High Moon - Part 1

THE PLAN

Back when I robbed banks you had to plan very carefully. It can take nearly no planning at all to steal a thing. Robbery needs real cunning. Many an apple has been taken to feed a desperate and hungry belly, I myself have fed this way often, and not always on apples. But a bank robbery should be approached with care.

The best of bank robberies, those that succeed in all appreciable ways, require thought and preparation. Consideration should be given to how life could upset everything involved. Jack and I found out in the early days how badly it could all go wrong, and to be fair I took longer than he to learn the way of it.

Our first few attempts were laughable, and we did laugh at them. Riding out of town whooping and hollering glad to be alive and free. But as soon as we started seeing those posters we knew that if we really thought banks were good pickings we had to get good at it.

They wanted us both but with Jack's priors his poster offered twice my bounty. Added to that they wanted Jack 'Shackles" Stannard dead or alive. As for me, Bobby Cobb was no killer. Why I didn't even rate a nick name. I had nothing to hang my reputation on but the name my pa' put on me at birth.

So we kept moving. Drifting through makeshift mining towns all across the western states and took no job and no charity. It was me watching his back and him watching mine. That's how you survived, a good gun, a good friend and as much luck as the lord allows you.

But as fast as we used our luck we picked up pure talent. Jack was doing the planning and I admired his analysis. So we brought all our skills to bare making a showcase of all we had learned. He put things together so that we struck this savings house like lightning. Pulling out faster than thunder and away into the hills with saddlebags of loot to keep us in drink and women for months.

Jack's smile as we camped that night helped me feel more respect than I had my whole life. It was a moment, just a second or two where I realized I'd done something worth doing. My pa might never know how his son was managing but I felt proud.

When we spoke the next morning he was holding an old envelope, and rubbing his scarred wrists. He seemed quiet at first but as I brought the fire back to life he warmed and started to share. The papers he was holding were documents, bills of sale and the like, numbers and figures, lists of dates and details. It wasn't much of anything to me but in his eyes it made sense.

He'd been planning a huge score and this last strike was a practice. These papers showed how some big family from central europe had moved a massive chest over to the bank near their new home here in the states. The chest had gone on ahead, and according to the receipts and documents had arrived safely. But the family itself had not. Their ship sank, with all hands lost at sea.

This large chest was said to contain their gold and jewels. But with no one to collect it the treasure had remained forgotten in the vault for fifty years. The only record of the contents was here in his hand. If we got in, opened the chest and filled our bags with the gold we would be rich for life.

He made it sound highly tempting, and we discussed the plan and what we'd spend our fortunes on as we broke camp and headed to what would prove to be our doom.

The final paradox

The inevitability is built into the very nature of the universe. As such this is not a prophecy of destruction, or a prediction. It is a fact of human nature, or of the nature of curiosity and ineptitude in unequal amounts.

Once life formed the universe's doom was sealed. Life is curious, evolution is an expression of that curiosity, at every step life moves on towards the beginning of understanding the cosmos. Sentient life becomes aware of itself and develops the ability to invent new ways to interact with it's surroundings.

The power of invention leads to destruction as easily as creation. The endeavours of life forms to improve their understanding leads to mastery of all the universe's mightiest secrets. Forces of nature such as electricity, atomics, and even time.

But in all the trials of intellect failures are inevitable. Errors in judgement, arrogant blunders and foolish mistakes can be assumed universal. As such weapons are hilt and put to use by the warmonger and even the least lethal of breakthroughs are abused.

So it comes to the fantasy of time travel. If it is possible will it find it's masters wise enough for it's application? Surely not. We consider the possibility of paradoxically preventing our own existence by killing our grandfathers. But I suggest there is one inevitable paradox, the final paradox. In our thirst for knowledge, our effort to satisfy the drive of curiosity we will fulfil our primary purpose. The suicide of the cosmos. We will apply the technology of time travel to investigate the the primal origins.

In so doing the playground for our folly will include that most delicate of play things, and in our clumsy hands will rest all the beginnings of existence. We will be trusted to keep safe all the cosmos and of course we'll break it. We will be the undoing of everything. Inevitably we will produce the final paradox - that the universe will create a creature that will prevent the existence of the universe that created it.

