Posted on 06/07/2002 7:45:03 AM PDT by mrustow
I loved the third season, but it did bounce back and forth between episodes on Millennium Group world domination/annihilation, purely religious stories, and serial killer themes.
Your reference to the 'weird serial murderer of the week' syndrome recalls an episode involving two guys with special forces training, who would randomly murder strangers, a case which reminded Emma of the murder of her sister many years earlier, by a man who eerily resembled (but was not) one of the two killers. I tried to track down that episode, but couldn't.
I thought the sexual chemistry between Lance Henriksen (Frank Black) and Klea Scott (Agent Emma Hollis) was torrid, even if -- or because? -- it was never consummated. I am convinced that Chris Carter had planned on Frank and Emma having an affair in the fourth season.
Because the show was cancelled, and Carter had only an episode or two left, he had to make some hard decisions, and couldn't resolve all the prominent story lines. Although the "Frank and Emma" story line was very important, it was secondary to the "Frank and Peter Watts" thread, which ran through the length of the series, and was its moral heart. Carter had set up a brother-type relationship -- both men had the same green eyes, and even the same, athletic gait -- in which Peter appeared to be "Cain" to Frank's "Abel." But that wasn't the case. Peter WAS his brother's keeper, and died to save Frank. That was arguably the dramatically most important thing the final episode did; otherwise, the entire series would have lost much of its narrative and moral coherence.
Right. Thanks for reminding us. Remember when that got recycled back here by the media, as if it was something serious? If we had actually known the source of the story was some pinko environmental science professor from a some no-name college, would we have taken it seriously for a moment? But then, that's par for the course when it comes to anthrax mythology. The standard spin before Nuthatch Rosenberg was the rightwing militia theory, seeded into the public domain by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post. That one was starting to fray around the edges, because too many reports were appearing about the sophistication of the anthrax. Of course, before that myth, there was the "mountain stream" myth. The only constant in the officially-nurtured spin on the anthrax is that it's always baloney.
Source?
Cheney went on Cipro on the evening of 9-11, according to the Washington Post. Saddam's logical next move was pretty obvious, given that (a) he is a sitting duck for US retaliation and (b) the only WMD we know he has at his disposal is anthrax. Even if no explicit threat was communicated, it really wasn't particularly hard to figure out what the possibilities for a followup were.
Don't swallow the guff about the anthrax being different in Florida. That was aerosolizable, military grade, too -- only maybe mixed up in a paste. It killed people, remember. Nobody in the entire history of the world had been killed by weaponized anthrax until a few days after a team of twenty Middle Eastern hijackers seized four airliners, knocked down both towers of the World Trade Center, ploughed into the Pentagon and tried to destroy the White House. Coincidence? I don't think so!
BTW, I think the anthrax sent to the hijackers' landlord was a goof. Seems like Atta had a very sick sense of humor.
Despite his powers, Frank was certainly fallible in his decisions (For example, when he let that gas station attendent get killed in the “urban legend” episode. They never addressed that major screw up.)
But since Fox cancelled the show, we’ll never know much of what happened in all the various plotlines.
The “wrap-up” on X-Files was beyond lame and didn’t tell anybody much.
My favorite episodes were any ones with Lucy Butler. She was seriously evil. I wonder which episodes were the favorite of the obvious "Millenium" fan, Barbara Hatch Rosenberg.
I think it works something like this:
Step I: Lurking mainstream pundit/editor sees FR vanity post or archive tying together different strands of factual research that the media have either ignored, or been too timid to follow up on, and jokes to his colleagues, "Look at those wackos!"
Step II: Mainstream pundit/editor sees well-researched article from web news provider (e.g., Toogood Reports, World News Daily, frontpagemag, enterstageright), digging up conections, and finding smoking guns that the media have either ignored, or been too timid to follow up on, and again jokes to his colleagues, "Those nutjobs never quit!," but thinks to himself, "Hmm, this story might have legs."
Step III: The editor starts seeing more e-zine articles, and begins getting query letters pitching exposes on the topic from "losers" (i.e., freelancers who went to the "wrong" schools, and aren't friends of any of his friends). Although never intending to run the "loser's" work, the editor either tells the writer to submit a lengthy manuscript "on spec" (meaning, with no obligation on the editor's part), which the editor will plagiarize in an article, or give to a colleague to plagiarize for an assigned article, or he'll run with the query letter and plagiarize the already published articles.
Step IV: The editor and/or pundit bask in the accolades and awards for the big expose.
P.S. The above scenario is only partly speculative. For anyone who thinks I'm exaggerating or paranoid, consider this: How many times have you seen an article or column by a big-name writer, or published by a brand-name outlet, that echoed a recent FR post? How often have you heard a mainstream writer give credit to FR, in helping him break a story?
Mind you, I'm talking about the most "respectable" houses here, including the New York Times.
Right. Thanks for reminding us. Remember when that got recycled back here by the media, as if it was something serious? If we had actually known the source of the story was some pinko environmental science professor from a some no-name college, would we have taken it seriously for a moment? But then, that's par for the course when it comes to anthrax mythology. The standard spin before Nuthatch Rosenberg was the rightwing militia theory, seeded into the public domain by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post. That one was starting to fray around the edges, because too many reports were appearing about the sophistication of the anthrax. Of course, before that myth, there was the "mountain stream" myth. The only constant in the officially-nurtured spin on the anthrax is that it's always baloney.
A google search turns up many early European stories from late 2001 and early 2002. One of the first such stories is in German, from January, 2002. So it looks like you've figured out her m.o. -- use European environmentalist and media organizations, in order to get her foot in the door of the American media.
Her first big hit in the U.S. was to my knowledge -- or rather Cliff Kincaid's knowledge -- Jerry Seper's February 25 Washington Times story.
Nothing to what? It's pretty hard to respond to vague, accusatory, rhetorical questions. As for your White House Cipro claim, I'd love to see some factual support for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.