You're twice as sure with two great names. Frigidaire and General Moulters. Frigidaire presents Herbert Marshall as the man called X. Wherever there's mystery, intrigue, romance, and all the strange and dangerous places of the world, there you will find the man called X. He presents Herbert Marshall as Ken Thurston, the man called X. To most people, mention of the Valero and the Samba mean pleasant, colorful music. But to the man called X, listen. The Samba, Chief, I thought that was the name of the dance. Oh, this is serious, Ken. The Samba docked here in New York Harbor early this morning. But a companionship, the Valero, was mysteriously disappeared. Oh. In spite of the fact, they had ideal sailing conditions all the way from San Juan, Puerto Rico. Where's the Coast Guard? Well, their planes have scoured every inch of the route and found nothing. Chief, what's our interest in this? Well, the first place, Dick Finley's an old friend of mine. Oh, I know, Dick, insurance. Right. And the Valero's cargo was insured by him for a flat $500,000. Finley evidently smelled a rat, a big one. That's why he called me. But if he smelled a rat, why did he give such big coverage with our complete investigation? Because John Messler, owner of the Valero, used to be one of his biggest clients. Messer Plantation. Yeah. The fact remains, the one man who can give us the dope on this thing is Dick Finley. Well, he's at work on it already and talking with Carl Hertzberg. He's Master's Manager and the rest of the crew of the Samba down at Pier 14. I've sent Ryan over to pick him up so you yourself can talk to him. All right, Chief. Hello, Ryan. Yes, Ryan. Somebody else got to Finley first. Well, he's down at the morgue with a 45 slug through his back. Zelchmann Enterprises. Pagan Zelchmann, General Manager and Duty. Oh, hello, Mr. X. I'm sure you'll be glad to hear that I am now in business for myself. I'm glad you asked that. I can't quite decide whether to limit myself to detective work or go in for financial consulting. Why not just settle on organized chicanery? Oh, that's a very good suggestion. And now, huh? Don't even know what the meaning of the word. Well, maybe it'll come to you. Now listen, I've got a job for you down at the docks. For me? For me? You mean you've come to me? Yes, sir. Well, Mr. Thurston, I shall regard your confidence as a sacred trust, especially for cash. The same one. See, senor, you're just not turning into this only. Good. It's very dark along here. This will do very well. Are you quick? Quick, step into this doorway. I'll walk on a little and start to light a cigarette. Then we'll let him catch up and we'll have him between us. Hurry now. See, senor. One moment, my curious friend. Who are you? I don't know you. Then we should become better acquainted. Since you've been spying on me for two days. Oh, no, no. I've never seen you before. Might be some sort of a friend of mine. Well, I'd better be going now. I don't think so. The gun? Quiet. Who are you? My name is Zelschmidt. Egon Zelschmidt. Zelschmidt. It always helps to know who you're dealing with in such matters as this. Well, I'd be going now. Mr. Zelschmidt, have you ever noticed what a final sound the slide of an automatic pistol makes? Wait. Are you? No, no, no, no. We get away fast now. Move it. Wait. Just to make sure. Now, Pagan, where can't you wait till the morning? But, Mr. Thurston, something terrible has happened. What? I've been shot. I'm dead. I see. I see where you're calling from. New Jersey? Oh, it must be serious. Now that you've had your fun, Pagan, hang up and let me go back to sleep. Wait. You don't understand. I'm as good as dead right this minute. And it's all your fault. My fault. I haven't shot anybody, at least not tonight. But somebody did.  Egon? He was one of my strictest of cousins.  Pagan, what in heaven is the name you're talking about? But I've just told you. It's that job you wanted me to do. What? Well, I couldn't quite find the time to do it myself. You know, circumstances beyond my control, of course. So you put your cousin, Egon, in there, eh? Go on. Well, a little while ago, the police found his body. And now I've... Where did they find it? Anywhere close to Pier 14? Where else, something. There's only one thing to do. Yes, Mr. Thurston? I wanted to take a plane immediately. A plane? And I'll meet you one week from the day in San Juan, Puerto Rico. You wish a room, no? Matter of fact, yes. My name's Thurston. Ken Thurston. Mr. Thurston. Welcome to the Grand Palace Hotel of San Juan. Here, I have it all figured out. What? It comes to exactly $164.20. What are you talking about? That, of course, does not include the two bottles of agua diente, which were sent up to the room last night. The amount to do that... Oh, look here. I just arrived from the States, and I'd like a room. Oh, you already have a room. The Goblin is sweet. Huh? Your manager, Mr. Thurston. He has taken care of everything. I've told us all about you, too. Oh, so that's it. Just a moment now until I add up these two bottles. You wouldn't happen to know where he might be now, this manager of mine. Oh, he always sleeps very late. However, I can send up a boy. Oh, no, wait a minute. It wouldn't be necessary. Hello, Mr. Thurston. Welcome to San Juan, which is noted for its coffee. And the senioritas are not better either. Well, Pagan, your rich American has arrived. Hmm? Oh, I had to use my ingenuity, but I knew you would want nothing but the best. From the side of this bill, it looks like I already had it. But you have no idea how expensive things are here. Something to do with the exchange rate, I think. Yeah, it must be terrific. Did you get my telegram? Oh, yes, Mr. Thurston. I have it right here somewhere. Never mind, I don't want it. What did you find out about Messler? Well, for one thing, I found out he owns the Messler Plantation Company. I told you that, the telegram. Oh, oh, well, well, well, he's very mysterious. In what way? Well, nobody in San Juan knows anything about him. He lives in a great big house on a plantation a few miles from town. And people don't see him for maybe months at the time. Well, then, who actually runs the business of the plantation down there? Well, that's what you're going to find out right now. Goodbye, Mr. X. Well? See you later. Now, pay gone, hey. I'm afraid you're going to take me terribly forward, Mr. Thurston. That's quite all right. Hey, pay. Well, yes, it's quite all right. Thank you. That was most complimentary. Well, on the contrary, it was far from adequate. Miss, Miss. Messler, my uncle owns the Messler Plantation. Oh. You have heard of him, perhaps. Who hasn't? But I haven't heard he had such a lovely niece, Miss Messler. Please call me Lorena. Everyone in San Juan does. Lorena, the queen. How do you happen to know me? You are far too modest, Mr. Thurston. Why, all San Juan has heard of you and what it is you are going to do. Oh, am I? I'm so excited about it. But after all, a hotel lobby is really no place to get better acquainted, is it? Hardly. So won't you please come to dinner at the plantation this evening? Please say you will. I'll be looking forward to it. I am with a double reason now. You see, I've been hoping for the chance to meet the fabulous Mr. Messler. Oh, oh, that is too bad, because you see, it won't be possible. No? No. Unfortunately, my uncle left by plane for the States two days ago. I hope you won't be too disappointed. Oh, could I be? After all, I've met you. You are very sweet. And I promise, I will do everything I can to make your visit interesting. How do you like our room? Not bad, eh? Hey, Gon, what am I supposed to be doing here in San Juan? Doing? Oh, you know, look up Mr. Messler and try to find out what happened. No, no, not that. No? Well, maybe I did talk a little too much. No. But everyone expected it. Yes, so what could I do? What did you do? I think I said that you were a movie producer who was going to make a film here. So that's why