believe whatever you wanted. If you wanted to believe that Phil is hard at work, feverishly scouring up funds to pay Blade Runner hit-squads to go out & "clean" anyone who has seen the worldcon ID, that would be your prerogative as well, & the world would just keep on spinning.

Finally, I don't like seeing people get ripped off either.

AND now, I bid the last few posts good day. :unsure

 

[dropshipbob]

 

[AnsonJames]

<div class='quotetop'>(dropshipbob @ Sep 26 2006, 09:10 PM) [snapback]1326864[/snapback]</div>

[/b]

:lol :lol :lol :lol