Sunday, 22 November 2009

Want a screen-accurate sonic from MFX?

Do any of MFX's UK customers want a screen accurate Sonic that matches their prototype?

Having spoken to my lawyers there is a very strong case under UK statutes that in light of Mr Gorton's statements, means that you can get 'specific performance' from MFX to deliver what they promised: a 'screen accurate' sonic.

Stay tuned and all will be revealed.....

Saturday, 21 November 2009

MFX Inaccuracies - A theory

Having thought about this whole inaccuracy thing I want to propose a theory as to the MFX Sonic Screwdriver's undeniable inaccuracies despite Neill Gorton's denials to the contrary. I'm not going to get personal or snarky as this has no bearing on the matter. What I will stick to is cold hard fact. So, what do we know for sure?



  1. MFX employee Chris Martin wrote on the RPF: "both the Sonic Screwdriver and Master Laser Driver should be  faithful duplicates of the actual props . He [Neill Gorton] and I went down to the studios in Cardiff to  measure and photograph both props in order to duplicate them as exactly as possible." . Further he continues "To illustrate how much effort has gone into making these as faithful as possible, here are pictures of both the original we were working from and the duplicates I created from the reference material." He then posts the picture of the prop they are using as reference:

  2. Therefore it stands to reason that the replica should be IDENTICAL to the above prop. And it pretty much is. The pics he posts of his prototypes are spectacular:


2.     On the MFX website it is written:

"Is it an exact replica sonic screwdriver?



This replica prop was built using the original prop as a guide. All the measurements, dimensions, materials and paints used are exact to the original filming prop used by David Tennant. Even the inner workings follow the exact same build technique as the original prop.


Where it differs is in some small areas where we have made its construction stronger by adding threaded joints rather than a glued joint. None of these minor variations in any way affect the aesthetic of the piece. "
 
The implication stated is that it will be dimensionally accurate to the prop. When added to the picture of an accurate prototype shown when compared to the original reference prop, it can be reasonably expected that what he is selling is indeed represented as 'screen accurate'.
 
3.    In early October they release their final production versions. What they delivered differed vastly from not only the reference prop, but also their prototype above. The main differences are detailed here: http://celestialtoystore.blogspot.com/2009/10/analysis-of-mfx-sonic-screwdriver-and.html. It is immediately obvious that visually, the production versions differed substantially to what was promised but it is only to someone like me who has measured and detailed a filming prop and has detailed dims, apparent just how different it was. The data presented in the above blog can be independently verified by anyone with some Verniers and Photoshop.
 
4.   Despite having these differences pointed out to him, Neill Gorton refuses to acknowledge that the production sonic is inaccurate and maintains that his sonic is accurate to the reference prop they had access to. This flies in the face of common sense and visual data.
 
5.   Gorton has claimed that their were many props used hence the differences. But he has said that they only used one prop for reference and his replica was a replica of that single reference prop. This is contradictory and inconsistent since logically his replica should be a faithful replica of that reference prop.
 
6.    When the fact that the spacer at the top of the slider channel was unpainted was pointed out, he again used the excuse that multiple props were used. But didn't he say that they only referenced the one prop to copy? That reference prop had a painted spacer as did the prototype drawn from that. So is the MFX a faithful copy of the single reference prop as claimed or isn't it?
 
7.     No screenshot of a prop matching the MFX has ever surfaced, especially in regard the basic features such as the strut edge thickness and the window placement.
 
8.     No direct answer has ever been given by Neill Gorton as to why the inaccurate MFX replica differs so much from the accurate prototype.
 
 
So let's recap:
 

  • Neill has denied selling his replica on a 'screen accurate' ticket. LIE


  • Neill/MFX have stated that have used one prop for reference and that is the prop they are copying. Neill has stated he has made an accurate copy of that one reference prop. LIE (unless he's blind and stupid  and whilst he's many things, he's neither)


  • Neill has stated he cannot be expected to produce perfection yet he came close enough with his prototype. LIE

So why the lies and the inconsistencies? Look at the following rather cryptic quote:
 
Neill said: "It's like those Persian carpets where they put a deliberate mistake in the pattern because, in the laws of their religion, only God can achieve perfection.".
 
Knowing what I do about Neill and his work, and also knowing that he is in a very, very difficult position in regards to what he can or cannot say, I am willing to bet the above was veiled speech for the following:
 
THE BBC HAVE REQUESTED THAT MFX CHANGE THE DESIGN AS THEIR PROTOTYPE WAS A LITTLE TOO ACCURATE AND ONLY THEY (BEING METAPHORICALLY 'GOD'AND 'THE LAWS OF THEIR RELIGION' BEING THE LICENCE AGREEMENT) WERE ALLOWED TO POSSESS A PERFECTLY ACCURATE SONIC SCREWDRIVER THEREFORE MFX HAVE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DELIBERATELY WATER DOWN THEIR DESIGN AND NEILL CANNOT PUBLICALLY ADMIT THIS SO HAS TO BITE HIS LIP AND TOW THE PARTY LINE.
 
To me, this is a very roundabout way of admitting that yes, the MFX is wrong and differs from the prototype but due to a deliberate act at the behest of the licensor. To wit, Neill is aware that the MFX sonic is less than perfect in this veiled admission but it was requested by the BBC for reasons unknown. Not an uncommon occurance with licenced props as we've seen many times with George Lucas and Star Wars replicas.

So there you have it. Under the circumstances that's the best we're ever going to get so I'm going to drop it now and I hope others do too.
 



Friday, 20 November 2009

Gorton answers the question...sort of (actually he didn't)

Having been called out loudly and quite emphatically Neill Gorton has finally answered the questions everyone wants to know the answer to....except he hasn't. What follows is a circuitous, inconsistent LIE designed to placate the casual fanboy but leaves the tough question unanswered:

"Why was the PROTOTYPE accurate and why does the PRODUCTION version differ so much?"

His answer is just PR bullshit and has holes big enough to drive the Voyage of the Damned bus through. Here is his full post and my answers in RED


"Firstly Straker I haven't ducked any questions as you have implied. Anyone who asks a question I answer and I think everyone here will attest to that fact. Was the head CNC'd or cast. CNC'd actually, etc. etc. etc. Not thus far you haven't. You are only addressing this question because Straker called you out.



Secondly have you bought one of our sonics? If you have and you feel you were miss sold the item then simply return it in good condition and we give you a full refund without question. Refunding someone's money is an easy cop out. It's the equivalent of shortchanging someone and when caught you plead the mistake and give them the correct change - except in this case you haven't got an accurate sonic screwdriver to give them.