she? Well, hey, Gon, maybe I do owe you something after all. Well, thank you, Mr. X. You haven't sold that to anyone? Oh, not one soul, I swear. But the father of my father? Now, never mind your relatives. What about this niece of Messler? Does she run the plantation or the shipping of the whole business while her uncle is not around? Not exactly. There's sort of a manager named Carl Hertzberg. Only he's not here now. Well, where is he? He sailed to New York on the Samba. Oh, the sister ship to the Bolero. Uh-huh. Yeah, that disappeared. Remember, which reminds me, did you know that there's somebody new back here today? Yeah, I know. Good. Now, about what you owe me, Mr. X. Pagan, it comes for exactly $164.20. We're even. But part of that bill is for the car. What car? The one I rented for you. I knew you'd want it. It's very thoughtful of you. Yes, very thoughtful. Matter of fact, because tonight, Pagan, I have a dinner engagement. Good. I'll get dressed right away. You're going to drive me there and wait outside to bring me home. Well, what? Pagan, now comes your day of reckoning. And again? No, thanks. No, it's so late. I think I'd better say good night. Oh. Hope this won't be the last time. Oh, let us say the first of many. I hope your plans keep you here a long, long time. Perhaps they will.  Really? In what way? Well, for one thing, the way you take charge of this place in your uncle's absence. Oh, I'm used to it. You see, when he's here, he seldom leaves the house and never has anyone in. And he's always going off on some unexpected trip. He's a strange man, Ken. Well, you certainly have a lot of responsibility on you. I'm afraid you're overrating me. Actually, our manager, Mr. Hertzberg, runs things, even when my uncle is at home. So I'm just a very ordinary girl after all. If you're ordinary, Lavena, the world needs more mediocrity. I've got to go. Well, I'll go to the door with you. Tomorrow morning, Ken. Definitely. Oh, about your movie, Ken.  Matter of fact, I haven't yet. Oh, well, please call on me if I can help in any way, any time. Doesn't know when I'd rather call on for help. Oh, Ken, I have been very lonely here until today. Lavena. Oh, Ken. Oh, good night, Ken. Good night, Lavena. One moment, please, Mr. Thurston. Yeah, who are you? My name is Hertzberg. I manage this plantation. Oh, then the Samba has doubt. Congratulations, Mr. Hertzberg. So for what? For having sailed on the Samba instead of the Bolero. I didn't stop you to engage in small talk, Mr. Thurston. But rather to advise you that such scenes as the one which just occurred will not be repeated. Your duties as manager include spying on your employer's niece? Lavena is somewhat susceptible to charm, shall we say. I am not. That's kind of obvious. I'm afraid you don't understand me. No, the possible dangers of this tropical climate. It's a climate which can be quite deadly, Mr. Thurston, to someone who doesn't understand. Yeah, then I like it. And you, how long have you been here? Approximately one year, but I don't see.  No, Mr. Hertzberg, your argument doesn't hold water. I see. Very well, but I think you'll find that while the climate may agree with some, it can seriously disagree with others. And until it's tested, a man's personal reaction is something of an unknown quantity. A quantity which, in algebra, might be called X. Good night, Mr. Thurston. The moment we continue with Frigidaire's Man Called X, originated by J. Richard Kennedy. This is Wendell Niles speaking. And now to continue with Frigidaire's Man Called X, starring Herbert Marshall. Mr. X has gone to San Juan in Puerto Rico to look up a certain Mr. Messler, who owned a mysteriously missing freight ship, the Bolero. So far, Mr. X has found neither Messler nor the Bolero. But he did have dinner last night with Messler's niece, the beautiful Lorena. But now it's the next morning, and while Pagan cheerfully carries out his assignment of scouting the local bars for a local gossip, Ken sits in the office of the bank, talking to the manager. So as you can see on the map, say, in your Thurston, almost all of the plantation lands, which may be available for purchase, lie to the south of the city, along the main highway. Well, I had more in mind the purchase of a plantation north of town, possibly along the lakeshore. Unfortunately, that's impossible. A few months ago, yes, but not now. Why a few months ago? Because at that time, the Messler plantations still had several lakefront tracks they were offering for sale, but they're taken now. You mean Messler's been selling off his land? Oh, the major portion of his holding is during the past year. Why? Senior Thurston, I stopped long ago trying to explain that old gentleman's reasons for anything. You know him well? Oh, I believe I've seen him only four times in all the years the bank has dealt with him. You might say that my familiarity with Senior Messler applies more to his signature than his face. I see. Well, thanks for your trouble, sir. Not at all. Would you care to have that with me? Maybe another time. I've accepted an invitation to go horseback riding this morning. In that case, I hope you find your ride enjoyable. Thanks. I have an idea. I shall find it quite enjoyable. Here's gone to you. Hey, you handled that horse beautifully, Lorena. Thank you. I don't know when I've ridden like that. Oh, I'm glad we stopped here. Isn't this a lovely view of the lake? Beautiful.  We're not so. It's really no more than a few hundred feet to the house. Now, what's that long sort of low building over there through the underbrush? Where? Oh, one of the warehouses. Well, why the man on guard with a rifle? Oh, that's Carl Hertzberg's idea. Some of the workmen were stealing things. Hertzberg seems to be quite a little watchdog. How much do you know about him? Hardly anything. My uncle hired him when the last manager left suddenly. Where did he come from? What did he do before? I don't know. I think he mentioned having been a watchmaker at one time. Watchmaker? You know, I've been a little afraid of him. In fact, I've been afraid a good part of the year I've lived here. I've been alone so much for one thing. You're not alone now. I know. And I'm not afraid now. Come on, Ken. I'll raise you down to the boat landing.  Pagan, I've begun to wonder where you were. It's been very tiring work running about all day from this bar to that bar to that boat. Looks like it. You find out anything about Hertzberg for me? Not a thing. The man is an enigmatic of spinks. Tell me, did you talk to any of the Sambos crew? That I did not do. My cousin, Agen, may he rest in peace, try that thing in New York. Oh, I know. But local gossip has it that you can find most of your questioning to a little number named Rosita, doesn't it? Mr. Thurston, she's strictly business of the expense account type. I have found Rosita to be a bottomless well of information, strictly business. Pagan, you're slipping. Now listen, you better rest up from your tiring day because tonight we're going to have a triad breaking into a warehouse and it's guarded. Good. Why are we going to do it? Well, for one thing, I've always resented no visitor's signs. What's more, we may find Mr. Messler there. Or what's left of him? Mr. Messler flew to the States three days ago. Why, the senior either said so. Messler must have been having a little joke with her, Pagan. According to the passenger list of the airport, he hasn't taken a plane out of here. We're here by the door, Mr. Thurston. How's the guard, Pagan? Still out cold? Like a fish. Good. You haven't heard anyone outside? Only the crickets. Did you find Mr. Messler? Yeah. Where is he? I mean. I'll tell you later, Pagan. We haven't got much time. Come on now. Try not to pour over anything in the dark. One more thing I'd like to find, and I think you may be here in the warehouse. Wait a second. Uh-oh, the steel door. The door? Is it locked? I can't find it. No, it doesn't. Let's have a look. Easy now. Watch your step. Some