RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,889
Posts: 5,330,054
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 523
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Battlestar Galactica & Caprica

Battlestar Galactica & Caprica This forum was created by man. It rebelled. It evolved. And it has a plan.

 
 
Thread Tools
Old May 28 2009, 03:33 AM   #61
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
Cartoonist wrote: View Post
Man, I haven't had a nerd-fight in a long time (not since Voyager, I think). This is invigorating. I feel alive.
I'll throw you an extra piece of ammunition: Talos IV in classic Trek's pilot "The Cage" was a modified image of the Earth's moon. So, was Talos IV actually supposed to be our moon?
Of course it was, the Talosians even tried to put a man in it. And didn't you see all that cheese? A clear indication that in the future, our moon has been renamed Talos IV. And if you deny that, I demand you reveal a source in the art department who can support your absurd assertion.
Cartoonist is offline  
Old May 28 2009, 03:52 AM   #62
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
And I'm assuming you have a contact in the former prop department and/or a link to an interview of the same supporting this in-universe claim?
Last I heard it was the guy who was claiming to know something as an absolute fact (a.k.a. you) that bore the burden of proof, not the guy who's saying we don't know anything for sure (a.k.a. me). I shall now steam my tea, butter my crumpets and adjust my top-hat while I await the posting of your link to an interview with your contact in the former prop department supporting your in-universe claim.
I don't need to. The pics speak for themselves.

My argument follows Occam's Razor. Anything else would require evidence to corroborate.
If I had a dime for every time some forum dweller paradoxically cited "Occam's Razor" to justify his own leaps in logic, I'd be paying my rent in dimes for a year, my landlord would get angry, I'd be homeless, and... I digress.
Yes.

You're claiming it's a clear image of Africa. That's obviously false, it's obscured by a rather large shadow.
You're just not looking hard enough.

Pic 1 - Since the image enclosed in the downloadable PDF version of the auction book is not high enough resolution, I had to scan in my own personal hard-copy which offered a clear-enough image (containing the snippet that was shown by a previous poster in the thread):



Yes, some of the side-images are in shadow and intentionally blurred, but three are clear enough to do some basic pattern matching, specifically pics 3, 4 and 6 starting from the top of the right-hand margin. Picture 2:



The red-outlined land mass is clearly the eastern coast of Africa, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, etc., as well as the Arabian Peninsula further to the north east. The distinctive curved cloud mass in the Indian Ocean has been outlined in blue to give spacial reference on the surface. I have done an upgrade to the Apollo Mission pic (Apollo 17, I believe) with the most recognizable geographic and atmospheric objects highlighted in matching colors. Other cloud patterns clearly match the A17 pic in shape, size and orientation, but I didn't want to waste more of my time than I already have with this discussion. As I said earlier, I think the photos speak for themselves:



You're claiming that because you know the source image was the Apollo photo, that's proof positive it was supposed to be our Earth. That notion ignores every SFX shot we've ever seen in a film where they used something familiar to create something alien.
Well, no, that's not what I said - actually you said this:

Those photos don't prove it was supposed to be our Earth at all. It shows a bit of land bisected by some water. Your mind is filling in the rest of Africa and Arabia when the continents actually aren't visible.

In-story, it's a glimpse of one small area that just resembles the horn of Africa.
Your mind seemed to "fill in" what I was saying. These pictures show that they DID use this photo to make at least some of the images on Starbuck's gun cam pic. It is possible that they did intend for this to be Earth (and since they ARE looking for Earth and not Talos IV, that's not a valid "ammunition" Gep, sorry). There's no way of knowing that for certain. I merely stated if they wanted something to be truly unrecognizable, they shouldn't have taken snippets from a very recognizable photograph of Earth.

If you don't see the pic and insist on being what Romo Lampkin would call a "Serial Contrarian", then that's your problem, not mine. My post is designed to merely prove that the photo used was, in part, the Apollo 17 pic, nothing more. Whether or not it was or was not our Earth is irrelavent to me, only the fact that this was simply a case of the props team never expecting this level of scrutiny to be done on their work so long after the fact.

your theory is based entirely on assumptions.
Not really. See above.

Mine is based on one simple and indisputable fact: the shadow covers nearly the entire image and the continents are not visible. Only the horn of Africa is visible, and any planet with oceans can conceivably have some region that resembles the horn of Africa.
Ah, so you DO admit that the horn of Africa is visible, right after you said:

You're claiming it's a clear image of Africa. That's obviously false, it's obscured by a rather large shadow.
Very good. You're making this too easy.