With regard to the accusations you make this is simply a no win argument and no matter what I say you will simply pick holes and try and argue the opposite just as CT does. Afterall CT is the guy who claims he can make the most accurate sonic even though he also admits to idealising several props and clearly states his to be made from different materials than the originals! No Neill, you're using me as an excuse to avoid addressing the difficult issue. You are obviously fucking clueless as yes, I admit that I am idealising several props but I know the differences between a Penny Howarth sonic and a Nick Robatto one and although I am producing an idealised hybrid sonic, it is still VISUALLY accurate to an on screen version.  I asked this question to Primrodo and I'm now asking it to you: Can you visually tell the difference between  aluminium and stainless steel? I certainly can't. So it's ok for you to idealise and change certain things for the sake of durability but not for me? At least you cannot see my changes and they don't affect visual accuracy. Don't insult my intelligence you beardy clown. Like I said he says whatever suits his purpose at the time. His sole aim in this is to cast doubt on our products I the hope that it will bring more sales his way. No actually. If you had released your prototype, I would have been the first to congratulated you and laud you. In fact, for a long time I was debating whether to release my Season 3/4 given how perfect your prototype was. How the fuck can you fuck up so badly?! If he's your prop guru then feel free to buy his product and not ours. No one is forcing you to purchase either. You're free to do whatever you wish with your money. I am not forcing you to buy my products if you even have. You have free will. If you feel the MFX sonic is good and acurate then great. If you don't then don't buy it but please don't 'demand' that I enter in to some senseless debate with someone who is steeling from me to satisfy your curiosity or attempt to sway your opinion. I have free will to. Yeah, yeah, use me as a convenient reason to avoid the question. It's your choice but it's therefore my choice if I think you're an evasive little toad.

 

With regard to the claim this is advertised as 100% screen acurate I would refer you to my website (you may not have advertised it with those exact words but the implication was the same and it was pushed on RPF and on other boards as being exact to the filming prop - 'Screen accurate');




I don't actually see that wording there (but the implication is the same) but, nevermind, it states clearly that there have been minor changes to accomodate manufacture and improve aspects but that the piece is aesthetically accurate.

On your site, in the FAQ section:

Is it an exact replica sonic screwdriver?



This replica prop was built using the original prop as a guide. All the measurements, dimensions, materials and paints used are exact to the original filming prop used by David Tennant. Even the inner workings follow the exact same build technique as the original prop. That is bollocks. It does not use the same built technique either. The head cage should screw into the ball join using a 7mm coupler. Your's doesn't.


Where it differs is in some small areas where we have made its construction stronger by adding threaded joints rather than a glued joint. None of these minor variations in any way affect the aesthetic of the piece. Again that is bollocks. The 'aesthetics' of your's is all over the place.

On your care sheet that you include with each and every sonic you write:
"Your replica has been hand made by us using, wherever possible, the most accurate dimensions, processes, materials and finishes as used on the original filming props. Whilst this guarantees this replica prop to be as faithful as possible to the original filming prop..."

Your guy Chris posted the following on RPF on the 28th July 2008 (I've highlighted the relevant text):

"I assume Neill won't mind me posting this to complement what he's already said but both the Sonic Screwdriver and Master Laser Driver should be faithful duplicates of the actual props. He and I went down to the studios in Cardiff to measure and photograph both props in order to duplicate them as exactly as possible. With regards to the Sonic, the original we viewed has been handled a great deal and as a result, the finish is both more buffed and just plain grubby, however, the paint is in theory the same one used on the actual thing. Basically, Neill and Chris both wanted to make these as accurate as possible according to the prop they were given to examine, which is here:


Similarly, the Master's Laser Driver is a dimensionally faithful replica of the one used in the show. Both the MLD and the SS are handmade working props so it's always a balancing act between tidying things up for a display piece or deliberately machining some features badly to match the original. Where quirks of the original are arguably features, for example where things aren't exactly at ninety degrees to each other and would look wrong when 'corrected', the quirks have remained. Similarly there is some dulling and oxidation of the metal on the originals which is a natural result of age on the materials involved so the prototypes look a little brighter than the patina they will eventually settle into.

To illustrate how much effort has gone into making these as faithful as possible, here are pictures of both the original we were working from and the duplicates I created from the reference material. BTW the picture of the original is a composite photo so don't panic about the nose being extended yet the slider switch shown in the closed position. The reason for making the duplicates in the first place is that obviously the Dr Who people needed to retain the originals because they were using them and also it's much easier to create a run of something if you can hand someone a finished item and tell them to make some more exactly like that rather than working purely from photos and drawings


And yes, the wiring is yellow in this particular example as per the original. Photos of the MLD have already been posted so there's not much point in posting additional ones. I was flattered to be asked to do these and I can't think of a better combination of people involved with MFX to bring these excellent props to the market. "






They succeeded - in prototype form anyway. The prototype (in particular the upper extended one in this pic) is 99% identical to the prop above:




They have shown that they can do it. This is the one everyone was expecting them to sell.

SO WHY THE FLAMING FUCK DID IT ALL GO WRONG???????

By not acknowledging the fact that the production sonics bear nothing but a passing similarity to the props above Neill is insulting the intelligence of each and every one of his customers. His steadfast silence on this key point is telling and damning.


It's easy to argue one way or another if something is 100% accurate and 'simply put' NOTHING can be 100% acurate. Even the simple fact that the components on the original where mchined by hand while we have ours produced via CNC immediately negates this. The finish changes fractionally between the two processes. Striving for perfection and actually achieving perfection are two separate things. You can strive for perfection and if you miss you can be proud you gave it your best shot. It doesn't even look like you tried on the production version. What exactly were you doing on the day the production version was signed off? Sitting in your office khazi smoking a B & H and having a wank? Actually, you can make something near 100% accurate by taking accurate measurements, detailed observations and making sure your production processes observe tight tolerances. Just like you (or someone else) did when it came to making the prototype above. The changes you mention is not the difference between machined by hand and CNC, it is the difference between CNC milling and die casting combined with deliberate fudging of key dims.


It's like those Persian carpets where they put a deliberate mistake in the pattern because, in the laws of their religion, only God can achieve perfection. Did we machine these to a tolerance of a 10th of a mm. If so then you'll argue that it shoudl have been machined to a 100th of a mm or a 1000th of a mm to be 100% acurate.... in your opinion! Is this a veiled way of saying that the changes were deliberate? Hint, hint ;-) You have to decide on a tolerance when it comes to making these things - if accuracy is your goal which it appeared to be. A tolerance of 0.1mm is acceptable on something this small. However, your production piece  is off by over 5 times that on some places!!!!!!! That is nowhere near perfection. That is a fucking piss take.


