Spacedocks take on the versus debate

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

Post Reply
texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 04:09pm

NecronLord wrote:Texan, are you aware that the most up to date opinions of most people here actually rate Star Trek planetary bombardment as tactically superior?

We know that the Atollon bombardment is a shitshow. We even parodied it here a while back.
I was not aware of that. I was using the atollon bombardment because its pretty much the only on screen example of orbital bombardment in star wars canon at this time. some people think that its a BDZ when its not. A BDZ is a specific tactic, its not just any random orbital bombardment.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 04:10pm

Then what is your point?
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 04:11pm

texanmarauder wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Texan, are you aware that the most up to date opinions of most people here actually rate Star Trek planetary bombardment as tactically superior?

We know that the Atollon bombardment is a shitshow. We even parodied it here a while back.
I was not aware of that. I was using the atollon bombardment because its pretty much the only on screen example of orbital bombardment in star wars canon at this time. some people think that its a BDZ when its not. A BDZ is a specific tactic, its not just any random orbital bombardment.
It's clearly not even under the most minimalist interpretation. They bombed one base.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27078
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 04:37pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
NecronLord wrote:Texan, are you aware that the most up to date opinions of most people here actually rate Star Trek planetary bombardment as tactically superior?

We know that the Atollon bombardment is a shitshow. We even parodied it here a while back.
Firepower wise? Or their weirdly bad aim?
Atollon's a shitshow all-round.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 04:44pm

[quote="Rhadamantus']

1. That's is not what a thousand km looks like.
2. The torpedoes may very well have internal computers.
3. :banghead: From what we know a BDZ, it seems very likely to be the exact same operation.
4. Huh. Yeah, I was wrong on that. It is supposed to have thousands of turbolasers, so not sure what was happening there.
5. You have indisputably lied.
6. If you would like to ignore parts of his site because they rely on now non-canon material, be my guest. Lying about what he uses on pages, and quote mining to not be forced to back down is not something I am fine with.
7. I would like you to answer this. Do you realize it is possible that range there referred to the distance at which they could reliably hit that specific ship?
8. "25,000km is not orbit"? What? The moon is much further away than that. What do you think it is doing?
9. I am seriously wondering how you are this stupid. RANGE DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE THEIR PROJECTILES CAN FIRE. It can also, and in many cases does, mean the distance at which they can reliably land hits. Consider the TIE fighter. It is 6.4 meters wide, and can dodge at 4100g. That means it can dodge it's width in 1/80 of a second. Which, with weapons speeds is possibly out of range.
10. Is there any reason to suspect Atollon is significantly smaller than Mars?[/quote]

1. yeah, and theoretical turbolaser range is tens of thousands of km despite the fact that distances of meters to within 1000km is out of range.
2. more conjecture. you have no proof and you are too lazy and stupid to prove it anyway. I have repeatedly asked you for proof on multiple issues and you ignore it. according to necro that is a violation of DR5.
3. an orbital bombardment and a BDZ are two different animals. an OB is used to strike a specific target from space. a BDZ Is used to wipe out the population of the entire planet. therefore, while an OB can be used to accomplish a BDZ, they are not the same. they have two different goals.
4. I was wrong too. I said all turbolasers, not just the ventral ones. maybe there is hope for us to get along yet.
5. or not. do you feel better now that you have gotten your obligatory lying accusation out of the way?
6.most of his site relies on EU material that wasn't even canon back then. ol Georgie made that clear not once, but several times. and again, I did not lie. he did use non canon materials. and pages with questionable objectivity and honesty, as I have already proved. ill tell you like I told necro. if you don't want to see the evidence you asked for, say so. but don't ignore it.
7. no I don't. if I fire a .50 cal sniper rifle at a target 2 km away, that is within range of that weapon. if i fire at a car moving 50mph 1km away it is still within range. just because it is a moving target doesn't mean its out of range. range doesn't work like that.
8. just reread that. ok, that was bad wording and not what I meant. my bad. this goes for necro too. 25,000km is of course a possible orbit. but not for thrawns fleet. they were waiting for the rebels just outside of low orbit with interdictors. as seen here. :44 seconds in you see sato on the bridge of phoenix home staring the ISDs in the face. thats not 25,000km.
9. range: the area of variation between the upper and lower limits of a particular scale. what you are talking about is effective range. which is definitely under 1000km. especially, ion cannon not withstanding, if their gunners cant hit a 5km ship that moves like a slug at sublight speeds at that range with weapons that travel hundreds, if not thousands of km/s. for that matter, once the malevolence was disabled it was being chased by 3 venators at near point blank range and shots were still missing. I believe that was in the episode "shadows of malevolence" and "destroying malevolence". you keep on about "theoretical range", which has no meaning here. not to mention shots missing during the battle of endor. so on screen canon limits your effective range to hundreds of km max.
10. if it was that would just prove my point even more. mars is about half the size of earth diameter wise. there is no reason to think it is smaller or bigger. we don't have enough info.

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27078
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 05:22pm

texanmarauder wrote: you also quotes from his page correlating to those pictures. short of making a website myself, I have given you the proof needed. no math is needed since the math is not what I had an issue with. and DR5 just says back up your claim. it doesn't require me to produce calculations when the calcs weren't the issue. I have shown you proof of what I was claiming. brian claimed that the flak bursts were asteroids being vaporized. I proved that they weren't. its not that hard. you look at his pictures and his claims, then look at movie itself or clips, youtube, what have you. see? no asteroids.

I'm not jumping through tiny hoops for you. as for the asteroids that were actually destroyed, I did show my scaling. I pointed out the impact of the turbolaser bolt that hit the falcon and compared it to the ones destroying the asteroids.

if you don't want to see me prove your friend to be, shall we say, less than honest, just say so. but don't ignore valid evidence that you asked for just because you don't want to see it.
I'm actually hoping you'll twig yourself when the Turbolaser commentaries were written; and with what resources. They were composed from VHS in the late 90s (last updated 2001 when they were moved onto this site, the first DVD release of ESB was 2004) and incidentally, predate the ICS stuff by a long way.

It's not actually possible to tell the difference on the VHS editions, look at the quality of the images.

Your accusation that any errors to be found there are in fact evidence of duplicity is utterly incorrect, and a disservice to someone who goes out of his way to highlight the many tactical weaknesses of star wars ships.

But, quibbling that the asteroids vapourised by the star destroyer aren't even 20 meters wide is... interesting. They're shooting at rather small asteroids there to allow passage of their ship. Do you seriously think those asteroids are merely a few meters wide?
as for the 30Tj claim, in your earlier post, you said PJ, NOT Tj.
Quite right, I was confused between days and pages there over what we're arguing. As you point out, it illustrates a potential range up to 30 petajoules.

But, again, let's wind back a touch, do you really think that these figures are unreasonable?

Set aside whether you think it'll let your clan win; do you think that between 20m and 100m is actually an improbable range for those asteroids?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-06 05:41pm

NecronLord wrote: I'm actually hoping you'll twig yourself when the Turbolaser commentaries were written; and with what resources. They were composed from VHS in the late 90s (last updated 2001 when they were moved onto this site, the first DVD release of ESB was 2004) and incidentally, predate the ICS stuff by a long way.

It's not actually possible to tell the difference on the VHS editions, look at the quality of the images.

Your accusation that any errors to be found there are in fact evidence of duplicity is utterly incorrect, and a disservice to someone who goes out of his way to highlight the many tactical weaknesses of star wars ships.

But, quibbling that the asteroids vapourised by the star destroyer aren't even 20 meters wide is... interesting. They're shooting at rather small asteroids there to allow passage of their ship. Do you seriously think those asteroids are merely a few meters wide?
as for the 30Tj claim, in your earlier post, you said PJ, NOT Tj.
Quite right, I was confused between days and pages there over what we're arguing. As you point out, it illustrates a potential range up to 30 petajoules.

But, again, let's wind back a touch, do you really think that these figures are unreasonable?