A return in need

I need to start writing again.

Review - Angels and Demons

Whatever you think of Dan Brown's prose, his view on religion or the controversy that comes out of his work there's no denying the success of the Da Vinci Code, which brought in a profit of over $700 million. Whether this was a measure of deserved success or not, you can understand why director Ron Howard has returned to the franchise to bring us Angels and Demons.

Familiarity with Brown's books will prepare you for the film's thrills and intrigue, set this time in the papal halls of Vatican City. Tom Hanks returns in his role as Robert Langdon, the conspiracy thwarting professor of symbology, called in by the highest members of the Catholic faith in a time of great need. The pope is dead, and the Vatican are set to decide on the next pope. Langdon must find the four kidnapped prime candidates by midnight, the trail of clues he has to follow through the church's archives and artworks must also be completed in time to stop a bomb that could level the whole city.

Howard has brought together some great actors in sublime locations with a gripping plot, but he has fallen short of bringing us a great film. Tom Hanks' name lends the film credence but even his talent fails to give the lead character any depth or charisma. The supporting cast are headed by Ewan McGregor, possibly the most valued player in this production, but every other character seems to be in attendance to provide either a sounding board for Langdon's theories, or as a means for the writers to provide repetitive exposition for any viewer unable to see through the holes in the rather flimsy plot.

Hollywood gives us a view of the inner halls of the most powerful religious institution on the planet, yet it provides this treat with little grace or sincerity. We are spoiled with shots of fine art, and beautiful locations from within the heart of Rome. What we see of the church is a lot less critical than in the Da Vinci Code, a fact that got a review of “Harmless” from the Vatican's own news paper.

Then again the film's portrayal of Science is equally weak. The bomb threat that drives the focus is a convenient MacGuffin providing a sense of urgency that was missing in the earlier film. The suspected conspiracy behind the events of Angels and Demons is the Illuminati, a secretive order of Scientists. The ancient Catholic church stood against the pursuit of science, truth and reason and now the illuminated and reasonable scientists are looking to strike back with a big bomb.

Summoning up the Illuminati this way gives a name to the pursuit of knowledge and the ability to reason, providing the film with a scape goat. This villain can clearly be linked to original sin and the fall of man. The seeking of forbidden knowledge is what pulled man from God in the first place, therefore we are led to conclude the further we descend into scientific discovery the less connected mankind is to God. In contrast the church is portrayed as a spiritual set of brakes on a run away train, with McGregor defending faith as the voice of reason. He asks if man is ready to leap into the future, whether we have matured as a race enough to be trusted with God's secrets.

There are many highlights to recommend this movie, yet the only saving grace really carrying it is the hectic pace. You will need to keep your expectations low for the story to deliver it's few surprises.

Film Review - Race to Witch Mountain

It's not often you find an action movie as dark as Race to Witch Mountain, or a scary film so well aimed at the younger end of the market. In this reboot of the Witch Mountain franchise director Andy Fickman brings us a film about belief and faith in the unknown, in yourself and in those you depend on.

The film opens with a montage history lesson showing a faithful record of UFO sightings from around the world, providing even a young viewer with a brief introduction to the subject matter. Fickman is a confessed enthusiast of UFO interests and his treatment of the subject is honest, showing both the serious and goofy sides of the UFO fraternity.

The movie follows two teenagers Sarah (AnnaSophia Robb) and Seth (Alexander Ludwig) who hire taxi driver Jack Bruno (Dwayne Johnson) as they race to the titular destination. These kids soon display a range of special abilities that assist in their journey, leading Jack to learn they are aliens, who crashed on Earth, and must succeed in a mission of great importance.

Hunting them down is an alien assassin, designed by the studio who built the costumes for Alien and Predator. Also seeking them out are a bunch of government agents led by actor Ciarán Hinds (Caeser in the TV series Rome).

Pursuit from one or the other of these enemies supplies the source of drama and action throughout the movie, with chases ranging from the spectacular to the predictable. Sarah and Seth use their abilities, and Jack uses his skills and fists to evade danger time and again leaving any child in the audience on the edge of their seats, though most grown ups may struggle to feel engaged.