In addition there are several sonics so to which one do you refer? Each machiend by hand and each with subtle - and some times major - variations. Do not insult our collective intelligences. I am referring to the prop above which Chris posted the pic of. That is the one you went to Cardiff to measure right? That is the one you you took detail photographs and measrements of? Ergo, your prototype was identical to that prop. So why not the production version? Cut the fucking bullshit Neill, it stinks.




So I strive even further to make it 100% accurate. I hire the guy who machined the original ones, I buy the metal stock from the same metal supplier, I don't use an etch primer to help keep the paint on because, well, the originals didn't. I buy all the componenets from the same stores, I turn all the pieces on the same milling machine and the same lathe and what will I get. I product that costs $3,000 each that no-one can afford and, AND it's still not 100% accurate because that's simply not possible. That is big hairy bollocks and you know it. I can do it. Why not you? Because you are fucking lazy and want to cheapskate it to maximise your profits? Here's how you do it: Step 1: Take detailed measurements of an original prop to within .01mm accuracy. Step 2: Build a detailed 3d CAD model using the data. Step 3: Load tool path data into a multi million dollar 5-axis Mikron milling machine and voila! You can have micron accurate pieces day in, day out. And it doesn't cost $3000. That's just how much Robatto charges.


So what we have is a product that may vary in tiny areas. subtle nuances. Someone finds a picture of 'a' sonic and says the curve on the ribs on the body look fractionally more rounded than the MFX one! Okay, well, on 'that' sonic maybe they were but on two others they're not and so it goes on and on and on and on! Actually Neill, the curves on the ridges are from the pic of the actual hero prop you guys posted and say is the one you copied. Therefore it stands to reason that a direct comparison between yours and the claimed source material is not only fair but justified.


I am completely satisfied that we have done everything within our power to make this as acurate as we possibly can. So you are claiming screen accuracy or not?We had access to an original prop (Yes, the one pictured above!!!!!) - not all props - just one as this is the one the art department deamed their best sonic. they have the choice in the matter and I, as a license holder, can not 'demand' to see the others. There's rules to this and if this is the one the art department on doctor Who deem to be their 'hero' prop then that's the one I copy. We took numerous measurements with digital micrometers, we measured, photographed, dissasembled, we questioned and we were thorough. We chose the acurate materials - maybe not bought form the same stockist or metals produced by the same foundry. Even the aluminium may be a slightly different grade but it is brass and aluminium just as the originals were. More bullshit. You know you haven't and I have proven you are a big fat hairy liar time and time again. If you could only copy one prop as you are claiming, and it is the prop pictured, which you are also claiming, how come a 1:1 analysis shows that it is FUNDAMENTALLY and substantially different from the one you produced??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So, go ahead. You can argue and nit pick it all to pieces. You can find photographs and screen grabs and analyse and extrapolate all you like and each time you will find somethting different. The lens on the camera that took the photograph was different, the image was compressed a fraction or widened to make a more aesthetically pleasing picture in a book. Publishers don't care. I've seen my work distorted to hell in photographs. They're not printing them for you to measure, they print them to look nice in a magazine or book! So you will always find some variation, some minor aesthetic difference and shout "Aha! not 100% accurate!!!" and you'll be right and you'll be wrong. No Neill, we are comparing your replica to the prop you allegedly copied and to your prototypes (which you laid out conveniently on metric graph paper). No compressions, distortions or camera trickery imvolved. Just basic cold hard measurement.



I could spend the rest of my life answering questions about every tiny thing that someone has extrapolated form a phtograph or claims to know. I could spend weeks writing up my own Blog defending every nuance. Ultimately I'd be defending myself against so called 'overwhelming evidence' presented by an indivivual who has a very clear 'agenda' and axe to grind against me. He's not searching for truth and the perfect prop. Actually, if that was the case I would have released something really fucking shoddy like the Animainment guys, not given a flying cluster fuck and just taken customer's money a long time ago. You make me sound like Steve Scott! He's searching for profit! Aren't we all? But making a perfect prop along the way doesn't harm the cause and in the long run produces MORE profit. I'm not the one promising a high quality accurate piece then cutting corners to produce an inaccurate, cheaply made fob-off and then trying to convince the world it is screen accurate. So you can fuck right off. He is selling you a product. Er, no shit Sherlock. He will always skew whatever so called evidence he has in his favour because of that 'agenda'. So if I go and start getting in to detailed debates with this guy (someone who is steeling from me and bad mouthing me even though he has never met me and knows nothing about me!) and his so called 'evidence' it will never end because it can never end. It can end if you'd answer the question put to you and admit what we all can see, that you fucked it it up either through hamfistedness or deliberate behest of the BBC. There are no simple answers. Yes there are, just answer the question put. He said the head on our sonic was cast. No, I said the basic blank was cast, then finished by CNC.  He insisted he new and presented 'evidence'. Yes, and you can read all about it on this blog. He's wrong of course and several peole with common sense on this forum could, independantly, also see that it wasn't and that it would actually be a silly way to manufacture when you can simply have them CNC'd as we do. No, it would make perfect sense to cast a blank then finish it by CNC. If I was a money grabbing cunt with the morals of a Jewish stamp dealer I probably would do it that way. But he was adamant and claimed to have 'evidence'. I could go on defending all his agenda skewed claims....... but I won't.  You may not like me and I may not like you. Those differences aside, my findings have WEIGHT and cannot be ignored. Ignoring me, attacking me back does not change the fact that my data can be independently verified. Anyone with an MFX, some Verniers and photoshop can do the exact same analysis as I have done. How do you explain that the alloy used is a cheap casting alloy used to improve flow? How do you explain the fact that the thing is not entirely circular which it would be if the thing was entirely CNCed? You'd have to be a dickhead to fuck up something so basic as a perfectly circular diameter using a CNC machine.  My theory stands.  Stop being such a fucking tool and admit that you have been rumbled and let's all move on with our lives.



Why? because it would be a complete waste of time because he has an agenda and for the fact that there will never be such a thing as a 100% acurate prop. It's a complete falicy and it doesn't exist. The only 100% acurate prop in existence is the original and even they often have new parts added as filmign goes along meaning they're no longer 100% acurate to the prop seen in the previous episode or series.  No, you're right but you can replicate a prop at a moment in time that you have it for. Just as you did with that season 3 sonic photographed above.


You're asking the impossible and I can't deliver the impossible. All I can do is the best job I can. I spent two years making this happen. It was a lot of heard work and I think we've done a pretty good job. If you don't think we have then send it right back and refund you entirely. Same goes for anyone else not happy or who thinks we've done a poor job or have cheeted you in some way. The fact that no-one has done this should tell you something. No we're not. If making a screen accurate sonic is impossible, then you have already proven you can do the impossible - your prototype above. All that is asked is that you do what you have shown you can do and what you have promised us you can do. If the production version is the best you can manage, then quite simply your best is not good enough or you are not prepared to invest the time and money to make it perfect . How the fuck can you NAIL it with the prototype then fuck up so  spectacularly with the production versions? It's like missing an elephant at point blank with a Bren Ten.


