Diferenças entre edições de "Discussão:Beamship Spectrogram Comparison"
(Comment provided by Jamesm - via ArticleComments extension) |
(Comment provided by Kyle1212 - via ArticleComments extension) |
||
Linha 44: | Linha 44: | ||
--[[User:Jamesm|Jamesm]] 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Jamesm|Jamesm]] 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
+ | </div> | ||
+ | == Kyle1212 said ... == | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div class='commentBlock'> | ||
+ | I will be doing both, James. I just realized an error in my previous posting. I meant to say "which he never acknowledges. :) | ||
+ | |||
+ | --[[User:Kyle1212|Kyle1212]] 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
</div> | </div> |
Revisão das 04h12min de 29 de novembro de 2010
Comments on Beamship Spectrogram Comparison <comments />
Alive said ...
Hawaiian said ...
Silly people trying to duplicate the sounds of a beamship which is very complex, yet distinctly unique that "rotates" with other equally unique frequencies, besides Billy recorded it MORE than 35 years ago!
Such electronic equipment did not exist and still cannot produce the exact sound frequencies. Phil Langdon should be commended in his vain attempt; however the resonant frequency of a nylon fishing line is not compatible to a metal beamship model. Just the sheer length of the line will not produce the high frequencies of a guitar string, which is under severe tension, if applied to his long fishing line will certainly snap it off! He also FAILS to mention that the reason why a guitar string resonates is because the nylon string is SURROUNDED by brass wound wire!
Maybe he should put better use of that fishing line and floss his teeth more often!
--Hawaiian 18:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Kyle1212 said ...
Thanks for doing this, James. I have recently been exchanging messages with Phil pointing out his flaws with his supposed debunking, which never acknowledges with both his photos and sounds.
Salome
--Kyle1212 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Zameen said ...
Agreed on all points
--Zameen 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Jamesm said ...
Kyle, you're welcome. Feel free to blog it or post an article here and link it from the Articles by others page.
--Jamesm 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Kyle1212 said ...
I will be doing both, James. I just realized an error in my previous posting. I meant to say "which he never acknowledges. :)
--Kyle1212 04:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Duplicating something does not make the genuine thing loses its charm. Duplication is a flattery.
---- M -- 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)