kaito-kid |
2013-11-28 08:30 |
Quote:
Originally Posted by blitz1/2
(Post 4923848)
|
Ok, Watched it. Let me break this down.
- nuclear reactors can not cause a nuclear explosion.. EVER! Not in CE and not even in the real world. It's basic physics, but he doesn't seem to get it.
- no one knows where Freedoms nuclear reactor is located. (He is just assuming it's in the abdominal area)
- shutting down a nuclear reactor sounds absurd, but it makes sense in CE. Turning off the reactor would mean that the NJC turns off first. causing the Neutron Jammer to effect the Freedom's reactor immediately. All free moving neutrons will be blocked and the Freedom's nuclear reactor will turn into an empty shell... It all works out.
- The last part of this battle is edited using a cinematic technique calked cross-cutting, this technique is often used to show the relation between different sets of action that occur simultaneously. It also creates suspense when used properly. So cutting between shots of the Impulse - Freedom fight and the Minerva - Archangel fight in this case is intentional. It's supposed to give the audience the impression that every action (shot by shot) is happening simultaneously and not one after the other like this guy is trying to argue.
And this is why his main argument (nuclear explosion, LOLz) doesn't hold up. Also, showing a frame of an explosion does not hold up in an argument like this. For example, he is showing a frame of an initial impact explosion when the Tannhauser hits the Archangel or the water and assume that this is the only explosion from the antimatter beam and that it has nothing to do with the big explosion at the end.. And he is also ignoring the fact that a large amount of antimatter is coming in contact with a an even larger amount of matter (the ocean). ...You can even see a red line between the Minerva and the center of the explosion (00,55 - 00,56 Episode 35), making it clear that the giant explosion is from the Tannhauser hitting the Archangel and / or the ocean and not the Freedom exploding. This single point alone is enough to debunk his entire argument.
His points don't hold up and he is not bringing anything new to the table either, we have already discussed every single point he brought up in this forum years ago. People here did a MUCH better job in pointing out all the bullshit in this episode than this youtube kid. I'm not impressed.
And I also have to agree with Monster on this one. Next time if you want to make point do it yourself instead of just linking me to some guy who makes the point for you. It's ok to use reference, but make your point here first. Because otherwise I'll have to presume that you agree with everything he says.
|