Fact is it ultimately comes down to opinions. In my oprinion I've produced a screen accurate sonic. So yes, you have just confirmed again that yours is sold on the basis that it is 'screen-accurate'. In yours and CT's opinion I haven't and the opinions of all the people on this forum will differ from one to the other or somewhere inbetween. Then either you are deluded or your opinion of yourself is lower than one would expect for someone in your position with your unquestionable talent.




What you're asking me to do is 'change your opinion'. Fact is I don't want to. Have it, keep it, it's yours. Treasure it as it's the thing that drives you to the keyboard every day and encourages you to write down your thoughts. Having opinions is good. The world would be a dull place if we all had the same opinion. It's just that some opinions are a bit more grounded in reality than others.




Now, that reallyis my final word on the matter We'll see.



Best


Neill



P.S. a forum administartor has informed me that CT has now been banned. I want to make it clear that this was nothing to do with me. I wasn't about to complain about his illegal operation as it simply draws more attention to him. He got himself banned all by himself. "


So there you have it, a whitewash so thorough that Nixon himself must be looking down from heaven and giving his best benevolent paternal smile at Neill Gorton. What we were expecting was an up front and honest answer. What we got was an evasive, inconsistent and inaccurate PR offensive that skirts the issue. Seems to be the only thing Neill Gorton is good at these days.

Response to Greatwazoo42

Ron Daniels aka Greatwazoo42 posted the following incredible piece of insight (my comments in RED):

"Straker - I've owned two original Richard Coyle Star Trek 3 phaser pistols. Both pulled from the same mold he used for the hand props in the film. Both had differences from each other and from the filmed prop because each one involved hand work and also as each one was built the artist's hand improved the design. I look at the MFX sonic in the same light. Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. If Nick Robatto himself had built each of the 500 MFX screwdrivers using the same methods and the same materials and the same design as his original screen used props then maybe, just maybe you have a point. However, he didn't, so you don't. The comparison is totally wrong.



Unless you have everything made by machine using the exact same starting materials under the exact same conditions there will ALWAYS be differences. Some of the work in the sonics was hand work. Also there are always refinements between a prototype and a final product. Obviously you are showing your ignorance of this prop and the way it is constructed. These props were originally machined and were machined using defined, immutable templates with very little play in the basic dims. All the dims have to be proportional to each other or else it will be a different design. The construction also needs to be substantially the same. The only differences that manifest itself through handwork is the paint job and the blue activation stripe. Everything else should have been done by CNC. Here's a thought for you: all the MFX have the same errors in exactly the same place. If all or some of the work was done by hand, each and every one would be dimensionally different for your argument to hold water.  Obviously you are a numbnut or something but MFX's prototype was IDENTICAL to the prop. Their final product is not a refinement. Quite the reverse. It is a devolution. As ASP9mm pointed out, there is not a SINGLE screenshot or published picture where the sonic screwdriver prop looks like the MFX. Not a single fucking one. Plenty where it looks like their prototype though. Explain that one if you can you sad, deluded fool.


If you want better go build your own. If you can't then you'll have to settle for what you can buy. That is precisely what I am doing.


It sounds like you're demanding people justify themselves specifically to you and unless you have a badge and a gun (drawn) no one needs to. If you join a forum like the RPF, and sell a product on a screen accurate ticket then you are expressly allowing other members to question you on it and pull you up on it. You can't expect to use a forum like the RPF to sell a product and not expect difficult questions. Straker has a right to ask these questions and whether Neill chooses to answer them or not is his choice but that does not mean other members cannot draw inferences from his evasion or silence "

Essex boy Defstartrooper confirms what we all knew...

...that Essex boys are as thick as pig shit. Observe (my reply in RED):

"When have you ever seen a licensed replica be 100% exact to what is seen on screen from any licensed producer ? I admit, it is rare but it does happen and even the ones that are close are a lot closer than the MFX sonic is to the original prop. Most producers don't harp on that their products are 100% screen accurate. MFX did. If MFX hadn't promised a 100% accurate prop in the first place then what they delivered wouldn't be an issue.



Never, satisfactory answer ? No actually. Refer to my previous answer. Ironically, MFX's masks and helmets are virtually 100%. For fuck's sake, I know I keep going on about it, the prototype they exhibited is practically 100% screen accurate. So don't use this fucking argument with me you stupid fucking twat.


No offense intended towards Neil or MFX that's just the facts of the industry for varying reasons. You're a fantasist. A wannabe. You haven't a fucking clue about the industry, if you did you wouldn't need to suck up so hard.


For what it's worth Neil i'm sure the majority of folks see CT for what he is. So what am I? (Use comment box below so we can all have a good laugh) "

The mystery of the white ring

The classic sonic screwdriver has always featured what appears to be a white ring around the middle section.

As can be seen here:







This 'white' band has been consistently seen on the prop since it's introduction and for most of this period has also featured what appears to be a gouge or paint chip.

There are several theories as to what it can be.

1) White Paint - This is the obvious and easiest answer however it does not explain how in some shots this white area is clearly reflective silver yet displays the telltale flake mark. Such as here:






It therefore seems highly unlikely it is white paint. However that brings me onto the second theory

2) Chrome Paint - This is actually a pretty sound idea. When the prop, as built by Tony Dunsterville, first appears in Thunderbirds, the middle section is indeed a very shiny chromed finish:



What lends this idea added credence is that Chrome paint contains real metal (usually nickel or aluminium) and I have been told quite reliably, has a tendency to turn white and cloudy over time due to oxidation. This would explain why the prop goes quite visibly from silver during Thunderbirds and during Pertwee's time with the prop, to white during Davison's era.

However, I have doubts. Chrome paint is not particularly durable and would have flaked off almost entirely during the 15 years the prop was in use, not just exhibited the relatively minor flaking seen. For this reason alone I believe that while it is entirely possible, it is not very probable.

3)  Polished Finish - It has been suggested that the chromed finish on the middle section is down to the metal being turned at a higher speed, effectively polishing it into a mirror shine. I don't buy that at all. This would make the finish intrinsic to the material itself. This is intuitively wrong as the wear pattern can only be the result of something being remove from the base material: ie: electroplate or paint. This brings me onto my final theory and it's one I believe holds the answer.

