That black, cylindrical object is an ancient artifact known as a "film canister."

I guessed the LRO because he didn't ask what man made artifacts on Earth can be seen from the moon.

>> ^vex:

>> ^TheSluiceGate:
OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.
2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.


1) It's the texture of the audio of the vocal and not the pitching that leads me to believe it's auto tune. Autotuning has a sound, and it's not necessarily to do with the pitching of the note. A bit like how tape or MP3s of even a specific type of pre-amp has a specific sound carachteristic.

2) I think that any slight dip in volume is because it's a low note outside of her range, but my point was not to do with volume, but to do with proximity effect. With the exception of omni-directional microphones the frequency response of a microphone changes with distance from the source of the sound- simply put: the further the mic is away from the person's mouth the thinner and less bassy it becomes. Even a change in gain / volume will not mask this.

>> ^TheSluiceGate:

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:
1) I'm pretty sure I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently too in pitch.
2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.
Also:
3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050
This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8


1. I think you're hearing things. Specifically, some of her high to low runs and a couple rising melodies beginning with low notes at the bottom of her range are slightly off key. The way she leads into notes using the back of her throat creates a slight buzz that makes her voice sound autotuned.

2. The beginning of the word "butterflies" comes out at a lower volume as she brings the microphone to her face.

OK, 2 things really suspicious about this video:

1) I'm *pretty sure* I can hear autotune artifacts (I work with audio / vocalists a lot) and a vocal that is consistently *too* in pitch.

2) Notice at 2:49 the microphone is absolutely miles from her mouth and the vocal is still entirely consistent, no evidence of a change in level or tone that you'd expect a microphone to display (re: proximity effect) - this hints to me at the vocal being pre-recorded. They also cut away at this point which makes me even more suspicious.

Also:

3) The US version of the same show, produced by the same production company, has admitted using autotune: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11056050

This coming from a person who got goosebumps for the amazing TV debut performances of both Alexis Jordan and Bianca Ryan who were both imperfect, but utterly thrilling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcEo5H97CLM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xno4Y7r8Ov8

Do you see black or is it more like there is something missing? I get that sometimes. I might be reading and suddenly for some reason I cannot make out the words in the middle of my vision. But it isn't blurry or black or bright or anything. It is just missing. It feels truly weird and it is hard to explain because how can there be nothing in just part of my vision without there being a hole there or a dark spot or something! Like if you look at a painting that is missing a part you can see a shape around the hole, you can see something on the other side. Having part of what you see be just missing without any artifact, it just feels slippery in a way. Like my mind just cannot process that part right now and in its place there is nothing, not even a gap.
>> ^TheFreak:

Forget deja vu, that description of Blindsight might explain one of the strangest things I've ever experienced.
I suffer occular migraines periodically. Generally, when that happens I get a blind spot that grows until my entire vision is gone, then after several minutes it clears up. The process takes about 20-40 minutes from beginning to end.
Well...one day I'm playing Halo online with friends and between games I begin to get an occular migraine. So I let everyone know I might end up running into walls for the duration of the next game. By midpoint of the game I'm completely blind. When the game ends I'm chatting with my friends on my team about the experience of losing my sight like that when someone says, "well for a blind person you played awfully well". Huh? So I have them tell me my score and I was top scorer in the game. Which is when it occurs to me that, even though I was fully blinded for the majority of the game, I never stopped playing.
So at one level I'm perceiving myself as totally without sight, while at another level I'm still moving and reacting, with great precision, to visual input.
Go figure.

Video seems broken to me, I only see green artifacts...

>> ^alcom:

@Sagemind: The validity of his Roberts' talk comes from the fact that the cumulative effects of human activities have a self-perpetuating momentum based on things like the methane contained in permafrost. The simple argument that we simply cannot afford to be wrong far outweighs the idea that his entire thesis must be thrown out because of a handful of appeals to popularity or "hearsay" evidence. This is not a court, or even a peer-reviewed research paper.
Ice cores reveal he annual accumulation of snow in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica contains isotopic markers of the temperature, so there are indeed scientific methods of measuring prehistoric temperatures.


Well said Alcom.

Sagemind, If you would take advice from a fellow skeptic, we do have temperature reconstructions going back more than 100 years. The instrumental record, from actual direct human measurement of temperature goes back just over 100 years, to around the late 1800's. That record graphs a rather consistent and linear warming trend from start to finish. More over, it records an increase of exactly the degree the speaker in the video mentions.

There is a trick to all this though. The temperature record going back more than about 100 years is measured with an entirely different methodology. It shows, again, as the speaker mentioned temperatures over the last few thousand years that has not varied very much.

There are people like the speaker who then put those 2 pieces together to declare proof positive that unprecedented warming began 100 years ago, right when man started burning fossil fuels. As I said, I'm skeptical myself. The other significant thing about 100 years ago is the change of methodology for building the graph and reconstruction of temperature. With 1 method, we have a fairly static graph, with another method we immediately have another. Any scientist worthy of the name would look at that and say the same, and investigate ways to rule out the methodology as the cause of the different results.

That's why I insisted on directing people to google scholar and looking at Mann's own work. He's the one that came out with the famous hockey stick graph that 'proved' man-made warming. All of his follow up work is showing more and more evidence that reconstructing the last 100 years with same methodology used to construct the last few thousand shows a much less scary picture.

But don't take my word for it. Don't take the speaker in the video's word for it. Don't even take Mann's word for it. Go look at the raw results in his article's and the other available related scientific literature. I promise I have and come back convinced it is looking like a good portion of the gloom and doom is merely an artifact of methodology change over at the same time as man started burning up fossil fuels.

>> ^messenger:

If this is the real deal, then how come I can see the sun through the "planet"? Aren't planets opaque? Watch as "Venus" starts to cross in front of the sun, like at the 1:00 mark, for example. You can see the sun right through it. Same on almost every one. Sure this isn't a paper cut-out or a post-effect?


Mein Gott, a conspiracy! My guess: camera artifact, bleeding of the light surrounding the planet.

I'm quite sure those rings are the exact kinds of artifacts you can get when observing. I've seen a few messing about with CCD's. They're always that same ring shape.

I do however agree on the absurdity of the extent of worthless items being spewed at your level. There is literally no reason to stop and compare because now you tend to get one drop that ends up being so semi-God like that you don't switch it out for an Act or more. I'm sure in higher difficulty this will change and this may be an artifact of the design for the endgame here. It just seems it could have been micromanaged a bit better.

Yeah video has some artifacting when it's supposedly being destroyed.

In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
*promote


Thanks!!!

>> ^Jinx:

Nice to see somebody be emotional about their work.


You should see us at the slaughter house.

>> ^MilkmanDan:

A "parrot mimicking porno" sounds suspiciously like porno run through a digital pitch-shifter, including digital artifacts... Amazing?


oh who cares, let us have our fun =P