From: doctor{at}doctor.nl2k.ab.ca (The Doctor)

In article ,
pbowles{at}aol.com  wrote:
>On 2 Jan, 01:02, "pbow...{at}aol.com"  wrote:
>> On 1 Jan, 23:49, AlanSailsbury  wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 1, 4:24=A0pm, "pbow...{at}aol.com"
 wrote:
>>
>> > >Which is a shame because otherwise the Gallifrey
>> > > scenes generally were okay (though why was the planet
covered in what
>> > > seemed to be baby Dalek saucers?)
>>
>> > Jesus Christ did you not follow the plot at ALL? The Time Lords were
>> > involved in a war with Daleks.
>
>Which fails to explain the absence of wrecked Daleks while
>simultaneously failing to explain the abundance of wrecked
>*spacecraft* on a planetary surface.
>
> Hence the battlefield scene. They
>> > weren't "baby" saucers. They were FAR AWAY. Things
LOOK SMALLER the
>> > further they are away.
>
>If they were far away, something was seriously wrong with perspective
>in this scene. The citadel was in the background, the saucers in the
>foreground - and the citadel far larger, despite the scale Stolen
>Earth established for Dalek saucers vs. large buildings.
>
>Phil

Points well taken.
-- 
Member - Liberal International	This is doctor{at}nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor{at}nl2k.ab.ca
God, Queen and country! Never Satan President Republic! Beware AntiChrist rising! 
http://twitter.com/rootnl2k http://www.myspace.com/502748630 
Merry Christmas 2009 and Happy New Year 2010

--- Internet Rex 2.29