4) Galvanic Corrosion - I believe that the prop was turned from aluminium and the ring section was plated in nickel to give it a bright chrome finish. However, it is widely known that nickel plating on aluminium is problematic because of the adhesion problems with nickel on aluminium (a quick Google will show the extent of flaking of nickel plate) and also, the danger of galvanic corrosion as a result of bad adhesion. Instead of me explaining what this process is, let me quote John Demakis of http://www.duro-chrome.com/:

"Galvanic corrosion refers to the damage induced when two dissimilar metals are coupled in a corrosive electrolyte. When this occurs, the less noble (less able to resist this type of corrosion) of the metals in the reaction becomes the anode (positive) and corrodes more quickly than it would by itself, whereas the more noble metal becomes the cathode (negative) and corrodes more slowly than it would alone.


What Is It?


Try to think of it in these terms. Consider the way a battery works. Typically in most batteries there are three things that must be present to create the desired reaction.


•A positive electrode that receives electrons from the external circuit when the cell is discharged. With respect to galvanic corrosion, this refers to the more noble of the two metals.


•A negative electrode that donates electrons to the external circuit as the cell discharges. This refers to the less noble metal or the anode.


•An electrolyte that provides a mechanism for a charge to flow between positive and negative electrodes. This would be the water in the solution for plating or the type of plastic used in the application or any other substance used. Even moisture in the air could act as a catalyst for the reaction.


Once all three of these elements are present, the battery creates energy in which galvanic corrosion is entirely responsible. When this sort of reaction occurs outside of a battery setting, for instance in a mold shop, the energy created by galvanic corrosion manifests itself between the two dissimilar metals and eats away at the less noble of the two.


 Aluminum has very little nobility and consequently is much more likely to corrode more quickly. Applying a nickel-based coating on your aluminum parts may be what is necessary to protect them from galvanic corrosion.

...suppose that you are using a nickel solution to plate an aluminum part. Now, if there were any imperfections in that aluminum part, such as pitting, there is a possibility that during the plating process some of the solution or a water molecule could get trapped in that deformity in the part. That water molecule ultimately could become the electrolytic component needed to complete a galvanic cell. The aluminum is less noble than the nickel and so in the plating process used to prevent corrosion and to prolong the life of your part, one could actually be promoting corrosion, and lessening the life of your tool.




So what do we have here? Essentially the above says that nickel can protect aluminium from corrosion IF the aluminium surface has been adequately prepared for the plating process. If it hasn't, galvanic corrosion can be quite rapid.

Here's the rub: the sonic prop was made from aluminium. The surface wasn't prepped properly prior to the nickel plating of the middle section, as can be evidence by the subsequent flaking and wear, which caused the less noble aluminium underneath (that was exposed via the microscopic pitting) to corrode at an accelerated rate in the presence of an electrolyte. In this case, the salt and moisture from sweat is the electrolyte, and this results in the formation of white aluminium oxides, or in this case, aluminium hydroxide - an opaque white substance.



The Charge of the Arse Brigade

Following on from Neill Gorton's delightfully obfuscative tirade against me and those that don't dismiss my scribblings as those of a madman, there has followed a sageley nodding bunch of morally self righteous arse licking hypocritical fuckmunches eager to be seen to be doing the right thing by voicing their outrage against me. Amongst the first is a toady little shite called Phez who posted the following (my reply in RED):

"Neill


You offer a fully licensed product, made in house by the effects team that works on the show with unquestionable proof that you have direct access to the screen used prop as reference. You have also been polite and shown great customer service to support your product (I have had no problems with my two but am very impressed with how you have helped out others in this thread). Actually Phez, Neill has not actually proved convincingly that he has had access to the prop. Because if he did, why the fuck did he produce what he did? All I can say for sure is someone did, and that was the person who made the prototype. I don't think it was MFX. As for great customer service, that is EXPECTED. It's not something that you give extra brownie points for.


That is being balanced against someone who is not licensed, has no affiliation to the show and absolutally no proof that they are using any refrence material that is not currently publicly avalible. The persons behavior has been very un-bussiness like (to say the least) and I would fully expect to be instructed to stick the product up my *** if I bought one of his products and had a problem with it. Well, actually you stupid fucking cunt, I'd like you to produce something that is to my level of accuracy using public domain material. The fact that I have dims that NO ONE ELSE should, except those that have studied and handled the actual prop, proves pretty danm convincingly that I have.  Neill knows I have. How else could I have called him out on the dims being off? I think I have proven my chops. If  anything, Neill needs to prove his. And he hasn't. Not one iota. His replica looks like it was made using photo reference material it is that inaccurate. As for my business practices, my customers will attest that I have amongst the finest out there. My testimonials speak volumes. Just because I take no crap from fucking morons does not make me a shit businessman. If you were my customer I would deal with your issue quickly, professionally and to your 100% satisfaction. As my customers will agree. So take your snide little suppositions and shove it up your rectum. Prick.


Keep up the good work man, if I can throw a few bucks in the direction of the people who are making stuff for a show I enjoy and get a sweet prop out of the deal, all is good
I'm happy you're happy. "

The Gorton finally speaks

Having created a splash in that little mill pond called the RPF over the past few days, it now seems that after weeks of quite telling silence, the ripples have finally reached that little backwater just outside London called Chesham...home to MFX Replicas.

Here is Neill's reply in full (my reply in RED):

"Before I get any more people banging on at me about CT and his accusations regarding our replicas and sending me PM’s let me make my one and only statement on the matter.



Firstly and most importantly – I have no interest in or desire to enter in to any debate with CT or anyone else who wishes to take up his ‘cause’ and I have numerous reasons for this. My primary reason is that CT is running a business making illegal unlicensed replicas and infringing my license, a license I have to pay for and meet many conditions on. If you say so Neill, but if you want to use that to avoid answering the difficult and relevant questions, so be it. It's not going to stop me or anyone else asking them. The conditions you speak of, honestly, are no where near as stringent as imposed on others. My heart really fucking bleeds for you.


He is stealing from me in effect. Why on earth would I want to then have a cozy chat with him about anything! I have nothing to say to him because he is doing everything he can to damage my legitimate business. He is attempting to take business away from me and damage my livelihood and livelihood of my employees by trading illegally while also making libelous accusations about me. What on earth makes anyone think I’d then feel obliged to communicate with him never mind be asked to ‘defend myself’ against these ridiculous claims from someone who is so blatantly ripping me off. Ridiculous claims? What ridiculous claims? Do you honestly think anyone really believes you fellated Russell to get the licence? The fact is, if you hadn't worked on the show and leveraged your existing relationship, you would not have gotten the licence. FACT. How did you manage to get a licence without actually producing a run of prototypes to prove you could do it? Everyone else who applies for a licence has to...but not you apparently. Mutant Moulding had to, as did Codsteaks and TPE. Change the fucking record Neill.

