Out of curiosity, what is the supposed date of this company presentation? Two months? Six months? A year ago?
Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
Considering the differences in data for each park on their additions I'd bank on it being sometime in the past few months.
Well color me perplexed I talked to many of my friends who still work at BGW and they all said the same thing that I did. The slides couldn't have been an internal presentation because they don't use the internal abbreviations and the deck doesn't look anything like a deck they've ever seen. It still just seems so odd that they would have an internal presentation that looks this just thrown together with like effort into making it.
I would honestly guess at least a year or two old. These things are planned pretty far in advance, it takes a long to for the manufacturer to design them. They aren't something that at this stage in the process could be tbd. Soon you have to start thinking about clearing land and the manufacturer has to start making the pieces because none of these are small coasters we are currently talking about.
Also when you submit plans to county the only way to change them is by resubmitting and getting them approved again and you always run the risk of them not getting approved. I'd be surprised if BGW didn't have pretty solid designs when they applied for the height waiver. And they definitely did when they submitted the rpa waiver
Belive me: people who try to fake check over mistakes very closely to make it seem as professional as possible. It's almost reverse psychology.
I mean... The statement leaves a lot of room for some fishy stuff to be afoot...
They could be "real" and "pulled from a company presentation" that was prepared with the intention of it being leaked. That would explain the use of enthusiast abbreviations instead of official corporate ones.
I feel like no matter if it's actually legit or legit in the regards of an intentional leak, whoever made that powerpoint needs to take a graphic design 101 class; the issues with it caused more headaches than anything really meaningful in terms of discussion what Project Madrid could be.
@SeaWorld; not only can I do concept art kinda but I also made this for a a speech class last semester; hire me to make your ambigously fake power points.
Quote notwithstanding, I'm still highly suspicious of the whole thing. When I mentioned it didn't look like a "marketing presentation" as one of my reasons, what I was referring to was the brand guidelines, naming standards, etc. as detailed out by @BGWnut. I didn't want to elaborate much as I don't want to note what exactly I was looking for so as to provide better guidelines for future fakes. Same reason why I'm curious in how they were delivered, the format, etc.
Which brings me to the quote. Parsing it: "the images are real and pulled from a company presentation." (emphasis mine). The images are horrible quality so who knows how they've been sourced; and we have issues with the formatting, text, etc. of the presentation (and lots of debate about how plausible the data is).
My theory is someone snagged/photographed the pictures and created a fake preso to dump them into to create the "leak." Note that Travis didn't say the presentation itself or data are real.
Many are focused on seemingly inconsistent stats and references like "family coaster." I'm still focused on the integrity and sourcing of the documents themselves, and I still place the veracity of the overall leak at close to 0% (since if I can't trust the data's integrity, it makes no sense debating it)...even though the pictures themselves may have some basis in [planning] reality.
Last edited:
Trust me I am not trying to mislead anyone. I was just going off my experience working at BGW having sat through many corporate presentations and even creating a few myself. This just doesn't look like a presentation that SEA would have made. Clearly based on the statement from Travis I was incorrect. I am just really baffled out how poor these slides look. They do not look very professional at all.
To be fair, Travis only said the images are "correct", not the slides themselves.
I agree, but fakes always have certain flaws that someone outside of the company they are attempting to imitate has to deal with, since they just don't have the inner-corporation knowledge to know minor things like their syntax and such. It's entirely possible that the dedicated members on this forum that have been here the longest know SEAS as a company better than these "leakers", just with how long they have paid so much attention to everything they do. I think if any medium is qualified to say "this syntax seems off", it would be the dedicated, "seasoned" (for lack of a better term) members on ParkFans imho
Why should we do that? What are your credentials?
I have no idea what that even means.
I going to just throw this out there. They said it came from a presentation. They NEVER said what presentation nor did they give ANY context. For all we know the presenter said at opening, "So this is what the new coaster is going to look like! Just Kidding! That is my 6 year olds latest finger painting. So with that lets get on the presentation."
