Stan Lee Lied - Your Handy Guide to Every Lie in the 'Origins of Marvel Comics' 11 11

[Prince Namor]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:05 AM, VintageComics said:

It's not a defensive reaction to the book.

I was attacked on the first 3 pages just by PRESENTING my book. Someone got banned on their FIRST post.

On 10/16/2024 at 7:05 AM, VintageComics said:

It's a defensive reaction to how the author reaches their conclusions,

Says another person who still hasn't read the book. 

On 10/16/2024 at 7:05 AM, VintageComics said:

where I've already shown how the Stan Lee quote about Thor they took out of Origins to call a lie was misrepresented.

Lee most likely had nothing to do with the first three appearances of Marvel's Thor.

I'm not aware of anything you've presented to disprove that. 

Whatever else you think I'm saying, based on cherry picking quotes is on you.

On 10/16/2024 at 7:05 AM, VintageComics said:

You're just giving everything a wholesale pass without any critical thinking, and I have a hard time understanding how you've worked in the legal field for so long with such a mindset when this is not how information and critical thinking works. 

Oh the irony.

[Dr. Love]

On 10/15/2024 at 5:05 PM, VintageComics said:

I have a hard time understanding how you've worked in the legal field for so long with such a mindset

have some respect

Mitch created a whole legal field out of thin air, sir

it may not be like dealing comic books but c'mon man

[VintageComics]

On 10/15/2024 at 5:51 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/15/2024 at 5:05 PM, VintageComics said:

It's not a defensive reaction to the book.

I was attacked on the first 3 pages just by PRESENTING my book. Someone got banned on their FIRST post.

I'm talking about the people who have kept level heads and are currently in the discussion. 

On 10/15/2024 at 5:51 PM, Prince Namor said:

On 10/15/2024 at 5:05 PM, VintageComics said:

It's a defensive reaction to how the author reaches their conclusions,

Says another person who still hasn't read the book. 

That mischaracterization of Stan's quote from Origins was correctly identified. 

Are you sure you want me reading your book and fact checking all of Stan's alleged "lies"?

I don't think the boards have enough bandwidth for that. 

On 10/15/2024 at 5:51 PM, Prince Namor said:

Oh the irony.

I'm pretty sure this is what you'd call a personal attack. 

Edited October 16 by VintageComics

[JollyComics]

On 10/15/2024 at 7:57 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm talking about the people who have kept level heads and are currently in the discussion. 

That mischaracterization of Stan's quote from Origins was correctly identified. 

Are you sure you want me reading your book and fact checking all of Stan's alleged "lies"?

I don't think the boards have enough bandwidth for that. 

I'm pretty sure this is what you'd call a personal attack. 

[Prince Namor]

On 10/16/2024 at 7:57 AM, VintageComics said:

That mischaracterization of Stan's quote from Origins was correctly identified. 

Opinion.

On 10/16/2024 at 7:57 AM, VintageComics said:

Are you sure you want me reading your book and fact checking all of Stan's alleged "lies"?

I couldn't care less. 

[COI]

Triggering Roy was a 200 IQ marketing strategy for signal-boosting your book.

[VintageComics]

On 10/15/2024 at 10:59 PM, COI said:

Triggering Roy was a 200 IQ marketing strategy for signal-boosting your book.

Did you know that Kirby was a Virgo?

Blew my mind to find that out. Changed everything about how I perceived him in the past, and moving forward. 

Mind still blown.

[COI]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:09 PM, VintageComics said:

Did you know that Kirby was a Virgo?

Blew my mind to find that out. Changed everything about how I perceived him in the past, and moving forward. 

Mind still blown.

For someone concerned with logical arguments, you sure do like your astrology.

How do you feel about crystals? 

[Chip Cataldo]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:14 PM, COI said:

For someone concerned with logical arguments, you sure do like your astrology.

How do you feel about crystals? 

A girl once asked me what "sign" I was and I answered "dinosaur."

She said, "You made that up!"

I answered, "It's ALL made up."

[sfcityduck]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:40 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

A girl once asked me what "sign" I was and I answered "dinosaur."

She said, "You made that up!"

I answered, "It's ALL made up."

Nah. Dinosaurs are real.

[VintageComics]

On 10/15/2024 at 11:14 PM, COI said:

For someone concerned with logical arguments, you sure do like your astrology.

How do you feel about crystals? 

Is this a trick question?

Obviously I need to know whether Stan Lee was involved before I can answer that. 

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Nah. Dinosaurs are/were real.

 

[jimjum12]

On 10/15/2024 at 8:05 PM, VintageComics said:

I don't know why it would be unlikely. 

Why is it such a hard stretch to believe that Stan was innovative enough to find a college or some public radio show in 1962 to do an interview on?

If radio was the biggest game in town, and it was free I'd have done it. Why not?

Innovation really just takes some brass balls and thinking outside the box, and Stan had both. 

That aside, I'm glad others find the paragraph difficult to assess and it's not just me. It is a bit of a mess, editorially. 

A little more than 5 years prior to 1962, folks were burning comics in church parking lots. Bringing back superheroes was bringing back customers, and a radio interview, saying basically, "check us out, we're back, and behaving.", is entirely possible. Since Stan unquestionably spent a LOT of time promoting Marvel, it had to start somewhere. GOD BLESS ...