Set aside whether you think it'll let your clan win; do you think that between 20m and 100m is actually an improbable range for those asteroids?
if that is true then I withdraw the accusation of deliberate lies. but, on the other hand, once it can be proven that the information is not true should it not be corrected? is that not the responsible thing to do? and I will point out again, that the flak effect happened outside of the asteroid field. comparison shows that it is the exact same effect. thats kinda hard to miss. and regardless of when that page was written or updated, the fact remains that the info is still wrong. and thus not reliable. either way my point is made.

as for the asteroids, I'm just comparing the turbolaser bolt that hit the falcon to the asteroid. thats what the scaling shows.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-06 05:46pm

texanmarauder wrote:[quote="Rhadamantus']

1. That's is not what a thousand km looks like.
2. The torpedoes may very well have internal computers.
3. :banghead: From what we know a BDZ, it seems very likely to be the exact same operation.
4. Huh. Yeah, I was wrong on that. It is supposed to have thousands of turbolasers, so not sure what was happening there.
5. You have indisputably lied.
6. If you would like to ignore parts of his site because they rely on now non-canon material, be my guest. Lying about what he uses on pages, and quote mining to not be forced to back down is not something I am fine with.
7. I would like you to answer this. Do you realize it is possible that range there referred to the distance at which they could reliably hit that specific ship?
8. "25,000km is not orbit"? What? The moon is much further away than that. What do you think it is doing?
9. I am seriously wondering how you are this stupid. RANGE DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE THEIR PROJECTILES CAN FIRE. It can also, and in many cases does, mean the distance at which they can reliably land hits. Consider the TIE fighter. It is 6.4 meters wide, and can dodge at 4100g. That means it can dodge it's width in 1/80 of a second. Which, with weapons speeds is possibly out of range.
10. Is there any reason to suspect Atollon is significantly smaller than Mars?
1. yeah, and theoretical turbolaser range is tens of thousands of km despite the fact that distances of meters to within 1000km is out of range.
2. more conjecture. you have no proof and you are too lazy and stupid to prove it anyway. I have repeatedly asked you for proof on multiple issues and you ignore it. according to necro that is a violation of DR5.
3. an orbital bombardment and a BDZ are two different animals. an OB is used to strike a specific target from space. a BDZ Is used to wipe out the population of the entire planet. therefore, while an OB can be used to accomplish a BDZ, they are not the same. they have two different goals.
4. I was wrong too. I said all turbolasers, not just the ventral ones. maybe there is hope for us to get along yet.
5. or not. do you feel better now that you have gotten your obligatory lying accusation out of the way?
6.most of his site relies on EU material that wasn't even canon back then. ol Georgie made that clear not once, but several times. and again, I did not lie. he did use non canon materials. and pages with questionable objectivity and honesty, as I have already proved. ill tell you like I told necro. if you don't want to see the evidence you asked for, say so. but don't ignore it.
7. no I don't. if I fire a .50 cal sniper rifle at a target 2 km away, that is within range of that weapon. if i fire at a car moving 50mph 1km away it is still within range. just because it is a moving target doesn't mean its out of range. range doesn't work like that.
8. just reread that. ok, that was bad wording and not what I meant. my bad. this goes for necro too. 25,000km is of course a possible orbit. but not for thrawns fleet. they were waiting for the rebels just outside of low orbit with interdictors. as seen here. :44 seconds in you see sato on the bridge of phoenix home staring the ISDs in the face. thats not 25,000km.
9. range: the area of variation between the upper and lower limits of a particular scale. what you are talking about is effective range. which is definitely under 1000km. especially, ion cannon not withstanding, if their gunners cant hit a 5km ship that moves like a slug at sublight speeds at that range with weapons that travel hundreds, if not thousands of km/s. for that matter, once the malevolence was disabled it was being chased by 3 venators at near point blank range and shots were still missing. I believe that was in the episode "shadows of malevolence" and "destroying malevolence". you keep on about "theoretical range", which has no meaning here. not to mention shots missing during the battle of endor. so on screen canon limits your effective range to hundreds of km max.
10. if it was that would just prove my point even more. mars is about half the size of earth diameter wise. there is no reason to think it is smaller or bigger. we don't have enough info.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
Please learn how to use the quoting system.
1. Repeating my point sarcastically isn't argument.
2. They moved apparently independently in a universe where droids exist. It is quite possible.
3. And....
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. This isn't about whether he used non canon materials in his site. It is about you falsely claiming he used non canon materials to draw his conclusions on that specific page, despite him explicitly and clearly saying otherwise.
7. :banghead: :banghead: . If you had a .50 cal normal rifle, and you were trying to fire at a pidgeon, your gun might fire that far, but it would be out of range because you couldn't hit it.
8. The planet appears significantly larger there. I'm somewhat uncertain as to why.
9. The Malevolence can accelerate at 1000s of gs. Slow as a slug it is not.
10. My point is that unless we know otherwise, we should assume it is roughly earth size.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27078
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by NecronLord » 2017-07-06 05:56pm

The main site on Stardestroyer is no longer updated, as I think you can probably tell, from the lack of Force Awakens and Rogue One content? No one holds it as 'gospel' apart from newbies to the forums. And you cannot reliably scale off a laser bolt, because of a number of factors including but not limited to bolt intensity and width varying in scenes (the original movies were hand rotoscoped), foreshortening and many other factors.

Your point is not made in the way you think; you were saying you have never seen a star destroyer do anything that is plausibly petajoule range. Now you have.

There are of course, instances of Star Trek ships generating petawatts of energy just fine.

As for canon, and the EU, you do understand that the EU "was not canon even then" was contrary to what lucasfilm told us at the time? Canon policies are essentially marketing gimmicks; - the EU was C-canon and the movies G-canon, but they were not rendered unofficial in the way they were post-Disney, that's why the Disney acquisition was such a blow for EU fans; it invalidated their stories.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-08 04:05pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
2017-07-06 05:46pm
texanmarauder wrote:[quote="Rhadamantus']

1. That's is not what a thousand km looks like.
2. The torpedoes may very well have internal computers.
3. :banghead: From what we know a BDZ, it seems very likely to be the exact same operation.
4. Huh. Yeah, I was wrong on that. It is supposed to have thousands of turbolasers, so not sure what was happening there.
5. You have indisputably lied.
6. If you would like to ignore parts of his site because they rely on now non-canon material, be my guest. Lying about what he uses on pages, and quote mining to not be forced to back down is not something I am fine with.
7. I would like you to answer this. Do you realize it is possible that range there referred to the distance at which they could reliably hit that specific ship?
8. "25,000km is not orbit"? What? The moon is much further away than that. What do you think it is doing?
9. I am seriously wondering how you are this stupid. RANGE DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE THEIR PROJECTILES CAN FIRE. It can also, and in many cases does, mean the distance at which they can reliably land hits. Consider the TIE fighter. It is 6.4 meters wide, and can dodge at 4100g. That means it can dodge it's width in 1/80 of a second. Which, with weapons speeds is possibly out of range.
10. Is there any reason to suspect Atollon is significantly smaller than Mars?
1. yeah, and theoretical turbolaser range is tens of thousands of km despite the fact that distances of meters to within 1000km is out of range.
2. more conjecture. you have no proof and you are too lazy and stupid to prove it anyway. I have repeatedly asked you for proof on multiple issues and you ignore it. according to necro that is a violation of DR5.
3. an orbital bombardment and a BDZ are two different animals. an OB is used to strike a specific target from space. a BDZ Is used to wipe out the population of the entire planet. therefore, while an OB can be used to accomplish a BDZ, they are not the same. they have two different goals.
4. I was wrong too. I said all turbolasers, not just the ventral ones. maybe there is hope for us to get along yet.
5. or not. do you feel better now that you have gotten your obligatory lying accusation out of the way?
6.most of his site relies on EU material that wasn't even canon back then. ol Georgie made that clear not once, but several times. and again, I did not lie. he did use non canon materials. and pages with questionable objectivity and honesty, as I have already proved. ill tell you like I told necro. if you don't want to see the evidence you asked for, say so. but don't ignore it.
7. no I don't. if I fire a .50 cal sniper rifle at a target 2 km away, that is within range of that weapon. if i fire at a car moving 50mph 1km away it is still within range. just because it is a moving target doesn't mean its out of range. range doesn't work like that.
8. just reread that. ok, that was bad wording and not what I meant. my bad. this goes for necro too. 25,000km is of course a possible orbit. but not for thrawns fleet. they were waiting for the rebels just outside of low orbit with interdictors. as seen here. :44 seconds in you see sato on the bridge of phoenix home staring the ISDs in the face. thats not 25,000km.
9. range: the area of variation between the upper and lower limits of a particular scale. what you are talking about is effective range. which is definitely under 1000km. especially, ion cannon not withstanding, if their gunners cant hit a 5km ship that moves like a slug at sublight speeds at that range with weapons that travel hundreds, if not thousands of km/s. for that matter, once the malevolence was disabled it was being chased by 3 venators at near point blank range and shots were still missing. I believe that was in the episode "shadows of malevolence" and "destroying malevolence". you keep on about "theoretical range", which has no meaning here. not to mention shots missing during the battle of endor. so on screen canon limits your effective range to hundreds of km max.
10. if it was that would just prove my point even more. mars is about half the size of earth diameter wise. there is no reason to think it is smaller or bigger. we don't have enough info.
[/quote][/quote]
Please learn how to use the quoting system.
1. Repeating my point sarcastically isn't argument.
2. They moved apparently independently in a universe where droids exist. It is quite possible.
3. And....
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. This isn't about whether he used non canon materials in his site. It is about you falsely claiming he used non canon materials to draw his conclusions on that specific page, despite him explicitly and clearly saying otherwise.
7. :banghead: :banghead: . If you had a .50 cal normal rifle, and you were trying to fire at a pidgeon, your gun might fire that far, but it would be out of range because you couldn't hit it.
8. The planet appears significantly larger there. I'm somewhat uncertain as to why.
9. The Malevolence can accelerate at 1000s of gs. Slow as a slug it is not.
10. My point is that unless we know otherwise, we should assume it is roughly earth size.
[/quote]
1. neither is making claims with no evidence. the death star is only several DS diameters from yavin. the first DS was only 100km, then 120, and recently just got changed again to 160km thanks to the R1 visual guide deciding that 120 wasn't enough. even at 160km, Image its 307 pixels from the death star to the terminator of yavin. the death star is only 61 pixels wide. divide 307 by 61 and its 5.03 DS diameters. that equals out to a distance of about 800km give or take a few. that's a 200km cushion. I used the jr screen ruler for pixel scaling.
2. conjecture isn't evidence. and they have never shown that ability before or since that scene. so no, its not possible. learn the definition of evidence.
3. your article source says that its capable of orbital bombardments capable "of rendering planetary surfaces to molten slag". there is a distinct difference between an OB and a BDZ. plus, it says "planetary surfaces", not "the planets surface" which implies that its not referring to the entire surface of the planet. seeing as how we have seen an OB from star destroyers already, that would have to be one huge massive ginormous Godzilla sized upgrade. but again, it doesn't mention a time frame. removing such limits as overheating, power cells, and such, a hand blaster could do the same job. it would just take a hell of a lot longer. like centuries.
4. ok
5. ok
6. I said he used non canon sources. he did. sucks to be you.
7. you REALLY don't know the definition of "range" do you? just because its moving to fast to shoot doesn't mean its out of range. stop inventing definitions.
8. probably because its a close up shot of rebel ships leaving the planets surface and running into ISDs.
9. relative to a venator, it is indeed a slug. it might have faster hyperdrive, but sublights are nothing special. try watching the episode. if they are missing at that range, then your "theoretical range" is nothing but your imagination with nothing to prove it. and no matter how fast or what acceleration the malevolence had, its not going to outrun turbolaser fire.
10. just like you assume that since droids exist, proton torpedo warheads can apparently read your mind and find the target anyway without the targeting computer telling it to? get real. assumptions aren't worth shit.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-08 04:39pm

texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-08 04:05pm
Rhadamantus wrote:
2017-07-06 05:46pm
texanmarauder wrote:[quote="Rhadamantus']

1. That's is not what a thousand km looks like.
2. The torpedoes may very well have internal computers.
3. :banghead: From what we know a BDZ, it seems very likely to be the exact same operation.
4. Huh. Yeah, I was wrong on that. It is supposed to have thousands of turbolasers, so not sure what was happening there.
5. You have indisputably lied.
6. If you would like to ignore parts of his site because they rely on now non-canon material, be my guest. Lying about what he uses on pages, and quote mining to not be forced to back down is not something I am fine with.
7. I would like you to answer this. Do you realize it is possible that range there referred to the distance at which they could reliably hit that specific ship?
8. "25,000km is not orbit"? What? The moon is much further away than that. What do you think it is doing?
9. I am seriously wondering how you are this stupid. RANGE DOES NOT NECCESARILY MEAN THE MAXIMUM DISTANCE THEIR PROJECTILES CAN FIRE. It can also, and in many cases does, mean the distance at which they can reliably land hits. Consider the TIE fighter. It is 6.4 meters wide, and can dodge at 4100g. That means it can dodge it's width in 1/80 of a second. Which, with weapons speeds is possibly out of range.
10. Is there any reason to suspect Atollon is significantly smaller than Mars?
1. yeah, and theoretical turbolaser range is tens of thousands of km despite the fact that distances of meters to within 1000km is out of range.
2. more conjecture. you have no proof and you are too lazy and stupid to prove it anyway. I have repeatedly asked you for proof on multiple issues and you ignore it. according to necro that is a violation of DR5.
3. an orbital bombardment and a BDZ are two different animals. an OB is used to strike a specific target from space. a BDZ Is used to wipe out the population of the entire planet. therefore, while an OB can be used to accomplish a BDZ, they are not the same. they have two different goals.
4. I was wrong too. I said all turbolasers, not just the ventral ones. maybe there is hope for us to get along yet.
5. or not. do you feel better now that you have gotten your obligatory lying accusation out of the way?
6.most of his site relies on EU material that wasn't even canon back then. ol Georgie made that clear not once, but several times. and again, I did not lie. he did use non canon materials. and pages with questionable objectivity and honesty, as I have already proved. ill tell you like I told necro. if you don't want to see the evidence you asked for, say so. but don't ignore it.
7. no I don't. if I fire a .50 cal sniper rifle at a target 2 km away, that is within range of that weapon. if i fire at a car moving 50mph 1km away it is still within range. just because it is a moving target doesn't mean its out of range. range doesn't work like that.
8. just reread that. ok, that was bad wording and not what I meant. my bad. this goes for necro too. 25,000km is of course a possible orbit. but not for thrawns fleet. they were waiting for the rebels just outside of low orbit with interdictors. as seen here. :44 seconds in you see sato on the bridge of phoenix home staring the ISDs in the face. thats not 25,000km.
9. range: the area of variation between the upper and lower limits of a particular scale. what you are talking about is effective range. which is definitely under 1000km. especially, ion cannon not withstanding, if their gunners cant hit a 5km ship that moves like a slug at sublight speeds at that range with weapons that travel hundreds, if not thousands of km/s. for that matter, once the malevolence was disabled it was being chased by 3 venators at near point blank range and shots were still missing. I believe that was in the episode "shadows of malevolence" and "destroying malevolence". you keep on about "theoretical range", which has no meaning here. not to mention shots missing during the battle of endor. so on screen canon limits your effective range to hundreds of km max.
10. if it was that would just prove my point even more. mars is about half the size of earth diameter wise. there is no reason to think it is smaller or bigger. we don't have enough info.
Please learn how to use the quoting system.
1. Repeating my point sarcastically isn't argument.
2. They moved apparently independently in a universe where droids exist. It is quite possible.
3. And....
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. This isn't about whether he used non canon materials in his site. It is about you falsely claiming he used non canon materials to draw his conclusions on that specific page, despite him explicitly and clearly saying otherwise.
7. :banghead: :banghead: . If you had a .50 cal normal rifle, and you were trying to fire at a pidgeon, your gun might fire that far, but it would be out of range because you couldn't hit it.
8. The planet appears significantly larger there. I'm somewhat uncertain as to why.
9. The Malevolence can accelerate at 1000s of gs. Slow as a slug it is not.
10. My point is that unless we know otherwise, we should assume it is roughly earth size.
[/quote]
1. neither is making claims with no evidence. the death star is only several DS diameters from yavin. the first DS was only 100km, then 120, and recently just got changed again to 160km thanks to the R1 visual guide deciding that 120 wasn't enough. even at 160km, Image its 307 pixels from the death star to the terminator of yavin. the death star is only 61 pixels wide. divide 307 by 61 and its 5.03 DS diameters. that equals out to a distance of about 800km give or take a few. that's a 200km cushion. I used the jr screen ruler for pixel scaling.
2. conjecture isn't evidence. and they have never shown that ability before or since that scene. so no, its not possible. learn the definition of evidence.
3. your article source says that its capable of orbital bombardments capable "of rendering planetary surfaces to molten slag". there is a distinct difference between an OB and a BDZ. plus, it says "planetary surfaces", not "the planets surface" which implies that its not referring to the entire surface of the planet. seeing as how we have seen an OB from star destroyers already, that would have to be one huge massive ginormous Godzilla sized upgrade. but again, it doesn't mention a time frame. removing such limits as overheating, power cells, and such, a hand blaster could do the same job. it would just take a hell of a lot longer. like centuries.
4. ok
5. ok
6. I said he used non canon sources. he did. sucks to be you.
7. you REALLY don't know the definition of "range" do you? just because its moving to fast to shoot doesn't mean its out of range. stop inventing definitions.
8. probably because its a close up shot of rebel ships leaving the planets surface and running into ISDs.
9. relative to a venator, it is indeed a slug. it might have faster hyperdrive, but sublights are nothing special. try watching the episode. if they are missing at that range, then your "theoretical range" is nothing but your imagination with nothing to prove it. and no matter how fast or what acceleration the malevolence had, its not going to outrun turbolaser fire.
10. just like you assume that since droids exist, proton torpedo warheads can apparently read your mind and find the target anyway without the targeting computer telling it to? get real. assumptions aren't worth shit.
[/quote]

