Re: From the Archives .....

On 25/04/2024 13:49, The Last Doctor wrote:

The Idiot Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

In article <v0akoq$28crk$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor  <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

On 24/04/2024 07:26, The Last Doctor wrote:

The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:

In article <v09lch$1ublm$1@dont-email.me>,
The False Doctor  <agamemnon@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:

On 24/04/2024 00:10, The Last Doctor wrote:

>
I was fourteen and it was completely obvious on-screen and from the in-show
dialogue that the eleven faces shown going back in time were meant to be
earlier faces of the Doctor in order. And it still is when the scene is
rewatched.

>
No it isn't. Everything shown on screen is deliberately designed to
indicate that the person who is winning the game is the one whose face
is shown on screen and that is made to obvious even to a 6 year old.

>
Contradiction is not an argument.
>

>
Yes it is. It's used all the time in mathematical proofs.

 As Aggie knows full well, there is a significant difference between a
rigorous mathematical proof and a fool yelling “No it isn’t!” over and over
again.

Squealer either doesn't know how proof by contradiction works or is pretending he doesn't in order to perpetuate his lies and false narratives.

 If someone says “2+2=4” and the response is “no it isn’t! I say 2+2=-7!”
there is no proof there, merely an asserted contradiction.
 

That's not proof by contradiction.

The Faces of Morbius is a much more nuanced case and the facts are there on
screen and in interviews with those responsible.
 > When the producer and writer say that they are faces of the Doctor, and
what we see on screen is :
 The Doctor challenges Morbius to a mind-bending contest. He characterises
it as “Time Lord wrestling” but what it looks like is a sort of
visualisation of a tug of war of personal timelines.
 The first image we see is Morbius as he is now. Then, as the Doctor
initially has the upper hand, the image “pushes back” to the previous face

Nope. If the first face we see is that of Morbius then Morbius has the upper hand. That's basic directing, even in a wrestling match. The camera always focuses on the player in control, the man with the ball. If the person being shown is being knocked out then their facial appearance changes to one of pain. Pain is not shown in anyone's face, therefore common logic and intuition dictates the faces are those of the person winning.
Squealer isn't going to convince anyone with his ridiculous dissembling. Everyone knows that he's covered in paint with a ladder and paint can on top of him because he tried to use the ladder to climb to the top of the barn to change the rules by repainting them himself, and it wasn't anything to do with Snowball who to all intents and purposes is dead.

of Morbius. Then Morbius pushes back and we see Tom’s face. Then Jon

Nope. Tom Baker pushes back and we see Tom's face.

Pertwee’s. Then Tom doubles down and we see his face again. But then

Tom is weakened so we see Pertwee.

Morbius gleefully powers up and Tom becomes Pertwee again, then Troughton,
then Hartnell, then the eight mystery faces. And Morbius is crowing, as
this montage shows on screen:

Then after Hartnell the Doctor no longer has control of the game and Morbius takes control with his previous minds until he kills the Doctor.

 “Is your mind, Doctor, going?” (As Tom’s face first changes to Jon’s).
 

Because Tom is being defeated, so he uses Jon's mind.

(Then silence as they wrestle for a few moments and as Morbius gains the
upper hand and Tom’s face becomes Jon’s again:)
 “How far, Doctor? How long have you lived?”
 (Jon turns into Pat, then Bill)
 

The 4th Doctor is still in control of the game. It's Tug-of-War. The greater part of the rope is still on the Doctor's side of the field and his team has not toppled. The Doctor still has the upper hand.

And then he continues over the next sequence:
 “Your puny mind is powerless against the strength of Morbius! … Back. To.
Your. Beginning!”
 (Bill changes to another face, then another, and another … 8 more faces in
all, until Morbius’ Brian case overloads and the contest ends abruptly with
Morbius staggering away and Tom falling unconscious.)

Showing that now the grater part of the rope is on Morbius's side of the field after the Doctor's mind has been overpowered by Morbius's. Thus Morbius's faces appear on screen, until he kills the Doctor with the finial face of Morbius as victor.

 If those were Morbius’s faces, why didn’t the Doctor’s faces roll forward
to Tom again? Or why didn’t the image switch back to show the current or

Why would Tom's face appear on screen when the Doctor is DEAD!? How can a dead man project his face on a screen? Morbius has one and he is the only one capable of projecting his face on the screen so his face stays there in victory.

previous Morbius first before rolling back to show the earlier faces, as
the Doctor’s did?
 Morbius says “How far, how long have you lived?” as the screen goes back
from Baker to Hartnell - and as the same sequence continues into the
unknown faces, he cries “Back to YOUR beginning!” …  although, of course,
as the contest is cut short, there could be many more lives still to go
that are not seen there …

The Doctor already went back to his beginning when we saw Hartnell's face. That's when Morbius tells him that. It's made even more bloody obvious by Dicks in the novelization. The other faces are those of Morbius and the Doctor is trying to push him back to his beginning, and fails. If they're the faces of the Doctor going back to his beginning why isn't even one of them female, let alone black. Where is Jo Martin's face. Where is the face of the Timeless Child Monster?
There, that's proof of my assertion by contradiction. Chibnall destroyed any and all claim to using The Brain of Morbius to back up his childish fan fiction the moment he declared that Ruth was Hartnell's immediate predecessor.