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

Edited October 16 by jimjum12

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 9:06 AM, Zonker said:

Really none of my business, and it's against my better judgement to butt in here, but on the off-chance some peacemaking might be possible-- I think @comicwiz was reading your original post as calling out his comment and/or his own behavior as "hinky."  Whereas I read your original post to be about whether it was reasonable to assume the chain-of-custody for that particular Kirby original art was somehow "hinky."  Since I think that provenance discussion turned out to be resolved amicably, maybe this subsequent flare-up can also be chalked up to a misunderstanding?  

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=7368ab0319c23992JmltdHM9MTcyOTAzNjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0xOWJkOTkyMy1jMjkyLTZkNWMtM2NiMS04OTkyYzNjMDZjYTkmaW5zaWQ9NTY2NA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=19bd9923-c292-6d5c-3cb1-8992c3c06ca9&u=a1L3ZpZGVvcy9yaXZlcnZpZXcvcmVsYXRlZHZpZGVvP3E9cm9kbmV5K2tpbmcrd2h5K2NhbiUyN3Qrd2UrYWxsK2p1c3QrZ2V0K2Fsb25nJm1pZD1ERENERENBRkYwMjk1MDgyMkU3MkREQ0REQ0FGRjAyOTUwODIyRTcyJkZPUk09VklSRQ&ntb=1

[joeypost]

On 10/12/2024 at 10:53 AM, Dr. Haydn said:

Absolutely--Spider-man was "something different"--though not for the reasons that Stan stated in print. Peter Parker represented a teenage lead who was fallible (human, like his readers), and not an annoyance and a parody of teenage hipsters like his contemporary, Snapper Carr.

Having lived very close to Forest Hills which is where Peter Parker lived in the comics, it gave it a much more relatable or “real” feel. Especially to us New Yorkers. 
 

Even in the first Spider-Man movie, many of the scenes were shot in areas my wife and I frequently shopped or dined at.

[Chip Cataldo]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Nah. Dinosaurs are real.

I know that. As an astrology sign, it's made up. That's the joke.

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/16/2024 at 1:01 PM, jimjum12 said:

A little more than 5 years prior to 1962, folks were burning comics in church parking lots. Bringing back superheroes was bringing back customers, and a radio interview, saying basically, "check us out, we're back, and behaving.", is entirely possible. Since Stan unquestionably spent a LOT of time promoting Marvel, it had to start somewhere. GOD BLESS ...

-jiimbo(a friend of jesus)

Quick, snatch them back!

Tell the guy you'll get them graded and split the proceeds.

And find out if he has any more.

[jimjum12]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:19 AM, Albert Tatlock said:

Quick, snatch them back!

Tell the guy you'll get them graded and split the proceeds.

And find out if he has any more.

Look at the faces on the kids. This was not a unanimous consensus. GOD BLESS ... 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[Albert Tatlock]

On 10/16/2024 at 3:21 PM, jimjum12 said:

ook at the faces on the kids. This was not a unanimous consensus. GOD BLESS ... 

The kid on the right cannot bear to watch.

[VintageComics]

On 10/16/2024 at 12:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Nah. Dinosaurs are real.

This is a great side tangent that can illustrate how one poorly chosen word can affect the outcome of an entire discussion perpetually, and how that poorly chosen word can create a world of conflict and disagreement.

The dinosaur discussion in regards to the biblical narrative always causes a stir, mainly because I believe parts of the Bible has been mistranslated for centuries due to intellectual dishonesty. I believe it's a case where translators put their beliefs before the facts and interpreted, rather than translated passages not than letting the facts speak for themselves. 

People lead with a belief rather than form it by allowing the words to speak for themselves. 

 

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew originally, and it was translated out of Hebrew into all common languages.

1st verse of Genesis, as popularly translated and commonly accepted reads like this: 

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Note the use of the word "the" (see bold in verse 1) leads everyone reading to believe that this was THE actual beginning, with no previous existence making the creation story about 7000 years old chronologically, and removing any ability for there to be a fossil record. 

But a more correct translation, even though not well recognized, is that the verse should read like this:

1 In a beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Just correcting the worth "the" to "a" completely changes the meaning of the entire opening passage, and by extension, changes the entire biblical record, meaning that there WAS a previous existence, and that it was buried under water.

For biblical enthusiasts, they'll also note that this correction ALSO starts to align with later passages which talk about a 1st, 2nd and 3rd earth and heaven, a previous possible flood referenced in the time of Noah, etc. It completely changes EVERYTHING. 

But for this discussion, it also completely opens the existence for a fossil record before the Genesis 1 creation story, removing 'conflicts' with science and aligning the two. 

Did someone just make this up? Is there a precedent that supports the use of the word "a" rather than "the"?

There actually is. 

2000 years ago, Hebrew was almost a lost language in the Middle East. Because the Koine (ancient) Greek was the prominent language of the world due to the conquests of Alexander The Great, the situation was so dire that at the time Hebrew became a near lost language and lost to history. Because of this, the scholars of the time committed to translating the ancient Hebrew texts to Greek, using prominent Greek and Hebrew scholars of the time so the old texts could be understood by the average person because they no longer spoke Hebrew.

They chose 70 scholars to perform that translation and the translation came to be known as famously as "The Septuagint" or "The Seventy". 

How did the Septuagint translate the 1st first of the bible?

They chose to use the word "a" rather than "the", as I pointed out. 

You’ve got to approach this like a course in medieval comparative literature, coming in with no set agenda and allowing the historical published evidence to help guide your deductions, not emotions. 

It's why proper, logic and reason are so important in any historical discussion. Words matter. Meanings matter. Context matters.

Edited October 16 by VintageComics