Difference between revisions of "Talk:Beamship Spectrogram Comparison"

From Billy Meier
(Comment provided by Kyle1212 - via ArticleComments extension)
(Comment provided by Zameen - via ArticleComments extension)
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
--[[User:Kyle1212|Kyle1212]] 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 
--[[User:Kyle1212|Kyle1212]] 01:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 +
</div>
 +
== Zameen said ... ==
 +
 +
<div class='commentBlock'>
 +
Agreed on all points
 +
 +
--[[User:Zameen|Zameen]] 03:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 
</div>
 
</div>

Revision as of 03:56, 28 November 2010

Comments on Beamship Spectrogram Comparison <comments />


Alive said ...

Duplicating something does not make the genuine thing loses its charm. Duplication is a flattery.

---- M -- 17:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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)