In GoldenEye when Xenia Onatopp killed a Canadian Admiral with her thighs, was it actually feasible?
Asphyxia due to limitations of the respiratory movements of the chest and diaphragm may occur acutely during collapses, falls, massive objects on the body or subacute when compression (such as Onatopp's thighs) partially reduces respiratory movements. Restriction of respiratory movements may relate only to the chest or abdomen, or both simultaneously. With the simultaneous compression of the chest and abdomen, death occurs relatively quickly. Slow hypoxia occurs during non-simultaneous compression of the chest and abdomen and prolonged compression of the side of the body.
The only thing they got wrong in the film was how quickly the admiral dies, however, this is usually exaggerated in most films, as real asphyxia is a long, agonizing and terrible to watch. Filmmakers don't want the audience to suffer through such a death along with the victim.
One thing that has always confused me about TMWTGG. Why would Scaramanga have a Replica Model of Bond in his Hideout? And why would it be holding a fully loaded Walther?
Scaramanga looked up to Bond and thought of him as an equal. Still doesn't explain the gun though.
Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?"
1.) How does luring Silva to Skyfall -- where presumably M and Bond will have no additional weapons and no reinforcements waiting -- somehow improve their chances of defeating him?
2.) How does Bond taking M to Skyfall, where she gets killed, protect her?
3. Why do Q and 007 choose to meet at the British Museum, other than to shoehorn the painting into the conversation?
4.) Why would a top secret laptop hard drive not have some sort of self-destruct or self-erase? Silva seems to be able to get into M's computer at will -- how come M1-6 couldn't get into their own hard drive, given they have mini Q?
5.) Where did Bond get the knife he threw into Silva at the end of the movie? Was that Kincaid's and he just didn't bother to pick it up from the table? Why not?
6.) Why couldn't Silva find a less complicated way to kill M? After all, he could blow up MI-6, plant explosives in an abandoned tube station, and plot out his capture and escape, and Bond somehow just walked into M's house -- she seems a lot pretty vulnerable target.
7.) Is Bond currently on Double Secret Probation for not retrieving his signature gun?
1. I've covered this in another post, but Bond figured his odds were better at
getting the best of Silva and his goons at Skyfall because Silva was only good
at pre-planning attacks and escapes and hacking - none of which he could do
on Bond's turf. Bond figured he could use weapons from the hunting rack
for backup, not knowing at the time they had been sold off. He may have also
assumed that Silva only had a few goons with him and was coming by car or - if
by air, not in a plane or helicopter that was armed. Also, being out in the open
with no place to hide, there was no way for Silva to sneak up on Bond and
surprise him.
2. See #1.
3. I asked this in another post. Members posted Q's section in the underground
HQ was still being set up, so he just met him at the museum. I was also
informed someone recreated this type of meeting and exchanged a box as
in the film and there was no instance of being noticed by museum security.
4. If there were a self destruct/auto erase feature, it may have been deactivated
by Silva's hacking - the whole basis of his threat was the idea he was one of
the top hackers anywhere, so this would not have been difficult for him to do.
It's the same reason he could hack M's computer and how he could make it
difficult for Q to hack the hard drive - he booby trapped it with a trojan - though
it still didn't prevent them form seeing the map in the programming.
5. It may have been on the goon he killed in the frozen pond.
6. Then, you would not have had a film! Joking aside, Silva wanted to make her
suffer for a time as he did before killing her - and he wanted to do that in
person. So he made her watch her people get killed in the explosion.
Silva had not planned on being captured. He set up the elaborate escape
plans in case he WAS captured before being able to kill her - that included
the mine in the train tunnel - it was supposed to merely be a distraction for
security forces. It just happened to come in handy when Bond trapped him
at that location - he used it to try to kill Bond instead. Silva had probably
planned on a simple method of killing her in person eventually, its just that
Bond screwed it all up. He had escaped plans set up ahead of time (and it
may be he had several) so if he were captured he would have another
opportunity to get M again. Bond got into M's flat because he may have
talked to the bodyguard or guards posted outside and were undercover
to allow him access. Being a 00 officer he would have seniority over them.