kind of a little room. Empty, maybe. Maybe empty now, but no, it isn't. There are several cases here. What's in there, Mr. Thurston? Wait a minute. I'll strike a match. You do, and you'll find yourself wearing a halo. Those are cases of dynamite. The dynamite? No, Mr. Thurston, we'll go now. Right now. We'll go moving. Not yet. What? I have a gun here that says neither one of you is going anywhere. Well, Mr. Hertzberg, so the little watchdog is still on duty. Unfortunately for you, Thurston. It's too bad you didn't take my advice and leave this unhealthy climate. Leaving Puerto Rico didn't help the 21 seamen on the Bolero very much. Oh, so you found the answer to that. Look, dynamite, a missing ship, a watchmaker who could easily rig up an efficient time-definiting device. All makes the problem rather simple. Quite so. Now will you be kind enough to toss your gun over toward the door, Thurston? Sorry, I'm afraid I can't. You see, I don't have a gun. Fine. In that case, just think of what will happen if you fire toward these cases of dynamite. So we seem to reach a temporary stalemate. Well, if you all move, Hertzberg. I think I'll postpone it for the moment, at least until I go liquidate a gold mine. However, just to make sure I can still find you here, there. Amuse yourselves, gentlemen. I won't be gone long. I have just died a million times, Mr. Thurston. But what did he mean? What's he going to do? You have an idea. Mr. Thurston, we've got to get out of here. She's going to come back. We can't just... Not quite, quite good. Somebody's out there. Lorena. Then you expected her? Probably. In here, Lorena. I found you. You're all right. Fine. How did you happen to come here? It's Carl. I followed him. Oh, Ken, he's done something terrible. I don't know what. I even think my uncle may be held prisoner here instead of being in the States. He would... Yes, Lorena. Mr. Messler was being held prisoner. Then Carl's killed him.  Ken, you've got to do something quick. What would you suggest? You have a gun? Nope. I brought one here. When he comes back here, you must shoot first. It's our only chance. Lorena the Queen. What? And with me cast as Chief Executioner and the double cross of her partner. There'll be no spitting of the spoils. I don't know what you mean. No, you told me your uncle took a plane to the States three days ago. Well, that's what Carl said. He said he took him to the airport.  What are you saying? Lorena, three days ago, Carl was on board the Samba 500 miles at sea. You! Somebody's coming, Mr. Thurston. Yeah, here. Look out, Carl. Mr. X has a gun. Very much that Carl will be able to hear you, Lorena. You! My thanks for the loan of your gun, Mr. Thurston. It came in very handy, just as you thought it might. Who are you? Permit me to introduce myself. I am John Messler. Oh, Mr. X, I'm beginning to see the light. Sure. Messler's habit of seldom showing his face outside his house was well known. So it was easier for them to hold him prisoner in the cellar of that warehouse for nearly a year, starving him, forcing him to sign the deeds and checks necessary to convert the estate into cash. Mr. Thurston, it has all become as clear to me as a... As this wine? Yes, please, just a little more. Thank you. And Lorena, she's not Mr. Messler's niece? Just an enterprising lady who teamed up with Carl Hertzberg and came here about a year ago. Ah, women. They are fleas in their life, so in turn. I tell you, it's a pretty thirsty flea you've had on the expense account for the past week. Rosita? Strictly an ex-business acquaintance. Oh, since when? Well, since I discovered a horrible fact, Mr. Thurston, I found Rosita cared only for my money, which is to say, your money, of course. There's a nice distinction running around there. Money? Nothing yet. After all, what is it? Just money, it means nothing at all to me. This wine is wonderful stuff. I'll have it next time along, just for financial purposes. Ah, you know, there's one thing that is not quite clear to me yet. Why did they want to sing their own ball? That seems very silly. For the insurance pay, now. Oh. The ballerra was heavily insured. That's why the bureau first became interested in the disappearance.  Thanks for being with us. And please let me remind you that daylight saving time goes into effect in some part of the country next week. So if your area remains on standard time, tune in one hour earlier for our broadcast. As usual, Leon Balask will be along as Pegon Zeltschmidt. So join us, won't you, where next I return as the man called X, good night. The man called X is directed by Jack Johnstone, the music composed and conducted by Johnny Green. Tonight's story was written by Les Crutchfield. All characters and incidents used on this program are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual persons or incidents is purely coincidental. When you read about people being injured, people being killed in traffic accidents, do you ever stop to think why that might have happened to me? It's worth thinking about. And it's worth doing something about. The best thing to do is to obey all traffic laws. Yes, whenever you drive, whenever you walk along streets or highways, be careful. The life you save may be your own. This is Wendell Niles speaking for Frigidaire made only by General Motors. Remember, if your community remains on standard time, tune in one hour earlier next week for Frigidaire's Man Called X. CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting Center.


Welcome folks, we have the Dow Industrial has finished down 1276, NASDAQ down 632, S&P down 177. That's a downdraft inside the NASDAQ folks of 5.1%, 4.49 of the S&P and 3.94 in the Dow Industrial. Gold. Gold contract down $27.80 trading at $17.12 an ounce, we had Silver down 53 cents, $13.33 an ounce, Light Sweet Crude down 35 cents, $87.43 a barrel, notes and bonds. You had the 10-year note trading down 21.6 at $1.1430, the 30-era 15 at $132.12 and King Dollar. King Dollar wants higher price, looks like it's going to be an ABC Structure Up. Up $1,534.6 at $109.865, the Euros at $99, the Yen is at $144, and the British pound is at $115 to $1.00. You have the 10-year right now folks, okay, so the last six months, let me bring this over here. What are you going to see here? Okay, so for the whole year, okay, you're going to see this, we're at 3.423 in the 10-year right now. Well, the highs, 3.473. If we take a look and we'll bring this 10-year up on the active contract, what are you going to see? I can't find it on the active, I'll put the generic up, but the only reason you couldn't find it here is that, no, it's here, okay. So you can see what's going on. We did 1.7 million contracts. We broke the B point, you broke it with volume, bottom line, you're going to monster ABC down. So the 10-year right now broke, we needed contract volume of 1.4, we got 1.7. If we take this and we put this on a generic chart now, the reason I'm going through the, there it is, the notes and bonds, because the notes and bonds want to go dramatically lower and have much higher interest rate structure. So if we bring this back, I'm going to bring this back in a 20-year, because you can see where we're at. And what you have here is this. We had already broken the major support. The major support, once the 10-year basically broke, 1.1810, we're at 1.14, this thing's going after the lows, man. We're going after the lows in 2006, which is 1.0405, monster number. And then if we get over to the dollar, you take a look at this dollar, this dollar, you know, you're talking about wide price spread. They're talking about wide price, but this is monster, wide price spreading. You know, we don't have volume, but this wants to take out the B point, which is 1.10.  Guess what, folks? That dollar wants to go to 1.21, the 2,001 highs. Have a great night, folks. Have a safe night, come back over tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. Check out Tommy, great show. Look at him, folks.