1. I can be fairly confident perspective doesn't work quite that way. https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/st ... 1210202126. Yavin 4 isn't 12,000 kilometers away there.
2. I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's plausible.
3. In the old EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet by reducing the planet's surface to molten slag. In the new EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet. There is also an operation that reduces the planet's surface to molten slag. They are almost certainly the same thing.
4. NO. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T YOU LITTLE LYING PIECE OF SHIT. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You said [quore="lying piece of shit']I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article?
[quote/]
. You specifically tried to call out an article because he used the star wars visual dictionary to make his conclusions, even though he didn't. You then lied about doing that, defended your actions, and are now lying again.
5. If you have an 18 inch cannon, and you are trying to fire at a PT boat, and it is 6 kilometers away, it is out of range even though your guns can fire that far.
6. The bombarding shot shows a different distance, and neither shows a distance of hundreds of kilometers.
7. :wtf: It has a sublight accleration in the thousands of gs. Accleration relative to a venator is irrelevant. And you seem to not understand how dodging works. It doesn't matter if it is faster than the bolt. It matters if it can get out of the way before the bolt hits it. Which it can.
8. Smart missiles are a thing, you do know?
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-08 04:40pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
2017-07-08 04:39pm
texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-08 04:05pm
Rhadamantus wrote:
2017-07-06 05:46pm


1. yeah, and theoretical turbolaser range is tens of thousands of km despite the fact that distances of meters to within 1000km is out of range.
2. more conjecture. you have no proof and you are too lazy and stupid to prove it anyway. I have repeatedly asked you for proof on multiple issues and you ignore it. according to necro that is a violation of DR5.
3. an orbital bombardment and a BDZ are two different animals. an OB is used to strike a specific target from space. a BDZ Is used to wipe out the population of the entire planet. therefore, while an OB can be used to accomplish a BDZ, they are not the same. they have two different goals.
4. I was wrong too. I said all turbolasers, not just the ventral ones. maybe there is hope for us to get along yet.
5. or not. do you feel better now that you have gotten your obligatory lying accusation out of the way?
6.most of his site relies on EU material that wasn't even canon back then. ol Georgie made that clear not once, but several times. and again, I did not lie. he did use non canon materials. and pages with questionable objectivity and honesty, as I have already proved. ill tell you like I told necro. if you don't want to see the evidence you asked for, say so. but don't ignore it.
7. no I don't. if I fire a .50 cal sniper rifle at a target 2 km away, that is within range of that weapon. if i fire at a car moving 50mph 1km away it is still within range. just because it is a moving target doesn't mean its out of range. range doesn't work like that.
8. just reread that. ok, that was bad wording and not what I meant. my bad. this goes for necro too. 25,000km is of course a possible orbit. but not for thrawns fleet. they were waiting for the rebels just outside of low orbit with interdictors. as seen here. :44 seconds in you see sato on the bridge of phoenix home staring the ISDs in the face. thats not 25,000km.
9. range: the area of variation between the upper and lower limits of a particular scale. what you are talking about is effective range. which is definitely under 1000km. especially, ion cannon not withstanding, if their gunners cant hit a 5km ship that moves like a slug at sublight speeds at that range with weapons that travel hundreds, if not thousands of km/s. for that matter, once the malevolence was disabled it was being chased by 3 venators at near point blank range and shots were still missing. I believe that was in the episode "shadows of malevolence" and "destroying malevolence". you keep on about "theoretical range", which has no meaning here. not to mention shots missing during the battle of endor. so on screen canon limits your effective range to hundreds of km max.
10. if it was that would just prove my point even more. mars is about half the size of earth diameter wise. there is no reason to think it is smaller or bigger. we don't have enough info.
Please learn how to use the quoting system.
1. Repeating my point sarcastically isn't argument.
2. They moved apparently independently in a universe where droids exist. It is quite possible.
3. And....
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. This isn't about whether he used non canon materials in his site. It is about you falsely claiming he used non canon materials to draw his conclusions on that specific page, despite him explicitly and clearly saying otherwise.
7. :banghead: :banghead: . If you had a .50 cal normal rifle, and you were trying to fire at a pidgeon, your gun might fire that far, but it would be out of range because you couldn't hit it.
8. The planet appears significantly larger there. I'm somewhat uncertain as to why.
9. The Malevolence can accelerate at 1000s of gs. Slow as a slug it is not.
10. My point is that unless we know otherwise, we should assume it is roughly earth size.
texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-08 04:39pm
1. neither is making claims with no evidence. the death star is only several DS diameters from yavin. the first DS was only 100km, then 120, and recently just got changed again to 160km thanks to the R1 visual guide deciding that 120 wasn't enough. even at 160km, Image its 307 pixels from the death star to the terminator of yavin. the death star is only 61 pixels wide. divide 307 by 61 and its 5.03 DS diameters. that equals out to a distance of about 800km give or take a few. that's a 200km cushion. I used the jr screen ruler for pixel scaling.
2. conjecture isn't evidence. and they have never shown that ability before or since that scene. so no, its not possible. learn the definition of evidence.
3. your article source says that its capable of orbital bombardments capable "of rendering planetary surfaces to molten slag". there is a distinct difference between an OB and a BDZ. plus, it says "planetary surfaces", not "the planets surface" which implies that its not referring to the entire surface of the planet. seeing as how we have seen an OB from star destroyers already, that would have to be one huge massive ginormous Godzilla sized upgrade. but again, it doesn't mention a time frame. removing such limits as overheating, power cells, and such, a hand blaster could do the same job. it would just take a hell of a lot longer. like centuries.
4. ok
5. ok
6. I said he used non canon sources. he did. sucks to be you.
7. you REALLY don't know the definition of "range" do you? just because its moving to fast to shoot doesn't mean its out of range. stop inventing definitions.
8. probably because its a close up shot of rebel ships leaving the planets surface and running into ISDs.
9. relative to a venator, it is indeed a slug. it might have faster hyperdrive, but sublights are nothing special. try watching the episode. if they are missing at that range, then your "theoretical range" is nothing but your imagination with nothing to prove it. and no matter how fast or what acceleration the malevolence had, its not going to outrun turbolaser fire.
10. just like you assume that since droids exist, proton torpedo warheads can apparently read your mind and find the target anyway without the targeting computer telling it to? get real. assumptions aren't worth shit.
1. I can be fairly confident perspective doesn't work quite that way. https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/st ... 1210202126. Yavin 4 isn't 12,000 kilometers away there.
2. I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's plausible.
3. In the old EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet by reducing the planet's surface to molten slag. In the new EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet. There is also an operation that reduces the planet's surface to molten slag. They are almost certainly the same thing.
4. NO. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T YOU LITTLE LYING PIECE OF SHIT. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You said
lying piece of shit wrote:
2017-07-08 04:39pm
I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article?
. You specifically tried to call out an article because he used the star wars visual dictionary to make his conclusions, even though he didn't. You then lied about doing that, defended your actions, and are now lying again.
5. If you have an 18 inch cannon, and you are trying to fire at a PT boat, and it is 6 kilometers away, it is out of range even though your guns can fire that far.
6. The bombarding shot shows a different distance, and neither shows a distance of hundreds of kilometers.
7. :wtf: It has a sublight accleration in the thousands of gs. Accleration relative to a venator is irrelevant. And you seem to not understand how dodging works. It doesn't matter if it is faster than the bolt. It matters if it can get out of the way before the bolt hits it. Which it can.
8. Smart missiles are a thing, you do know?
[/quote]
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-08 05:43pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
1. I can be fairly confident perspective doesn't work quite that way. https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/st ... 1210202126. Yavin 4 isn't 12,000 kilometers away there.
2. I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's plausible.
3. In the old EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet by reducing the planet's surface to molten slag. In the new EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet. There is also an operation that reduces the planet's surface to molten slag. They are almost certainly the same thing.
4. NO. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T YOU LITTLE LYING PIECE OF SHIT. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You said
lying piece of shit wrote:
2017-07-08 04:39pm
I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article?
. You specifically tried to call out an article because he used the star wars visual dictionary to make his conclusions, even though he didn't. You then lied about doing that, defended your actions, and are now lying again.
5. If you have an 18 inch cannon, and you are trying to fire at a PT boat, and it is 6 kilometers away, it is out of range even though your guns can fire that far.
6. The bombarding shot shows a different distance, and neither shows a distance of hundreds of kilometers.
7. :wtf: It has a sublight accleration in the thousands of gs. Accleration relative to a venator is irrelevant. And you seem to not understand how dodging works. It doesn't matter if it is faster than the bolt. It matters if it can get out of the way before the bolt hits it. Which it can.
8. Smart missiles are a thing, you do know?
1. that proves what? we already knew that yavin 4 had a much higher orbit than 1000km. in fact, its roughly 200,000km. pointing out its perspective it irrelevant. but we did know that the DS was in close orbit of yavin. why? because we have multiple shots/scenes/quotes saying they are orbiting yavin or entering orbit of yavin. so you prove nothing.
2. why would it be plausible? we are talking about a torpedo warhead capable of fitting in your hand. and its guidance system clearly relies on the on board computer. lukes was switched off. the only PLAUSIBLE explanation is his use of the force. making shit up to support your little ideas is not helping your argument. or in this case, lack thereof.
3. and what operation is that? and what is your source? making shit up again I'm sure. and the old EU BDZ is totally irrelevant since its non canon.
4. did he put that info in his article? yes. that means that he used it. so take your accusations and shove em up your ass. or bang your head hard enough to knock you out and shut yourself up.
5. you clearly know nothing of how guns work, no matter the size or caliber. and apparently you cant read, or you would look up the definitions of what you are spouting off about. TBH I'm not sure why you are trying to defend a non canon source anyway. and by the way, we were still discussing the malevolence. you keep trying to shift the "target" to a fighter or something much smaller. I wonder why? could it be because you have no defense for that position? and that your "theoretical ranges" are nothing but bullshit? it certainly looks that way.
6. you cant prove that they were 25,000km out. not when they were first close enough to intercept ships leaving the atmosphere. plus, you pulled that number out of your ass. prove it. you don't prove anything. you just make shit up.
7. it is very relevant. if I'm driving a car at 50 miles an hour, and you drive a car slightly behind me at 50 miles an hour, that distance isn't going to change. and at damn near point blank range, the venators were still missing. its not the malevolence dodging like you claim. its just bad accuracy. "Definition of dodge
1
:  an act of evading by sudden bodily movement
2
a :  an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick" you are really damn good at dodging. the malevolence, not so much. you don't even prove your claims. you make shit up. simple as that.
8. I'm sorry, is this the GFFA? no. this is the real world. and in the GFFA, your idea of torpedo warheads do not exist. simple as that. so give it up because that is definitely one argument you have already lost.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-08 06:12pm

texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-08 05:43pm
Rhadamantus wrote:
1. I can be fairly confident perspective doesn't work quite that way. https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/st ... 1210202126. Yavin 4 isn't 12,000 kilometers away there.
2. I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's plausible.
3. In the old EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet by reducing the planet's surface to molten slag. In the new EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet. There is also an operation that reduces the planet's surface to molten slag. They are almost certainly the same thing.
4. NO. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T YOU LITTLE LYING PIECE OF SHIT. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You said
lying piece of shit wrote:
2017-07-08 04:39pm
I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article?
. You specifically tried to call out an article because he used the star wars visual dictionary to make his conclusions, even though he didn't. You then lied about doing that, defended your actions, and are now lying again.
5. If you have an 18 inch cannon, and you are trying to fire at a PT boat, and it is 6 kilometers away, it is out of range even though your guns can fire that far.
6. The bombarding shot shows a different distance, and neither shows a distance of hundreds of kilometers.
7. :wtf: It has a sublight accleration in the thousands of gs. Accleration relative to a venator is irrelevant. And you seem to not understand how dodging works. It doesn't matter if it is faster than the bolt. It matters if it can get out of the way before the bolt hits it. Which it can.
8. Smart missiles are a thing, you do know?
1. that proves what? we already knew that yavin 4 had a much higher orbit than 1000km. in fact, its roughly 200,000km. pointing out its perspective it irrelevant. but we did know that the DS was in close orbit of yavin. why? because we have multiple shots/scenes/quotes saying they are orbiting yavin or entering orbit of yavin. so you prove nothing.
2. why would it be plausible? we are talking about a torpedo warhead capable of fitting in your hand. and its guidance system clearly relies on the on board computer. lukes was switched off. the only PLAUSIBLE explanation is his use of the force. making shit up to support your little ideas is not helping your argument. or in this case, lack thereof.
3. and what operation is that? and what is your source? making shit up again I'm sure. and the old EU BDZ is totally irrelevant since its non canon.
4. did he put that info in his article? yes. that means that he used it. so take your accusations and shove em up your ass. or bang your head hard enough to knock you out and shut yourself up.
5. you clearly know nothing of how guns work, no matter the size or caliber. and apparently you cant read, or you would look up the definitions of what you are spouting off about. TBH I'm not sure why you are trying to defend a non canon source anyway. and by the way, we were still discussing the malevolence. you keep trying to shift the "target" to a fighter or something much smaller. I wonder why? could it be because you have no defense for that position? and that your "theoretical ranges" are nothing but bullshit? it certainly looks that way.
6. you cant prove that they were 25,000km out. not when they were first close enough to intercept ships leaving the atmosphere. plus, you pulled that number out of your ass. prove it. you don't prove anything. you just make shit up.
7. it is very relevant. if I'm driving a car at 50 miles an hour, and you drive a car slightly behind me at 50 miles an hour, that distance isn't going to change. and at damn near point blank range, the venators were still missing. its not the malevolence dodging like you claim. its just bad accuracy. "Definition of dodge
1
:  an act of evading by sudden bodily movement
2
a :  an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick" you are really damn good at dodging. the malevolence, not so much. you don't even prove your claims. you make shit up. simple as that.
8. I'm sorry, is this the GFFA? no. this is the real world. and in the GFFA, your idea of torpedo warheads do not exist. simple as that. so give it up because that is definitely one argument you have already lost.
1. Your way of measuring its distance is wrong.
2. It is plausible that the torpedo that appears to move on its own in a universe with droids was not force controlled by someone without that skill.
3. If you are going to argue, you should know shit. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Delta_Zero/Legends
4. :wtf: . You're really going to do this. He quoted it to disagree with it. His source was not it. I have no idea why you insist on lying about this.
5. :banghead: . Do you not understand how an analogy works?
6. Assuming it is an earthsize planet, that shot looked like they were roughly that far out.
7. The difference there is that the Malevolence was not moving in the same direction.
8. THERE ARE FUCKING DROIDS IN THIS UNIVERSE. NEITHER OF US HAVE PROOF. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS SMART TO ARGUE ABOUT ENDLESSY.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-08 10:34pm

texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-08 05:43pm
Rhadamantus wrote:
1. I can be fairly confident perspective doesn't work quite that way. https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/st ... 1210202126. Yavin 4 isn't 12,000 kilometers away there.
2. I'm not saying it's proof, I'm saying it's plausible.
3. In the old EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet by reducing the planet's surface to molten slag. In the new EU, there is an operation called a BDZ which kills everyone on a planet. There is also an operation that reduces the planet's surface to molten slag. They are almost certainly the same thing.
4. NO. YOU FUCKING DIDN'T YOU LITTLE LYING PIECE OF SHIT. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: You said
lying piece of shit wrote:
2017-07-08 04:39pm
I'm sorry. I didn't know that the SWVD was still canon. oh wait, its not. b-b-b-but that would mean that he used non canon information in the article?
. You specifically tried to call out an article because he used the star wars visual dictionary to make his conclusions, even though he didn't. You then lied about doing that, defended your actions, and are now lying again.
5. If you have an 18 inch cannon, and you are trying to fire at a PT boat, and it is 6 kilometers away, it is out of range even though your guns can fire that far.
6. The bombarding shot shows a different distance, and neither shows a distance of hundreds of kilometers.
7. :wtf: It has a sublight accleration in the thousands of gs. Accleration relative to a venator is irrelevant. And you seem to not understand how dodging works. It doesn't matter if it is faster than the bolt. It matters if it can get out of the way before the bolt hits it. Which it can.
8. Smart missiles are a thing, you do know?
1. that proves what? we already knew that yavin 4 had a much higher orbit than 1000km. in fact, its roughly 200,000km. pointing out its perspective it irrelevant. but we did know that the DS was in close orbit of yavin. why? because we have multiple shots/scenes/quotes saying they are orbiting yavin or entering orbit of yavin. so you prove nothing.
2. why would it be plausible? we are talking about a torpedo warhead capable of fitting in your hand. and its guidance system clearly relies on the on board computer. lukes was switched off. the only PLAUSIBLE explanation is his use of the force. making shit up to support your little ideas is not helping your argument. or in this case, lack thereof.
3. and what operation is that? and what is your source? making shit up again I'm sure. and the old EU BDZ is totally irrelevant since its non canon.
4. did he put that info in his article? yes. that means that he used it. so take your accusations and shove em up your ass. or bang your head hard enough to knock you out and shut yourself up.
5. you clearly know nothing of how guns work, no matter the size or caliber. and apparently you cant read, or you would look up the definitions of what you are spouting off about. TBH I'm not sure why you are trying to defend a non canon source anyway. and by the way, we were still discussing the malevolence. you keep trying to shift the "target" to a fighter or something much smaller. I wonder why? could it be because you have no defense for that position? and that your "theoretical ranges" are nothing but bullshit? it certainly looks that way.
6. you cant prove that they were 25,000km out. not when they were first close enough to intercept ships leaving the atmosphere. plus, you pulled that number out of your ass. prove it. you don't prove anything. you just make shit up.
7. it is very relevant. if I'm driving a car at 50 miles an hour, and you drive a car slightly behind me at 50 miles an hour, that distance isn't going to change. and at damn near point blank range, the venators were still missing. its not the malevolence dodging like you claim. its just bad accuracy. "Definition of dodge
1
:  an act of evading by sudden bodily movement
2
a :  an artful device to evade, deceive, or trick" you are really damn good at dodging. the malevolence, not so much. you don't even prove your claims. you make shit up. simple as that.
8. I'm sorry, is this the GFFA? no. this is the real world. and in the GFFA, your idea of torpedo warheads do not exist. simple as that. so give it up because that is definitely one argument you have already lost.
1. No one besides you thinks that. Even st-v-sw disagrees. http://www.st-v-sw.net/Obsidian/January/yavin.gif
2. :banghead: There are droids with heads much smaller than the torpedo.
3. You are the only one who has consistently and repeatedly lied. Fuck off with your BS.
4. FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE. WHAT YOU SAID WAS AT THE VERY LEAST WILLFULLY DISENGENOUS AND WOULD BEST BE DESCRIBED AS LYING. YOU INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED HIS SOURCES SO AS TO IGNORE HIS CONCLUSIONS.
5. IT'S AN ANALOGY. SAYING 18 INCH GUNS DON'T USUALLY FIRE AT PT BOATS IS TRUE AND TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT. INSISTING THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM SHOOTING AT A FIGHTER IS ALSO WILLFULLY DISENGENOUS. OR, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT, LYING YOU LITTLE PRICK. A PT boat at 10 km is the same size target as the malevolence at several thousand.
6. NO, I GOT IT BY FUCKING LOOKING. YOU INSISTED THAT THEY WERE HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE PLANET. DO ME, AND YOURSELF A FAVOR. DOWNLOAD CELESTIA. OPEN IT. GO TO A 500 KM ORBIT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHAT WE SAW? NO.
7. If you have a pt boat, and you are 10 km away from a battleship, you are not in range. That the gun can fire that far is irrelevant. Also, if you try to claim that I am "you keep trying to shift the "target" to a fighter or something much smaller" this conversation will be over. You are willfully misunderstanding my analogy and picking at irrelevant technicalities so as to avoid actually fucking arguing the main point.
8. THIS IS A UNIVERSE WITH FUCKING DROIDS. :finger: :finger: :finger: You cannot show any evidence to the contary, and them being self-guided is reasonable and plausible.
In conclusion, you've lied and bullshitted your way through this entire conversation while applying different standards of proof to ideas based on bias, and intentionally misunderstanding whenever it is convienent. Argue the actual points of the argument, instead of lying while jerking yourself off.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-09 12:05am

Rhadamantus wrote:
1. Your way of measuring its distance is wrong.
2. It is plausible that the torpedo that appears to move on its own in a universe with droids was not force controlled by someone without that skill.
3. If you are going to argue, you should know shit. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Delta_Zero/Legends
4. :wtf: . You're really going to do this. He quoted it to disagree with it. His source was not it. I have no idea why you insist on lying about this.
5. :banghead: . Do you not understand how an analogy works?
6. Assuming it is an earthsize planet, that shot looked like they were roughly that far out.
7. The difference there is that the Malevolence was not moving in the same direction.
8. THERE ARE FUCKING DROIDS IN THIS UNIVERSE. NEITHER OF US HAVE PROOF. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS SMART TO ARGUE ABOUT ENDLESSY.
1. is it? you wouldn't know. you claim thousands of km but cant prove it. as usual.
2. you are equating the two on false pretenses. a torpedo isn't a droid. it doesn't move on its own. it doesn't have a droid brain. it moves where the targeting computer tells it to. luke did NOT use the targeting computer. he switched it off. which means the only scientific explanation possible went to hell. the only possible explanation left is that luke used the force to guide the torpedoes in. As if a voice over by obi-wan telling luke to "use the force" wasn't enough of a give away. making up shit to suit your "plausible solution" doesn't fly worth a damn. and you accuse me of lying. hell, even the wookiepedia page on proton torpedoes says that luke used the force.
3. I know all that. I was the one who told you. your point?
4. I'm not lying about shit. I said he used it in his article. he used EU extensively throughout all his articles. you cant refute it so all you can do is accuse me of lying mr -make-up-technology-that-doesn't-exist.
5. your analogy doesn't make sense. you claim that if a gun can shoot a mile, but something is moving too fast to shoot it is "out of range". its not. range doesn't work like that. all that means is that its difficult to hit. you keep making up definitions to suit your theories to keep yourself from looking like an idiot. and lose your temper when I point this out. poor pitiful you. for the record, this is the accuracy of a venator at close range, as in less than 100km. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsCdkLTTdF8&t=189s[/youtube] 3:07 is when it starts. there are shots missing at damn near point blank range on a huge slow moving target. 4:19 is even better.
6. the key word you used is "assuming". in other words you don't know.
7. when the venators were firing on it, yes it was. see the video above. as for when the malevolence was "out of range", the background was moving but in all other shots of that scene it never moved. even the cloud formations of the planet it was orbiting did not change.
8. ok. there are droids in the universe. so? that doesn't automatically mean that everything has a droid brain and can act independently like you are claiming. you already lost this one.

next post since you apparently like to repeat yourself.
1. No one besides you thinks that. Even st-v-sw disagrees. http://www.st-v-sw.net/Obsidian/January/yavin.gif
2. There are droids with heads much smaller than the torpedo.
3. You are the only one who has consistently and repeatedly lied. Fuck off with your BS.
4. FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE. WHAT YOU SAID WAS AT THE VERY LEAST WILLFULLY DISENGENOUS AND WOULD BEST BE DESCRIBED AS LYING. YOU INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED HIS SOURCES SO AS TO IGNORE HIS CONCLUSIONS.
5. IT'S AN ANALOGY. SAYING 18 INCH GUNS DON'T USUALLY FIRE AT PT BOATS IS TRUE AND TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT. INSISTING THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM SHOOTING AT A FIGHTER IS ALSO WILLFULLY DISENGENOUS. OR, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT, LYING YOU LITTLE PRICK. A PT boat at 10 km is the same size target as the malevolence at several thousand.
6. NO, I GOT IT BY FUCKING LOOKING. YOU INSISTED THAT THEY WERE HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE PLANET. DO ME, AND YOURSELF A FAVOR. DOWNLOAD CELESTIA. OPEN IT. GO TO A 500 KM ORBIT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHAT WE SAW? NO.
7. If you have a pt boat, and you are 10 km away from a battleship, you are not in range. That the gun can fire that far is irrelevant. Also, if you try to claim that I am "you keep trying to shift the "target" to a fighter or something much smaller" this conversation will be over. You are willfully misunderstanding my analogy and picking at irrelevant technicalities so as to avoid actually fucking arguing the main point.
8. THIS IS A UNIVERSE WITH FUCKING DROIDS. You cannot show any evidence to the contary, and them being self-guided is reasonable and plausible.
In conclusion, you've lied and bullshitted your way through this entire conversation while applying different standards of proof to ideas based on bias, and intentionally misunderstanding whenever it is convienent. Argue the actual points of the argument, instead of lying while jerking yourself off.
1. ok, another vs site with a graph that's not even close to scale? good luck with that.
2. and there are people with much smaller brains than those droids. namely you. although I will give you credit for imagination.
3. prove it. everytime I ask for proof you dodge the question or just call me a liar. I'm not the one inventing definitions or technology just to make my theories plausible or even believable. that's all you son.
4. blah blah blah. prove it. not that you will. you do a lot of accusing. not much proof, which is to say, any.
5. if its irrelevant then why are you even mentioning it? and you are the one who brought tri-fighters to a discussion about the malevolence. so don't blame me for pointing that out as well as pointing out that shooting at a small fighter is a far cry from shooting at a 5km slug. and at 10km a PT boat probably isn't even visible except with high magnification binos or some such. the malevolence, being 5km is visible at a longer distance, but not thousands of km.
6. oh yes, lets use a simulator. nope. for one thing, without knowing the size of the planet, celestia is useless for anything but conjecture. but conjecture seems to be your strong point, so go for it.
7. actually it would be in range. the 18 inch guns could fire up to ~26km. look it up. and again, look up the fucking WORD before you go throwing it around. all you are doing is embarrassing yourself and making yourself look like a fucking 10 year old. "I don't agree with what you said, so you must be a liar. I'm gonna call you names and make outrageous claims with no proof". jesus dude, look at your own behavior.
8. more blah blah blah from you about "plausible". SEE, I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO! its not up to me to prove or disprove your claims. that's on you. so either prove it or concede. DR5 remember? and I can prove otherwise. I already have. you just refuse to grow the fuck up and accept it.