7. No, he'll just be issued another one (though Q will still be upset).
Well in the Novel, Scaramanga is a complete and utter Thug who sees Bond as Temporary Help and whom he plans to dispose of when the Job is finished. Obviously Bonds Cover is blown before then though.
1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
1.) How does luring Silva to Skyfall -- where presumably M and Bond will have no additional weapons and no reinforcements waiting -- somehow improve their chances of defeating him?
2.) How does Bond taking M to Skyfall, where she gets killed, protect her?
3. Why do Q and 007 choose to meet at the British Museum, other than to shoehorn the painting into the conversation?
4.) Why would a top secret laptop hard drive not have some sort of self-destruct or self-erase? Silva seems to be able to get into M's computer at will -- how come M1-6 couldn't get into their own hard drive, given they have mini Q?
5.) Where did Bond get the knife he threw into Silva at the end of the movie? Was that Kincaid's and he just didn't bother to pick it up from the table? Why not?
6.) Why couldn't Silva find a less complicated way to kill M? After all, he could blow up MI-6, plant explosives in an abandoned tube station, and plot out his capture and escape, and Bond somehow just walked into M's house -- she seems a lot pretty vulnerable target.
7.) Is Bond currently on Double Secret Probation for not retrieving his signature gun?
Snip.
I appreciate what you're saying, but to me, it's more because of sloppy writing than because the rationalizations work neatly.
For instance, we could have arrived at Skyfall not because Bond came up with the plan but because Silva himself herded Bond there -- after all, he seemed to know just about everything about everyone. Then, if M got killed, it would have seemed less Bond's fault and more just a part of the circumstances. Arguments that this would have made Bond seem less proactive would be blunted by it would also make Bond seem less incompetent.
Also, if Silva could bypass security to get to the hard drive, why didn't he just hack the laptop in the first place?
I"m not a fan of John Logan's work. I find him good enough rather than good as a screenwriter. I don't expect perfection, of course, but his scripts always seem sloppy to me, relying more on us to be distracted by the chases and explosions.
I always assumed the bomb in the Underground was to draw armed security away from the government building M was being grilled in.
What bugged me is how Silva, a man himself on the run, could assemble a couple of platoons of mercs and ride around in a military helicopter without getting his day ruined by a jet or drone. ?:)
EDIT: Although Silva had huge resources really and lots of cunning, presumably he had his main assault team on stand by at a remote private estate he purchased, originally for the hit on M in London if he wasn't captured, and the helicopter could've been stolen by hacking into MoD logistics and stowed in a barn. Silva's magic hacking skillz may have compromised radar.
'Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow moving dipping mechanism...'
What bugged me is how Silva, a man himself on the run, could assemble a couple of platoons of mercs and ride around in a military helicopter without getting his day ruined by a jet or drone. ?:)
1.) How does luring Silva to Skyfall -- where presumably M and Bond will have no additional weapons and no reinforcements waiting -- somehow improve their chances of defeating him?
2.) How does Bond taking M to Skyfall, where she gets killed, protect her?
3. Why do Q and 007 choose to meet at the British Museum, other than to shoehorn the painting into the conversation?
4.) Why would a top secret laptop hard drive not have some sort of self-destruct or self-erase? Silva seems to be able to get into M's computer at will -- how come M1-6 couldn't get into their own hard drive, given they have mini Q?
5.) Where did Bond get the knife he threw into Silva at the end of the movie? Was that Kincaid's and he just didn't bother to pick it up from the table? Why not?
6.) Why couldn't Silva find a less complicated way to kill M? After all, he could blow up MI-6, plant explosives in an abandoned tube station, and plot out his capture and escape, and Bond somehow just walked into M's house -- she seems a lot pretty vulnerable target.
7.) Is Bond currently on Double Secret Probation for not retrieving his signature gun?
Snip.
I appreciate what you're saying, but to me, it's more because of sloppy writing than because the rationalizations work neatly.
