Validity of the ICS

[Mr. Oragahn]

I think the point that many people make here is not that Saxton secretly involved his pals in the writing of the ICS, but that he clearly used the conclusions reached with these people from over the years, to shape his book, and even soup 'em up.

LOL!!!!

Good god, the tinfoil hat contingent gets funnier every time.

Saying that Saxton needed a consult from me, or Brian Young, of Pete Briggs, Robert Brown etc. is like saying Albert Einstein needed my help with his math homework.

The point that flies over your pointy heads is, we were all talking to one another via email well before there was a SDN. And those very few on that list who were involved in VS debates were using Saxton's webpage, not contributing to it.

If you look at the actual history of the debate, Usenet poster Stephen Cumblige came up with the initial asteroid calcs. He's not in the acknowledgments of the AOTC:ICS. (But is cited on SAxton's website)

Me personally? I can barely balance my checkbook.

Robert Brown isn't in to long involved calcs; doesn't care one bit about the VS debate, and has little to do with Star Wars at all, anymore.

Pete Briggs is a Hollywood screenwriter, and doesn't participate in VS debates.

Mike Horne wrote a few Star Wars related sourcebooks.

Brian Young dabbles in calcs, but he, like Michael (Wong) in some cases, often defers to Curtis' calcs.

And so on. Really, gents. This is so 2002.

Son, you'll have a word to say when you'll respond to that asteroid thread you ran away from, with your thumbs plugged in your ears (and whatever else shoved where you know).
As far as it goes, anything you say... is dismissed.

[Cpl Kendall]

Well gosh, what a suprise! I mean now it's a crime that we use perfectly vaild reasons for disregarding a dubious source of SW technical information. If Praeothmin wants to use them, more power to him. They are just as vaild now as they were back then, dispite your so-called "refutations". Oh and I got to love this tired old nonsense from you:

What's more reasonable, that:

1) He corresponded via email for years with friends and didn't let that colour his professional work as he was under an NDA and he is an actual professional in working life.

or

2) He secretly violated his NDA and used Wong and others calculations in the ICS to beef up Wars in order to win the SW vs ST debate, a debate he doesn't care about. If found out he would be open to all sorts of professional and legal ramifications including fiscal consequences.

You realize that #2, which you promote is a charge of libel and slander and is promoting a conspiracy theory on the order of the nuts who think the Twin Towers were felled by controlled demolition and has as much basis in reality.

Everybody who disagrees with Saxton and his ICS book are trolls? People who have a reasonable suspicion, especially given the thanks to certain pro-Wars contributors to the book via a secret little online cabal, are trolls? Anyone who uses any argument are just parroting RSA, ect, ect. And you accuse US of trotting tired old BS? Come on, Kendall!

I said trolls on SDN act like this, I never said you were trolls. But you do parrot the same tired old arguments that have been dead for years. That you refuse to accept reality is very sad. Really the vast majority of VS debators have moved on from this. Only a few diehards such as yourself or a few undereducated newcomers continue to come up with this stuff. And it's never anything new. It's always the same talking points.

Hell, the damn AOTC ICS doesn't even match up with much of the rest of the freakin' SW EU, never mind the movies, for crying out loud as has been pointed out in a good number recent and past threads here.
-Mike

Yes I know, I do surf SFJ quite a fair bit and am aware of this. I just don't argue any of this because there's no point. None of you accept reality and arguing the same points over and over again just results in frustration.

[Mike DiCenso]

Ah yes, as Mr. Oragahn points out to Cock Knocker (aka Wayne Poe), there's hardly anything "dead" about vaild points that are going to keep coming up, such as Brian Young's very serious mistake back in the mid to late 1990's with mixing up flack bursts with asteroid destruction.

A mistake that is allow to persist even to this day, along with faulty scaling issues.

Denial? Look at yourselves, Kendall. The reason things are "dead" is because militant Pro-Wars people now have a holy book (AOTC ICS) to fall back on everytime someone notes that SW weapons aren't as all-powerful as you guys like to claim it is.