and just FYI. even smart missiles have to be told what to aim at. that or they are laser guided. look it up dumbass.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-09 12:40am

texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-09 12:05am
Rhadamantus wrote:
1. Your way of measuring its distance is wrong.
2. It is plausible that the torpedo that appears to move on its own in a universe with droids was not force controlled by someone without that skill.
3. If you are going to argue, you should know shit. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Base_Delta_Zero/Legends
4. :wtf: . You're really going to do this. He quoted it to disagree with it. His source was not it. I have no idea why you insist on lying about this.
5. :banghead: . Do you not understand how an analogy works?
6. Assuming it is an earthsize planet, that shot looked like they were roughly that far out.
7. The difference there is that the Malevolence was not moving in the same direction.
8. THERE ARE FUCKING DROIDS IN THIS UNIVERSE. NEITHER OF US HAVE PROOF. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS SMART TO ARGUE ABOUT ENDLESSY.
1. is it? you wouldn't know. you claim thousands of km but cant prove it. as usual.
2. you are equating the two on false pretenses. a torpedo isn't a droid. it doesn't move on its own. it doesn't have a droid brain. it moves where the targeting computer tells it to. luke did NOT use the targeting computer. he switched it off. which means the only scientific explanation possible went to hell. the only possible explanation left is that luke used the force to guide the torpedoes in. As if a voice over by obi-wan telling luke to "use the force" wasn't enough of a give away. making up shit to suit your "plausible solution" doesn't fly worth a damn. and you accuse me of lying. hell, even the wookiepedia page on proton torpedoes says that luke used the force.
3. I know all that. I was the one who told you. your point?
4. I'm not lying about shit. I said he used it in his article. he used EU extensively throughout all his articles. you cant refute it so all you can do is accuse me of lying mr -make-up-technology-that-doesn't-exist.
5. your analogy doesn't make sense. you claim that if a gun can shoot a mile, but something is moving too fast to shoot it is "out of range". its not. range doesn't work like that. all that means is that its difficult to hit. you keep making up definitions to suit your theories to keep yourself from looking like an idiot. and lose your temper when I point this out. poor pitiful you. for the record, this is the accuracy of a venator at close range, as in less than 100km. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsCdkLTTdF8&t=189s[/youtube] 3:07 is when it starts. there are shots missing at damn near point blank range on a huge slow moving target. 4:19 is even better.
6. the key word you used is "assuming". in other words you don't know.
7. when the venators were firing on it, yes it was. see the video above. as for when the malevolence was "out of range", the background was moving but in all other shots of that scene it never moved. even the cloud formations of the planet it was orbiting did not change.
8. ok. there are droids in the universe. so? that doesn't automatically mean that everything has a droid brain and can act independently like you are claiming. you already lost this one.

next post since you apparently like to repeat yourself.
1. No one besides you thinks that. Even st-v-sw disagrees. http://www.st-v-sw.net/Obsidian/January/yavin.gif
2. There are droids with heads much smaller than the torpedo.
3. You are the only one who has consistently and repeatedly lied. Fuck off with your BS.
4. FUCK OFF YOU LITTLE ASSHOLE. WHAT YOU SAID WAS AT THE VERY LEAST WILLFULLY DISENGENOUS AND WOULD BEST BE DESCRIBED AS LYING. YOU INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED HIS SOURCES SO AS TO IGNORE HIS CONCLUSIONS.
5. IT'S AN ANALOGY. SAYING 18 INCH GUNS DON'T USUALLY FIRE AT PT BOATS IS TRUE AND TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT. INSISTING THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT THEM SHOOTING AT A FIGHTER IS ALSO WILLFULLY DISENGENOUS. OR, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT, LYING YOU LITTLE PRICK. A PT boat at 10 km is the same size target as the malevolence at several thousand.
6. NO, I GOT IT BY FUCKING LOOKING. YOU INSISTED THAT THEY WERE HUNDREDS OF KILOMETERS AWAY FROM THE PLANET. DO ME, AND YOURSELF A FAVOR. DOWNLOAD CELESTIA. OPEN IT. GO TO A 500 KM ORBIT. DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHAT WE SAW? NO.
7. If you have a pt boat, and you are 10 km away from a battleship, you are not in range. That the gun can fire that far is irrelevant. Also, if you try to claim that I am "you keep trying to shift the "target" to a fighter or something much smaller" this conversation will be over. You are willfully misunderstanding my analogy and picking at irrelevant technicalities so as to avoid actually fucking arguing the main point.
8. THIS IS A UNIVERSE WITH FUCKING DROIDS. You cannot show any evidence to the contary, and them being self-guided is reasonable and plausible.
In conclusion, you've lied and bullshitted your way through this entire conversation while applying different standards of proof to ideas based on bias, and intentionally misunderstanding whenever it is convienent. Argue the actual points of the argument, instead of lying while jerking yourself off.
1. ok, another vs site with a graph that's not even close to scale? good luck with that.
2. and there are people with much smaller brains than those droids. namely you. although I will give you credit for imagination.
3. prove it. everytime I ask for proof you dodge the question or just call me a liar. I'm not the one inventing definitions or technology just to make my theories plausible or even believable. that's all you son.
4. blah blah blah. prove it. not that you will. you do a lot of accusing. not much proof, which is to say, any.
5. if its irrelevant then why are you even mentioning it? and you are the one who brought tri-fighters to a discussion about the malevolence. so don't blame me for pointing that out as well as pointing out that shooting at a small fighter is a far cry from shooting at a 5km slug. and at 10km a PT boat probably isn't even visible except with high magnification binos or some such. the malevolence, being 5km is visible at a longer distance, but not thousands of km.
6. oh yes, lets use a simulator. nope. for one thing, without knowing the size of the planet, celestia is useless for anything but conjecture. but conjecture seems to be your strong point, so go for it.
7. actually it would be in range. the 18 inch guns could fire up to ~26km. look it up. and again, look up the fucking WORD before you go throwing it around. all you are doing is embarrassing yourself and making yourself look like a fucking 10 year old. "I don't agree with what you said, so you must be a liar. I'm gonna call you names and make outrageous claims with no proof". jesus dude, look at your own behavior.
8. more blah blah blah from you about "plausible". SEE, I CAN TYPE IN ALL CAPS TOO! its not up to me to prove or disprove your claims. that's on you. so either prove it or concede. DR5 remember? and I can prove otherwise. I already have. you just refuse to grow the fuck up and accept it.

and just FYI. even smart missiles have to be told what to aim at. that or they are laser guided. look it up dumbass.
FINAL VERDICT
1. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES EVIDENCE.
2. ASSHOLE WITH STUPID AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS
3. ASSHOLE WITH STUPID AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS
4. STUPID FUCKING LIAR.
5. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES WHAT WORDS MEAN.
6. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES WHAT WORDS MEAN.
7. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES WHAT WORDS MEAN.
8. ASSHOLE WITH STUPID AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS

I'm out. Throughout the about 100 messages you have sent, you have consistently lied and bullshitted. You have ignored what analogies mean, ignored actual evidence, and applied a standard for evidence that can be summarized as my opinions are fact, nothing will sway them. You have repeatedly insisted that since something is only probably true, whatever brainfart you had must be true. You have outright lied. You have ignored plain and clear evidence. You have gone off onto tangents totally unrelated to the post at hand. You have at no point ever backed down, which would be admirable, if you were right more than 10% of the time (I will admit to a few mistakes). You are quite possibly the single most infuriatingly idiotic debater I have ever met, and I do not doubt you will find your way into the hall of shame.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 9283
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Eternal_Freedom » 2017-07-09 08:05am

Texan, on the torpedoes issue, the alternative option is that the torpedoes are pre-programmed to fly a certain distance then make the turn into the shaft. Luke didn't use the Force to physically push them into the shaft, just to get the timing exactly right.