 He's simply making these claims solely as a means of propaganda in order to try and claim a bigger share of a market he has no legitimate right to!!!. Would you entertain a guy who had burgled your house and stole your TV if he came knocking on your door a few days later asking you to show him how to operate the remote control? You'll be accusing me of funding terrorism, prostitution, drug smuggling and people trafficking next. It's not as simplistic as simple theft. This is about free market economics in a free market world. Competition is healthy so instead of bleating about the injustice of it, do something about it, then you can both bleat about it and still be making money. Seriously though, you're producing 500 of these things, the vast majority have already sold. Mine is not yet out. Those who want one would have bought one of yours by now. Where's the theft? By the time mine is shipped in a couple of weeks yours will have gone, sold out, never to be repeated. You are accusing me of stealing customers that couldn't have bought yours anyway becuase they would have sold out. So I'm stealing something that was never yours to begin with. You've got your cake, you've sold it. I'm just baking another as you have no intention of baking any more cakes.


Secondly CT has also posted a blog which includes many untruths and half truths and makes – I’ll say it again – libelous claims against myself and my business. Two years ago he started out by posting what he called an ‘open letter’ to me in which he accused me of getting a license by “blowing Russell T David on set!” and proceeded to make even more crude homophobic remarks. Yeah, that was pretty fucking funny. Did anyone seriously believe that? Get a fucking sense of humour Neill. IT WAS A JOKE.

 Do you think I really want to have any discussion with this foul mouthed fool. My wife read that letter which made lots of crazy claims about me, and in which CT directed vile, vitriolic bile at me, and was very upset because she couldn’t understand why a person who has never met me, and knows nothing of my business or me as a person, would be so aggressive in his attacks on me and make such crude and offensive remarks in such a public way. What, she asked, had I done to deserve such uncalled for abuse? All I could say to her is, sadly it comes with the territory! Again, why would I wish to communicate with this individual??? Actually, my remarks have a basis underneath the bombast. Ask yourself that Neill. If you read my subsequent remarks here, I have nothing against you. You're a very talented guy but you have absolutely no clue when it comes to making screen accurate props. I stand by that. I hate the game, not the player. I'm sorry you are part of this but I semi seriously offered to make these things for you but you blanked me. Was that a mistake? Probably. But I'm not bitter. I'm just going to continue to make the best props I can and nothing you or the BBC can do to stop me short of declaring war on 1.3 billion rice eating MSG fuelled fist throwing motherfuckers. If you had communicated with me, this would not have happened, everyone would have won. You chose to not to and this is the result. Sorry but that's the truth.






His comments are designed to mask the fact that he is producing replicas illegally and his attitude is designed to justify these illegal actions and convince you all that what he’s doing is perfectly ok. He’s not just a fan producing a small run of an unavailable prop, he’s a full on business charging a lot of money for these items. In comparison to me his profit can be much higher as he’s producing in China and has no royalties to pay! Actually that not accurate Neill. You're the one fudging the issue. You're the one producing an inferior piece and charging more for it. I am producing  a better quality piece, using more expensive machinery and with a level of sophistcation and design higher than yours. And I'm charging less. All in all, I think it works out about the same.






He’s also hugely inconsistent. I recently read a thread in which he attacks an RPF member for not divulging photographs and his source for information regarding the Tom Baker sonic while, at the same time, CT himself claims to have had access to new series sonics but also refuses to back up these claims with any evidence. There’s just no winning with this guy and ultimately no reason to enter in to any discussion with him as, no matter what you say, he’ll just run in circles saying and claiming whatever suits his purpose and version of reality as he sees it at the time. Ok, here's the challenge. What are my inconsistencies? My proof is my product, old chum. How do you explain the fact that I have better blueprints than you? How do you explain that I have caught you RED HANDED selling an inaccurate piece if I didn't have access to an original filming prop and original dims? Cut the fucking bullshit Neill, it stinks. If you think I can produce what I have produced using publically available material, you end up making you and your company seem like a mickey mouse outfit as my replica is head and shoulders above yours. I am deliberately vague as to how I accessed the prop as I clearly do not want to land the persons who helped me in hot water. That's a good enough reason isn't it?




He’s claimed that he approached the BBC to get a license but was re-buffed. This is a lie as the BBC have no record of any contact from him. They even asked me if I knew who he was as they’d become aware of his website? If he was making applications for licenses they’d know who he was. It’s all lies to justify his behavior and his illegal practice and to convince you he’s some modern day Robin Hood character. Smoke and mirrors. I have approached the BBC and not in the way you realise. Do you think I would have started this little venture if I thought I could get caught? Trust me, there was contact, both substantial and detailed but nothing that would get traced back to me. I am that good.





So I just thought I’d state my position right now before I got any more PM’s or post from members hassling me to enter in to discussion. Not interested guys as I’m offended by and disinterested in having anything to do with this individual or answering anything he has to say. I’m also saddened to see his illegal operation given credibility here on the RPF. You’ll get angry and indignant at people who re-cast but it’s okay for this guy top blatantly operate an illegal, unlicensed business and peddle his wares on this forum and even have members giving him support and congratulations!!!... I’m completely shocked and UTTERLY disinterested. Welcome to the RPF Neill. If you had done your job correctly and the BBC had done their's we wouldn't be here. You pay your money, you take your choice. This is not recasting. This is original work done to a higher standard. If it embarrasses the licence holder, so be it it. You just need to up your game as people like me are always going to snapping at your heels.




I’ve been nothing but polite, consistent and as helpful and honest as possible to our customers and to anyone who has asked questions or PM’d me on this forum but I refuse to get involved with or comment on anything that is said by, or originates from, CT.






End of discussion.


Neill "

Nice smoke screen job Neill, but you still have not answered the question as to why your replica is so inaccurate and why it differs so much from your prototype? Your customers deserve an answer and just offering them their money back does not cut it.

I think the real reason is that they can sue you for misrepresentation. What you offered for sale is not what you delivered. Oh yeah, you can bleat all you like about me being a cunt but that is irrelevant to the real issue which is both pertinent and valid.

The fact you haven't addressed this speaks louder than I ever could.







Thursday, 19 November 2009

Awwwwwwww.....poor Risu

"What's with defending the guy all of a sudden? I really don't know why you're pushing it so hard, was he somehow polite to you while being rude to everybody else? So what if I prefer to post here? He can feel free to say what he wants on his blog, shouldn't I get my own "home base" as well? This argument is pointless anyways, those of us who are going to avoid him will and those on his side will probably stay there until he gets angry with you too and posts your name and picture on his blog with a bunch of "descriptive words". Nothing anybody says here is going to change that. The only reason I'm still responding is because you're on the offensive. If you want to take this to PMs and continue discussing the issue feel free, but I think it's time the mods did away with this thread, it's become redundant. "

Danny-boy, I know you're reading this so go dry your eyes, calm down and shut the fuck up. I'm going to spell it out nice and simple to you.

