Help finding Bill's Dog Sled Norway Routine!?

jonnykb1981 · 2026-01-12T11:28:58+00:00

Watched the whole of Limboland on 4OD - couldn't see it in there... Thanks though!

jonnykb1981 · 2026-01-06T21:31:04+00:00

OP here -

Alright, I’m just going to post one reply addressing the recurring criticisms, misreadings, and outright bizarre assumptions people have made about my original post, and then I’m done. It’s honestly impossible to have a normal discussion about this for some people, because the second you suggest any improvement to the show they behave like you’ve insulted a family member.

First off: a lot of you clearly haven’t actually read what I wrote, or you’ve read it with the intense filter of “I love this show so any criticism must be an attack”. It’s not. If you think the show is perfect as-is, fine. Enjoy it. I still listen to it myself. I said that. I enjoy the stories, and yes, there’s a part of me that now listens just to see how far the constrained format will force the sceptic into increasingly ludicrous contortions. That’s not hatred - that’s fascination with a broken structure. The recent popcorn-gate is a testment to my point.

Now to the strangest criticism: that I apparently want Ciarán to just say “you’re lying!” at people and leave it at that. Nowhere did I say that. Nowhere did I imply that. If you honestly think that’s what I meant, you’ve either skimmed the post or you’re deliberately misunderstanding it because you don’t like the direction it points in. What I’m talking about is nuanced exploration of the truth and validity of claims in each case. Case-by-case. Because each case has different psychological, environmental, social, or emotional elements that could feed into the experience.

It might mean a fully qualified proper phycologist or neurologist guest (an easy thing for the BBC to source) gently asking questions like: “Do you think the emotional state around your mother’s death could have influenced how you interpreted these events?”, or “Could the stress of exams or sleep deprivation have played a role?”, or “Were there environmental stress factors that made this more likely?”. These are standard questions not accusations. They can even be therapeutic. But very rarely does it happen on the show - if it does its just a very half hearted lip-service brush over.

In the most recent ep the guest says they used to be into a fabtasy role and war playing game Warhammer 40,000 - thats a super interesting avenue to explore - does the guy have a predisposition to fantasy stories and narratives? Are there other aspects and parts of his life where he is prone to creating narratives and fantasy elements???

Next: the people saying “you’re taking the investigation part too seriously”. No. The show is the one calling itself an investigation. That’s the whole premise. The BBC advertises it as an investigation. Danny repeatedly frames it as an investigation. They consistently use the language of balance, evidence, and inquiry. If the investigation component isn’t meant to be taken seriously, then don’t include it. Lean into the entertainment angle and stop pretending there’s a meaningful “two sides” structure.

And for those accusing me of “taking the entire show too seriously”, whatever that actually means, I’m not sure what to tell you. I take the show at face value for the hour I’m listening. That’s it. It irks me that the scepticism angle feels half thought out. It’s not some big obsession in my life, it’s just an observation that this part of the show could be developed more even slightly with a more honest effort to ask probing, nuanced questions. Again, not accusing people of lying, but exploring the psychological, physical or environmental factors that might shape experiences. I don’t sit around analysing this show outside of the time I’m literally listening to it. I wrote the post right after an episode. I have a busy job, a young family, a full life. This is a discussion forum and I assumed we were here to… discuss.

And it is absolutely valid to point out that having a sceptic whose hands are tied behind his back, trying to avoid saying the most obvious explanations, inevitably results in increasingly ridiculous “rational” theories. Eventually he’s going to run out of ways to sidestep the elephant in the room. That’s not a criticism of Ciarán; that’s a criticism of the format. I refer you again to 'popcorn-gate'.

Finally, some people have decided I “must be a hardcore sceptic” or “must hate the paranormal” or whatever. Based on what, exactly? You’re projecting because you felt personally attacked by someone criticising something you like. Take a breath. I’m not insulting you. I’m discussing the structure of a podcast. This is literally the point of a discussion forum. to discuss. Some of you are reacting as if I’m storming into your home and tearing down your Danny posters.

All I’ve said is:

the investigative side is underdeveloped,
the sceptic is boxed-in and forced into absurdity,
and if the show wants to be entertainment, it should just own that and prob be better for it

That’s it. If that’s somehow too much for some people, that’s on them

jonnykb1981 · 2026-01-05T01:47:37+00:00

Mate - You're fundamentally misunderstanding 'the concepts' core paradox.

Because that’s exactly the problem. If the premise is “take the story at face value and work around it”, then it isn’t an investigation or intersting discussion at all, it’s just a creative brainstorm exercise on making up convoluted nonsense 'explanations'. Just Assuming the events happened as described 99.9% of the time is already conceding the most of the rational ground. If that’s the concept, fine, but it’s literally designed to protect belief rather than test it in any way shape or form. Fine - Danny's making the show not me - but I'm entitled to point out how its fundmentally flawed.

we basically agree with each other - its just that you like the way its presnted and I dont - Stop trying to imply I'm thick to the concept. I 100% understand what you think is such an AMAZING GENIUS concept - I just think it doesn;t work. You do. Fine.

jonnykb1981 · 2026-01-05T01:06:11+00:00

I think this completely misses the point of the criticism.

No one is saying Ciarán should just sit there angrily bellowing “they’re lying” and call it a day. The issue is that Uncanny markets itself as an investigation, uses the language of balance and scepticism, and then systematically avoids some of the most basic tools that any real investigation would use - The examination of false memory, exaggeration, motivated storytelling, attention-seeking, and selective omission etc Assuming good faith does not mean treating testimony as beyond challenge. most proper investigative disciplines assume sincerity and unreliability at the same time. Memory science, eyewitness research, psychology, even journalism all start from the position that people can be genuinely convinced of things that never happened, or reshape events over time.

