[arnold]

This was posted elsewhere. It shows our Stretch DC8 getting ready for a night departure out of Fiji about 1977. This was before the first coup d'etat. The DC8 has long been retired, and the airline "Canadian Pacific Airlines" [CP AIR] no longer exists as it was absorbed into Air Canada. Nothing stays the same.

[arnold]

I am sure I posted this before, but can't find it. These pictures are over a half century old, taken with a Kodak Retinette with a three element lens and four shutter speeds. No light meter or range finder. All done with estimates. This was the family car. Take a look at the full size to see how well Kodachrome 10 held up.

Full size here:
All sizes | 1953 Ford Consul, Taken in 1961 Kodak Retinette 1A and Kodachrome 10 ASA | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[arnold]

I just had to add this one taken by my father with his Practica in 1962. Once again the family car in Kodachrome, near Pretoria.

[arnold]

Boundary Bay Airport (near Vancouver BC) in the early seventies was still decommissioned from the wartime era. I was flying a twin model I designed from it's runways. In later years, it was re-commissioned and is now an important part of the local infrastructure. Flying models there was from a different era.

[manntax]

Boundary Bay Airport (near Vancouver BC) in the early seventies was still decommissioned from the wartime era. I was flying a twin model I designed from it's runways. In later years, it was re-commissioned and is now an important part of the local infrastructure. Flying models there was from a different era.

Amazing! I love the short commentaries of your photos - they put us right in the context of the scene - a fantastic documentary of the past !
Thanks again!

[p38arover]

I just had to add this one taken by my father with his Practica in 1962. Once again the family car in Kodachrome, near Pretoria.

But for the numberplate, I'd have said that was Australia. They look like gum trees.

[arnold]

But for the numberplate, I'd have said that was Australia. They look like gum trees.

Well this next one is from Australia in 1966. It is the old Brisbane Airport at New Farm, taken from a DC3. Lots of glare from the window, and could do with a good scan and PP. Looking at a Google Earth map, the changes made comparisons difficult. The airport shifted Eastwards from here about a mile. The old terminals were WW2 hangers at this time. Younger people may find it hard to believe but we two pilots walked through the terminal to the plane, each carrying a rifle. For all the attention we got, they may as well have been golf clubs or fishing rods. It is a different world now, but I am glad I was able to visit the old one.

[manntax]

Well this next one is Younger people may find it hard to believe but we two pilots walked through the terminal to the plane, each carrying a rifle. For all the attention we got, they may as well have been golf clubs or fishing rods. It is a different world now, but I am glad I was able to visit the old one.

I love your narrative commentaries ! From what I read and when matched against the realities of 'current world' - it doesn't seem that the world has become a safer place just because weapons aren't allowed almost everywhere. For sure an ordinary man has become an easy prey for those ruthless out there. How ironic...

[RobG]

I love your narrative commentaries ! From what I read and when matched against the realities of 'current world' - it doesn't seem that the world has become a safer place just because weapons aren't allowed almost everywhere. For sure an ordinary man has become an easy prey for those ruthless out there. How ironic...

I really don't want to get into a gun debate on a photography website, but I don't think that this is a reasonable comparison. I could use a similar argument to say that although the rate of gun ownership in the US is almost one for every person, it hasn't made the US a safer place. I don't think I have ever seen any private citizen with a gun outside a gun club in Australia. The only guns I have seen in public have been those carried by police, or military weapons carrid for ceremonial purposes. Referring back to the situation described, I think anyone in the sixties would have assumed that a pilot (presumably in a uniform?) would be responsible enough to handle a weapon.

PS I note from your profile that you're in the UK. I'm guessing that your comments are made in light of mass shootings in the US, since I haven't heard of any in the UK.

[manntax]

I really don't want to get into a gun debate on a photography website, but I don't think that this is a reasonable comparison. I could use a similar argument to say that although the rate of gun ownership in the US is almost one for every person, it hasn't made the US a safer place. I don't think I have ever seen any private citizen with a gun outside a gun club in Australia. The only guns I have seen in public have been those carried by police, or military weapons carrid for ceremonial purposes. Referring back to the situation described, I think anyone in the sixties would have assumed that a pilot (presumably in a uniform?) would be responsible enough to handle a weapon.