You don't always have to buy something new at Christmas, maybe you've got something that just needs repairing and then it'll be good as new. You need a repair cafe and we've got lots of these springing up all over the district. Find out more about what can be fixed at a repair cafe and how to book a slot with a repairer by visiting the council website.  Let us know what you can repair and we'll be in touch.


I've experienced some amazing demos during the Steam Next Fest, but Planet of Lana was an early favourite. For all the others I have played, I'm not sure many can hold a candle to Lana, and if you're wondering why, fret not, I'll tell you. But do like the video and don't forget to subscribe! Back to Planet of Lana. This cinematic puzzle platformer is one of the most gorgeous games I have seen. No conditionals here. I'm not talking about this year, or this decade, either. That's the level of artistic skill on display you're dealing with here. Every part of this demo had that special feeling only a hand-crafted experience has. I have the firm suspicion that Planet of Lana is a labour of love, and that it might well be a science-fictional story to remember. It all begins when a young girl, the aforementioned Lana, is brought awake by Illo, an adorable small creature of as-of-yet-undefined origins. The two make fast friends in an adorable introductory scene, and we're off to the races. At first all seems well. The sun is shining high, the back and foreground are dressed up in the warmest most calming shades of green and blue with small flowers promising spring even summer. What could possibly go wrong on a day like that? Exploring with Illo doesn't come across as preparation for something nefarious but as play. Even dark caves and mysterious creatures living under large boulders don't seem altogether too threatening. Although the latter's grasping tentacles are a little suspicious aren't they, and the sound cues a little more disquieting. This is a game that knows the value of silence, knows the meaning of absence of music. It's a very conscious choice to leave only environmental sounds playing for prolonged periods of time, and Planet of Lana pulls it off expertly. When a sudden shift in atmosphere takes place, such as the first time you see a watcher, the soundtrack is doing so much of the heavy lifting.  Watch. There's something malevolent about the intelligence behind these watches, and I call them watches not because that is their official name but because that's what they seem to be doing. A name was not given and so I have come up with my own. But yes, something malevolent about the intelligence behind them.  That's my impression of it so far, and it serves to create an early contrast between whatever commands these watches and our brave little duo of Lana and Hilo. I'm a sucker for environmental storytelling. Platformers like this one excel, but making full use of what's on the screen because every shot is directed. The sequence from scene to scene is seamless and creates the effect of a reel of film that is never, or very rarely, get away from. Planet of Lana tells you very much. What it shows you has such weight, such implications however, that you fill all the blanks in for yourself. It's not always a successful method of storytelling because it relies much more on player investment. I cannot speak with certainty as I only have my experience to judge by, but I'm already willing to storm the forums with crazy theories about robots in alien life forms. In all seriousness, I suspect Planet of Lana will be spoken of in the same breadth as such cinematic platformer experiences as Limbo inside Oriental Blind Forest. Though admittedly, the last one is much more action-oriented than the prior mentions. I'm going to have to give some more special attention to the OST. The composer recently shared a pair of tracks from the game Soundtruck. They are genuinely breathtaking, as was everything I heard in the demo. They apparently recorded the music last summer in Budapest with over 70 instruments in the orchestra. Honest to God, the quality and effort have more than paid off. The music and sound design in the demo were out of-worldly. I'd play the full game on their merit alone. Fortunately, there's plenty more. The 25 minutes of this demo passed by without notice. Planet of Lana is slated for release over the second quarter of this year.  You get to see the bigger picture I've only caught glimpse of throughout this short unforgettable experience. If the rest of the game is as good as this, I suspect I might have found my first personal Game of the Year contender. If you'd like to be there with me for that, don't forget to subscribe. I'll be sure to revisit Planet of Lana for a full review soon. In fact, I can hardly wait. If you enjoyed this video, please don't forget to like it, share it with your friends and subscribe. I'll see you next time. Bye!


Gwyddon gyntaf ni'r gweithio phesagwyr newydd fel gwneud sy'n gywed ar y cyfle gaethu ar y ddechrau ymddangos o prosiectau newydd yn y gallu iawn ymddangos arcredigol ymddangosol. Fy souri ein clywed gwahanol o'r ymddangosol, a yn amlwysig nôr o bryd ymddangosol yn wirthyniol ar gyfer ymddangosol. Efallai, mae'n cyfrifio amlaethu fel ychydigol am y clywed ymddangosol ymddangosol sy'n gyffortun. of the existing suite of climate change indices that are out there. You don't need to look in detail, but just observe the pattern of where's red and where's green or blue in the next few slides. You're seeing vulnerability in sub-saharan Africa also in Himalayas, in southern Asia, South-east Asia. But then the green or the positive colours in the rest of the world indicating that other parts of the world are all right. There's a vulnerable parts and then the other bits are all right. That's the impression. And these are the indices that we have at the moment. And I'm asking if they actually tell us anything new. This is the same sort of spatial distribution of a pattern, but it's not a climate change vulnerability index. It's the human development index. And so the different climate change indices that are out there have been developed for a number of different reasons. Some are to simply raise awareness and I'm thinking that respect they've been quite successful. Some of them more explicitly have aimed to inform policy decisions on where to focus adaptation, where to invest for the private sector even, or where not to invest. How to allocate finance has even been a policy question that the indices have been supposedly used for. And a range of different methods from just these three and many other kind of indices that are out there. Some of them are deductive using theoretical explanations and different indicators. Some of them use statistical analysis to say why these indicators are important representation of vulnerability. Some expert or stakeholder involvement. But they all seem to produce fairly similar results. And so I'm asking if that matters. I think it does matter. And the main reason why I think it matters is that they produce or reinforce a misleading perception, which is that rich and emerging economies aren't vulnerable. That their vulnerability is independent of developing countries. And that therefore adaptation to moderate or even more extreme levels of climate change is possible. And that's a viewpoint that you see quite frequently, quite prominently at UN negotiations, the brinkmanship about countries who think they can actually cope with this because they don't see independence between themselves and more vulnerable parts of the world. And whatever happens in the 2015 climate deal, if it's successful, it will no doubt be based on large part about the transfers of finance from one country to another. If it's unsuccessful, then it will imply an even greater need for adaptation finance.  