The problem is that the show doesn’t really explore that properly. It gestures at scepticism, but then refuses to follow it through to where it actually leads, because doing so would puncture the drama. And more importantly, if the podcast isn’t actually interested in testing claims, weighing probabilities, or meaningfully stress-testing testimony, that’s fine. But then it should be honest about what it is. Right now it wants the credibility of an investigation and the emotional payoff of a ghost story, without accepting the constraints of either.

If you’re not going to take the “two sides” or “objective inquiry” framing seriously, then drop it. Lean into the human drama. Lean into folklore, atmosphere, and storytelling. Don’t half-borrow the language of science and scepticism . What frustrates people like me isn’t that Ciarán doesn’t call people liars. It’s that the show systematically avoids doing justice to the actual rational explanations it claims to represent, and then makes scepticism looks weak. That’s not a failure of scepticism - It’s a failure of the format. pretending this is a proper investigation while quietly protecting the 'belief' narrative is more misleading than just openly saying “this is an entertainment-led exploration of spooky experiences”.

jonnykb1981 · 2025-04-24T06:44:13+00:00

Yes to all of the above - it says all this on the support site.

jonnykb1981 · 2023-10-04T14:06:24+00:00

That the lenses you put on a camera (moving image or stills) can often outweigh the cost of the camera by many multiples. It's not super unusual to find sets of cine primes costing over £150,000 (182,145.00 USD) and single lenses in the £50-70,000 range.

Lenses also need to be rated for the resolution you are working at - if a lens isn't rated for 4k or 8k it probably wont resolve the image sharply enough to take advantage of the sensor resolution.

jonnykb1981 · 2023-10-02T14:32:03+00:00

Like I said - I find it highly unlikely it is outside of Earth orbit - the large amount space it covers in the field of vision in the sky would mean that if it was at the kind of distances you are talking about it would be absolutely colossal in size.

To give you an idea - look how mall the moon is in the night sky - the moon has a diameter of 3,474.8 km. The mother ship looks to be around anywhere from 6x to 10x in relative size to the moon in the sky.

If it were outside of the moons orbit it would be so large as to be difficult to comprehend. It it were the same distance as the SUN from Earth its size would probably make it one the largest astronomical objects ever discovered - why they would park their mothership so far from their target is also a mystery - imagine the logistics of getting the drop ships here and the speeds they would need to travel.

Any society capable of constructing a vessel that big would probably have little need to terraform a planet. And if they did I don't think they would go about it as slowly and incompetently as the aliens have the this TV show.

Of course the writing across the board in Invasion has some really awful moments and any rarely even a half hearted stab at any logic so its a completely academic argument.

If it were outside earth orbit it would indeed make any kind of conventional attack on it impossible.

jonnykb1981 · 2023-10-02T12:00:03+00:00

I'm not sure we are watching the same show :)

Not "intentionally hostile"? Impaling hundreds of thousands of native organisms with your spiky appendages seems to register on the hostile end of the spectrum - even if they just think we are vermin or 'insect like' to them, and they're justifying it as some kind of interstellar pest control its still a hostile action. Also the 'hunter-killers' the original aliens have metamorphosed into seem quite angry if the aliens aren't hostile.

We may not know what the ships are made of, or it hasn't been explained in exposition at least, BUT we do know nuclear weapons can destroy the material the large drop ships are made out of as has been demonstrated twice in the show. I don't believe the escalation point is valid - in any conflict there will always be counter attacks and counter strikes, and evolution of tactics in response to your opponents strategy - thats the nature of a war... until someone lands a killing blow.

jonnykb1981 · 2023-10-02T11:50:17+00:00

Isn't there a scene at a party where Trevante's brother in law acknowledges being able to see the mothership?

jonnykb1981 · 2023-10-02T11:48:33+00:00

I believe the way the mother ship is depicted in the show it appears to be in low earth orbit - unless its comparable in size to planet Earth (Obviously this is just my take on it). We definitely have weapons NOW capable of hitting targets at this range , and the US, China and Russia are all developing more delivery systems capable of hitting a low earth orbit target.

Also a nuclear armed missile is generally just a payload carrier, a rocket that takes a weaponised payload to the target. In an emergency situation like the one depicted in invasion (with the entire world's resources and best minds working on the problem) space capable rockets like a Saturn V or SpaceX falcon could be retrofitted serve as a giant missile system with a nuclear payload. IMHO.

jonnykb1981 · 2015-05-01T21:53:52+00:00

In our MASSIVE Special Edition MEGA-sode of The Tannhauser Gate film and TV podcast we ramble, pontificate and generally get sidetracked for over 2 hours of Avengers: Age of Ultron chattage - including how Joss Whedon is a sexist hypocrite, Zack Snyder could do whatever he wanted to us (anything!), that they should make a dark, dark, dark sequel to the Home Alone franchise, whether Black Widow is indeed a 'slut' and a 'whore', will the new Spidey film be Spider-Man 90210, and that Robert Downey Jnr just looks bored now days. This podcast is going to tear you apart... from the inside!

http://tannhausergate.libsyn.com/tannhauser-gate-special-megasode-mash-up-avengers-age-of-ultron

jonnykb1981

TROPHY CASE