Look, I have built hundreds of PPT presentations. In my last job we had to have a, "safety moment," before every meeting. My customer, NAVAIR got visibly annoyed after about the 3 one of these. So from that point on I always started with a silly slide. My favorite was a picture of a mountain lion at the door of a cabin, the caption said, "If you're cold they're cold! Let them in!!" Clearly I was not advocating letting big cats into your house... (well maybe a little) but I was talking about the dangers to pets in the winter. My customer chuckled, and did not mind the sillyness and we got on discussing interesting things like router configs. My point is, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A SLIDE IS WITH OUT CONTEXT.
For whatever it's worth, here is an aerial of Soaring with Dragon. Obviously the Chinese don't like our satellites taking pictures that are too clear. The straight line at the bottom is the spire (far right) with a straight run into the non-inverting loop and top hat. The larger gray rectangular building is maintenance/transfer track. The smaller, white building is the station.
Based on the "artwork" on the "leaked slide" I'm going to guess (if it's all true) BGW will be getting a variation of this. As we've seen, the non-inverting loop isn't depicted. That makes sense considering the space it takes up. Also, the long run around Dragon Mountain isn't happening. I foresee a lot more terrain following than the Chinese did.
My only issue in trying to conceive some sort of layout is the height waiver location. I saw where Zachary placed it in the blog pages map. However, in typing the exact latitude/longitude into Google Earth, I come up with a more centered location. In the BGW aerial, Google places it just to the left of the large building in the center of the field. I would think the location of the spire would have to be relatively close to the station which, in turn, would have to be close to Festa.
Ok, now for my Insure.
Based on the "artwork" on the "leaked slide" I'm going to guess (if it's all true) BGW will be getting a variation of this. As we've seen, the non-inverting loop isn't depicted. That makes sense considering the space it takes up. Also, the long run around Dragon Mountain isn't happening. I foresee a lot more terrain following than the Chinese did.
My only issue in trying to conceive some sort of layout is the height waiver location. I saw where Zachary placed it in the blog pages map. However, in typing the exact latitude/longitude into Google Earth, I come up with a more centered location. In the BGW aerial, Google places it just to the left of the large building in the center of the field. I would think the location of the spire would have to be relatively close to the station which, in turn, would have to be close to Festa.
Ok, now for my Insure.
Attachments
Ok.....to me this is still all strange.
If those were pulled from a presentation and nothing is settled, why not give us a time frame of how old the slides are? If they are recent, why not also release that you are looking into how the slides became public and what you will do in the future to prevent similar from happening? Like....why so passive about the fact they got out there, if in fact they are real?
The other thing that a friend and I theorized:
This is a marketing game. Some of the information is real. Some is not. He thinks the lack of the additional information in the 'yes this is real' release kinda puts it as "why didn't you take the hint:. If it's a marketing game, then there's elements of truth, and elements of trickery in there.
If those were pulled from a presentation and nothing is settled, why not give us a time frame of how old the slides are? If they are recent, why not also release that you are looking into how the slides became public and what you will do in the future to prevent similar from happening? Like....why so passive about the fact they got out there, if in fact they are real?
The other thing that a friend and I theorized:
This is a marketing game. Some of the information is real. Some is not. He thinks the lack of the additional information in the 'yes this is real' release kinda puts it as "why didn't you take the hint:. If it's a marketing game, then there's elements of truth, and elements of trickery in there.
I think the most likely scenario is that the pictures (early concept renders) leaked and someone threw them into a fake powerpoint. I suspect that SEAS is taking advantage of this opportunity to gently trickle some marketing out.
First off, maybe the reporter didn't ask the time frame or didn't get the chance. She probably got the guy on the phone and asked if they were real. He says yes, then "gotta go". We don't know his tone. He could have been hesitant, flip or laughing. As far as the internal issues of who did it, I'd never go into any investigation, etc. within the company to the press.
Some info is probably true, maybe some half truths...some not. When you look closely, there was not a single coaster manufacturer named. It was a lot of generalizing. Sure, coaster enthusiasts might be able to connect the dots (or think they have) but not the GP. In regards to the "TBDs" perhaps they hadn't finalized discussions with a coaster firm or in the permitting processes when this was done. You don't want to tip your hand too soon in negotiations.
Last edited:
- Status