News Buzzy’s been stolen?

[Wdwsince86]

You’re making me laugh with how hard you’re trying to paint me as someone who doesn’t appreciate history. I appreciate Disney parks history quite a lot, I’ve watched these videos with wonder the first time I saw some of it.

But I’m not going to pretend it isn’t illegal and wrong to be going where you don’t belong on private property. You can call it whatever you want but it is trespassing. WDW isn’t some abandoned space, it’s an active theme park.

It has abandoned spaces within.. again, criminality does not necessarily equal immorality.

 

[Disnerd2003]

Here are two guys who loved a ride that was slated for closure so much they decided to document all the details they could. It was a labor of love. Too bad you can’t appreciate the hidden details Disney’s finest imagineers put into stuff that you wouldn’t see otherwise.

This is the coolest video I've ever seen! Loved the look at horizons! So cool!

 

[MisterPenguin]

It has abandoned spaces within.. again, criminality does not necessarily equal immorality.

Because you label a space as "abandoned" makes trespassing it OK? LOL.

These are not "abandoned" in the sense of a ghost town where all the business and owners are long gone and no longer care what happens to what used to be their property.

The owner, in this case, still exists. The spaces are clearly marked as off limits to guests. They're not abandoned, they're just currently not in use. People are allowed to have property in reserve for future use without it falling under the legal distinction of abandoned, and thus a free-for-all for anyone who wants to go see it.

Labeling unused space as "abandoned" is the height of rationalization. Especially when urbexes know quite well the owner of the property doesn't want them there. It is intellectual dishonesty at the service of selfishness. And *that* is immorality.

 

[WDWTank]

Any update? Was Buzzy really stolen?
Someone posted a theory but the post is now deleted

 

[Demarke]

Any update? Was Buzzy really stolen?
Someone posted a theory but the post is now deleted

I think Buzzy news may be off topic. This appears to be a debate thread for people to argue whether or not urban exploring is okay and whether people should care about old animatronics.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Any update? Was Buzzy really stolen?
Someone posted a theory but the post is now deleted

If there was an update, it would surely be posted. Asking every day if there's an update is a waste of time.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Theory: Buzzy is actually MattSonswa's cranium pilot and with him missing, Matt is making increasingly poor decisions.

 

[Wdwsince86]

Because you label a space as "abandoned" makes trespassing it OK? LOL.

These are not "abandoned" in the sense of a ghost town where all the business and owners are long gone and no longer care what happens to what used to be their property.

The owner, in this case, still exists. The spaces are clearly marked as off limits to guests. They're not abandoned, they're just currently not in use. People are allowed to have property in reserve for future use without it falling under the legal distinction of abandoned, and thus a free-for-all for anyone who wants to go see it.

Labeling unused space as "abandoned" is the height of rationalization. Especially when urbexes know quite well the owner of the property doesn't want them there. It is intellectual dishonesty at the service of selfishness. And *that* is immorality.

I said criminality does not equal morality... yes I called them abandoned spaces, but conceded that they are infact criminal acts to tresspass on them.

 

[LukeS7]

I said criminality does not equal morality... yes I called them abandoned spaces, but conceded that they are infact criminal acts to tresspass on them.

One could argue it is immoral to be on another person's property without their permission. Even more so if you're actually entering a building owned by someone without their permission.

 

[SmogMonster71]

As someone who participates in urbex every so often (although not at Disney thus far), I personally think it comes down to curiosity versus morality. Is it "right" to sneak into a place where you legally aren't supposed to be? Not especially. But, sometimes the moral regard isn't all that relevant - say, for example, whoever first discovered Buzzy sitting back there. They made an awesome discovery that made an impact on the Disney park fanbase. Doesn't mean it's good that they snuck back there, but it did give us some cool insight. Whether or not that's worth it to you comes down to personal preference.

 

[NormC]

say, for example, whoever first discovered Buzzy sitting back there. They made an awesome discovery

No they didn't. There was nothing to discover. We knew he was there. That is where Disney put him. Just because the attraction closed doesn't mean he vanished. That is like jumping into the neighbor's pool and claiming you discovered water.

 

[Tom Morrow]

No they didn't. There was nothing to discover. We knew he was there. That is where Disney put him. Just because the attraction closed doesn't mean he vanished. That is like jumping into the neighbor's pool and claiming you discovered water.

Would you have ever guessed that he was still inside the theater with the stage and hypothalamus intact 11 years after the show closed if people hadn't been posting pictures?

 

[NormC]

Would you have ever guessed that he was still inside the theater with the stage and hypothalamus intact 11 years after the show closed if people hadn't been posting pictures?

Yes. I would have guessed he was still there as Disney does not spend money to renovate a location unless there is a plan for another use. WoL was mothballed without any definitive future plans.

 

[SmogMonster71]

I get NormC's point, so maybe Buzzy isn't a great example. What I was really aiming to say was that urbex, in this sort of context, can lead to some interesting behind-the-scenes knowledge - say, how Food Rocks was behind a wall, or more accurately, the state of River Country. Still, that doesn't automatically make urbex "okay". It's one of those things that's got perks, but isn't something I think should be encouraged.

 

[BoarderPhreak]

Yes. I would have guessed he was still there as Disney does not spend money to renovate a location unless there is a plan for another use. WoL was mothballed without any definitive future plans.

Mothballed? Maybe some of it. Other areas are completely gutted, and have been for quite a while.

 

[NormC]

Yup.

 

[LukeS7]

Trespassing for the purpose of having a positive impact doesn't make it okay. It's the exact reason why officers need search warrants. Even if they're doing it for a positive impact, entering without permission is immoral and illegal.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Yes. I would have guessed he was still there as Disney does not spend money to renovate a location unless there is a plan for another use. WoL was mothballed without any definitive future plans.

This is not always the case. Stitch has already been stripped. More and more continuously gets removed from the original ImageWorks. The Food Rocks stage was completely removed and gutted despite that some of it could have been left intact. I think most people would have assumed that they would have taken out and archived the one key figure in the show.

 

[Tom Morrow]

The clarification needs to be made again that there are different "levels" of urban exploration and most of them do not trespass or sneak in to active facilities but rather long, long since abandoned and forgotten locations.

 

[LukeS7]

The clarification needs to be made again that there are different "levels" of urban exploration and most of them do not trespass or sneak in to active facilities but rather long, long since abandoned and forgotten locations.

There are different levels to it, but per your example if those long since abandoned and forgotten locations are still owned by somebody, it is still trespassing. It's quite simple.