For instance, we could have arrived at Skyfall not because Bond came up with the plan but because Silva himself herded Bond there -- after all, he seemed to know just about everything about everyone. Then, if M got killed, it would have seemed less Bond's fault and more just a part of the circumstances. Arguments that this would have made Bond seem less proactive would be blunted by it would also make Bond seem less incompetent.
Also, if Silva could bypass security to get to the hard drive, why didn't he just hack the laptop in the first place?
I"m not a fan of John Logan's work. I find him good enough rather than good as a screenwriter. I don't expect perfection, of course, but his scripts always seem sloppy to me, relying more on us to be distracted by the chases and explosions.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case in regards to action films. I enjoy the
production quality, but logical plotting does seem to be on the bottom of action film writers lists. Films in this genre are usually - as Fleming put it in regards to his work - "aimed for below the waist" as opposed to above the neck. With the Bond series, no matter how much more drama they may inject, they're still basically fireworks displays and magic tricks in the end.
I appreciate what you're saying, but to me, it's more because of sloppy writing than because the rationalizations work neatly.
For instance, we could have arrived at Skyfall not because Bond came up with the plan but because Silva himself herded Bond there -- after all, he seemed to know just about everything about everyone. Then, if M got killed, it would have seemed less Bond's fault and more just a part of the circumstances. Arguments that this would have made Bond seem less proactive would be blunted by it would also make Bond seem less incompetent.
Also, if Silva could bypass security to get to the hard drive, why didn't he just hack the laptop in the first place?
I"m not a fan of John Logan's work. I find him good enough rather than good as a screenwriter. I don't expect perfection, of course, but his scripts always seem sloppy to me, relying more on us to be distracted by the chases and explosions.
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case in regards to action films. I enjoy the
production quality, but logical plotting does seem to be on the bottom of action film writers lists. Films in this genre are usually - as Fleming put it in regards to his work - "aimed for below the waist" as opposed to above the neck. With the Bond series, no matter how much more drama they may inject, they're still basically fireworks displays and magic tricks in the end.
But some are definitely better than others. There's a difference between, say, the fantastic but necessary plot element of Bond meeting and falling for the daughter of Marc-Ange Draco, the only person in Europe who coincidentally could tell him where Blofeld is, and his setting into motion the very actions that led to M's demise in Skyfall when he somehow, bafflingly, thought he was helping her. Or Bond not realizing right away that Captain Nash isn't who he claim to be and Kincaid stumbling around in the dark with a flashlight when the scene could have been simply written with Silva instead using night vision goggles. There's a level of dopiness to a typical John Logan script that just seems amateurish when it comes to plotting.
The plot holes in Skyfall are unforgivable. It makes Moonraker seem quite logical by comparison.
I don't know if they're plotholes, per se, but there's definitely something kinda dumb going on in too many scenes.
True. Your example of Silva using night vision goggles instead of M bumbling with the flashlight is a good example. Dumb moments like that make me slap my forehead and go "argggggh" John Logan should not be allowed anywhere near a Bond script. Skyfall looks fantastic, but hardly makes any sense.
My current 10 favorite:
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
I doubt an old duffer like Kincade would have a set of night vision googles
kicking about. ) Unless you meant if Silva had the googles so could have
Seen them running away.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I doubt an old duffer like Kincade would have a set of night vision googles
kicking about. ) Unless you meant if Silva had the googles so could have
Seen them running away.
Haha, yeah, I was referring to Silva. And it makes perfect sense that he would have them.
There are other things, too. What if M got shot not because she didn't duck properly behind a clock or whatever, but she leaned out to try to help Bond and caught a bullet, only he didn't know it. Think of how even more emotionally wrenching it might have been for Bond when she died and he realized when and how she must have been hit. It could even be a situation where Bond told her to stay put and she decided against it -- then her death would seem less the result of his dopey plan and more her stubborn refusal to take orders.
