hrcollectibles
Active Member
Nah. Probably surfaced from below in one of the old 20K subs.
And you thought they buried them all. :lol:
They actually use Old Dharma Initiative Subs.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Discovery Island - Worth it?
- Thread starter TrevorA
- Start date
They actually use Old Dharma Initiative Subs.
FWIW, I actually respect what Mr Perez is doing and don't feel he has to justify his rationale to anyone. All that aside, however, his explantion does have some factual flaws based on common incorrect conventional wisdom. For some reason, these "facts" are very often quoted by individuals who tend to get their information from headlines and watercooler conversations rather than from actually digging a little deeper to get their facts straight. For example...
While it's true that auto accidents do kill a lot of people every year, what needs to be kept in perspective is how many people DRIVE every DAY? In contrast, how many people swim to Discovery Island and explore it in the dark of night? According to the authors of Freakonomics, if auto accidents were the only thing that could possibly kill you, you would probably live to be about 250 years old. Their point is that driving a car can be dangerous, but the dangers of it being such a common way to die have been massively blown out of proportion. According to the CDC, the most common cause of death in the U.S. is cardiovascular disease, which accounts for about 29% of deaths. By comparison, auto accidents make up about 2% of deaths. "Unintentional injury" is much higher on the list and makes up about 6%. Drowning accounts for about .67%, which means that you are just under 3 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are by drowning. That's not much, when you think about it. Yet car accidents is always used as the comparison to all other activities when making comparisons about the degree of safety.
First off, frivolous lawsuits are hardly a "relatively recent trend".
Secondly, this is obviously a reference to the famous case in which an elderly woman spilled coffee on her lap and then sued McDonald's over it. This case is almost always used as the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit. That's ironic because it actually was not a frivolous lawsuit, and anyone familiar with more details than just the headline knows that. The truth is that the particular McDonald's in question had been warned a number of times about the brewing temperature of their coffee being too hot and about serving it too hot to customers. The woman who was burned actually spent several weeks in the hospital undergoing skin grafts. It was anything but a frivolous lawsuit and yet there are still people today who use it as the classic example of one.
Other than those facts being wrong, I think what Mr Perez is doing is cool!
While it's true that auto accidents do kill a lot of people every year, what needs to be kept in perspective is how many people DRIVE every DAY? In contrast, how many people swim to Discovery Island and explore it in the dark of night? According to the authors of Freakonomics, if auto accidents were the only thing that could possibly kill you, you would probably live to be about 250 years old. Their point is that driving a car can be dangerous, but the dangers of it being such a common way to die have been massively blown out of proportion. According to the CDC, the most common cause of death in the U.S. is cardiovascular disease, which accounts for about 29% of deaths. By comparison, auto accidents make up about 2% of deaths. "Unintentional injury" is much higher on the list and makes up about 6%. Drowning accounts for about .67%, which means that you are just under 3 times more likely to die in a car accident than you are by drowning. That's not much, when you think about it. Yet car accidents is always used as the comparison to all other activities when making comparisons about the degree of safety.
First off, frivolous lawsuits are hardly a "relatively recent trend".
Secondly, this is obviously a reference to the famous case in which an elderly woman spilled coffee on her lap and then sued McDonald's over it. This case is almost always used as the epitome of a frivolous lawsuit. That's ironic because it actually was not a frivolous lawsuit, and anyone familiar with more details than just the headline knows that. The truth is that the particular McDonald's in question had been warned a number of times about the brewing temperature of their coffee being too hot and about serving it too hot to customers. The woman who was burned actually spent several weeks in the hospital undergoing skin grafts. It was anything but a frivolous lawsuit and yet there are still people today who use it as the classic example of one.
Other than those facts being wrong, I think what Mr Perez is doing is cool!
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
Some of you were questioning Perez on him saying the statute of limitations is up. The statute of limitations in FL is 5 years. I just received a e-mail response from him, saying that it was 5 years after he had gone to DI when he posted it on the blog in December. Why did he wait so long? not sure, waiting on an e-mail response on that.
However, like some of you were also saying, because he did it on private property, the statue of limitations may not apply so that wouldn't matter. Either way, I still think it is interesting that he would go and not post it to his blog until 5 years later.
However, like some of you were also saying, because he did it on private property, the statue of limitations may not apply so that wouldn't matter. Either way, I still think it is interesting that he would go and not post it to his blog until 5 years later.
protiius
Member
Surely, for that exact reason. So that he could ensure he can't get into any trouble after admitting to what he did. If he really is a seasoned Urbex (or whatever they are called) then he would know the laws and loopholes.
Thinking about it, he's probably lurking on this board now :lookaroun
I'm not exactly finding this thread and all of the sudden accompanying coverage to be a coincidence....
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't it apply? We're talking about the statute of limitations for trespassing, right? By definition, that refers to private property. (You can't trespass on land no one owns.)
Exactly. He'd be stupid NOT to have waited until the SoL was up to publicize it!