And making those arguments within those countries means persuading finance ministries in particular why it is a strategical worthwhile investment to spend millions and billions of pounds on climate adaptation in other countries. And obviously the most important justifications for that are the historical responsibilities and the equity principles that lie behind that. But I think we need more additional arguments as to why people should invest in adaptation. And one of those is based on self-interest. That's a concept that finance ministries tend to be more acutely aware with than equity perhaps. So this is what lies behind the idea of an alternative climate change index. And like I said, this is about indirect impacts. Now, very briefly, we've done some work to look at current adaptation strategies and whether they deal with these indirect impacts. And the short answer is no, they don't. And one of the PS projects we have, Adaptation Without Borders, is looking at trying to address this. But we identify three main reasons why these issues are lacking. One is low awareness itself. And that's what this index is trying to address. The others are about the lack of evidence and research on the topic and the complexity of the risks and impacts that cross boundaries. We're addressing those as well in the project. But this index is about raising awareness simply of the issues. And so what we mean by indirect impacts, traditional adaptation, if you like, focuses with the decision maker and direct climate impacts in that area. So it rains more in Sweden, it floods more in Sweden, let's adapt to that increased flood risk. But we see climate risk as being much more contextual within a global system. And we identify four pathways via which risks cross borders. And that's biophysical, by which means transboundary rivers, transboundary ecosystems, via trade in global markets or international supply chains, financial pathway, which could be foreign direct investment, or it could be personal finance of remittance flows across countries. And the people pathway, which mostly includes human migration, but also human health across borders and changing dynamics in markets like tourism. And so we recognise that there are still climate impacts that are direct on a decision maker, but there are also climate impacts overseas on receptors that create risks for decision makers in other countries. So the suggestion is to create a global index of exposure to indirect impacts via these pathways. And we'd be very open. My idea is it would be a very, quite a crude composite index, which would be a global map in the end, comprising proxy indicators of risk exposure in each of these pathways. And like I said, this work hasn't been done. So these are just a very initial take on the kinds of indicators we might use to represent risks via these pathways. And this is something that obviously we'll need to work on if we start this initiative. And we'd welcome ideas and comments and criticisms on. So the objectives of this index are to reframe the debate about what vulnerability really means, who's vulnerable, how we share certain vulnerabilities, to raise awareness of this interdependence. In part, that can be used to motivate higher ambition on mitigation and climate finance in particular, but clearly also to stimulate more research on indirect impact. But we are aware of the limitations that apply to this index if it was to be developed, just as they do to other existing indices on the limitations of data that we have, the fairly arbitrary nature of the proxy indicators that you select, and how this global map would be a very static, one-dimensional representation of risks that are actually very dynamic. So for those reasons, it can only be used to raise awareness. It can't be used to support actual decision making. It's just one part of the puzzle. But that's not it. I have a dream. And these are the three people who feature in my dream. Simon, Chris and Ellie from York. And for those people outside of SEI, this is the SEI York team who've developed a multi-regional input output model, which is a fantastic tool and it's a tool that I think we can use to explore indirect impacts in much more detail. And so using this kind of analysis, which traces consumption and the embodiment of various resources in consumption spatially through different supply chains of different countries, we could look at using indicators like embedded water from water-stressed countries. That's an indicator that's pretty much already in the model. We could take a very nuanced analytical view of where these indirect impacts occur and therefore much more policy-relevant insights on how to start making interventions to reduce the risks. That's all. Thank you.


As you can see, I'm trying to approach looking like the image I always put up before my talks, getting closer and closer every time I do this. Maybe I should roll my sleeves up. It would be a little bit more accurate. So the title of this talk is Those Who Forget the Past. Some of you have seen this at SCNA, but this is a slightly different version of it. I am Gary Bernhardt. I look like that on the internet. And I run a company called Destroy All Software. And this talk structure is going to look like this. First of all, capability and suitability. I'm going to define those terms.  Then we'll look at patterns over the history of the industry with capability and suitability. Then the jump drawer, every talk needs a jump drawer, and this one is about relationships. And then finally, productivity, the word productivity, which I hate, and then some divination about what might happen in the future. So first up, capability and suitability. By capability, I mean the power for a software system to express an idea. This could be a language or a practice or a tool. And the canonical, capable system is Lisp. And I'm thinking here of a fully featured Lisp with macros and everything like Common Lisp, for example. Common Lisp is very good at expressing arbitrarily abstract ideas as long as you don't care about the syntax. And, yeah, so that's capability. Suitability is the power to take the capability you had, the ability to express an idea and actually build working software that is reliable and build that software reliably. So this is a different thing. This is not just saying, I can express an idea, but this is saying I can use the idea to do useful work. And the canonical example of this is Java. Java is, in most ways, an extremely boring language from a programming language perspective. There's nothing really interesting in it. It was designed to take a bunch of ideas that already existed and just make them usable to build software that works reliably. So that's capability and suitability. Those are the core ideas for this talk. I'm going to give you a few examples to make it a little more concrete because that was very abstract. I have six examples spanning 47 years of the industry, the first of which is 1957 Fortran. Fortran is pretty much a pure capability response to assembly language. It is slightly higher level. It has things like if and variables, although also it has go to and go to is extremely widely used back in the early days of Fortran. But it is a slightly higher level vocabulary. It allows you to express slightly higher level ideas. So it's a capability response to assembly language. 11 years after Fortran, you get structured programming. This is, of course, the idea of using ifs and whiles and things like that instead of just throwing go tos everywhere. And this is a pure suitability response to Fortran. So you have this sequence where you have assembly language, which is an extremely dangerous system to program in. Then you have increased capability with Fortran. And then structured programming takes some capability away to make a more suitable system, to make more reliable software. And of course, this is when you get the famous paper go to considered harmful, which has been the source of many terrible jokes in the software industry since. And this is Dijkstra, of course. And I have a quote, a contemporary quote about structured programming, someone reacting to this new idea of using ifs and loops instead of just throwing go to everywhere. And here it is. Structured programming is a nice academic exercise, which works well for small examples. But I doubt that any real world program will ever be written in such a style. So this is if they're talking about, and while, and for, these kinds of things. So that's 68. Two years later, 1970, the relational model happens. 1969 plus or minus one year is where everything happened in software, for those of you who don't know. The relational model was a almost pure suitability response to flat files. Flat files are very difficult to reason about. You have to do a lot of work yourself. So you give up a little bit of that flexibility by saying, I'm going to put my data in tables, and my table is going to relate to each other, and I'm going to have a fixed schema up front. And then you gain a tremendous amount of reliability in your software. I have another contemporary quote. At first sight, I doubt that anything complex enough to be of practical interest can be modeled using relations. And of course, they didn't win immediately, but for about 30 years, they've dominated data storage. That might be ending now. But clearly, this person was extremely confused. OK, so that's 70. 