COMIC ZONE ON NOW- WITH NEAL ADAMS

[Neal Adams-migration]

Dear Jack the Dead Head. Really? Cool.

 

Plates is plates is plates above water or below. Science is science. It doesn’t change when it is under 1.0 water. This is one of the many things wrong with the subduction “theory.”

 

I’m sorry, force? Pressure? Actually, doesn’t matter, there is none. Rifts aren’t under pressure, to open, they just simply open. They don’t slide downhill, they just open like in the Atlantic. Exactly the same 100% the same. No difference and no subduction.

 

Okay, temperature. Silicates melt at different temperatures.

 

Temperatures are estimated, not known. What we know is magma is at the top. Not the bottom. We do know heat rises!

 

Big paragraph. I’m sorry, one cannot dismiss simply by dismissing. Courtesy requires, and all that. My diagram is a fantasy that Geology presents with the physical science results. As to my analogy, no, it’s not dismissed simply because it’s dismissed by Rip. I’ll give you another one.

 

Onion soup with toast floating in it and mozzarella cheese on boiling hot soup.

 

You push it into the soup with your hand. You have to break the cheese seal. The boiling hot soup rushes up to burn your hands, floods over the toast and cheese. It is the only way, and it rushes up WITH FORCE.

 

Another analogy. You push a broken undersea plate into magma and magma comes rushing up to fill the void above the plate. (in fact, before and until this happens, the plate must equal the weight of itself and the space above it until it’s equalized. Like pushing a ship down into water. To do this, it must become heavier and heavier and heavier.

 

You must think this way. Water is 1.0 to understand all the forces simply subtract 1.0 from all the areas so granite rock becomes 1.5, basalt 2.0, athenosphere 2.3. Now it’s all surface. If it is under pressure, it mountains up, not down.

[Rip]

I respect some of your believes. In fact you seem to be an easy guy to like. Neal I'm sure is also a great guy.......however subduction is a fact. I haven't seen either of you dispute it with supporting observational information. Both yourself and Neal, have theories full basic mistakes. Go back an re-read the thread. If you guys are really concerned about research, then you should be re-writing Adams website as we speak. Please, just do a some research on the web or pick up a recent book on the subject.

 

I haven't even gone into why Paleomagnetism wiped out the idea.

 

I doubt you'll ever say uncle anyway.

Let's move on to comics....

[Rip]

Give me some supporting data and we'll go bowling............

 

Are you trying to use Carey?

[selegue]

Dear Jack the Dead Head. Really? Cool.

 

Maybe not the kind you're thinking. I was punning on the new definition of "Dead head" (= scientist) that we got here a couple of days ago.

 

 

Plates is plates is plates above water or below. Science is science.

 

 

So THAT'S what happened to Steve Ditko when he "disappeared". :-)

 

 

It doesn’t change when it is under 1.0 water. This is one of the many things wrong with the subduction “theory.”

 

 

What doesn't change when it's under water? I meant that your sketches were a good description of what happens when two plates of the same density (both continental or both ocean floor) collide.

 

 

I’m sorry, force? Pressure? Actually, doesn’t matter,

 

 

Ouch

 

 

there is none. Rifts aren’t under pressure, to open, they just simply open. They don’t slide downhill, they just open like in the Atlantic. Exactly the same 100% the same. No difference and no subduction.

 

Okay, temperature. Silicates melt at different temperatures.

 

Temperatures are estimated, not known. What we know is magma is at the top. Not the bottom. We do know heat rises!

 

 

???

 

Hot air rises in cold water, hot water rises in cold water -- that's because of density differences. "Heat itself" doesn't rise. You don't expect hot water to rise into cold air just because it's hot, right?

 

In fact, I think hot material rising within the lower mantle is one of the causes of convection within the lower mantle itself, which starts the whole routine. (Someone correct me if that's wrong!)

 

 

Big paragraph. I’m sorry, one cannot dismiss simply by dismissing. Courtesy requires, and all that. My diagram is a fantasy that Geology presents with the physical science results.

 

 

I'm not positive which paragraph.

Your sketch is your version, not quite the geologists' version. You changed too many key details.

 

As to my analogy, no, it’s not dismissed simply because it’s dismissed by Rip. I’ll give you another one.