The real appeal for the mature audience might be the witty one-liners scattered throughout the film. In truth I suspect unless you were a fan of the original Witch Mountain films this will be a movie you sit through while your kids enjoy it. But if you do remember the first two films then the hints of continuity reaching back to the seventies and the cameo appearances from the original child actors, Kim Richards (Tia) and Ike Eisenmann (Tony) now all grown up, will make the movie magical.

Disney have managed to weave together action and adventure at a level suitable for children as low as seven or eight, and a story with levels of complexity and themes that should engage young teens up to the ages of fourteen or fifteen.

In the original Escape to Witch Mountain Tia and Tony presented a pair of otherworldly teenagers, who are experiencing a disconnect that teens the world over have to struggle through, but as that film closed the twins embraced that difference leaving humanity behind. In this film Sarah and Seth have that initial feeling of alienation and distrust but as their story draws to an end they learn to open up to their friends and embrace the more human elements of their nature.

In the current media there's a lot of focus on kids with special powers, such as certain orphaned wizards. In Sarah and Seth's story kids will find two teenagers they can identify with whilst escaping from the mundane for a while through impressive displays of psychic powers. As the characters develop over the length of the film and reach their trade mark Disney happy ever after, Sarah and Seth show that it's not all that bad being human. And as the credits roll the feeling of excitement and fun will stay with children for the duration of the drive home.

Film Review - Knowing

Fans of Knowing already compare it to Steven Speilberg's Close Encounters, and while parallels can be drawn there is only a shallow similarity.


Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler MIT professor and father of Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). The family is dealing with the death of Caleb's mother, a loss that drove John to doubt any form of supernatural order exists in the world. When Caleb's school digs up a time capsule buried in the late fifties each student receives an envelope. Caleb brings home a sheet of numbers, in which his father discovers a pattern with dates and death tolls of disasters spanning back to the burial of the capsule, and also predicting three disasters still to come.


Director Alex Proyas has aimed high with this slightly confused thriller/suspense/disaster sci-fi movie. Proyas' earlier works include I Robot, goth favourite The Crow and cult classics such Dark City. The film draws together elements from Close Encounters, Signs, and an episode of the Outer Limits called Inconstant Moon. The protagonist struggles with his lost faith whilst questing after a secret that leads to the final act, where we find the world itself is in peril and just maybe the numbers hold the key to mankind's salvation.


In truth the film does not stand out for its script, acting or effects, the music score is uninspiring and the overall emotional content is constantly dark and depressing with very few moments of joy. A feeling of suspense and an edge-of-the-seat thrill are present throughout the movie, with both more evident as the film's villains “The Whispering People” make more appearances.


The effects used for the three disasters don't wrap the audience in cotton wool, leaving you to feel the human cost and emotional impact. Nicolas Cage's finest moment as John comes after he witnesses a plane crash. The shell shock on his face displays his emotional turmoil and the conflict of his rationality fighting with the surety that he has a prediction of yet more disasters to come.


In Knowing, Proyas presents the story of one man's (Koestler's) struggle to reassess his understanding of the world. He comes to accept, through exposure to the remaining disasters and further research into the numbers, that there is a grand plan at work for the betterment of mankind. There are many clues that it is a Judeo-Christian plan, but the film delivers twists that show a different interpretation can be made. By the end of the film we are left with no doubt that the story we have seen, played out within a western society, has also been echoed around the globe, and it would be presumptuous to assume the other recipients of the prophecies were from solely Christian backgrounds.


Within the story there are many biblical themes. There is a question of whether a father can find it in himself to give up his only son to save mankind? You start to wonder how reassuring is it to have a higher being watch over us. And the central question seems to be - Is it better to know what is coming or to remain blissfully ignorant? We see the breakdown of society's morals, we see a representation of heaven and hell, and in the final moments of the movie we find a pointer to the tree of knowledge, bringing another insight into the title of the movie. There's plenty to take home and talk about from this film.