Man, I haven't had a nerd-fight in a long time (not since Voyager, I think). This is invigorating. I feel alive.
Well it was certainly good for me. I'm going out for a smoke.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.

Last edited by 137th Gebirg; May 28 2009 at 04:15 AM.
137th Gebirg is offline  
Old May 28 2009, 06:09 PM   #63
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
Cartoonist wrote: View Post
137th Gebirg wrote: View Post
And I'm assuming you have a contact in the former prop department and/or a link to an interview of the same supporting this in-universe claim?
Last I heard it was the guy who was claiming to know something as an absolute fact (a.k.a. you) that bore the burden of proof, not the guy who's saying we don't know anything for sure (a.k.a. me). I shall now steam my tea, butter my crumpets and adjust my top-hat while I await the posting of your link to an interview with your contact in the former prop department supporting your in-universe claim.
I don't need to. The pics speak for themselves.

Yes.

You're just not looking hard enough.

Pic 1 - Since the image enclosed in the downloadable PDF version of the auction book is not high enough resolution, I had to scan in my own personal hard-copy which offered a clear-enough image (containing the snippet that was shown by a previous poster in the thread):



Yes, some of the side-images are in shadow and intentionally blurred, but three are clear enough to do some basic pattern matching, specifically pics 3, 4 and 6 starting from the top of the right-hand margin. Picture 2:



The red-outlined land mass is clearly the eastern coast of Africa, including Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, Sudan, etc., as well as the Arabian Peninsula further to the north east. The distinctive curved cloud mass in the Indian Ocean has been outlined in blue to give spacial reference on the surface. I have done an upgrade to the Apollo Mission pic (Apollo 17, I believe) with the most recognizable geographic and atmospheric objects highlighted in matching colors. Other cloud patterns clearly match the A17 pic in shape, size and orientation, but I didn't want to waste more of my time than I already have with this discussion. As I said earlier, I think the photos speak for themselves:



Well, no, that's not what I said - actually you said this:

Your mind seemed to "fill in" what I was saying. These pictures show that they DID use this photo to make at least some of the images on Starbuck's gun cam pic. It is possible that they did intend for this to be Earth (and since they ARE looking for Earth and not Talos IV, that's not a valid "ammunition" Gep, sorry). There's no way of knowing that for certain. I merely stated if they wanted something to be truly unrecognizable, they shouldn't have taken snippets from a very recognizable photograph of Earth.

If you don't see the pic and insist on being what Romo Lampkin would call a "Serial Contrarian", then that's your problem, not mine. My post is designed to merely prove that the photo used was, in part, the Apollo 17 pic, nothing more. Whether or not it was or was not our Earth is irrelavent to me, only the fact that this was simply a case of the props team never expecting this level of scrutiny to be done on their work so long after the fact.

Not really. See above.

Ah, so you DO admit that the horn of Africa is visible, right after you said:

You're claiming it's a clear image of Africa. That's obviously false, it's obscured by a rather large shadow.
Very good. You're making this too easy.

Man, I haven't had a nerd-fight in a long time (not since Voyager, I think). This is invigorating. I feel alive.
Well it was certainly good for me. I'm going out for a smoke.

I love when people smugly say "ah, you do admit" whatever it was that wasn't even being argued about. I don't know how many times I agreed with you that this was the Apollo shot; I hate math and I've run out of fingers and toes to count them. You even took the time to outline the horn of Africa in red, after I said maybe a dozen times we were looking at an image of the horn of Africa from that Apollo shot. Weird. Try to follow this summary of my two loosely-related lines of argument: (1) The production argument: It's far from obvious they made a mistake, it's at least equally plausible that they purposely used a recognizable image of Earth's Horn of Africa to trick us into thinking it was our Earth. (2) The in-story argument: That's not our Earth, it's a planet with a small region that resembles the Horn of Africa. (3 - Bonus!) Forum dwellers who feel they're losing a battle will sometimes conflate two or more disparate arguments to create the appearance of a single incoherent argument that they can then easily mock.

And again with the cloud pattern. I really don't know why you're bringing that up over and over again, except to prove something we all agreed to at the beginning. The question isn't (and NEVER WAS) what image did they use as a source image, the question is WHY did they use that image as a source image.