 

Onion soup with toast floating in it and mozzarella cheese on boiling hot soup.

 

You push it into the soup with your hand. You have to break the cheese seal. The boiling hot soup rushes up to burn your hands, floods over the toast and cheese. It is the only way, and it rushes up WITH FORCE.

 

 

But scaling the size of the earth down to the size of the bowl of soup, you're pushing at maybe a millimeter every few years. There's lots of time for the layers to distort. No "rushing".

 

 

Another analogy. You push a broken undersea plate into magma and magma comes rushing up to fill the void above the plate. (in fact, before and until this happens, the plate must equal the weight of itself and the space above it until it’s equalized. Like pushing a ship down into water. To do this, it must become heavier and heavier and heavier.

 

 

Sorry, we're not communicating.

There's no "rushing", There's no big void to suddenly fill. The lower mantle is fluid enough to flow out of the way. The movement is very slow.

 

 

You must think this way. Water is 1.0 to understand all the forces simply subtract 1.0 from all the areas so granite rock becomes 1.5, basalt 2.0, athenosphere 2.3. Now it’s all surface. If it is under pressure, it mountains up, not down.

 

I must think that way? Now I'm in big trouble.

 

Jack

[Michael Netzer]

Disclaimer: I am a scientist professionally (Doctorate in Neurobiology, faculty position at a Medical School in the Northeast).

 

I find your characterization of the disagreement about the creation of the universe as a "war" to be absurd. The issue is one of science education.

 

If it's absurd, why do you resort to defending science if the face of creationism? Why do scientists have this reflexive contention with creationism at every turn? Why does this issue distort scientific discovery?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Sources_of_plate_motion

 

"Most geologists believe that the Earth has changed little, if at all, in size since its formation 4.6 billion years ago, "

 

Mont geologists BELIEVE? On what basis do they BELIEVE this? Why do they allow this BELIEF to color the evidence they have before them for the growth of the Earth. Evidence such as the age of the ocean floor and the how the continents spread apart? The presence and growth of matter in the universe? There is much evidence for this in the universe, yet scientists turn a blind eye to it contending that matter came into being at a fleeting moment of a big bang, almost magically, and ceased. As a result of this BELIEF, science has built a house of cards which they call scientific theory while hiding behind a superiority based on science education.

 

There is nothing in the way of a scrutinized, peer-reviewed body of work to support the view that "creationism" has scientific validity that merits its teaching along side the theory of evolution. There is neither a "contentious feud" nor a "war" nor a forgetting of "honesty" on the issue.

 

Who said creationism has scientific validity? Is any question of whether the creation of matter is an ongoing process to be automatically lumped in with creationism? Is this what science purports to be? In your response, you deflect the issue back to creationism not being scientific, indicating that you take a side in the contentious fued which you deny exists. Is this what science is about?

 

Again. I'm not saying creationism has scientific validity. Your reaction is proof that you see the issue as a standoff between creationism and science. I'm saying that science cannot find the answers to how the universe works, so long as it perceives the issue of the creation of matter as belonging to the creationists. It should have nothing to do with the creationists. Yet when the issue of whether the creation of matter is an ongoing process comes up in scientific circles, scientists resort to criticising creationism as not being a science. The issue has nothing to do with creationism. It has to do with scientific discovery. The fact that this always falls back to the social standoff indicates that scientists have a peculiar complex about creationism.

 

Science is science and not religion,

 

Well then, as scientists, let's stop BELIEVING that the earth was always the same size. Let's stop BELIEVING that matter came into being magically and stopped. Let's stop BELIEVING in superstious nonsense the way religious fanatics do. Let's get down the business of discovery and put aside BELIEF in powers of magic and witchcraft on which much scientific theory has been based.

 

and there should be places for educating today's youth on both, but no confusion between the two.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, Nami. Instead, however of accusing the other side with confusing the issue, let's look at ourselves and be honest with ourselves about how scientists have also confused the issue.

 

Let's rise above the frivolous fued between creationists and scientists in order to advance scientific discovery.

 

A glorious age of scientific discovery awaits us once the scientific community comes to grips with the issue of the creation of matter. In order to do this it has to overcome the psychological perprexities it has with creationism.

 

The study of the creation of matter should be a pure process devoid of any relationship to the creationists. It should stand on its own as a discovery process and not influenced by a BELIEF in issues scientists see as pertaining to creationists.

