|
Post by BertL on Aug 13, 2007 10:18:15 GMT -4
So are you saying that the treated sand I described would produce a cloud of dust when driven over? Would it be as dense as a cloud produced by driving down a dry dirt road on a hot day? Exactly how dense would it be? What kind of question is that? How can we know what kind of cloud your dust produces when your dust is made out of entirely hypothetical handwaving?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 22, 2007 18:45:05 GMT -4
122:22John has moved northeast of the Central Station and throws a piece of trash off to the north.Clip 5 1.38mb Data Cable, is there any chance you might be able to upload a higher quality, less-compressed version of this clip? I'm currently having a debate over compression artefacts vs. wires, and it would help a lot to have a less-compressed version. EDIT: I would still like to have a higher quality version, although I'm not going to actively discuss on YouTube anymore. It's too frustrating, both in terms on the horrible YouTube quality of the films and discussion restrictions, and the persistentness of HBs. No matter how many times you show how something is a compression artefact, they keep saying something along the lines of "Yeah but it's still a wire". Too bad about this closed-mindedness, it's worse than I expected.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 13, 2007 16:51:45 GMT -4
Man, Data Cable, I wish you hadn't compressed those six clips so much. On YouTube a persistent conspiracy theorist is mistaken compression artifacts in the fifth clip for wires. I've been working all day trying to explain that it's an illusion caused by compression artifacts. I'm working on my final work as we speak, but it's getting quite annoying to try and explain it over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 10, 2007 10:44:59 GMT -4
Since none of Rocky's post actually constituted "proof" (just more unfounded accusations) he has been banned for 30 days. If he continues to make these accusations upon his return he will be banned permanently. Sound fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 8, 2007 16:16:03 GMT -4
I'm thinking of using the high resolution clips to measure the dust, but somehow I feel lazy. I just came home from a (more or less) party and bicycled for about 8 miles, so I'm le tired.
I'm also going to keep a strict policy on swearing. This counts for the conspiracy theorists, but just as much as for you guys (the debunkers). I'm not trying to look like the baddy or anything and I can't find any naughty words from this side, but I just thought I'd say it before it actually happens.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 8, 2007 9:38:32 GMT -4
Oh my, my " Six clips of thrown objects" clip on YouTube (a compilation of Data Cable's six clips rocky wasn't able to watch) has made for quite a discussion. Just thought I'd let you all know.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 6, 2007 10:03:22 GMT -4
Hey, you posted my thingie too, thanks. I guess I should keep a look on that thread. I hope he realizes I'm actually really a 17 year old (I just turned seventeen six days ago!) high school student who lives in Holland before he starts calling me a paid disinfo agent. I can prove that too, although not when taking rocky's standards into account.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 5, 2007 15:11:29 GMT -4
I don't suppose rocky could get a bit more time as he hasn't been on the boards starting from right after the warning?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 4, 2007 20:00:27 GMT -4
Also, why do you say there are "several things that are irrefutable proof", while the actual issue is that you do not accept the refutations we in this board have given without giving a reason why. I've actually seen this behavior before. Things among the lines of "I ain't buying it" seem to be some conspiracy theorists' mantra. You know who you are. You know very well who you are. I know you're watching me.
*puts on tin foil hat*
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 4, 2007 19:55:41 GMT -4
Meh, I guess I won't get a response to my post in the other thread. He hasn't responded to it at all, even though I titled it "To rocky." and asked a few direct questions to him.
Rocky, in case you're banned by the time you read this: since you seem to rely on YouTube so much, my YouTube account is "bertlapollo". There you can send me a private message answering my question. Remember, not answering the question will tell people that you are not capable of answering how you objectively did it, and lead people to the conclusion that you did not objectively do it, which means directly contradicting yourself pleading for objectivity.
We'll see how long it takes for you to answer the question on objectively determining the 70% measurement, graph, thingie. Whatever it's called. How you objectively determined that. I should get some sleep. The question still stands.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 16:23:07 GMT -4
Those objects in the two clips I was able to watch did not have the trajectories with those six-fold increases--that footage was filmed on earth and shown at about seventy percent speed. Rocky, sorry for the question, but which clip are you referring to here? EDIT: Nevermind, found it.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 16:19:18 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 16:08:35 GMT -4
I haven't been able to watch the clips in post #497. I've told you what I think of the ones I've been able to watch. I've compiled them and uploaded them to YouTube, it's currently processing. If you stay on for another 15 minutes you'll be able to watch it for yourself. I've also uploaded a QuickTime version here (warning: direct link and large file, right click and Save to download), but as you're in an internet cafe you are probably not able to play it.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 3, 2007 15:33:22 GMT -4
I'm currently compiland and converting those six clips into something rocky can watch. I think YouTube will do, but to make sure I'll try and make a QuickTime clip too (you can look at things frame-by-frame with the QuickTime player) although I haven't tried that before.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jul 2, 2007 18:36:28 GMT -4
It's interesting watching the information about the making of Lord of the Rings. While they did use a certain amount of blue screen for some scenes, a lot of it was done with just trick camera work, scale actors, models and matte painting. I must have watched that chapter on forced perspective and stuff like that hundreds of times. Too bad it's so hard to do with LEGO, because of the studs and all. It's really interesting though.
|
|