So you're saying it was a mistake to use the image because you're ASSUMING they wanted it to be unrecognizable? How do you know that? How do you know they WANTED it to be unrecognizable? Do you really think they're such idiots that they wanted to create a totally unrecognizable planet, and their solution to that was to grab an image of EARTH and they thought science fiction fans wouldn't bother to examine it? You really don't think it's more plausible that the reason they manipulated a recognizable shot of Earth was so they could trick us into thinking it was our Earth? You think the use of that image tells us ANYTHING (that it was a mistake, that they wanted it to be our Earth, that Santa Clause is real, or whatever) conclusively?

Whether or not it was or was not our Earth is irrelavent to me, only the fact that this was simply a case of the props team never expecting this level of scrutiny to be done on their work so long after the fact.
After careful research, heavily footnoted and such, my crack team of lab interns and I have concluded that 99% of Internet posts wouldn't exist if we forum dwellers didn't confuse our own opinions with fact.

Last edited by Cartoonist; May 28 2009 at 06:22 PM.
Cartoonist is offline  
Old May 28 2009, 07:38 PM   #64
Frontman
Lieutenant Commander
 
Frontman's Avatar
 
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

I'm tired of reading excuses made up by people for this show. The thing is that Starbuck went to place that has same name as our planet and that is Earth and she brought photos of a place that "resembles" Africa and Arabia and it was even the already known photo of Earth for us so they could of at least avoided that.
But what it all comes down to is that there are two types of people who watched this show: 1st ones are those who come up with every possible excuse for those 2nd type of viewers who find holes in BSG logic. One type knows what Starbuck was and the second doesn't or it simply doesn't make sense that Hera is essentially the mother of all humanity on our Earth (and yes, we know we're greatly simplifying the science here). The last we see of our rag-tag fleet, there are about 30,000 other humans and Cylons scattered across the planet, who will presumably produce plenty of human/human children, human/Cylon children, human/indigenous primitive children, etc;
And 1st types of viewers will never meet in the middle along with 2st types of viewers.
Frontman is offline  
Old May 28 2009, 08:03 PM   #65
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Frontman wrote: View Post
I'm tired of reading excuses made up by people for this show. The thing is that Starbuck went to place that has same name as our planet and that is Earth and she brought photos of a place that "resembles" Africa and Arabia and it was even the already known photo of Earth for us so they could of at least avoided that.
But what it all comes down to is that there are two types of people who watched this show: 1st ones are those who come up with every possible excuse for those 2nd type of viewers who find holes in BSG logic. One type knows what Starbuck was and the second doesn't or it simply doesn't make sense that Hera is essentially the mother of all humanity on our Earth (and yes, we know we're greatly simplifying the science here). The last we see of our rag-tag fleet, there are about 30,000 other humans and Cylons scattered across the planet, who will presumably produce plenty of human/human children, human/Cylon children, human/indigenous primitive children, etc;
And 1st types of viewers will never meet in the middle along with 2st types of viewers.
Of course not, because type 1 is a cartoon caricature that doesn't exist, so it's kind of hard to actually meet them in the middle.

It's possible to believe there are logical reasons for some apparent inconsistencies, and still believe other things don't make sense.

Here's an equally cartoonish characterization of this supposed divide: There are two types of viewers, those who thought BSG was a documentary and flip out when it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, and those who realize it's all made up anyway, so they're perfectly fine with making up explanations for inconsistencies.

Last edited by Cartoonist; May 28 2009 at 08:13 PM.
Cartoonist is offline  
Old May 29 2009, 10:18 AM   #66
Frontman
Lieutenant Commander
 
Frontman's Avatar
 
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

^Well not really. I mean there were other aspects that were pointing that Starbuck and then fleet went to our Earth like "Constellations are a match" and we saw them in tomb of Athena seeing the same constellations that are seen from Earth. So then again we get excuses from type 1 viewers: "You know there is that God thing (and HE actually doesn't like to be called that name) who made the same constellations on the skies of both Earths."