 

Detect the creation of matter and you'll win the future of scientific discovery.

[shrunkenhead]

Michael, with all due respect, you're taking the word "belief" way out of context there. And why are you referencing the wikipedia to make your argument after knocking it as a source in your earlier posts?

 

Not to hijack this thread into yet another direction, but I've been flipping through your site a little this evening...I take it you're into the cabbalistic stuff? (17th century Christian Cabalism figures heavily into my ever-ongoing dissertation...)

[Michael Netzer]

I respect some of your believes. In fact you seem to be an easy guy to like. Neal I'm sure is also a great guy.......however subduction is a fact. I haven't seen either of you dispute it with supporting observational information. Both yourself and Neal, have theories full basic mistakes. Go back an re-read the thread. If you guys are really concerned about research, then you should be re-writing Adams website as we speak. Please, just do a some research on the web or pick up a recent book on the subject.

 

I haven't even gone into why Paleomagnetism wiped out the idea.

 

I doubt you'll ever say uncle anyway.

Let's move on to comics....

 

I read new material at every opportunity, but it all appears to revert to the same issue. I feel we're at the doors of great scientific breakthroughs which will change our perceptions. I must hand it to the subductionists, though, it's a very convincing mechanism regardless of the inconsistencies.

 

That Paleomagnetism was devastating.

 

You don't really want me to say uncle anyway, I know.

 

DC appears to be building the universe from scratch again. Perhaps they finally realized how badly they messed up the last one.

[Rip]

Nah I'm running out of comebacks and I've got a client who wants an "art deco" type font that was used in Willy Wonka at beginning of the movie.

 

I liked the multi-universe better but I still loved Crisis

[Michael Netzer]

Michael, with all due respect, you're taking the word "belief" way out of context there. And why are you referencing the wikipedia to make your argument after knocking it as a source in your earlier posts?

 

It's a logistics deficiency, I agree, but not an essential one. The idea that science often approaches discovery from pre-existing assumptions or beliefs, appears to be a recurring factor, not limited to the Wikkipedia entry.

 

Not to hijack this thread into yet another direction, but I've been flipping through your site a little this evening...I take it you're into the cabbalistic stuff? (17th century Christian Cabalism figures heavily into my ever-ongoing dissertation...)

 

It's interesting how cabbalistic theology formed some of the mythologies borne out of 17th century Christian Cabbalism, namely the legend of the Anti-Christ and his role with regards to the Second Coming. Even more intriguing is that this all developed to the background of the birth of modern science.

 

I'm into the cabbalistic stuff only in that I've always been fascinated with its influence on mainstream religionism.

 

To many Jewish scribes and rabbis of the Second Temple era, for example, Jesus was said to have been a cabbalist who drew powers from the heavens in order to deceive the people with his claims to a messianic role. Without their intending to do so, they attributed a measure of stature to Jesus which helped establish him as the role-player he claimed to be to the Jews, long before the spread of Chrisianity in Europe.

 

Much later in Europe, within the stand-off between Christianity and Judaism, Christian Cabbalism pointed to Judaism as brandishing the number of the beast, 666, through the 3 divisions of the 6 pointed star of David.

 

It's amazing how the notion that Jesus was seen as the equivalent of the Ant-Christ of his time escapes modern Christianity. Or the corrolation between the execution of Jesus and that of the Anti-Christ.

 

It's one reason I felt that Mark Millar's Chosen was so insightful. He hit this point right on the nail, so to speak.

 

How does your dissertation approach all this?

[Michael Netzer]

Nah I'm running out of comebacks and I've got a client who wants an "art deco" type font that was used in Willy Wonka at beginning of the movie.

 

I liked the multi-universe better but I still loved Crisis

 

I'll give that to DC. They are searching for something and the search itself is fun sometimes.

 

If you post an image of the font here, I might be able to help find something similar to it.

[Kevin76]

Neal

[Neal Adams-migration]

Uh...Jack the Dead Head,

 

Continental plates don't collide with oceanic plates. (Continental plates are 30 miles thick. Oceanic, 4 miles. Continental plates go straight down! Broke off, you see.) 20 years ago they said that. But "subduction" zones are within the oceanic plate. Same material both sides. Just look where the subduction zones are located.