Anyway, John Logan just seems clueless in this regard. He's got a paint-by-numbers approach to things that assumes the audience isn't really paying much attention or is very literate, and in a lot of cases, he might be right.
I have to admit that scene always bugged me, Kincade is an old
Hunter and would have known a torch can be seen for miles. I
Don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the movie, lately I watched
Oblivion, and it has a huge, but huge plot hole near the end
So I'd say it's a problem in all modern films.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
I have to admit that scene always bugged me, Kincade is an old
Hunter and would have known a torch can be seen for miles. I
Don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the movie, lately I watched
Oblivion, and it has a huge, but huge plot hole near the end
So I'd say it's a problem in all modern films.
I may have to go back and watch this, but didn't they witness the estate blow up? It seemed to me when I initially watched it they looked as though they believed everyone including Bond was killed, so they had no reason to fear using the torch.
In regards to the quality of the screenwriting, yes - it can be irritating to those who wish it were without weaknesses (and lets face it, there were no nominations for the screenplay that I can recall), then why is it I keep watching it and enjoying it? I guess it comes down to the scuba tank blowing up the shark in Jaws. Even though I watch it happen and know it's a ridiculous scene because the tank would not explode - It's still a thrill to see the bloody thing die in that spectacular fashion.
Yes, it would be nice to have better writing, and though I personally enjoy films like these that have weaknesses (and sometimes many), it is no excuse to have scripts with plotholes. However, since I can't do much about it, I'll just have to sit back and watch them again (and again and again and....).
CmdrAtticus wrote :
I may have to go back and watch this, but didn't they witness the estate blow up? It seemed to me when I initially watched it they looked as though they believed everyone including Bond was killed, so they had no reason to fear using the torch.
Good point. {[]
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,777MI6 Agent
Unfortunately, we cut to a reaction shot of Kincade and M immediately after the house explodes. As they turn away to head to the Kirk, Kincade has his left arm around M. He is already holding the lit torch in his right hand. After Silva starts to go after them, an establishing shot shows the house ablaze in the background and someone walking in the direction of the kirk. They are silouetted perfectly against the blaze! Added to that, there is the level of ambiant light from the fire, it would make the torch unneccesary to see anyway. Considering the whole point of using the secret tunnel is stealth, it just does not add up.
Mind you in the same scene, Bond dives round a corner in the tunnel to avoid being toasted by the explosion blast, so what the hell!
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
I have to admit that scene always bugged me, Kincade is an old
Hunter and would have known a torch can be seen for miles. I
Don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the movie, lately I watched
Oblivion, and it has a huge, but huge plot hole near the end
So I'd say it's a problem in all modern films.
I may have to go back and watch this, but didn't they witness the estate blow up? It seemed to me when I initially watched it they looked as though they believed everyone including Bond was killed, so they had no reason to fear using the torch.
In regards to the quality of the screenwriting, yes - it can be irritating to those who wish it were without weaknesses (and lets face it, there were no nominations for the screenplay that I can recall), then why is it I keep watching it and enjoying it? I guess it comes down to the scuba tank blowing up the shark in Jaws. Even though I watch it happen and know it's a ridiculous scene because the tank would not explode - It's still a thrill to see the bloody thing die in that spectacular fashion.
Yes, it would be nice to have better writing, and though I personally enjoy films like these that have weaknesses (and sometimes many), it is no excuse to have scripts with plotholes. However, since I can't do much about it, I'll just have to sit back and watch them again (and again and again and....).
That's not a bad point, but just because the house blew up was no reason for them to believe that all of Silva's people had died -- and clearly, they had not.
In terms of the writing, what is particularly annoying is that even as the quality of writing has gotten crappier and crappier, the amount of money raked in by franchises like Bond has been outrageous, owing in part to increasing ticket costs and multiple venues and revenue streams. So, on paper, someone of mediocre talent like Logan looks incredibly successful, whereas truly good writers of the past, many of whom are forgotten, somehow seem less successful. I don't find the quality of Logan's scripts much different than that of episodic TV of the late 1960s, and quite possibly not even that literate.