Cartoonist, if you really want to compare 1&2 types of viewers then better comparison would be the battle between creationists and atheists [how they call them selves]. Creationists say "God created Earth." and then atheists say "But what about the fossils?" Creationists "Well God put them there to test our faith." And the both sides think that the other side is stupid.
You can explain almost anything as long as you have God component in it.
Frontman is offline  
Old May 30 2009, 01:50 AM   #67
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Frontman wrote: View Post
^Well not really. I mean there were other aspects that were pointing that Starbuck and then fleet went to our Earth like "Constellations are a match" and we saw them in tomb of Athena seeing the same constellations that are seen from Earth. So then again we get excuses from type 1 viewers: "You know there is that God thing (and HE actually doesn't like to be called that name) who made the same constellations on the skies of both Earths."

Cartoonist, if you really want to compare 1&2 types of viewers then better comparison would be the battle between creationists and atheists [how they call them selves]. Creationists say "God created Earth." and then atheists say "But what about the fossils?" Creationists "Well God put them there to test our faith." And the both sides think that the other side is stupid.
You can explain almost anything as long as you have God component in it.
Funny you mention God, because that gets to the heart of why I think viewer rationalization is even more legitimate for BSG than it is for pretty much any other show (other than John from Cincinnati & other God shows). I think you actually CAN make that God argument if, like me, you agree with those who believe the entire "One True God" thing was a sightly-more-than tongue in cheek reference to Ron Moore. Ron Moore (God) is a capricious creator who can arrange the constellations any way he wants. And given the trippy nature of the series from "Hand of God" forward, I can buy a deus ex machina or four, including the concept that all our stories are written by our "creator." Reason and logic go out the window when you talk God. And since God (whether it was Moore or something else) was real in this BSG universe, so was divine intervention. So was the mysterious Rube Goldberg Machine chain of events (complete with spears and identical constellations and whatever else the writers forgot about or decided to pull out of thin air) that led to their eventual arrival at our Earth.

The way I see it, you have to judge a show by its own rules, and in BSG the existence of a real God means all inconsistencies do have God as their ultimate explanation/rationalization. The only difference between our universe and the BSG universe is that as third party observers, we have concrete proof that God exists in their universe. Since we have proof, we'd actually be stupid NOT to allow for the possibility of unexplainable miracles as the rationalization for problems such as the constellations.
Cartoonist is offline  
Old June 12 2009, 09:58 AM   #68
Frontman
Lieutenant Commander
 
Frontman's Avatar
 
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
The only difference between our universe and the BSG universe is that as third party observers, we have concrete proof that God exists in their universe. Since we have proof, we'd actually be stupid NOT to allow for the possibility of unexplainable miracles as the rationalization for problems such as the constellations.
I'm afraid it makes even less sense, because why didn't that all powerful God that we know exists in BSG universe (as you put it) stop that war in the first place and spared billions of lives? Cylons were keen to God and if he showed up and said "Look guys I'm that God you're obsessed with so stop it or I'll make you disappear."
But no. Instead HE transformed into virtual Six and screwed Baltar for couple of years and even transformed into Starbuck and fracked half of the fleet. It seems that BSG God has a hard on his creation - the humans.
Frontman is offline  
Old June 12 2009, 10:09 AM   #69
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
Here's an equally cartoonish characterization of this supposed divide: There are two types of viewers, those who thought BSG was a documentary and flip out when it doesn't hold up under close scrutiny, and those who realize it's all made up anyway, so they're perfectly fine with making up explanations for inconsistencies.
Cartoonish indeed. I realise it's all made up but am pissed off by them explaining absolutely everything away with mysticism.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is online now  
Old June 12 2009, 05:55 PM   #70
Gep Malakai
Vice Admiral
 
Gep Malakai's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Gep Malakai Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Gep Malakai
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Frontman wrote: View Post
I'm afraid it makes even less sense, because why didn't that all powerful God that we know exists in BSG universe...
At what point did the show state "God" was all-powerful?
__________________
"From the darkness you must fall, failed and weak, to darkness all."
-Kataris
Gep Malakai is offline  
Old June 12 2009, 06:17 PM   #71
Butters
Captain
 
Butters's Avatar
 
Location: The Summerland
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Gep Malakai wrote: View Post
Frontman wrote: View Post
I'm afraid it makes even less sense, because why didn't that all powerful God that we know exists in BSG universe...
At what point did the show state "God" was all-powerful?
Its not, but if Gius is to be believed, and thats the implication used to jutify God as real, then creating humans, perfectly I might add is no mean feat.