 

In air...air becomes thinner so cooler. In the asthenosphere, dense solid rock, same heat can melt less dense rock, heat collects under the crust and is released at the rifts.

 

It's not me, okay. Convection was a big, big theory 25 years ago when scientists thought there was a whole lot of magma. Now they think magma is .04% and the rest solid. How solid? Boy, they're working on that. So convection is moving down by percentages. Not gone yet, but fading. I say boot it.

 

No details missing, just simplifying. I used to do these drawings for college film and tape.

 

Actually, there's quite a bit of "rushing" between 6 and 12 inches per year, probably more...in fact

Gibraltar spreads 4 centimeters from Africa per year. Moreover, the oceans spread is exponential, that is it about doubles every 10 million years. See map at

 

http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html

 

The last 10 million years revealed enough ocean floor to make a continent the size of North America. Which means this same amount was, according to theory "subducted" into a trench that is one-half the plates length. Lotta scrunching going on. (Which is again....imposible). No subduction 360 degrees around spreading Antartica. Where do you suppose that plate's going??

 

Uh, no...actually geology's side says there's a trench. Not my trench. We ARE communicating. If trench is a subduction zone, why didn't it fill with magma? .......The answer is actually that is a new rift and spread though much deeper in the "older" ocean than the South Eastern Pacific.

 

You can think any way you like. This is how the physics work. Path of least resistance. I don't make the rules up, but when they're clear physical laws, I follow them. Under these conditions, if there was pressure, two sides would go up. There's no resistance going up! They must go up, not because I say so.

[Bronze_Age_Fan]

So I take it noboddy here believes the hollow earth theory put foward in DC's WARLORD.

[Michael Netzer]

So I take it noboddy here believes the hollow earth theory put foward in DC's WARLORD.

 

It seems to ignore the prevailing conditions in the Earth's core based on Jack Kirby's New Genesis/Apokalypse theory.

[Michael Netzer]

Do you believe that science (the old hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion, theory routine) is a legimate way to learn about the universe? If you believe that, "The scientists are the dead gods of our world leading our perceptions into a dead future for a dead universe..... I reject the dead fairy tales of the dead headed scientific community," our discussion is doomed before it starts.

 

Jack, In all fairness to Neal, he never said this. I did.

 

To answer your question though, no, I don't believe this to be a perpetual situation. But there does appear to be a momentary lapse into a stubbornness which makes it difficult to discuss the essential issue here. I don't believe anyone is a dead head for too long - but we can all perhaps behave so at times, myself included.

 

I believe science (the old hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion, theory routine) is a legitimate way to learn about the universe. I just don't believe that science is always true to this system. When the original hypothesis is based on an issue such as "the Earth could not have expanded because we know of no model under which matter can be created within it" well, everything that follows can be faulty because it's first encumbant on the scientist to come to some reasonable validity of the first hypothesis, which they often do not. It appears that some theory is built on a hypothesis which has social issues at its roots, as I've noted about reactions to creationism.

 

Is it not also scientific to hypothesize something such as:

 

"We don't yet have conclusive proof that matter is being created in the center of the Earth but there is strong evidence which suggests this to be the case. In studying the universe, we can see evidence for the creation of new matter in it. We also know that all the matter in the universe came into being at some point and will continue attemting to discover how this process works. In the meantime, we will remain open to the possibilty that the evidence we have, that suggests the Earth has grown in size, may indicate just that, though we haven't yet discovered the model for how this new matter is being created within it. We believe that scientifically, this is preferable to conclusively denying such a possibility."

 

Is that not also a scientifically valid approach to the evidence which gave birth to the theory of subduction?

 

The scientists could then take all the energy they applied into formulating the convoluted and imginary mechanism of subduction - and apply it to researching how it is that matter comes into being.

 

What I don't understand, is that so long as the issue of the creation of matter is not fully understood by the scientific community, by what scientific integrity do scientists so fiercefully argue the theory of subduction? The veracity in which the theory is put forth would have us convinced that we have conclusive proof that matter cannot be created in the center of the Earth. Which we know this is not the case because no such conclusive proof exists.

 

Scientific research, experiment and conclusion is an ongoing process. To pretend that any answers we don't yet have, must not exist - well, that's not very scientifically sound. Is it?