There are some people in this world who are nice, polite and respectful. Those people deserve to be treated in kind. Mr Straker, amongst a great many others, is one of those people. I treat others with the respect I am treated with and if others show me contempt or are rude to me, I treat them the same way PLUS interest. You dig?

If you had shown a bit more respect, politeness and common courtesy, it would be reciprocated.

Look at me rather like a urinal. I take no shit.


Jet Beetle, step up to the plate...

Cuntmeister General Jet Beetle has accused me of being cowardly by writing my blogs.

What this fuckwit hasn't noticed is that under my blog there is a COMMENT BOX. If anyone wants to avail themselves of such a remarkable facility, they are welcome. In fact, I encourage it.

So Mr Hernandez, you have something to say? Come and say it, you dumbass stupid chickenshit cunt.

Cunt of the week - Defstartrooper

The first nominee for this week's 'Cunt of the week' is Essex boy 'Defstartrooper', the self proclaimed defender of the replica prop buying public. This fuck head has posted this:

"Isn't the whole MFXversion is innacurate stuff a moot point ? the CT is innacurate too and pretty much the same price give or take a few quid.



So really it just boils down to which innacurate piece you prefer. "

Actually dickhead, it isn't a moot point. If the item is being sold on a screen accurate ticket, it should fucking well deliver. It doesn't.
 
Secondly, apart from the bits I've already pointed out as being temporary, what is inaccurate about mine? If you've seen my final production version, then I'll be amazed. Anyway, please enlighten us with your keen eye and superior knowledge of the prop? You cunt. I'm not going to be shy in bragging that mine will be identical to the prop to the micron.
 
And if you've bothered to read, it's far from being 'pretty much the same price'. The £70 or so will probably buy a good few alcopops down in Romford, innit?
 
Typical fucking Essex boy. All mouth, no trousers and no brain. I bet you drive some chavved up hot hatch too and live with your parents in some semi in Basildon.
 
Come back when you have something intelligent to point out.

Will somebody hand Daniel 'Risu' Pawlik a tissue?

Daniel 'Risu' Pawlik has a problem with my character. Check this shit out:


"An angry child with the know-how to, say, hack a person's private accounts (am I joking?) is a dangerous enemy, which I think is why nobody stands up to his shenannigans anymore.



EDIT: And as has been said before, that's what we do on the RPF, we nitpick. He took it personally for some reason and decided to threaten us. "
 
Let's get a few things straight here Danny-boy. I have never hacked anyone's account. You can choose to believe that or not but know this: I have never been anything but straight and up front in what I do, what I am and what my beliefs and principles are. You want to call me a liar? Make sure you are fucking sure of your facts, you cunt.
 
I also answer to no one and I don't need your approval or care if anyone 'stands up to my shenanigans'. I personally don't give a flying fuck one way or another if I am banned from the RPF or not.
 
There is nitpicking and there is flagrant and ignorant attacks on my work and my business reputation. There was no nitpicking, just jealous sniping, assumption and thinly veiled bashing. Nitpicking does not give you carte blanche to be a fucking wanker otherwise everyone on the RPF would be a cunt like you. Remember that Danny-boy.
 
And yes, I did take it personally because your attacks questioned my ethics and my character. How much more personal can that get than a person's own character? Read back what you wrote you semi-literate moron.
 
And finally, I have not threatened anyone. Can you point me to a threat I made? Or do you mean I am threatening your cushy ignorant existence where you can gleefully dismantle a person's reputation and character and work with impunity?
 
What a ignorant, stupid and intellectually stunted little boy you are. I bet your parents must be very, very proud of the fine specimen of sub-human they have produced.

Question about ridges and paint

It has been suggested that the difference between the ridges on the MFX replica sonic and the ridges on the prop is caused by the paint. See the comparison pic here: [prop above/MFX below]



An observation needs to be made here: the prop paint finish is thicker by several orders of magnitude to the MFX. The MFX finish, although correct in colour, is very, very thin. However, that will not account for the notion put forward that the ridge shape error on the MFX is caused by this.

Let explain why basic geometry disproves this.

The ridges are the wrong shape to start with. In order to correct the mistake, you need to REMOVE material, not add it. Paint can only add material, and not to the extent needed to change the basic profile of the ridge.

See the following diagram which illustrates the incorrect ridge profile of the MFX:


 The blue line is the plane where the correction needs to be made. Above the line material needs to be removed, below the line material needs to added. Paint can add that 0.3mm or so into the trough of the ridge where it will pool (and that will account for why the MFX ridge trough is deeper than the prop) but it cannot take away the 0.3mm material that ruins the ridge shape.

Wednesday, 18 November 2009

Interlude - "ich lieb dich nicht du liebst mich nicht, a-ha"

A little musical interlude from two of my little chinese compatriots:

This one is for the guy who banned me from RPF, ManfromNaboo aka Fuhrer Michael Bauers



Sieg heil mein fuhrer!

Jet Beetle bugs out

Following on from the extraordinarily laughable claims made by Jet Beetle, he's just posted the following on RPF:

"look, I never started this thread to push anyone's buttons - in fact this whole search started in a way to help a friend of mine who loves the show and has been looking for years to find the item in question. I knew a few people from work who provided me with photos and a couple of behind the scene videos (shot for their own personal enjoyment while on set) and i cannot go and put that stuff up here. this is not something I do everyday and it's not even that important to me - I enjoy the hunt but I'm too busy to put more than 5% of my time in it. Anyone who knows me off board knows everything that is on my desk now and how many deadlines I have. i came here because this is a community where I like and respect almost - almost - everyone and I knew if there was additional info it would come to me. I didn't expect it to be set on fire for it. I don't like to be called names - no one does, especially by someone who seems to have just shown up to do just that.

Seeing how this has gone down - and how I don't want to be part of 3rd grade recess again - i'm going to keep our findings to ourselves. The few of you who have PMed me about getting in on what we have discovered and the item you need to find (photos of the item will be provided) you are still in the circle."

Er...ok Paul. What this stupid, dumbass cunt seems to forget is that no one is asking for his oh-so-exclusive behind the scenes footage: it has no bearing on his claims or provides any proof anyway. We are asking for a pic of his claimed 'found item'. Even just a small section of it to verify his claim. His reluctance is based on the fact that he doesn't want others to find one and drive the price up. That is bullshit because he has already said what he claims it is: a chiropractic activator. There is only one brand in the world anyway and Dr Fuhr has already refuted it. Showing a pic is not going to change things one way or another except make him look good.

He has no pic, he has no proof and I bet that even that knob jockey Bob Mitsch must be cringing as by staying silent on the matter he's just as complicit in this bullshit as Jet Beetle is.

