I try not to overthink it. I dress to stand out, I drive a car that stands out, and my resume stands out. If someone don't want to hire me because of that I wouldn't get along there anyway.
Is this going to be another case in which everyone who really just can't stand not to be privy to some special secret information that makes them smarter than everyone else in the room is going to start claiming watermelons are vegetables?
I like him. So, is the Dukes of Hazzard on British television? Because some of the Brits to whom I've talked on the Internet have had some strange ideas about the U.S., and that may account for it.
@Sid: The episodes take at least a month to film, but I see what you mean. Still entertaining, though. I'm rather interested to see how they're going to do this one, something like The Lunar Landing might be difficult to address via their unique interpretation of the scientific process, generally they to only need prove if something is possible, in this case they have to prove an event actually occured.
I've always said, if you look at the footage you'll notice there are no stars in the background. This is because the lunar surface was far too bright, if the exposure on each frame was long enough for the stars to be visible everything else would be washed out. It's nearly impossible to get stars to show up in a film photograph even without something really bright also in the picture. Now if it were done on a soundstage wouldn't they have said to themselves, "It won't look real without stars. Let's paint some stars in the background." There's also the matter of the artifacts from the color television camera they used, which in order to save space and electricity was just a monochrome television camera with a spinning disc in front of the lens with red green and blue filters. If any of the astronauts move too quickly in the color broadcast footage you'll notice they leave a colorful trail behind them, because they appear in a different place on each of the three monochrome frames that make up on color frame. Why the Hell would they have used a cheap, space-saving camera if it were filmed on a soundstage? God, all these idiots can blow me.
That thing that Carter saw probably was the Moon. When the Moon gets near to the horizon the amount of atmosphere between it and your eyes can do weird things to the light, the Moon can appear to jump around, change size rapidly, change color from the usual harvest-moon yellow to deep red due to the dissipation of higher frequencies of light, and even appear in two places at once. I seen it with my own eyes.
The food is one of the numerous things about Britain that I don't miss. I've been living in America for twelve years, and the food here is just awesome. Plus when I came here I moved to New York. I had never had a good sandwich before New York.
I've always said, if you look at the footage you'll notice there are no stars in the background. This is because the lunar surface was far too bright, if the exposure on each frame was long enough for the stars to be visible everything else would be washed out. It's nearly impossible to get stars to show up in a film photograph even without something really bright also in the picture. Now if it were done on a soundstage wouldn't they have said to themselves, "It won't look real without stars. Let's paint some stars in the background." There's also the matter of the artifacts from the color television camera they used, which in order to save space and electricity was just a monochrome television camera with a spinning disc in front of the lens with red green and blue filters. If any of the astronauts move too quickly in the color broadcast footage you'll notice they leave a colorful trail behind them, because they appear in a different place on each of the three monochrome frames that make up on color frame. Why the Hell would they have used a cheap, space-saving camera if it were filmed on a soundstage? God, all these idiots can blow me.