[selegue]

 

Continental plates don't collide with oceanic plates. (Continental plates are 30 miles thick. Oceanic, 4 miles. Continental plates go straight down! Broke off, you see.) 20 years ago they said that. But "subduction" zones are within the oceanic plate. Same material both sides. Just look where the subduction zones are located.

 

 

I did. Aren't there major subduction zones on the west coast of the Americas?

 

"Subduction zones of the world. Localities in green capital letters are collision zones, where continental crust has entered and disrupted a subduction zone"

 

I thought that why the major mountain ranges are on the west of the Americas and why there are west coast earthquakes and active volcanoes like Mt St Helens some distance inland. What I've read says that!

 

"The Juan de Fuca plate sinks below the North America plate at the Cascadia subduction zone."

 

I'm no expert on plate tectonics. I haven't taken the time to read a textbook, instead relying on www information. If the articles I'm reading are in error, I'm stuck.

 

 

In air...air becomes thinner so cooler. In the asthenosphere, dense solid rock, same heat can melt less dense rock, heat collects under the crust and is released at the rifts.

 

It's not me, okay. Convection was a big, big theory 25 years ago when scientists thought there was a whole lot of magma. Now they think magma is .04% and the rest solid. How solid? Boy, they're working on that. So convection is moving down by percentages. Not gone yet, but fading. I say boot it.

 

No details missing, just simplifying. I used to do these drawings for college film and tape.

 

Actually, there's quite a bit of "rushing" between 6 and 12 inches per year, probably more...in fact

Gibraltar spreads 4 centimeters from Africa per year. Moreover, the oceans spread is exponential, that is it about doubles every 10 million years. See map at

 

http://www.nealadams.com/EarthProject/fromthedesky.html

 

 

I got my "few cm/yr" figure from the USGS site.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/understanding.html

 

"These average rates of plate separations can range widely. The Arctic Ridge has the slowest rate (less than 2.5 cm/yr), and the East Pacific Rise near Easter Island, in the South Pacific about 3,400 km west of Chile, has the fastest rate (more than 15 cm/yr)."

 

If the USGS is "part of the conspiracy" and their numbers can't be trusted, I have no hot-line to better information, and definitely can't do the measurements myself!

 

 

The last 10 million years revealed enough ocean floor to make a continent the size of North America. Which means this same amount was, according to theory "subducted" into a trench that is one-half the plates length. Lotta scrunching going on. (Which is again....imposible). No subduction 360 degrees around spreading Antartica. Where do you suppose that plate's going??

 

Uh, no...actually geology's side says there's a trench. Not my trench. We ARE communicating. If trench is a subduction zone, why didn't it fill with magma? .......The answer is actually that is a new rift and spread though much deeper in the "older" ocean than the South Eastern Pacific.

 

 

The map I looked at showed the Antarctic plate moving mainly in the direction of the Indian Ocean. Apparently you have better information.

 

 

You can think any way you like. This is how the physics work. Path of least resistance. I don't make the rules up, but when they're clear physical laws, I follow them. Under these conditions, if there was pressure, two sides would go up. There's no resistance going up! They must go up, not because I say so.

 

I agree -- we have reached the "you can think any way you like" point.

 

The earth and the universe are doing whatever they're doing. They will keep on doing it no matter what you, I, George W Bush or the Pope thinks. I like the models that explain the most observations and don't require overthrowing physics and chemistry as I know them. "Paradigm shifts are hard," as Barbie might say, but they do happen. Otherwise we'd still be thinking about a stationary earth; there'd be no atomic theory or quantum mechanics. Good luck convincing the people who have devoted their lives to the study of geology that you're right and they're wrong. If we put it to a popular vote, you'd surely "win" on this forum because you're a well-known person who commands considerable respect, while I'm nobody. If we put it to a vote of the American public you'd probably "win" too. Only among the "dead-headed" scientists would you "lose", I'd wager.

 

Thanks for the lively discussion.

 

Changing gear completely -- I'm fascinated by how the "Joe Magarac" legend (from the Pittsburgh stell mills) was presented in the Joe Steel promo comic books (by Jack Sparling), then your later Continuity character Megalith has the name "Joe Majurac". Is that an intentional homage or reference? (Michael worked on those as well, right?) Are your Mark Steel promo comics the "missing link" between them? Were you familiar with the Joe Magarac legends from your youth? (I don't know where you were raised. I'm from a steel town myself.)

