Just a quick reminder: the Hubble documentary I’m in will be on the national Geographic Channel tonight! It’s at 10:00 p.m. Eastern time (8:00 Mountain time), but you should check your local listings, of course. If you miss it, it repeats later (two hours after the first showing ends). It’s also on their HD channel. Kewl.
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking, movie reviews, and all that) can be found here.
 | ||
 | Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. |
 |
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
October 5th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
If you’re on it, it must be good!
October 5th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Sounds cool, I’ll check it out.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
[...] Telescope and the BA on National Geographic BA Blog: TV show on National Geographic tonight! [...]
October 5th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
There’s also a article on MSNBC.com in the Tech and Science section entitled, “Bugs in your iPhone? Blame Mercury!” in which a certain Bad Astronomer is quoted.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I’ve been waiting all week for this sunday on the science channel (which is hands down the best day for television imo) and I didn’t even know you were going to be in the program! I’m much more excited now.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Thanks for the heads up Phil, I just programmed it into the DVR.
Good timing on the recent failure on-board Hubble, BTW, with a bird on the ground with its nose pointed at the venerable scope. The crew can change this out while they are up there and this device can keep on keepin’ on.
October 5th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Shucks… I don’t have that channel
October 5th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Just today I hooked my TV into my stereo system. I’m watching the show right now, and you sound great!
I notice they opted to identify you as “Astronomer, Author” rather than “The Bad Astronomer.” I guess they didn’t want people asking “why didn’t you get a Good Astronomer?”
The most interesting thing, though, is how up-to-date the show is. They mentioned that scope broke and it’s scheduled to be repaired next year. That’s some quick work!
October 5th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Almost finished watching it here in the Central time zone. Great show. You did a very good job. Now we just need to get that thing fixed!
October 5th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Just finished watching. Very nice. There was this odd fellow, though, that they kept cutting to, a Phil somebody…
Just kidding. But not about the show being very nice. Left me wishing for more.
JBS
October 6th, 2008 at 12:20 am
Hey Phil, I hadn’t seen your post about the show until just now, but I had it on earlier and happened to look up at the end and I was like, “Hey that looks like Phil Something-or-other, from that web thing on the Interstuff.” But I didn’t catch the nameplate so I watched it again, and I then I was like, “Hey I go to the website that guy’s computer helps him make! Score one for the internet!” Take that newspaper, radio, television, and telegraph, I knew who Phil was before television audiences.
Oh yeah, and congratulations on a job well done
October 6th, 2008 at 1:14 am
Great show – informative, and the graphics and animations were beautiful. Thanks!
October 6th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Impressive that they updated it for the most recent changes!
October 6th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Will it be available online somewhere? DISH Network has decided that National Geographic does not belong on the lower tiers of programming.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Charles B:
Can you YouTube it? That way Michelle & I can watch it!
Rich in Charlottesville
October 6th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Watched the show. Interestingly enough, I hadn’t read your blog in a few days so I was watching it without prompting from you.
)
They started playing your voice over some images before they showed your face, and I recognized your voice easily. That was a great documentary for you to appear in. Good stuff.
My only exception to your comments was when you said that the universe is quite crowded. I think that should have been worded differently. But that’s an extremely small exception to an otherwise good appearance.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:34 am
What’s with the channel promo spots verbally calling it “NatGeo?” That’s really awkward sounding.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Great show! Glad you were able to participate.
I hope the ratings were good. The public needs to know just how important the HST is to science.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
If you get a chance, watch this show on a big screen. Even though I was watching it on standard definition channel, the Hubble shots looked great on a 52″ LCD
October 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Anyone for a negative review?:
OK, Phil’s role was fine.
However, I was actually annoyed by the frequent use of artist’s conceptions and animated sequences that do not result directly from telescopic views. Many naive viewers may think that these representations correspond more closely to measured reality than they do. I would have far less problem with the fancy graphics had they been introduced with remarks that called attention to the added animation effects (e.g., the 3D ‘cruising’ through space) and the artistic interpretations. To add to my frustration, the producers were so enamored of these artistic flights of fancy that these were the graphics that they were repeating frequently during the show. (Personally, I would have much preferred if, during many segments of the narration for which they did not have relevant Hubble pictures or relevant new animations to show, that they would have just patched in a slide show of irrelevant Hubble shots. The real Hubble shots consistently looked very good in HD!)
Some of the points that were made were stretching things a bit. E.g., the segment on Shoemaker-Levy made it seem that Hubble played a critical role in observing the event. However, that event was observed adequately by numerous ground-based scopes. The show also implies that Hubble played a critical role in establishing the existence of black holes (even that that was a primary motivation for its construction). However, it is my impression that we have learned a lot more about the reality of black holes from infrared telescopes.
In my opinion, this was less a science show than a PR job for the venerable Hubble. However, I would grant that Hubble deserves and can benefit from the good PR.