 The logic of what is seen on screen, and the accompanying dialogue, are
obvious. People can argue otherwise, or argue from Terrance Dicks’s retcon

They are so obvious that they entirely destroy your argument Squealer. You fell off the ladder and were seen covered in paint because you tried to alter the rules, alter continuity.
Terrance Dicks’s wasn't a retcon, because all existing continuity established Hartnell as the first Doctor. Does The Three Doctor's give you a hint?

in the novelisation of the script he hated so much he refused to be
associated with it … but they’re arguing from emotion and a desire for
later restrictions to be consistent and not contradictory to this scene.
Not from logic. And I hate to say it but squaring that circle without
denying the truth of one or more televised stories, requires a convoluted
twist in the history like the Timeless Child.
 

The Timeless Child is not and can never be the Doctor. Doctor Who ended in 2017.

>

It's fully explained in that exact manner the original script writer
himself in his own novelization of his own script.

>
Aggie needs to make up his mind.
>
Does he want to include all off screen material by the writers directly
relating to the show? If not, then no elaboration or additional fan fic
added in novelisations counts. If it was in the scripts but cut or changed
on screen then it is also no longer relevant. And on screen it’s clear
those are pre-Hartnell Doctors and it’s so no matter how many times Aggie
screams “IS NOT!”
>
But if so, then the material excised from the original writer’s scripts
counts, and Whitaker’s take on renewal for the Power of the Daleks counts.
And as that is earlier than Morbius then it takes precedence according to
Aggie, and there are pre-Hartnell Doctors.
>

>
Absolute rubbish.
>
Terrance Dicks wrote the original script and wrote the novelization.

 Terrance Dicks disowned the script - the story was saw was a compete
rewrite by Robert Holmes.
 The novelization is irrelevant to what is on screen. And what is on screen
is a subset of prior incarnations of the Doctor.

What is shown on screen is exactly as it is described by Dicks in his own novelization of his own story. The faces of the Doctor are shown until he is taken back to his very beginning, thus totally destroying the argument of the Timeless Child monster from the very beginning, and the other faces are those of Morbius who is now winning again. It's blatantly obvious even to a 6 year old child.

 

all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in
disguise, since it's clearly not Tom Baker.

>
Aggie thinks Morbius was Tom Baker and the faces are meant to be Tom Baker
in disguise? Is that in Terrance Dicks novelisation too (or attempted total
rewrite of the story, as it would seem)?

>
I said nothing of the kind.

 Aggie wrote: “all the faces the viewer does not recognize are those
generated by Morbius of himself as he appeared in the past and in disguise,
since it's clearly not Tom Baker.”
 So he wrote that he thinks the faces are Morbius, in the past, and in

Everything we are shown on screen shows the viewer that those are the faces of Morbius. There is not suggestion whatsoever that the Doctor had lives before Hartnell.

disguise: because it’s not Tom Baker. Logically, therefore, if Morbius
hadn’t been in disguise, Aggie thinks he WOULD have been Tom Baker. It’s
right there in what Aggie wrote, all in one unedited sentence. “Nothing of
the kind”, indeed. That’s EXACTLY what he wrote. And since he is such a
self-proclaimed master of good writing, what he wrote must be what he
meant.

I said nothing of you kind Squealer. Your dissembling isn't fooling anyone. The person winning the tug-of-war is the person whose faces are displayed on the screen, like in any game show or sporting event when the gymnast with the highest score has their face repeatedly shown on screen unless they are taken over by someone else, and their their face replaces them.
Where is the face of Jo Martin? Where is even one female face at all? Where is even one black face? They're all white males, because they're the faces, or disguises used by Morbius who we have already been told is a fugitive from Gallifrey.

 

You think Chibnall can write better than a 6 year old child? Don't make
me laugh. Chibnall writes like a child with autism which has never read
a book before in its entire life. He doesn't understand characters, he
doesn't understand interpersonal relationships, he doesn't understand
social interaction, and he doesn't understand romance. Oh, and he
doesn't understand science in any way, shape, or form, whatsoever.

>
Sounds like Aggie thinks he and Chris Chibnall are soulmates! He certainly
seems to be describing himself (well, to be fair, Aggie does know a bit of
science. But as he’s rejected logic and rationality, it doesn’t do him any
good).

>
Sounds like a depiction of your own self.
>

>
Hear! Hear!! AGA!

 Correct Dave - it is a description of Aggie.
 

It is a description of yourself.
--
The True Doctor https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCngrZwoS0n21IRcXpKO79Lw
"To be woke is to be uninformed which is exactly the opposite of what it stands for." -William Shatner