I hate to say it, but I told you so. Jet Beetle is a liar and a bullshitter and he's decided to take the easy way out.

Way to go douchebag....

CT Master's Ring - Why it is the best

The Master's Ring was my very first project and was what really made me realise I was good at this. When I set about creating this piece I wanted to create the best ring I could, something that was even superior to the filming prop. I believe I succeeded in capturing a level of detail and refinement that even the prop could not manage. A lot of people have asked me how I did it and how it differs from the cheaper imitation version available from Animainment.

Well, the answer is simple: I created a highly intricate die with the design on it and I used a coin machine to stamp out the design out of sheets of pure sterling silver. This is what the raw product looks like:



These were then soldered onto silver signet ring blanks:



And then infilled with enamel:





As you will see, the level of detail and finish on mine is superior in every respect to the Animainment versions. The Animainment version is highly simplified whereas my version preserves every detail of the original design.
Compare mine above, the copy below:


The Classic Sonic Screwdriver Controversy


The classic halo headed Sonic Screwdriver holds a fond place in my heart. It was the first prop that really captured my imagination and I remember those heady childhood days growing up in London and playing Doctor Who in the playground when all I ever wanted was my own sonic screwdriver. I even fashioned a makeshift substitute from an old Gillette razor handle to accessorise those little roleplays.

The story of the origins of the classic sonic screwdriver stretch all the way back to 1966 and the live action Supermarionation movie "Thunderbirds are Go!". Within the film there are closeups of real actor's hands using real props. Here are some screenshots of the original prop:





Anyway, to cut a long story short, in the early 70's, Ian Scoones who was an ex-Thunderbirds visual effects guy and then working on Doctor Who, got wind that Gerry Anderson's production company were selling off a job lot of old props. Scoones acquired this lot for the BBC and amongst the goodies was the above prop.

The prop was then adapted for use on Doctor Who and made its first appearance in Curse of the Peladon. This sonic screwdriver was handed down from Pertwee to Baker to Davison, undergoing several modifications along the way before meeting its end in The Visitation.

So where is the controversy? Well, there are some people claiming that this prop was a bought, off-the-shelf item. The sad, deluded dickhead in question, Jet Beetle on the RPF, is claiming that the sonic screwdriver was, in fact, a medical tool called a chiropractic activator. In fact, he claims to have definitive proof, but more of this sad soul's raving later.

Why would he think this? Let's look at the presented evidence.

A chiropractic activator is basically a spring loaded tool that is used apply force to a vertebra to realign it. The technique was developed during the sixties in the US by Dr Arlan Fuhr. He based this tool on a dental impaction hammer, which was essentially a spring loaded centre punch.

He founded an entire business on this tool back in 1967 and in 1974, made his Chiropractic Activator Adjusting Instrument Mk 1 (Activator 1) commercially available for the first time. This was based on his original 1967 prototype. Here's what it looks like:



Looks similar to a classic sonic doesn't it?

Well, in 1994 Dr Fuhr released the Chiropractic Activator Adjusting Instrument Mk 2 (Activator 2):



Now the similarities become more apparent.

However, there are two major problems here.

First, Ian Scoones has stated categorically that the Sonic Screwdriver prop was  scratch built  by the late Tony Dunsterville (below) and this has been confirmed by several sources including the Thunderbirds are Go! director David Lane.




Secondly, pictures of the Thunderbirds prop were sent to both Dr Arlan Fuhr and to Professor Hugh Gemmell, teacher of Activator methods at Anglo-European College of Chiropractic and the following replies were recieved:

From Professor Gemmell:

"What can I tell you about the Activator? Well, it was, and still is, a therapeutic tool, a hand-held device intended to deliver a controlled and reproducible force. It was developed by Warren Lee and Arlan Fuhr in the 1960s for chiropractic use. It looks like the Activator in the picture ‘chiropractic-activator’ is a second generation model (Activator II). It just so happens that I have one sitting on the desk in front of me now. I understand that the idea for the original Activator came from a surgical mallet designed to split impacted wisdom teeth. The Activator is widely used by chiropractors today, and a number of variations on the theme exist. ...As far as I understand it, Activator II did not exist commercially until 1994, and the first Activator did not become available commercially until the mid-1970s. These dates are too late for the Thunderbirds prop. To the best of my knowledge, Lee and Fuhr’s Activator was developed in the United States in the 1960s, and not in Britain. "

Whilst Prof Gemmell acknowledges the visual similarity between the Sonic Screwdriver and the Activator 2, he raises a serious and fundamental issue which I will deal with shortly.

Dr Arlan Fuhr:

"I do not believe it is a modified 1967 Activator. It look like a screwdriver not a center punch."

You would think that the inventor of the device on which this prop was supposedly based would recognise it immediately? It could be argued that there must be many different designs and variation on this tool however one must understand that Dr Fuhr owns the IPR to this device and anyone who produces a similar device would need his permission to use the principle. He would therefore be in a position to know about similar devices. However, that is not the case as no other company but his produces these devices!




The basic flaw in the reasoning that the classic sonic screwdriver was a Chiropractic activator is that the dates make it IMPOSSIBLE for the Thunderbirds prop to be such a device since the prop existed a year before Dr Fuhr developed the Activator 1 and a decade before this device available commercially. Even more compelling is that the Activator 2, which bears most similarity to the classic sonic, was not available until 1994, over ten years since the prop was seen on screen and 5 years since the series ended!

When combined with the knowledge that Tony Dunsterville made the original Thunderbirds prop, there is probably more chance of finding Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Elvis and Michael Jackson playing strip poker on the moon than the classic Sonic Screwdriver being a found chiropractic activator.

This brings me onto the most deluded and misguided fool ever to grace an Internet message board since John Titor. 'Jet Beetle'.

This cretin has claimed, in the face of overwhelming common sense and evidence to the contrary, that he has located and found the Activator which he claims the classic Sonic is made from:


This stupid, ignorant fuckmunch has been ranted since March that he has evidence but between himself and that cardboard cutout cunt, Bob Mitsch, refuses to post any proof despite being called out on it. You would think that the easiest way of shutting up those, including myself, who think he is a cockspanner of the highest order, would be to post proof. Any kind of proof. Even maybe just a small section that allegedly matches the prop. But no...he stalls, he attacks others and he fudges the issue. I've even offered him $50k of my own money, my home, my watch and hell, even my porn stash. So confident am I that he is bluffing I will put up any stake into escrow to prove what a bullshitter he is. So how about it? Will Jet Beetle either piss or get the fuck off the pot? No proof will ever come because of the reasons I have stated. Jet Beetle is a liar and not a particularly convincing one either and the sooner those on the RPF who give him any kind of credence realise that the Sonic Screwdriver was a one-off custom made piece, the better.