PS I note from your profile that you're in the UK. I'm guessing that your comments are made in light of mass shootings in the US, since I haven't heard of any in the UK.

Don't take my loose comment about the realities too personally.. The truth stays the same - safety doesn't rely on whether people have or not a free access to the guns. An irresponsible person can become a threat and improvise a weapon from about anything. What I was trying to say is that in 60-70s people weren't even tiniest bit less safe with the guns present than nowadays with 10 times more strict control - for the very reason mentioned. And about shooting in US- having people in the streets armed in automatic weapon and at the same time not having a school properly secured is asking for catastrophe - which recent events has proven more than enough. And no - I am not supporting a free access to the weapons- just supporting a common sense

[arnold]

, I think anyone in the sixties would have assumed that a pilot (presumably in a uniform?) would be responsible enough to handle a weapon.

These days, pilots are scanned, and even have nail clippers taken off them. My comment was only to point out how society has changed.

[manntax]

These days, pilots are scanned, and even have nail clippers taken off them. My comment was only to point out how society has changed.

Indeed precisely how I perceived it. ANd my point was - a rhetorical question whether the society has changed on good or bad..
Great thread - keep it up !

[RobG]

The truth stays the same - safety doesn't rely on whether people have or not a free access to the guns.

OK, I completely disagree and with respect you need to be careful when using the word "truth" in connection with opinion rather than fact. The level of gun violence in the US compared to the UK or Australia should easily demonstrate that access to guns makes a difference. The NRA has been using the "guns don't kill people" argument for far too long.

An irresponsible person can become a threat and improvise a weapon from about anything.

I agree. However, the amount of damage they can do can vary enormously. A person with an improvised weapon is highly unlikely to do as much damage as someone with free access to high powered, fully automatic assault weapons and all the ammunition they want.

What I was trying to say is that in 60-70s people weren't even tiniest bit less safe with the guns present than nowadays with 10 times more strict control - for the very reason mentioned.

And I disagree - because there's a lot of factors involved other than the presence or absence of guns. One instance of people carrying guns in a specific situation doesn't equate to a logical comparison. Personally I think that the significant differences are that in the sixties, people respected the law and the police, while now a lot of people have little respect for either. For that matter, I think people had more respect for each other in general.

And about shooting in US- having people in the streets armed in automatic weapon and at the same time not having a school properly secured is asking for catastrophe - which recent events has proven more than enough. And no - I am not supporting a free access to the weapons- just supporting a common sense

I agree - the changes in society (at least in the US) which is sad are that (a) people feel the need to carry a gun and (b) that as a result it's necessary to blockade schools and screen anyone who goes into one.

Sorry to be off topic. I'd have taken the discussion to private messages if it weren't for the claim about "truth" above. I'll try to resist any further off topic comment and see if I can find some photos to contribute instead.

[arnold]

. I'll try to resist any further off topic comment and see if I can find some photos to contribute instead.

That would be preferred thanks

[manntax]

I had quite a task ahead of me to stay on topic and at the same time to refer to our discussion Since I started photography in about 1992 - I wouldn't have anything from my own photos that would passed the criteria of pre-1990 - so I dug out from my old photos these three below , which belonged to my grandfather and are stamped 1955-1956. That was during the period when he served in Polish army.







They would however enjoy some movies in their free time too - as this is how I interpret this photo of a movie poster with fabulous Diana Dors featured in Yield to the Night from 1956, found in his album

Sorry to be off topic. I'd have taken the discussion to private messages if it weren't for the claim about "truth" above. I'll try to resist any further off topic comment and see if I can find some photos to contribute instead.

The truths in regard of people are always subject to interpretation or a current historical context. (even my grandfather serving in Polish Army - was it Polish Army ?? back then or not ? Many will argue that in post-war Poland there was no Polish army until 1990). Which doesn't change the fact that for some people they will still be valid For example you disagree with something and then you say that "there are many factors involved" - which by itself allows a variation - hence my laconic statement has to be read in certain context or set of factors that I perhaps didn't express fully And if you read carefully through all my responses you will see that in fact we both agree on the same things - a free access to the weapon in the current situation and in current society is asking for trouble.. For a different society these things would have worked differently - as the past has shown afterall ( as you have mentioned the more respectful and more responsible society from the sixties).