-----
Another aspect of this that is probably moot if the SoL on trespassing has indeed expired: I've read that Discovery Island doesn't (or didn't for a while) have any signs designating it as off-limits to guests. If that's true, then you could make the argument that anyone willing to swim across Bay Lake had a legal right to be on Disovery Island, because Disney never explicitly deemed it off-limits. (River Country apparently does have such signs, though, and part of Perez' excursion went through River Country.)
Beyond that, can you be accused of trespassing if you're already legally on someone's property, but access another part of that property that the owner doesn't want you on? In other words, can I welcome you into my home but say my attic is off-limits, then ask the authorities to charge you with trespassing if you go into my attic? That seems to be Disney's position if they were to charge someone with trespassing for going to RC or DI after that person was already legally on their property.
I have nightmares about something I did in HS. For those of you who are relatively local, I'm Armwood HS, class of '88, but I no longer live in the area. Anyhoo, Disney hired a bunch of local HS kids on spring break to help out in the parks and several of my friends were hired. As a result, they knew how to access the utilidors. So....one day when we were in MK with our off-season passes, we went up to a door (location will remain vague for security reasons and the fact it happened long enough ago, I'm not 100% certain), opened it and went in. We actually ate lunch in what I guess was an employees cafeteria. There was a little TV in the corner and I remember watching the Celtics-Pistons in an Eastern conference playoff game. Also, a person in our group was a boy with really long hair, so we got some looks of concern. Anyhoo, nothing bad happened, but sometimes I think about being caught and shudder. My only excuse is that I was in HS and like a lot of HS kids my brain wasn't working right.
Wilt Dasney said:
He's obviously a smart guy. What we need is someone stupid enough to take the trip and publish their photos immediately so we can see the current state of DI. I'm looking at you OP. Oh, and don't take the stupid the wrong way.
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
Oh, well whatever then. I'm not too familiar with the staute of limitations for this sort of thing, I was just going off of what was said earlier in the thread.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
Cool. I've only scanned this thread, but the references I've seen to Disney taking action are about banning him from property, not pressing legal charges. Obviously they would be within their rights to do the former anytime they want.
Walt_Disney
Active Member
If this guy did really wait 5 years then those pics of the snake jars are fake because Coke just started using that design of the bottle last year
Next Big Thing
Well-Known Member
I don't think that that is the same bottle. Look at the label on the bottle in the picture. Coke hasn't used that label in a while now.
janoimagine
Well-Known Member
Regardless of the legal issues surrounding his island adventure, I give the guy props, I would love to be able to do what he did. I went to the island several times as a kid, and every time we wait for a boat at the WL I can't help but want to go over their and check things out. Well documented, I would love to see more of his shots, or his buddies shots from that night. We have many abandoned buildings in Detroit (go figure) that we have been inside many times taking shots, but an abandoned Disney attraction is very, very intriguing to say the least. 
Bigart
Active Member
some good links to maps of the island...
trying to figure out how far in they made it and the building in question
http://www.explorethemagic.com/images/maps/disney-world-discovery-island-map.jpg
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...&sigr=11eup9gu3&sigi=11pmo1305&sigb=139bej4kj
trying to figure out how far in they made it and the building in question
http://www.explorethemagic.com/images/maps/disney-world-discovery-island-map.jpg
http://images.search.yahoo.com/imag...&sigr=11eup9gu3&sigi=11pmo1305&sigb=139bej4kj
janoimagine
Well-Known Member
From what I remember as a kid their were only 2 buildings that looked like that on the island, the one was a snack shack, the other was what I think on the map is called Toucan Corner. That is where I think his photo was taken. Thanks for the links.
Agreed, there is no doubt that the Diet Coke bottle is from late 90's early 2000's. Yes that bottle shape was around then for the 1L bottles, and that label with silver/grey and the pronounced bubbles is anything but new.
I'm just curious why it's a 1 liter bottle instead of in ounces? Are the US beverage bottles not usually in ounces? In Canada they are regularly sold in liters, I just didn't realize they did that in the States.
I'm just curious why it's a 1 liter bottle instead of in ounces? Are the US beverage bottles not usually in ounces? In Canada they are regularly sold in liters, I just didn't realize they did that in the States.
gustaftp
Well-Known Member
Liter bottles can be found in most grocery stores in these United States. They certainly aren't the most popular size, but they are a perfect fit for being right between the more-common 20 oz and 2L bottles.
mastif
New Member
Better question...Why is there a snake being preserved in a coke bottle in the first place..? Cast member? can't believe they'd allow something like that.
Also, it's a plastic bottle, and with the florida heat, im actually really surprised that the bottle it not bloated or anything. It likes like it was just placed there. Also, not sure what those chemicals are but would think it would eat through the plastic. apparently not..
gustaftp
Well-Known Member
If those chemicals are preserving an organic substance (snake), I'd assume they would be powerless against a plastic bottle.
And given the presumably dark interior of where those bottles were found, I'm not surprised that it's in good condition. Whatever it was, it occured at least 10 years ago, and I'm personally not too concerned about a snake in a bottle.
A snake on a plane, on the other hand...
And given the presumably dark interior of where those bottles were found, I'm not surprised that it's in good condition. Whatever it was, it occured at least 10 years ago, and I'm personally not too concerned about a snake in a bottle.
A snake on a plane, on the other hand...