Even the claims of gigaton firepower pre-ICS quite often don't come anywhere near AOTC ICS' claim of 200 gigatons per heavy HTL.

You guys are the ones that keep clinging to the same tired old fallbacks when anyone keeps questioning AOTC ICS. The difference between here and SDN is that there is not a Warsie majority of mods here to quash any dissent from the party line, and active questioning of firepower figures on both sides of the debate are actively encourage (see Mr. Oragahn's postings questioning several gigaton to teraton yeild examples for Trek).


As for the Saxton issue, he's a man ( you know that Saxton is a human being capable of making human mistakes don't you?) who might very well have gone down the direction of using higher-than-justified calcs for SW tech knowing full well they were in nearly complete disagreement with most of the SW movies and EU literature at that time. Either consciously or subconsciously the man made a choice to use over-exaggerated power figures in AOTC ICS. Even to the point that it seriously violates the spirit of the SW stories, and people like Sarli are doing their level best to back them down to more reasonable levels that actually are in-line with at least the other EU works, and the movies.

No involvement in the debate, ever? That's false, as has been shown time and time again. Stick your head in the sand and hide from it, but Saxton's got his feet and hands dirty more than once:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/Warsiegroup.html

http://www.st-v-sw.net/text/freaks/

There's no way to spin doctor out of it, Kendall. Please note the Dejanews links in the first of the two links there. Regardless, the possiblity does exist that Saxton allowed the wanking of his Versus debate involved buddies to have an influence on his work, and justified it on the loose grounds that it is all self-consistant and based on the highest canon of the movies.
-Mike

[Cock_Knocker]

Hey, you know what's funny about this? Saxton could have pulled those numbers out of a pimple from his ass, and it STILL would be a valid resource. Hell, West End Games did it. What YOU bunch have to live with, is that the ICS books are a valid, canon reference, an official, "definitive" reference to Star Wars, and there's not one thing you can do about it.

Calcs wrong to YOU, scalings wrong to YOU, magical cocoa puffs powers actually blowing up Alderann, etc. You've been proven wrong over and over again, for YEARS, even before any ICS' existed. THAT's why the debate has been over for years.

Again, not a damned thing you can do about the ICS. Just like there isn't a damned thing I can do about the idiotic Star Wars boneheads wanting to canonize Star Tours, Glove Of Darth Vader, and continue to let Traviss spread her venereal disease she calls writing into the Star Wars canon.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Discussion is getting rather heated and impolite here. Cool it, folks.

[Mike DiCenso]

I'am not going to reply to Wayne's obvious attempt at baiting, except to remind him that, yes, Brian Young made a mistake all those years ago. It is not an opinion. It is a blatent, in-your-face-cannot-deny error with regards to mixing up flack bursts with asteroids being vaporized that has caused significant ripples of errors over the years in the debate itself, and in turn he (Young) chose to use an over-exaggerated scaling of the Millenium Falcon to up the size of the alleged flack-bursts, and as a consequence TL firepower.

In short. Nearly all the assuptions on Brian's now long out-of-date website are wrong!

The Falcon and the Avenger are stated to be leaving the asteroid field and visually we the audiance can see the asteroids thin out in number. We can then see the flack bursts continuing long afterwards, and even the hit on the Falcon shows the same red-globules and white flash as we see in the asteroid hits much earlier in the movie. But no asteroids are ever hit! None!
-Mike

[Cpl Kendall]

Ah yes, as Mr. Oragahn points out to Cock Knocker (aka Wayne Poe), there's hardly anything "dead" about vaild points that are going to keep coming up, such as Brian Young's very serious mistake back in the mid to late 1990's with mixing up flack bursts with asteroid destruction.

A mistake that is allow to persist even to this day, along with faulty scaling issues.

Denial? Look at yourselves, Kendall. The reason things are "dead" is because militant Pro-Wars people now have a holy book (AOTC ICS) to fall back on everytime someone notes that SW weapons aren't as all-powerful as you guys like to claim it is.