As for timing a supernova and 'guiding' parallel development on at least one other world, and ressurecting at least one person and their equipment on two occassions. The visions, the angels and prophecies. Its certainly not proof of an all powerfull deity, but one that is certainly powerful enough.
Butters is offline  
Old June 20 2009, 02:12 AM   #72
Welshie
Lieutenant
 
Welshie's Avatar
 
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

roguephoenix wrote: View Post
still begs the question, what is she?
A plot hole.
Deckerd wrote: View Post
Cartoonish indeed. I realise it's all made up but am pissed off by them explaining absolutely everything away with mysticism.
Likewise. It seems that whenever any sort of debate pops up about sci-fi movies or books these days, anyone pointing out that a show/book that they didn't enjoy dropped the ball when it came to the story and used some lame copout (aka a wizard did it) is derided for not realizing that's it's 'fiction'. As if something being fiction is an excuse for poor storywriting, or not writers not paying attention to (often reasonable) limits/rules that they themselves had originally come up with.
Welshie is offline  
Old June 21 2009, 03:58 AM   #73
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Frontman wrote: View Post
Cartoonist wrote: View Post
The only difference between our universe and the BSG universe is that as third party observers, we have concrete proof that God exists in their universe. Since we have proof, we'd actually be stupid NOT to allow for the possibility of unexplainable miracles as the rationalization for problems such as the constellations.
I'm afraid it makes even less sense, because why didn't that all powerful God that we know exists in BSG universe (as you put it) stop that war in the first place and spared billions of lives?
Because (a) God may not have been all-powerful and (b) if God WAS all-powerful, "all-powerful" doesn't equal "pacifist" or even "good." Especially with the Greek God motif we had going on, it's reasonable to assume God likes to watch war stories. Or maybe he's the Michael Vick of deities and this was a dog fight to him. Maybe he won $20 when it was all over. Maybe God found the whole thing entertaining, is what I'm saying.

Last edited by Cartoonist; June 21 2009 at 04:10 AM.
Cartoonist is offline  
Old June 21 2009, 04:08 AM   #74
Cartoonist
Captain
 
Cartoonist's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Welshie wrote: View Post
roguephoenix wrote: View Post
still begs the question, what is she?
A plot hole.
Deckerd wrote: View Post
Cartoonish indeed. I realise it's all made up but am pissed off by them explaining absolutely everything away with mysticism.
Likewise. It seems that whenever any sort of debate pops up about sci-fi movies or books these days, anyone pointing out that a show/book that they didn't enjoy dropped the ball when it came to the story and used some lame copout (aka a wizard did it) is derided for not realizing that's it's 'fiction'. As if something being fiction is an excuse for poor storywriting, or not writers not paying attention to (often reasonable) limits/rules that they themselves had originally come up with.
That's exactly what they did. The God thing's been around since the miniseries, and as I said earlier, we were given compelling circumstantial evidence that he had his hand in all this as far back as Spear of Destiny and Hand of God. Later on came the empirical evidence: we saw Baltar held aloft by angels (appearing to everyone like he was floating in the air). They followed their limits/rules to their only logical conclusion, that the final solution would be something devised by God. In retrospect, watching this series was, from the beginning, like watching God knock down a bunch of dominoes he'd set up.

I do agree that the complaints about the deus ex machina in BSG are analogous to people arguing it was a copout to say "a wizard did it." But for me, it's like watching people complain that "a wizard did it" at the end of Harry Potter.

Last edited by Cartoonist; June 21 2009 at 06:42 AM.
Cartoonist is offline  
Old June 22 2009, 03:40 PM   #75
Butters
Captain
 
Butters's Avatar
 
Location: The Summerland
Re: So which planet did Starbuck....? *SPOILERS*

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
In retrospect, watching this series was, from the beginning, like watching God knock down a bunch of dominoes he'd set up.
Good analogy. It is because of this, that the show lost its rewatchability for me and others. There is zero entertainment value in this.

Cartoonist wrote: View Post
I do agree that the complaints about the deus ex machina in BSG are analogous to people arguing it was a copout to say "a wizard did it." But for me, it's like watching people complain that "a wizard did it" at the end of Harry Potter.
Not so much. Potter was full of wizards, at a school for wizards. The inclusion of God simply trivialises the whole series because he/she/it is pulling some or all the strings. The finale may as well have concluded with a human child turning off their Battlestar Galactica video game, or with Roslyn waking from a peculiar dream or someother rubbish.

'God did it' just doesn't cut the muster. Never has, never will.
Butters is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Tags
kara thrace, starbuck

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.