After all, Red Leader and all the other non-Force-sensitive pilots expected the shot to be extremely difficult but not impossible, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered sending the Y-Wings and Red Leader in for the first attack runs.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

User avatar
Rhadamantus
Padawan Learner
Posts: 367
Joined: 2016-03-30 02:59pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Rhadamantus » 2017-07-09 08:22am

And I think we've seen torpedoes moving on their own with non-force users too.
"There is no justice in the laws of nature, no term for fairness in the equations of motion. The Universe is neither evil, nor good, it simply does not care. The stars don't care, or the Sun, or the sky.

But they don't have to! WE care! There IS light in the world, and it is US!"

"There is no destiny behind the ills of this world."

"Mortem Delenda Est."

"25,000km is not orbit"-texanmarauder

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-09 12:07pm

Eternal_Freedom wrote:
2017-07-09 08:05am
Texan, on the torpedoes issue, the alternative option is that the torpedoes are pre-programmed to fly a certain distance then make the turn into the shaft. Luke didn't use the Force to physically push them into the shaft, just to get the timing exactly right.

After all, Red Leader and all the other non-Force-sensitive pilots expected the shot to be extremely difficult but not impossible, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered sending the Y-Wings and Red Leader in for the first attack runs.
the problem with that is, the torpedoes are still dependent on the targeting computer, which luke didn't use. coming up with some off screen explanation doesn't constitute proof. we have never seen torpedoes be preprogrammed. we have never seen torpedoes make a turn like that before or since that didn't use a targeting computer. all on screen evidence points to the fact that the force was used to make the turn. there is no other explanation. at least one that doesn't rely on a great deal of conjecture. and during the briefing it was asked if the computer can even hit it. which also implies that a shot like that would be dependent on the computer. one pilot even remarked "that's impossible, even for a computer". lukes statement about bullseyeing womprats doesn't really help since a T-16 skyhopper doesn't even have torpedoes.

as for the rest of the squadron, this was all or nothing for the Rebellion. why wouldn't they send the best they have, or all they have for that matter?

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-09 12:09pm

Rhadamantus wrote:
2017-07-09 08:22am
And I think we've seen torpedoes moving on their own with non-force users too.
try doing something that you have consistently refused to do this entire time and PROVE IT. you make claim after claim, accusation after accusation and have never proved it. so either prove it or shut your cockholster.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-09 12:53pm

Rhadamantus wrote:

FINAL VERDICT
1. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES EVIDENCE.
2. ASSHOLE WITH STUPID AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS
3. ASSHOLE WITH STUPID AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS
4. STUPID FUCKING LIAR.
5. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES WHAT WORDS MEAN.
6. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES WHAT WORDS MEAN.
7. IDIOT WHO INTENTIONALLY IGNORES WHAT WORDS MEAN.
8. ASSHOLE WITH STUPID AND CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE STANDARDS

I'm out. Throughout the about 100 messages you have sent, you have consistently lied and bullshitted.
says the person who invents definitions and technology. and continued to use bullshit definitions even after I posted the actual definitions for you. everybody makes mistakes, even me. but using bad definitions after you have learned otherwise is a choice, not a mistake.
You have ignored what analogies mean, ignored actual evidence, and applied a standard for evidence that can be summarized as my opinions are fact, nothing will sway them.
your analogies didn't apply to your fabricated definitions. FFS you used a simulator of the galaxy to try to prove that Atollon was as big as you wanted it to be and you don't even know how big it is to start with. my "opinions" are based on on-screen evidence, not simulators and false definitions.
You have repeatedly insisted that since something is only probably true, whatever brainfart you had must be true.
when? what post? prove it.
You have outright lied.
prove it.
You have ignored plain and clear evidence.
like when a venator officer says they cant fire because they are out of range and you say otherwise??
You have gone off onto tangents totally unrelated to the post at hand.
like throwing in tri-fighters to a discussion about the malevolence? even though it has/had nothing to do with the malevolence or the topic being discussed?
You have at no point ever backed down, which would be admirable, if you were right more than 10% of the time (I will admit to a few mistakes).
that's a lie. I said I was wrong about the Finalysers ventral turbolasers. I have admitted to being wrong before.
You are quite possibly the single most infuriatingly idiotic debater I have ever met, and I do not doubt you will find your way into the hall of shame.
more like I'm not willing to accede to made up definitions and technology or your brand of conjecture. you are the one who followed me to this thread and saw fit to throw your two cents in the pot. I left the other thread because you were too much of a cunt who liked to run his mouth more than debate with your buddy batman piling on whenever he saw fit, which is also against forum rules. so its not like you didn't know what you were getting into. you kept telling me variations of "if I didn't like it I could go somewhere else". well, grain for the goose son.

texanmarauder
Padawan Learner
Posts: 243
Joined: 2017-04-11 06:13pm

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by texanmarauder » 2017-07-09 01:10pm

Eternal_Freedom
not trying to be a dick here. I just don't think that, given all the canon evidence, they were preprogrammed. there is nothing to even hint that this was the case. plus, a much more experienced pilot than luke couldn't make the shot even using the targeting computer. luke using the force to guide the torpedoes in and shoving them down the shaft is the only explanation that makes sense with the given evidence.

User avatar
Eternal_Freedom
Castellan
Posts: 9283
Joined: 2010-03-09 02:16pm
Location: Bound in a nutshell

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Eternal_Freedom » 2017-07-09 02:44pm

texanmarauder wrote:
2017-07-09 01:10pm
Eternal_Freedom
not trying to be a dick here. I just don't think that, given all the canon evidence, they were preprogrammed. there is nothing to even hint that this was the case. plus, a much more experienced pilot than luke couldn't make the shot even using the targeting computer. luke using the force to guide the torpedoes in and shoving them down the shaft is the only explanation that makes sense with the given evidence.
Except the Rebel leaders clearly expected the shot to be possible for non-Force-users. Red Leader attempts the shot and almost makes it. The targeting computer appears to indicate nothing more than a distance and/or time to a firing point and an indication of when to fire (hence why it contains a wireframe image of the trench, numbers scrolling down at the fighter travels).

Also, Obi-Wan says to Luke, in rapid succession, "use the Force Luke," "let go, Luke" and "trust me" and that's it, all of which are before he turns off the targeting computer. Nothing said about push the torpedos down the shaft. Having just re-watched it, Luke takes a breath, holds it, fires, the torpedos enter the shaft, Luke breathes out and then pulls out of the trench. That leaves very little time indeed for any kind of telekinesis, which as we see in ESB and ROTJ, takes Luke at least many seconds and/or great focus and concentration (pulling his lightsabre, trying to lift his X-Wing, levitating crates, makign Threepio float etc), neither of which he has time for.

Frankly, given that we don't see Luke use any telekinesis at all until ESB, it seems an extremely foolish proposition to suggest that his first use of it is to force two fast-moving objects to make a right-angle turn down a narrow shaft in a battle while flying at full throttle in a narrow trench when he has a window of perhaps three seconds at absolute most.

Now, letting the Force control his timing, when he and Obi-Wan had already discussed that (and demonstrated it on the Falcon against the training remote) makes a lot more sense and requires far fewer leaps in logic.

Come to think of it, I'm struggling to think of anyone using telekinesis in ANH at all, never mind Luke.
"I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams" - Hamlet

“I’ve always thought the Yankees had something to do with it.” - Confederate General George Pickett, on being asked why his charge at Ghettysburg failed

Corrax Entry 7:17: So you walk eternally through the shadow realms, standing against evil where all others falter. May your thirst for retribution never quench, may the blood on your sword never dry, and may we never need you again.

User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15220
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: 'Very' mildly hopeful now DC recognized taking Clark's red trunks away was a bad idea
Contact:

Re: Spacedocks take on the versus debate

Post by Batman » 2017-07-09 04:38pm

'I find your lack of faith disturbing.'
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'

Post Reply