Knowing is thought provoking and accessible, it struggles with a few issues and resorts to a Deus-ex-machina ending, even still this is a worthy suspense movie. 7/10

Model of Creationist Evolution - Extra-temporal God

God is Extra-Temporal = He is able to act outside of time, to manipulate time and react in an non-causal manner. He is not limited by the forces that limit our actions within the passage of time.

An example of this could be - A man is mugged and left bleeding to death, he prays to god to have someone come and help him. God responds by having someone equipped to deal with this man's need walk by just at the right time. But in his omniscient way god knew this prayer would be made in advance and had the foresight to prompt the medic to attend medical school, and maybe even on the day pick up a first aid kit on their way out of the house that day. God initiated the answer to prayer before the prayer went out.

God is capable of working without, or even outside of, the constraints of time.

In today's world we are more aware of the shape and form that time takes. We have in our experiences encountered time travel stories that have expanded our understanding of how free movement through time allows for different methods of achieving goals.

With this in mind I have identified a model that allows the story of Genesis as told in the bible to match with the concept of evolution.

God created the world in 6 days. He did it in a set order as listed in Genesis. But he acted outside of the period of that week. In all Honesty he reported to the prophets that the creation of the world and all its creatures took him six days. But he was not restricted to acting solely within a continuous hundred and forty four hour period. Without the understanding of the nature of time and the idea or time travel the early Israel nation would not have grasped the full details and would have recorded the parts that whilst accurate do not tell the whole story.

He could even have drawn together the elements he wanted to work with in the Garden of Eden, so that the evolved creatures were all present at one time. When the first human male was created by God's hand he would have been the finest thing around. But very possibly he would have been quite lonely god takes the time to craft a mate and brings her to the garden.

All of this building and creation work was happening over the length of time that evolution takes, with the hand of the designer involved at all stages. He marvelled at his handiwork and proclaimed it good.

Exceptions -

I am not claiming that this is how the universe and man came to be, but I am saying it is a possible model or explanation. I'm saying it is in keeping with the character and abilities of God and that it doesn't contradict the teachings of Genesis as much as say the models where people claim that when God says it took a day his definition of a day is not like our definition of day. He with all honesty reports to the early Jewish church and the scripture writers that it took him a week and it still allows for the work to be carried out over a much longer period.

Objections -

I'm aware of automatic objections to this model.

First I expect to hear that I am using my Wisdom to supplant that of God. Well I'm not trying to. I'm trying to figure out how it could be that there is evidence I trust to support evolution, yet there is a record of God's involvement which I believe in and the two don't seem to tally.

The second objection I suspect will be aimed at my last point - some will object to the validity of the evolution evidence. In this model all evolution evidence can resolve with the biblical teachings, not that this makes the evidence valid but it removes the faith imperative to disprove the theory of evolution. The same would be true for the big bang. But if you still insist there is reasonable doubt that evolution has been proven I do not need to discourage you. Whether evolution is ever proven or not the above is an interpretation model that shows the events in the bible can be compatible with the theory, it does not require evolution to be true and it does not benefit or suffer should evolution be proved false.

There are other verses in the bible that suggest that evolution from one common ancestor is not true. 1 Corinthians 15:39-41 tells that all flesh is not the same. I'm not sure that this stands as a distinct argument against common ancestry I won't comment on that element as I haven't studied this verse in that light. But I would suggest a means by which we can still have an evolutionary past and this verse still be accurate and honest. The different kinds of flesh are accurate within an evolutionist view of the world. Humans do have different DNA though largely similar to chimps it is not the same. All flesh is not the same, there are some differences.

Objection also could come from the scientific community, the above model does suppose the existence of a deity that cannot be proven. I accept this but all I'm asking of the model is that is internally consistent. That it present a way to resolve evolution and creationism. I feel that the model is able to do that.

Both camps can attack me for over-simplification, embellishment, dodging points or ignorance of the issues. I accept my failings - I am neither a geneticist nor a theologian. I'm not a time traveller either. But I had an idea and it seemed worth jotting it down.

Anyway I'm interested in all feedback - Secular and Religious. I'd like to have you remember this is about drawing the two sides together, so please respond to the piece not the arguments for or against either of the stand points. Again please stick to feedback on the above model. If anyone does stray from feedback please just ignore their comment and continue on topic.