I understand it was staged, Bond's death. So does that mean Ling was in on it too? And the firing squad?
How about the cops that came in following the shooting? They find blood on the bed, and they check Bond's pulse. Is the cop that checks the pulse in on the setup too? The blood must be fake, right? But we saw a firing squad gun down Bond's bed.
This has always confused me. Any help would be much appreciated!
Comments
Asphyxia due to limitations of the respiratory movements of the chest and diaphragm may occur acutely during collapses, falls, massive objects on the body or subacute when compression (such as Onatopp's thighs) partially reduces respiratory movements. Restriction of respiratory movements may relate only to the chest or abdomen, or both simultaneously. With the simultaneous compression of the chest and abdomen, death occurs relatively quickly. Slow hypoxia occurs during non-simultaneous compression of the chest and abdomen and prolonged compression of the side of the body.
The only thing they got wrong in the film was how quickly the admiral dies, however, this is usually exaggerated in most films, as real asphyxia is a long, agonizing and terrible to watch. Filmmakers don't want the audience to suffer through such a death along with the victim.
Scaramanga looked up to Bond and thought of him as an equal. Still doesn't explain the gun though.
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
1. I've covered this in another post, but Bond figured his odds were better at
getting the best of Silva and his goons at Skyfall because Silva was only good
at pre-planning attacks and escapes and hacking - none of which he could do
on Bond's turf. Bond figured he could use weapons from the hunting rack
for backup, not knowing at the time they had been sold off. He may have also
assumed that Silva only had a few goons with him and was coming by car or - if
by air, not in a plane or helicopter that was armed. Also, being out in the open
with no place to hide, there was no way for Silva to sneak up on Bond and
surprise him.
2. See #1.
3. I asked this in another post. Members posted Q's section in the underground
HQ was still being set up, so he just met him at the museum. I was also
informed someone recreated this type of meeting and exchanged a box as
in the film and there was no instance of being noticed by museum security.
4. If there were a self destruct/auto erase feature, it may have been deactivated
by Silva's hacking - the whole basis of his threat was the idea he was one of
the top hackers anywhere, so this would not have been difficult for him to do.
It's the same reason he could hack M's computer and how he could make it
difficult for Q to hack the hard drive - he booby trapped it with a trojan - though
it still didn't prevent them form seeing the map in the programming.
5. It may have been on the goon he killed in the frozen pond.
6. Then, you would not have had a film! Joking aside, Silva wanted to make her
suffer for a time as he did before killing her - and he wanted to do that in
person. So he made her watch her people get killed in the explosion.
Silva had not planned on being captured. He set up the elaborate escape
plans in case he WAS captured before being able to kill her - that included
the mine in the train tunnel - it was supposed to merely be a distraction for
security forces. It just happened to come in handy when Bond trapped him
at that location - he used it to try to kill Bond instead. Silva had probably
planned on a simple method of killing her in person eventually, its just that
Bond screwed it all up. He had escaped plans set up ahead of time (and it
may be he had several) so if he were captured he would have another
opportunity to get M again. Bond got into M's flat because he may have
talked to the bodyguard or guards posted outside and were undercover
to allow him access. Being a 00 officer he would have seniority over them.
7. No, he'll just be issued another one (though Q will still be upset).
For instance, we could have arrived at Skyfall not because Bond came up with the plan but because Silva himself herded Bond there -- after all, he seemed to know just about everything about everyone. Then, if M got killed, it would have seemed less Bond's fault and more just a part of the circumstances. Arguments that this would have made Bond seem less proactive would be blunted by it would also make Bond seem less incompetent.
Also, if Silva could bypass security to get to the hard drive, why didn't he just hack the laptop in the first place?
I"m not a fan of John Logan's work. I find him good enough rather than good as a screenwriter. I don't expect perfection, of course, but his scripts always seem sloppy to me, relying more on us to be distracted by the chases and explosions.