Even the claims of gigaton firepower pre-ICS quite often don't come anywhere near AOTC ICS' claim of 200 gigatons per heavy HTL.

You guys are the ones that keep clinging to the same tired old fallbacks when anyone keeps questioning AOTC ICS. The difference between here and SDN is that there is not a Warsie majority of mods here to quash any dissent from the party line, and active questioning of firepower figures on both sides of the debate are actively encourage (see Mr. Oragahn's postings questioning several gigaton to teraton yeild examples for Trek).


As for the Saxton issue, he's a man ( you know that Saxton is a human being capable of making human mistakes don't you?) who might very well have gone down the direction of using higher-than-justified calcs for SW tech knowing full well they were in nearly complete disagreement with most of the SW movies and EU literature at that time. Either consciously or subconsciously the man made a choice to use over-exaggerated power figures in AOTC ICS. Even to the point that it seriously violates the spirit of the SW stories, and people like Sarli are doing their level best to back them down to more reasonable levels that actually are in-line with at least the other EU works, and the movies.

No involvement in the debate, ever? That's false, as has been shown time and time again. Stick your head in the sand and hide from it, but Saxton's got his feet and hands dirty more than once:

http://www.st-v-sw.net/Warsiegroup.html

http://www.st-v-sw.net/text/freaks/

There's no way to spin doctor out of it, Kendall. Please note the Dejanews links in the first of the two links there. Regardless, the possiblity does exist that Saxton allowed the wanking of his Versus debate involved buddies to have an influence on his work, and justified it on the loose grounds that it is all self-consistant and based on the highest canon of the movies.
-Mike

Wow, so you trot out the email list yet again. And a couple of dubious postings that could have come from anywhere, devoid of context that show no bias or indication of attempting to stack the VS debate. Why am I not surprised.

[Mr. Oragahn]

What's more reasonable, that:

1) He corresponded via email for years with friends and didn't let that colour his professional work as he was under an NDA and he is an actual professional in working life.

or

2) He secretly violated his NDA and used Wong and others calculations in the ICS to beef up Wars in order to win the SW vs ST debate, a debate he doesn't care about. If found out he would be open to all sorts of professional and legal ramifications including fiscal consequences.

You realize that #2, which you promote is a charge of libel and slander and is promoting a conspiracy theory on the order of the nuts who think the Twin Towers were felled by controlled demolition and has as much basis in reality.

Or:

3) He used Wong's, others' and his own calculations in the ICS, which ended, for some reasons, unnecassarily beefing up Wars, with little concern about fitting with previously known envidence, nor with movies, nor about even abiding by scientific rules he's supposed to follow, in that one should always seek the most simple explanation. (ex: turbolaser nature explanation)

Besides, what about not always seek and favour upper limits?
He doesn't seem to care about that either. (ex: 900 km wide DSII)

I said trolls on SDN act like this, I never said you were trolls. But you do parrot the same tired old arguments that have been dead for years. That you refuse to accept reality is very sad. Really the vast majority of VS debators have moved on from this. Only a few diehards such as yourself or a few undereducated newcomers continue to come up with this stuff. And it's never anything new. It's always the same talking points.

The "vast majority" of debators either moved out of debates as a whole (where are those many SB key members which don't seem there anymore since 2002?), or still dispute those figures, or resigned instead of wasting time arguing with brickwalls.
The others just appear misinformed on many things, or occupy the room left, repeating the same inanities found on SDN.

I must applaud how Wong's doctrine, and how his sockpuppets managed to enforce, with so much success, the idea that once the ICS says something, it's not to be disputed, and all other EU contradicting sources are to be dismissed.

Besides, who cares about what the so called majority thinks? It does certainly not make your position better, nor right.

Yes I know, I do surf SFJ quite a fair bit and am aware of this. I just don't argue any of this because there's no point. None of you accept reality and arguing the same points over and over again just results in frustration.