1985, C++ happens. I'm skipping C in Unix because they're kind of a murky area. But C++ is a very clear capability response to C. In fact, it has two design criteria. It must have classes, and it must be backwards compatible with C. Its original name was C with classes, which expresses both of its design constraints. So C++ is just C, except you can say some new things. But nothing was really removed. A couple of things were changed, but nothing was really removed. It's almost completely backwards compatible. So pure capability, almost. 10 years later, Java, which is a response to C++, a suitability response. Java takes C++ and rounds all the sharp edges off. It removes pointer arithmetic, and it removes manual memory management. It does add some things like namespaces, and it removes free-floating functions. But these are all things that are just constraining the way that you can write software. And finally, nine years after that, 2004, Rails. And the question is, should we consider Rails a capability change or a suitability change? Did Rails increase the set of things we can say? Or did it allow us to say things we already could say, but to say them more reliably? Now, if you asked a Java programmer in, say, 2006, he would tell you, Rails is obviously unsuitable for large systems. But herpy derp derp, we've heard this before with the reactions to the relational model to structured programming. This is what always happens when there's new stuff. So I think that Rails is primarily a capability increase. There are a lot of things you can say directly in Rails that you could not directly say before it. And one of the ways that I'm fairly confident in this is that Rails has a culture of brokenness, as does Ruby, largely as a result of Rails' influence. Most things are broken most of the time. Things don't compose. Everything is being abandoned all the time. It's a very chaotic system.   But so in a capability system, you see things like this. You see this chaotic behavior of the people because everyone's excited because they can say new things. Ruby, if you're coming from Java, lets you say new things.  So this is how I know that Rails and Ruby are capability increases. So those are six examples. Fortran, structured programming, relational model, C++, Java, Rails. Now we can actually talk about the industry, not just about these isolated examples. I think what happens in the course of the software industry is that we gain capability and then we lose some of it as we get a more reliable system. So you have this periodic structure to the trajectory of the industry where it's going up and down in capability. This is the pessimistic view, of course. Hopefully it looks more like this where when we retract into a more suitable system, we don't lose everything we gained. We save some of it. And you can see that with C++ expanding from C, adding tons of crap, and then Java contracting from C++, we're moving a little bit, but keeping most of the improvements that C++ made. Now, why does that happen? Well, I think abundant resources are the primary driving factor for expanded capability. You have more CPU laying around, you have more memory laying around, and suddenly you can write a Fortran compiler because you're not constrained to two kilobytes of memory. You have enough memory to actually compile another language in memory. Or you have enough memory in CPU to run your web app in Ruby instead of having to write it in a faster language. The reaction to this from the people who use the older thing is always that it's too slow. C was too slow when it was new. C++ was too slow, Java was too slow, and of course nowadays, all of those are considered extremely fast, even Java. Now, on the other hand, I think that confusion motivates contractions into more suitable systems like C++ to Java. And you can see this in structured programming. Go-to, arbitrary go-tos, are extremely confusing. So you restrict yourself to control constructs like if and while, it's more understandable. Same thing with the relational model. You add some structures, some rigidity, and things are more understandable. The reaction here from the people using the older thing is always that it's too limiting. And you can see that in both of the quotes that I showed you about people saying they don't think you can build software in these constrained systems. So, primary motivating forces in the industry, abundant resources and confusion, which lead to expansion and contraction phases of capability, which lead to people whining that things are too slow or too limiting. Now onto the junk drawer, relationships. So, C was too slow, C++ was too slow, Java was too slow, Ruby was too slow. I don't see any reason to assume that this is the end of this list. So I want to present for your consideration the idea that something is going to be slower than Ruby someday. Now, this is important because when that thing comes, it is your job as Ruby programmers, not to say, oh my God, it's so slow, you can't build software in that. It's not too slow, even if it's slower than Ruby. So that's the first relationship point. Second one, suitability is a stronger claim. So if I say I'm capable of expressing this idea, I'm making sort of the common list argument. I can express anything in common list. Well, yes you can, but can you actually build a working system with a team? That's suitability, suitability is being able to actually use it to build real software. So this is the difference between, just because you can doesn't mean you should, or just because you can doesn't mean you really can, which is the lesson of Lisp, at least before closure, which may change this. Now on to productivity, one of my least favorite words. Pragmatic is worse, but not many others are worse. A story first, to introduce this. I had a client before I was running destroyall software, and he was like the VP of engineering or something, this guy was the VP of engineering or something like that at a small company, and he was ranting at me one day, not about the company, but about sort of the industry at large. And he was complaining that people in manager type roles tend to observe activity and confuse it for progress. So they say, Bob is always here, he's here long hours, he's always typing, he closes lots of bugs, which is a very dangerous one, or closes lots of tickets, very dangerous. So he's very productive. But really, all the manager has observed is that Bob is active, Bob is doing things, but it's a different question to judge whether those things are actually moving anyone forward towards a useful goal. So activity and progress are easily mistaken and are not the same thing. And this is a really important point for me, because I type fast, and I use Unix fast, I use Vim fast, and people see me doing these things, and they say Gary's so productive, and I say, well, what does that mean? It means that I'm typing a lot, maybe I'm committing 23 times in two hours, wow, so many commits, so much typing, but could I have done that in one commit that was one page of Diff, maybe? So I am very visibly active, and this scares me because I might be one of those people who's active, but not making any progress. So what the heck is progress? Well, I don't know. Judging activity is very easy, you type a lot, that's activity, judging progress, it's kind of a historical thing, you need a lot of perspective, and it's sort of a subjective thing. But I'm pretty sure that expansion phases, increased capability, lead to lots of activity, like you see in Ruby for the last seven years or so, like you see in JavaScript for the last two years or so. People get excited, lots of stuff happens, but I think that the contraction phase, the increased suitability phase, is where progress happens in this industry. And this is a very unsexy thing to say because I'm basically saying Java is where progress happens, and I don't like Java, I don't want to program in Java, but for the industry as a whole, I think Java is what actually matters, unfortunately. And speaking of what matters, and speaking of trajectory, now we can finally talk about what might the next thing be. So Rails was a capability increase, I claim. But the truth about Rails is that apps are still very bad on the inside, and I think that we as a community are really realizing this, I think this is probably the year of object-oriented design finally actually happening in the Rails world. Because Rails basically took the big angry ball of mud school of design from PHP where you don't have well-defined boundaries, you just have all these pieces randomly talking to each other, represented graphically here. So that's a PHP app, and... What Rails did is it gave us the slightly smaller, big angry ball of mud school of design where you shave off the edge of the app and you say that's the good part. Now, in 0607, that small part would be the model layer, the controller layer was still a big angry ball of mud, and someone, I don't know what year it was, 08 or so, 09, someone had this brilliant idea that if we invert these, then everything will be perfect.  