 

Thanks!

 

Jack

[selegue]

Do you believe that science (the old hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion, theory routine) is a legimate way to learn about the universe? If you believe that, "The scientists are the dead gods of our world leading our perceptions into a dead future for a dead universe..... I reject the dead fairy tales of the dead headed scientific community," our discussion is doomed before it starts.

 

Jack, In all fairness to Neal, he never said this. I did.

 

 

I realize that. That's why I was asking him whether he believed it too. If he did, there was no point in trying to use discussion points based on dead-headed conventional physics. Neal seems to believe in conventional physics, since he invokes it in his discussion.

 

To answer your question though, no, I don't believe this to be a perpetual situation. But there does appear to be a momentary lapse into a stubbornness which makes it difficult to discuss the essential issue here. I don't believe anyone is a dead head for too long - but we can all perhaps behave so at times, myself included.

 

I believe science (the old hypothesis, experiment, result, conclusion, theory routine) is a legitimate way to learn about the universe. I just don't believe that science is always true to this system. When the original hypothesis is based on an issue such as "the Earth could not have expanded because we know of no model under which matter can be created within it" well, everything that follows can be faulty because it's first encumbant on the scientist to come to some reasonable validity of the first hypothesis, which they often do not. It appears that some theory is built on a hypothesis which has social issues at its roots, as I've noted about reactions to creationism.

 

Is it not also scientific to hypothesize something such as:

 

"We don't yet have conclusive proof that matter is being created in the center of the Earth but there is strong evidence which suggests this to be the case. In studying the universe, we can see evidence for the creation of new matter in it. We also know that all the matter in the universe came into being at some point and will continue attemting to discover how this process works. In the meantime, we will remain open to the possibilty that the evidence we have, that suggests the Earth has grown in size, may indicate just that, though we haven't yet discovered the model for how this new matter is being created within it. We believe that scientifically, this is preferable to conclusively denying such a possibility."

 

 

Reasonable. The next step is to present and critically examine that strong evidence. That examination will suggest experiment to test the validity of the hypothesis. If enough evidence supported it, the spontaneous generation of matter would become a viable theory.

 

 

 

Is that not also a scientifically valid approach to the evidence which gave birth to the theory of subduction?

 

The scientists could then take all the energy they applied into formulating the convoluted and imginary mechanism of subduction - and apply it to researching how it is that matter comes into being.

 

 

That's exactly what some particle physicists, astrophysicists and cosmologists are doing. The geologists don't really have the tools (and they're mighty big, expensive tools.)

 

 

What I don't understand, is that so long as the issue of the creation of matter is not fully understood by the scientific community, by what scientific integrity do scientists so fiercefully argue the theory of subduction? The veracity in which the theory is put forth would have us convinced that we have conclusive proof that matter cannot be created in the center of the Earth. Which we know this is not the case because no such conclusive proof exists.

 

Scientific research, experiment and conclusion is an ongoing process. To pretend that any answers we don't yet have, must not exist - well, that's not very scientifically sound. Is it?

 

I don't think anyone pretends that answers we don't have, must not exist. I don't. It's certainly hard to come up with a mechanism for the spontaneous creation of matter in the core of the earth.

 

What experiments should be done that are not currently being done?

 

If you do crack that spontaneous generation of matter problem, let me know so that I can buy stock at the IPO. It'll be worth a bundle!

 

Jack

[selegue]

 

I did. Aren't there major subduction zones on the west coast of the Americas?

 

... humongous pic...

 

"Subduction zones of the world. Localities in green capital letters are collision zones, where continental crust has entered and disrupted a subduction zone"

 

Ooops. Sorry about the HUGE image.

 

Jack

[Rip]

If we put it to a popular vote, you'd surely "win" on this forum

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Even here.

He has too many basic errors anyone can look up.

 

As for "greatest comic artist" post 1966 I'd vote him number 1 or 2 in a heartbeat.

[Rip]

Its like copperplate bold and atlantis (but without the "icicles on the roof"). I've seen those fonts

But the biggest problem is I haven't seen this other "art deco" font he wants.

 

I'm looking forward to see what DC is doing. Lets hope they don't make things too confusing