Quite possibly the most boring inane presenter on TV..
Wonders of the Universe
- Thread starter wreckedit
- Start date
Sponsored Links
What a load of piffle. Takes a trip around the world to explain in the last 5 minutes what and where we come from.
I think the BBC are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with this one to justify the money for 'quality' programmes.
The sooner he's (Cox) sent of to another planet the better.
Apparently he's a sex idol in America. They can have him to bore the pants off them.
I think the BBC are trying to pull the wool over our eyes with this one to justify the money for 'quality' programmes.
The sooner he's (Cox) sent of to another planet the better.
Apparently he's a sex idol in America. They can have him to bore the pants off them.
I must admit I'm sick of all the POSED shots on mountainsides and watching him swan about the globe on our license fees to make stupid points
Really spraying grafitti in a brazilian mine was really f#####g necessary to explain how elements are formed!
The sam neil series SPACE was far better and fronted by someone not trying to be the Liam Gallagher of physics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2011/mar/06/wonders-of-the-universe-review
This really sums it up very well and is v funny
This really sums it up very well and is v funny
Sponsored Links
I am a happy go lucky, game for a laugh, nowt gets me to down, sort of a guy.
But that bloke, makes me feel like petrol bombing myself
He is one annoying tw4t it has to be said, with that inane grin on his face all of the time he reminds me of steve mclaren. He's a manc though (or an honourary one), so what can you expect.
I can quite understand what you guys are on about; Coxy does have that fixed, spasm-like grin/grimace on his face.......... but I would sooner watch this style of explaining about our world, or attempted explanation at least, than to watch a bland, matter-of-fact style of display, a la open university, bbc 2, late night in the seventies/eighties. Now THAT was 5h1te !
Its all about him rather than what he says, nice little Jolly on our license fee to stroll around the world with his mates making the most tenuous links to the topic.
Now the Human Planet was an excellent series all the time was focused on the ACTUAL people and John Hurt just did the voice over.
Why we have to look at this silly c**t dressed up in all his out door gear or crap t shirts to explain the bloody obvious is a mystery to me.
He must be P***sing himself laughing getting paid god knows how much to come up with this scam.
I can understand the planet graphics (which they seem to use over and over) to illustrate the points but a Hindu funeral in nepal, grafitti in a mine in brazil which then gets blown up, standing on some rocks f**k knows where to show where the sun comes up, on a glacier to show that they move.. no S**t sherlock etc etc
Utter poo
Now the Human Planet was an excellent series all the time was focused on the ACTUAL people and John Hurt just did the voice over.
Why we have to look at this silly c**t dressed up in all his out door gear or crap t shirts to explain the bloody obvious is a mystery to me.
He must be P***sing himself laughing getting paid god knows how much to come up with this scam.
I can understand the planet graphics (which they seem to use over and over) to illustrate the points but a Hindu funeral in nepal, grafitti in a mine in brazil which then gets blown up, standing on some rocks f**k knows where to show where the sun comes up, on a glacier to show that they move.. no S**t sherlock etc etc
Utter poo
You have to remember who the target audience is though...young chavs mostly, with the average attention span of a gerbil.
I
imamartian
You know what, i normally join these threads late, read a few posts, get p**sed off and fire off the odd post or two, but i have to say in this case, i think i've been turned... i like the guy, and i enjoy the facts he spouts, but he is a bit smug about it all, and he does seem to enjoy the jetsetting, when a white coat and a bench in Leicester Uni would serve the same purpose !!! Not a worthwhile waste of my licence fee at all!!
Yeah, now not a fan of sir Brian Cox !!
Yeah, now not a fan of sir Brian Cox !!
M
Mickymoody
Another mystery of space that remains unexplained, is pictures of the rear unseen side of the moon were released today, and shown in Metro newspaper, but still no sign of the junk that Nasa left up there on their 'many' missions to the moon. Theres the Rover car, flag, and loads of other junk they left behind, but none can be seen from earth by telescope, or pictures taken via satellites, from the rear of the moon. Why?
Just to clarify, something exploding in space would require oxygen, to combust. Stars create oxygen, methane, etc, in fact all elements known to man, so explosions would happen, man made objects don't if in orbit, with no fuel in them.
Just to clarify, something exploding in space would require oxygen, to combust. Stars create oxygen, methane, etc, in fact all elements known to man, so explosions would happen, man made objects don't if in orbit, with no fuel in them.
Seeing as this series is all supposed to be so PC
What do you reckon the Carbon Footprint is of flying this tW#t and his crew all over the planet?
Forget the sun turning into a red giant and frying us all in a billion years this C©&t is gonna cause global warming and kill us all next week
What do you reckon the Carbon Footprint is of flying this tW#t and his crew all over the planet?
Forget the sun turning into a red giant and frying us all in a billion years this C©&t is gonna cause global warming and kill us all next week
J
joinerjohn
Just to clarify yet again Micky. They didn't land on the other side of the moon. They landed on the side that always faces earth. What sort of size do you think the things they left on the moon were?. Buy yourself a nice big telescope and try and spot a solitary ant in a field 20 miles away.
This is the sort of scale of things you'd be looking for on the moon.
To get the resolution needed to spot something on the moon as small as a footstep, the telescope would have to have a lens almost 200metres across. With the biggest optical telescope on earth, we can only see things about 20 metres across.
Sponsored Links