So clearly problem solved, right, everything's perfect. Not so much. What is going to happen next? What is the next thing that's going to happen? Rails only gives you two buckets to put code in, controller, model. We've tried both, neither of them worked very well. So what are we going to do? What will the post-rails contraction be that will actually lead to us designing good systems? I'm going to present you two possibilities that I can imagine happening of many, and the first is that Goose wins. This is growing object-oriented software guided by TESP, by Freeman and Price, and it is the canonical book about doing outside-in test-driven development where you design the lower layers of the system by building the higher layers of the system first and the higher layers, stubs and mocks design the lower layers. That probably sounds really weird if you haven't done it. Read the book, it's good, it's good stuff. I've been doing it for five or six years. The problem is, this is obviously impossible. And I'll tell you why it's impossible. It's impossible because outside-in TDD is a nice academic exercise, which works well for small examples, but I doubt that any real-world program will ever be written in such a style. Very easy words to say when something is new. So that's the first possibility. The second one is that one of these guys wins. Haskell, Clojure, Erlang is what those three are. Finally, the functional revolution comes after 60 years of it being coming next year for 60 years. Of course, the problem here is that this is obviously impossible because functional programming is a nice academic exercise which works well for small examples. So those are my two possibilities. Both of these, I look at them and I say, I cannot imagine these winning in the way that the relational model won, that structured programming won, that Java won, and languages like it. I can't imagine these winning, even though I've been doing both of these for a long time. But I also wouldn't have been able to imagine structured programming or the relational model winning in 1968 or in 1970. So I think that my intuition about this could be wrong. Of course, maybe neither of these will win. I'm not claiming they will, but I could almost imagine it. In either case, whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's contraction time, especially in the Ruby world. With the growing unrest about bad design and active record and the massive coupling that controllers cause, Rails controllers cause, all of this stuff is really coming to a head right now. I think something is going to happen. Some contraction has to happen. So if you want to read more about those quotes I used, I have them at this URL. This will send you to a PDF from, I think an article from the C++ Journal in the 90s that contains these. It is your job to figure out whether they are satire or whether they are real, and it is harder than you might think. So with that, I am Gary Bernhardt. I run Destroy All Software, which has screencasts about outside NTDD and building smaller, happier balls of mud. And I thank you guys very much for listening to me.


Ultrasound biomicroscopy uses, of course, all the same principles as any type of ultrasound, but we have a little bit of a different examination technique. Because the high frequency we're using, in this case 50 MHz for UBM, it doesn't penetrate very far into the eye, so we are going to be imaging directly under the probe, unlike our posterior segment B, when I would place the probe inferiorly to look superiorly. I will be placing the probe directly over the actual tissue I need to image in the UBM. There are different ways of performing UBM. A lot of people have used for many years a scleral shell that's very similar to the one we used for biometry, only it's flared and the probe can go into the fluid here. The mark on the probe indicates the right side of the UBM, so that if I put my transducer with the mark towards the nose, and I do an axial scan, there we see the eye, the cornea, the anterior lens, the iris, and the pupillary space. So this is nasal, and this is temporal. This is the nasal ciliary sulcus, the temporal ciliary sulcus, the pupillary space, the anterior lens capsule. You can see the bag, and the anterior cornea and posterior cornea underneath the bag. So from the beginning, it's nice to do an axial scan, I usually do horizontal. In this case, in other cases of positioning of an implant, it's important to do verticals and obliques in the event that an IOL has shifted, for example. When I'm looking at the angles now, what I might do is go look at more of a radial scan, so I will in this probe, I like to put the marker away from this pupil, so that my scan will look like that. And my job again is to put the area of interest into the focal zone. So now I have a really nice angled scan, that happens to be her three o'clock angle, where you see the ciliary body, the pigment epithelium of the iris, the zonials attaching to the anterior lens capsule, and a beautiful open angle, and the curvature of her iris. So I would label each of these as whatever clock hour I've imaged. For transverse, I would now take the probe, for example, let's go back and I'll put the probe marker superiorly, and I'll do a vertical scan. So this will be superior, and this will be inferior, and I'm going to do what I kind of call agonio view. So I'm going to do, again, sort of an axial type image, like that where you can see the corny in the iris. And now what I'm going to do is start sweeping out, and you see it get narrower, more narrow, and there are the ciliary processes. There's more ciliary processes until I go way off to the square, and I've actually lost. Look a little to the left for me, where I lost some contact. So I can go way out to the periphery. There's her anterior lens capsule, the iris. I keep going farther out, farther out, ciliary processes, and then past to the auricirata. And that's very useful for looking at and documenting multiple iris cysts, a ciliary body lesion, ciliary body cysts, foreign bodies, that sort of thing.


Introducing the Air Devils of Hollywood. All right, George, we're ready for your scene. All you do is fall backward off this ladder and go through that skylight down there. You're playing a bank robber. You're trying to get away from the cops. They're chasing you across the top of these buildings. When you get to this ladder, they shoot. You fall off backwards. Now get the idea? Well, is that all? Yeah. Well, let's take it. All right, everybody. Here we go. This is picture. Quiet, please. Quiet, everybody. Roll him. Got the action. There he goes, running like a quarterback. He's on the ladder. Okay, kill for the gunshot. He's losing his balance. There he goes. From Hollywood, the motion picture capital of the world, we bring you the thrilling, true life experiences of those men behind the scenes. Those daring, unsung heroes whose breathtaking adventures on the screen have thrilled millions.  