texanmarauder wrote:Khaat wrote: The crashing Star Destroyers damage the (inner shield generating) inner ring of the station, destroying the inner gate shield allowing the transmission. (Both quotes were from the novelization, which put both Star Destroyers into the inner gate.)
both of these statements are directly contradicted by the movie and therefore disregarded. cinematic still trumps the novels when it contradicts said novel.
Yes, but
you expressed confusion over what was being discussed, with the novelization quotes being separated (because they were separate where I found them, so I didn't consolidate them): this was
clarification for you. I know that cinematic trumps novelization where they conflict, seanroberts explained it to
you pages ago over the canon status of the novelizations. Are you even reading what I write, or just building Strawmen?
The Post-It note measurements were taken at the very last appearance of the wide shot of the SD going into the gate: the latest the online video allowed, but the SD was also slowing as it impacted the structure. I'm not prepared to "guess" that "more than half the length" will eventually go missing, since we don't see it.
but we do. and that ring is not so thick as to hide over half a kilometer of ISD. or three quarters, the only plausible explanation is that its hitting the shield and splintering.
Show me. I don't currently have the means of screen-caps to show
your video in stills, and the last we see of the collision between SD and gate station,
more than half the long side of the SD is still above the shield station. The POV doesn't change, the DS isn't getting significantly closer or farther away from the camera (so no perspective alteration), and its length can be fixed before it even begins colliding with the gate, and checked again at the last we see of that collision before the shot changes.
I reported factually that 8 of 46mm of the wedge-side measurement was missing at last shown status.
factually to who? you are the only one who can see that.
Factually in that it's graphically represented on the screen and
we don't see what you said it was. Click the damned button and stop the play-back, doofus! I offer re-capturable data-points and calculations and you say "NUH-UH!" What work have you done to show "more than half smashed on the shield!"? None at all.
Which would logically slam the shield closed and lock the transmission in. The entire rebel fleet effort to "open the shield" by destroying the gate station is successful, the transmisson escapes.
and just how long does it take for the signal to get through?
You provided the video,
you count the timer across the bottom for the elapsed time of the transmission. Again, "it happened" trumps "never happened!" Provide your own evidence (and no, the
time for the signal to be transmitted has nothing at all to do with whether the shield is merely "disrupted" or "down": the Mon Cal commander gets the completing transmission after the shield ripple effect has ended.)
weather you admit it or not the shield was still up after the gate was destroyed. once it was destroyed the shield should have collapsed immediately. it didn't. so the only explanation left is that the ISD disrupted the shield as the gate was destroyed.
Care to prove that? Because I have an explanation that fits the facts (gate-crash, transmission gets through,
distant horizon aura is not "definitely the shield", only "maybe the shield", both before and after shown interactions with the shield) and you don't want to consider it. Hells, I have even found orbital images of Earth where clouds make it look very much like the distant horizon aura on Scarif. What have you provided? Self-righteous indignation? Something explained to
you, here, to knock over a Strawman?
The wide shots show aura on the horizon, many of the closer shots (after gate-crash, but before DS blast) don't, then even after gate-crash and DS blast, wide shots have aura on the horizon.
nobody ever accused star wars of being consistent. my point still stands.
If your point is:
nobody ever accused star wars of being consistent.
I can't even agree with that point.
This is why we evaluate each situation on the data available ("data" is a fancy name for "facts" or "evidence"!), build hypotheses, and test them. This is why when I don't know, I find data first, not reasons to disbelieve. I don't write-off data that doesn't fit my preconceptions. I revise my hypothesis and incorporate new data and reevaluate original data in this adjustment.
With no-aura/aura shots before anything happens to it, I can't rely on the "horizon aura=shield" for Scarif's.
you certainly have funny ways of determining what is and isn't proof. you wont accept the visible shield aura without having seen it being shot or what have you (even with a plethora of shots that show the shield up before it gets shots taken at it) and you wont accept that the shield was up when the DS fired, even though we never see the shield collapse, even when the gate is taken out,but you will accept that alderaan had a shield without knowing how the superlaser works, what the "shield interaction" would look like, what the superlaser effect would look like..... all based on a vague statement in the novel that wasn't in the movie and taken out of context and that you cant even prove had anything to do with shields. the word hypocrite comes to mind.
More Strawman. Well, language is a consistent issue for you. Is the far horizon aura ever shot? Do you see the part in the part 2 battle video when they follow the fighter at the beginning, and watch the horizon behind it? When it goes from no aura, to aura as the fighter crosses? do you think that means the shield is down, then up? Or maybe that the far horizon aura is not a reliable indicator of the shield? Yeah, I know your answer already. You made up your mind a long time ago, and just. keep. chanting. it.
My position on Alderaan having a shield has nothing to do with the novel, but that's the second time you've tried to tell yourself what my position comes from the novel, more than once: that's the first strike of dishonesty from you, after I already corrected you on it.
The second strike was your "wild ass guess" that
I thought my opinion was first
as good as canon, the third: then later revising that strawman (after I corrected you) to thinking that I thought my opinion was
better than canon, because you wanted to argue your pet peeve with the wrong language.
You have failed to
disprove my interpretations of events (only denied them), have disregarded evidence when provided (planet Earth: no shield, similar distant horizon aura), and otherwise gone out of your way to pick fights over
your own word choices. You have constructed and reconstructed a strawman of my position after being corrected, because it suits your agenda. You've drawn on a consensus
not reached regarding shield permeability
in this very thread, as an Appeal to Authority. You maintain a Wall of Ignorance when data does not support your position, without a counter. You construct a new Strawman when I draw up the differences between novelization and cinematic versions of event, going out of your way to ignore the quote tags, so you can argue canonicity of novelizations in contradiction of the film
when the rest of us already agreed to that two pages ago when seanroberts explained the status of novelizations TO YOU.
My position on Scarif's shield fits the story and shows inconsistency in the SFX regarding that distant horizon aura (there/not there), so I can
discard that as a reliable indicator of the shield. Hells, I've revised my position as I acquired more data, as is honest. First I held that
Rogue One cut POV during the shot of the DS shot and we didn't get to see the shield interaction (from re-sized and cropped online video sources), then I revised my position with new data to conclude that the shield was already down before the DS arrived.
I have outlined my position on Alderaan's shield and NOT inflated my position to canon status (which is what you really want to argue - and it didn't happen that way).
I did some good deeds (quotes, video tags).
I lost my patience and let you have some "not cool" ridicule and sarcasm you
still deserve.
I also tried being understanding when you had the displayed mental acuity of a paper-weight.
I made allowances that English wasn't your first language when you had serious issues with comprehending what I was saying.
I was gracious when you conceded (when you were going to walk away or be stupid to continue), then you doubled down on stupid.
You? You want to add special shield-non-interacting properties of the DS superlaser "WHILE STRIKING DOWN WOOLLY THINKING WITH WOOLLIER LANGUAGE!" Oh, and no evidence to support that, just denial of others' conclusions based on data anyone sees when watching the same film. You can't hold up your end. The only thing you have delivered is information you have been provided
without understanding it, misused language, and far too much pride to let it go when it has been made clear you aren't even arguing the same thing.
Dislike speculation all you like, but be sure it
is when you want to call it that; learn to recognize the difference between speculation and conclusion. Learn what "fact", "data", and "evidence" mean. If you think what someone sees on-screen isn't evidence, I suggest you avoid committing crimes in your future, or a judge will be happy to educate you in what evidence is, and the weight conclusions drawn from it can have.