What bugged me is how Silva, a man himself on the run, could assemble a couple of platoons of mercs and ride around in a military helicopter without getting his day ruined by a jet or drone. ?:)
EDIT: Although Silva had huge resources really and lots of cunning, presumably he had his main assault team on stand by at a remote private estate he purchased, originally for the hit on M in London if he wasn't captured, and the helicopter could've been stolen by hacking into MoD logistics and stowed in a barn. Silva's magic hacking skillz may have compromised radar.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Unfortunately, this seems to be the case in regards to action films. I enjoy the
production quality, but logical plotting does seem to be on the bottom of action film writers lists. Films in this genre are usually - as Fleming put it in regards to his work - "aimed for below the waist" as opposed to above the neck. With the Bond series, no matter how much more drama they may inject, they're still basically fireworks displays and magic tricks in the end.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
True. Your example of Silva using night vision goggles instead of M bumbling with the flashlight is a good example. Dumb moments like that make me slap my forehead and go "argggggh" John Logan should not be allowed anywhere near a Bond script. Skyfall looks fantastic, but hardly makes any sense.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
kicking about.
Seen them running away.
There are other things, too. What if M got shot not because she didn't duck properly behind a clock or whatever, but she leaned out to try to help Bond and caught a bullet, only he didn't know it. Think of how even more emotionally wrenching it might have been for Bond when she died and he realized when and how she must have been hit. It could even be a situation where Bond told her to stay put and she decided against it -- then her death would seem less the result of his dopey plan and more her stubborn refusal to take orders.
Anyway, John Logan just seems clueless in this regard. He's got a paint-by-numbers approach to things that assumes the audience isn't really paying much attention or is very literate, and in a lot of cases, he might be right.
Hunter and would have known a torch can be seen for miles. I
Don't let it spoil my enjoyment of the movie, lately I watched
Oblivion, and it has a huge, but huge plot hole near the end
So I'd say it's a problem in all modern films.
I may have to go back and watch this, but didn't they witness the estate blow up? It seemed to me when I initially watched it they looked as though they believed everyone including Bond was killed, so they had no reason to fear using the torch.
In regards to the quality of the screenwriting, yes - it can be irritating to those who wish it were without weaknesses (and lets face it, there were no nominations for the screenplay that I can recall), then why is it I keep watching it and enjoying it? I guess it comes down to the scuba tank blowing up the shark in Jaws. Even though I watch it happen and know it's a ridiculous scene because the tank would not explode - It's still a thrill to see the bloody thing die in that spectacular fashion.
Yes, it would be nice to have better writing, and though I personally enjoy films like these that have weaknesses (and sometimes many), it is no excuse to have scripts with plotholes. However, since I can't do much about it, I'll just have to sit back and watch them again (and again and again and....).
I may have to go back and watch this, but didn't they witness the estate blow up? It seemed to me when I initially watched it they looked as though they believed everyone including Bond was killed, so they had no reason to fear using the torch.
Good point. {[]
Mind you in the same scene, Bond dives round a corner in the tunnel to avoid being toasted by the explosion blast, so what the hell!
In terms of the writing, what is particularly annoying is that even as the quality of writing has gotten crappier and crappier, the amount of money raked in by franchises like Bond has been outrageous, owing in part to increasing ticket costs and multiple venues and revenue streams. So, on paper, someone of mediocre talent like Logan looks incredibly successful, whereas truly good writers of the past, many of whom are forgotten, somehow seem less successful. I don't find the quality of Logan's scripts much different than that of episodic TV of the late 1960s, and quite possibly not even that literate.
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
I understand it was staged, Bond's death. So does that mean Ling was in on it too? And the firing squad?
How about the cops that came in following the shooting? They find blood on the bed, and they check Bond's pulse. Is the cop that checks the pulse in on the setup too? The blood must be fake, right? But we saw a firing squad gun down Bond's bed.
This has always confused me. Any help would be much appreciated!
1. GoldenEye 2. Goldfinger 3. Skyfall 4. OHMSS 5. TWINE
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
How could they do that?
coding machine. NO British involvement at all, amazing.