Those men who complies the strangest fraternity on earth. The Suicide Squad. The movie stuntmen. The dead evils of Hollywood. Ladies and gentlemen, in presenting this copyrighted radio feature, we are again privileged to have as our guest one of the leading stuntmen of Hollywood, Cecil Kellogg. It is through his cooperation that we are able to re-enact some of the highlights of his dangerous profession. The thrilling scenes you are about to hear are his own actual experiences. Cecil Kellogg is here in the studio now, and later in the program, we will bring him to the microphone. But first, we invite you to witness a routine day in the life of this courageous young man. It is early morning, on a day in the summer of 1933. Universal Studios have set up a complete location unit on a sandy country road near Palmdale, California. Besides the cameras, reflectors, and other movie-making equipment, one large speedy fayette and automobile, and a single-motored bombing plane are being prepared for their participation in the filming of an extremely hazardous scene. Cecil Kellogg, the stuntman who is to do that scene, sits relaxed as he goes over the final details with the director. Well, that's the same, Mr. Taylor. I start the car back up the road there about a half a mile, is that right? That's right, Cecil. You gain speed all the way down. When you get even at the cameras here, you should be wide open. And that's where the airplane starts dropping bombs on me. Yes, at least that's the way it's supposed to look. Of course, we'll have charges of dynamite planted in the ground. The powder man will set them off as you pass over. Well, how far apart will these charges be? All about every 50 yards. Now, here's the idea. You're doubling the charge. You're supposed to get through two of the explosions. But the third one blows the car up the road and smacks it into a tree. Now, that's the tree right down there. Yeah, I see. What about this powder man? Is he okay? Well, frankly, Cecil, he's new on the job. But I think everything will be all right. The dynamite is planted three feet underground. Well, of course, a lot depends on the exact moment he sets off his charge. By the way, who's flying the airplane? Oh, didn't I tell you? Frank Clark's flying the ship. Hey, he ought to be showing up pretty soon, too. Frank Clark, well, at least that's one thing I won't have to worry about. That boy can do all of my flying. Yeah, he's funny good, all right. Oh, here he comes now. Hello, Frank. Hello, Mr. Taylor. I hope I'm not late. Well, what do you say, Cecil? Long time no see. Hi there, how are you, boys? Hey, it's just about on time, Frank. We'll be ready to go any minute now. What's new, Frank? Old same old thing. Say, they've got quite a gag figured out here for you, haven't they? Yeah, it looks that way. You're going to be flying pretty low, aren't you? Yeah. I plan to dive just before each explosion. It's got to look real, you know. Sure. Well, use your own judgment. Okay, Mr. Taylor, we're all set. All right, fine. Well, boys, are you ready? Yeah, sure. Let's take it. I'll take off and circle around until you get started. Right. And I'll drive down the road there and wait for the signal. I'll be seeing you, Mr. Taylor. Hope you get a good shot. All right, Cecil. And take good care of yourself, boys. All right. Everybody, now listen carefully. Remember to stand clear. Watch for cameras and don't get excited. When you see the power coming... A store of anxious faces turn toward the director as he speaks. Every eye reflects the seriousness of what he has to say. These cameramen, technicians, and others, all veterans of many dangerous scenes have heard these instructions before. Nevertheless, they stand almost breathless, streaming to catch every word. One side of the road, standing before his electrical switches, is the powder man. His face is white and drawn. His heart beats rapidly. The responsibility of a man's life is his. Everybody on your toes. Okay, Mr. Taylor, the airplane's up and everything else is ready. All right. Here we go. This is it. Quiet, everybody. Quiet, please. All right, give him the signal. There he comes, right over the hill. Hey, he's not wasting any time. And here comes the airplane. Look at that dive. Won the car around, too, but he's still going, making at least 75 the ship's turning back for another dive. Ladies and gentlemen, it is our pleasure to present the fearless young man who made that scene, whose job it is to make dangerous and thrilling scenes for motion pictures. One of Hollywood's ace stuntmen, Cesar Kellogg, interviewed by Glenn Hardy. Well, Cesar, I'll have to admit that that stunt was certainly a thriller. Tell me, were you hurt at all? No, I wasn't. But I was plenty stiff and sore for several days afterwards. The jar when I hit that tree was terrific. I'll bet it was. Say, were you strapped in the car? No, not that time. I always strapped myself in if the car had to turn over. But I'm just a crash, and I'd rather be loose. Look, Cecil, have you ever been injured doing any of these dangerous stunts for the movies? No, not seriously. Well, how do you account for that? Well, it's partly luck and partly knowing what to do at the right time. Well, I can understand that all right. You see, there are thousands of ways you can get hurt doing a stunt. But maybe two or three ways not to get hurt. A stuntman must figure out those two or three ways and take one of them. By the way, Cecil, I understand your wife is doing stunt work, too. What about that? Yeah, that's right. She's Francis Kellogg. Especially his horse stunt. I think she's the only woman in the business who can drive a span of six horses in stunts, I mean. Well, that's very interesting. But tell me, Cecil, what stars have you doubled for? Oh, many of them. Let's see, the Douglas Fairbanks, Buster Crabb, Gain Whitman, Tom Mick, Buck Jones. Oh, a lot of them. I see. And have you also doubled for women? I'm sure. Mary Pickford, the late Ruth Roland, Norma Talmad, Norma Shearer, Carter Colbert. Well, I can't think of all of them offhand. Well, Cecil, I should imagine this stunt business is plenty exciting. Yes, it is. But there's quite a fascination to it. You see, there are no two cents exactly alive. For instance, take the time I get a gag up into Hunger Canyon. Pardon me, Cecil. We want to hear about that. In fact, we wouldn't let you get out of here without telling us. But first, let's have just a word from our sponsor. All right now, Cecil. What about that stunt up in the canyon? Well, it was back in 1927. As I say, we were up into Hunger Canyon at about 20 miles from Hollywood. William Kraft, the director, was explaining to me what I was supposed to do. Hello, Cecil. Your address is the leading lady in this scene, and you're on a runaway horse. And I see. A bob will be doubling the leading man. He'll be right behind you. The idea is the old rescue gag. Get the point? Yeah. Well, what happens then? Well, it develops. The two fall off the horse. The four bob can catch up with you. And you just roll over on that ledge there and hang on till he comes and gets you. You mean hang by my fingers over that canyon? Why, man, that thing's 200 feet deep and straight down. Yes, I know, Cecil. But we've got a piano wire net stretched across there about 10 feet below. So if you can't hang on the wire, we'll catch you. Yeah, maybe. That piano wire holds sometimes and sometimes it doesn't.  Well, there's a good solid rock ledge down there for you to hang on to. I think everything will be all right. Well, I guess we'll soon know whether it will or not. I see they've got the camera set up. Yes, we're ready to shoot.  Is that all clear? Yeah. Well, let's take it. Okay, boy.  Well, Bob's waiting for you down there. I'll give you the signal to start. Right. All right, everybody. We're all set. This is the picture. Fire, please. Everybody take your places. Fire, please. All right, men, pan them all the way down. Ready now? Okay, give the signal. Roll them. Here they come. And I have those horses running. You bet they're running. This is going to be good. Boy, look at these. They'll make that call up the horse. It was perfect. He's rolling down to the ledge. Say, this is swell. Here comes Bob. He's getting ready to left to him. Great, Scott. Cecil's hands are slipping off the rock. He can't hold on. Hurry, Bob! Throw that rope over him. Quick!  That's right. My finger slipped off and I had to let go. And the other fellow lassoed you before you fell. Is that it? That's it. Of course, a piano wire net might have held me, but I'm not sure. Anyway, I was sure glad to feel that rope around my waist. I'll bet you were with that, Cecil. Now look, how did you happen to get into this movie stunt business in the first place? Well, I started out doubling for Mary Pickford and little Lord Fauntleroy, working with horses. I did a few easy stunts at first, but one thing led to another until I was doing all kinds of gigs. I see, but tell me this, Cecil. Do you like the stunt business? In some ways I do, others I don't. Very fascinating, but on the other hand, it's unquestionably a very dangerous profession. Well, I think I understand your point of view. And all of this has been very interesting. You've given us an exciting and entertaining time, and on behalf of our listeners, I want to thank you sincerely for coming here. I know that everyone joins me in hoping that we may have you on this program again very soon. Take care of yourself, old boy, and happy landings!