TV Heads Up - American Pickers visits old amusement park

Raven-Phile's avatar

Well, Obviously.

He got a Lusse bumper car for $500! That's a bargain!

Whether or not it was a bargain remains to be seen.

stoogemanmoe's avatar

I love my PX950 with Peavey 11.1 surround. U-verse really kicks ass on it. Buying Glasses is killing my wallet though.

Last edited by stoogemanmoe,

My Beautiful wife, Julia, is the best thing that has ever happened to me!

swampfoxer said:
The Whip looked to be in pretty bad shape. Did I hear right when the owner said they could get it going for about $6,000?

That seems awful low for what appeared to be massive damage.

I enjoyed the show very much. It's was sad to see all those classic rides in such bad shape from the flood.

You can clearly see how the river envelopes the park in this aerial photo. You may have to adjust it one turn to the left to see it better.

I heard that $6,000 figure too and thought maybe I just heard him wrong. If anything, the publicity the park got couldn't hurt. I hope they can pull it off and restore what they can and try and keep the historical charm.

Looking at that aerial clearly shows some newly built, upper scale looking neighborhoods right across from the park. Makes me wonder how the majority of these neighbors feel about the rebuilding of this park.

Those developments aren't that new that they never experienced the park while it was in operation. Also, I think the Palmer Park Mall would generate much more traffic than Bushkill Park ever would.

birdhombre said:
I don't have a DVR since I've yet to find one that doesn't require a monthly subscription; I just want it to replace the VCR.

I just turned my PC into a DVR so I can record the 1-2 shows I watch that aren't on the web, no subscription needed. :)

RideMan said:
If Discovery and A&E networks ultimately make all their programming available on-line, what do I really need cable for?

That's ultimately the only real reason I still have cable. Even when/if I do cancel the cable, I'll still get about 14 channels "free" due to having a cable modem.

And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

stoogemanmoe said:
Buying Glasses is killing my wallet though.

Don't worry - you'll be able to sell them as collector's items before long.

Brandon | Facebook

Raven-Phile's avatar

stoogemanmoe said:
I love my PX950 with Peavey 11.1 surround. U-verse really kicks ass on it. Buying Glasses is killing my wallet though.

I don't think I could watch a whole movie at home with those. As much as I like 3D, it's just difficult.

Raven-Phile said:
As much as I like 3D, it's just a fad designed to help sell more TV sets.

Fixed. :)

Brandon | Facebook

Lord Gonchar's avatar

Count me in on the group that thinks 3D at home won't be adopted in any meaningful way beyond occasional novelty.

Vater's avatar

djDaemon said:

Don't worry - you'll be able to sell them as collector's items before long.


I look forward to charging my friends and neighbors and my kids' friends $12 to watch a 3D movie in my basement. TV (and the rest of the basement project) will be paid for in no time. :)

I too will be surprised if home 3D takes off.

kpjb's avatar

I don't think 3D will ever be considered more than a passing fad (even if it keeps passing every 20 years or so) until you don't need the glasses. When they can do it hologram style so you're literally immersed in the show, I'm in.


If that were a bet, I'd put money on the other side. 3D TV will be here for the foreseeable future, and in a few years the glasses won't even be necessary to watch them. The technology is improving very quickly by leaps and bounds.

Edit: while I was writing a very long missive on the subject (then abandoned), kpjb slipped in there with his post. But the point is, the glasses won't be around for very long. They'll probably survive in the theater longer than the living room.

Last edited by Ensign Smith,

My author website:

Lord Gonchar's avatar

Without the glasses, all bets are off. But still if I have to view in an upright and forward-facing position (that is to say not lying my fat ass across the couch), then the bet is back on.

I don't doubt 3D capable TV's will eventually be in all of our homes. There's little reason not to include the technology in the sets being made - especially anything but the lowest end stuff. But just because your TV does it, doesn't mean people will use it.

So let's clarify - 3D TV as it stands is a bust.

I've never seen a bust in 3D. But I'd like to... ;)

My author website:

kpjb's avatar

Here ya go, Mike!


3D porn is apparently very fuzzy and distorted... ;)

My author website:

LostKause's avatar

Nintendo will release a 3D handheld game system in a few months, called the 3DS, that doesn't use 3D glasses. It will come equipped with a camera that figures out where your eyes are and where they are looking to create the 3D effect. That's pretty cool, but I don't see that kind of "glassesless" technology making it's way to 3D televisions because it can only be effective for one person's viewing experience. The living room television is almost always watched by more than one person at a time, and it can only produce one picture on the screen.

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2023, POP World Media, LLC