Then, please, engage the conversations, make points, prove yourself right, provide evidence, instead of talking about how we're just so delusional and dead wrong, disconnected from reality.

[Mike DiCenso]

Email list? Hardly. It's copies of a number of exchanges by the people on said list, though not complete, it is still sufficent to show an interest on Saxton part in Versus debating:

Brian,

> The bolt hits one side, and superheats it. This superheated material
> superheats the next part, which superheats the next part, until all of
> the mass is superheated. This happens faster than the expansion stress
> can shatter the asteroid.

Mostly right, but needs clarification of the mechanism of heat transfer.

A small mass in the path of the beam receives the initial heat deposit.
This mass expands (due to its overpressure) at a rate that exceeds the
sound speed within the solid. Thus solid matter is swept up by this blast
wave (the correct physics term) without feeling any precursor disturbance.
(The blastwave outruns any vibration or conductive warming.) Kinetic
energy of the expansion is thermalised directly within the upswept
material; it is instantly vaporised at the blastwave if the energy is
great enough.

NB. the mechanism of heat transfer within the asteroid is blastwave
expansion, not passive heat conduction. The expanding gas simply sweeps
up the material in its path, dissociating it at the atomic level upon
contact. In the SW case, there's no chance for solid fragments to
survive.

If you input somewhat less than the vaporisation energy of the whole
asteroid, then the blastwave will grow to the radius where the shock
temperature is diminished below the vaporisation temperature of the rock.
Propagating outwards from that stage: a disruptive shockwave or vibration
in the solid. Fragmentation is likely throughout the surrounding,
surviving solid matter.

If the energy from the weapon is injected too slowly then passive heat
conduction and vibration may be efficient enough to spread the heat
throughout the asteroid without a violent blastwave.

Curtis.

sean:

Lord Poe's correct, though: the asteroid Groumall destroyed with the planetary disruptor is very close to the first asteroid's size--maybe just a hair larger.

I measured the disruptor bolt's size relative to the BoP's keel, right before impact (see McC's "Battle038." Outstanding vidcaps btw, McC!).

As we established, the Bird's engineering hull is about 25m wide. The bolt is easily a fifth that--almost 6m wide by my measurements.

Compare that to McC's "Asteroid09," a frame or two before the bolt actually connects. In that image, I find the

In the above exchange, Saxton clearly has an interest in the Cardassian Freighter Gromall's destruction of an asteroid. Anyone reading the numerous other exchanges will note that the context of all these exchanges is... *gasp*... versus debate between Trek and Wars!

Given the rather apparent open nature of the various exchanges, how could he not know what he was involved with here?

And then there's this quote that still haunts you...


Wayne,

> I'll get some AOTC images, that can be scaled more precisely.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/download/wayne/
Here are 15 images from the AOTC asteroid chase (temporary link). A few of
these are
successive frames.
Most of these are near misses, and show the scale next to Obi-Wan's fighter.
One shows decent scale against Slave1.
The fighter is about 8x4 meters, so some of these red-glowing asteroids are
10-15 meters in diameter, others are probably 5 or so (eyeball).
Some asteroids fragmented, others vaporized. But these that are glowing
red, and are still roughly spherical, satisfy the lower limits we calculate.
5 meters- ~4 terajoules (1 kiloton)
10 meters- ~30 terajoules (7 kilotons)
15 meters- ~106 terajoules (25 kilotons)
It is possible that we undercalculated this for the ICS, or some of the
larger ones may have been hit twice. Things happen so fast, it's hard to
tell even frame by frame. But the scaling here is more reliable than most
of the ones in TESB, they all either fragmented or vaporized (most of them),
and this is fighter-scale weaponry. These things make it a better
comparison to Trek.

Two asteroids in TESB must be on the order of 40 meters:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/bigasteroid.jpg
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/asteroids9.jpg
These both turned white-hot, remained roughly spherical (limited
fragmentation), and vaporized. That would take at least 2000 terajoules
(475 kilotons).

Brian

Who is this "we" Brian Young speaks of here, and if none but Curtis Saxton was involved in working on AOTC ICS, then why is he stating this?
-Mike

[Cpl Kendall]

Or:

3) He used Wong's, others' and his own calculations in the ICS, which ended, for some reasons, unnecassarily beefing up Wars, with little concern about fitting with previously known envidence, nor with movies, nor about even abiding by scientific rules he's supposed to follow, in that one should always seek the most simple explanation. (ex: turbolaser nature explanation)

Besides, what about not always seek and favour upper limits?
He doesn't seem to care about that either. (ex: 900 km wide DSII)

All of which would have violated his None Disclosure Agreement with LFL. Which if they found out about would have left him open to fical repurcussions and would throw the validity of his work in doubt. Do you understand what a NDA is and why a professional would do his up most to keep it. If you have proof that he violated it than make it. Serious proof, not unfounded ramblings and slanderous accusations.

The "vast majority" of debators either moved out of debates as a whole (where are those many SB key members which don't seem there anymore since 2002?), or still dispute those figures, or resigned instead of wasting time arguing with brickwalls.
The others just appear misinformed on many things, or occupy the room left, repeating the same inanities found on SDN.

So where are these people that dispute these figures? All I see are the people that occupy SFJ and the odd troll or misinformed youth that wanders into SDN in the summer.

I must applaud how Wong's doctrine, and how his sockpuppets managed to enforce, with so much success, the idea that once the ICS says something, it's not to be disputed, and all other EU contradicting sources are to be dismissed.

Ever consider that perhaps these sources are right and you just so happen to be screeching into the wind? Saxton's work on the Technical Commentaries was so good that he was contracted to do the ICS. IF LFL thought his work was so out to lunch do you think that he would have been offered the job?

Besides, who cares about what the so called majority thinks? It does certainly not make your position better, nor right.

When the majority has the facts on it's side it certainly does.

Then, please, engage the conversations, make points, prove yourself right, provide evidence, instead of talking about how we're just so delusional and dead wrong, disconnected from reality.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Cpl Kendall]

Email list? Hardly. It's copies of a number of exchanges by the people on said list, though not complete, it is still sufficent to show an interest on Saxton part in Versus debating:


*snip*


Who is this "we" Brian Young speaks of here, and if none but Curtis Saxton was involved in working on AOTC ICS, then why is he stating this?
-Mike

To anyone else this would be inconclusive at best but to you it's evidence of the great Warsie conspiracy. Seriously if you have serious proof that Saxton violated his NDA with LFL than make it. All you've got here is a half-baked theory with no supporting evidence. If you took this to court or to LFL you'd be laughed right out of it.

[2046]

What's more reasonable, that:

1) He corresponded via email for years with friends and didn't let that colour his professional work as he was under an NDA and he is an actual professional in working life.

or

2) He secretly violated his NDA and used Wong and others calculations in the ICS to beef up Wars in order to win the SW vs ST debate, a debate he doesn't care about. If found out he would be open to all sorts of professional and legal ramifications including fiscal consequences.

You realize that #2, which you promote is a charge of libel and slander and is promoting a conspiracy theory on the order of the nuts who think the Twin Towers were felled by controlled demolition and has as much basis in reality.

9/11 nuts operate without evidence, seeking out alternative explanations that satisfy their primary objective of finding new and more astonishing ways to hate the United States and its government, much as frequently occurs in the News and Politics subforum of another website.

Your unstated assumption is that the folks here are equally hate-filled.

This assumption is wrong.

If you step back from the subject matter for a moment, and transpose the present issue onto another topic, honestly you ought to find the position you're standing against at least understandable, and not evidence of evil.

Imagine yourself in the following:

Let's say that you favor amnesty for illegal immigrants (which unless I'm sorely mistaken, you do).

Let's say a position paper emerges tomorrow claiming ten times the known illegal immigrant population and crime rate and that equivalently-large damages to the economy are resulting from their presence. This work energizes your pro-deportation, pro-border security opponents, who declare (in Gore-like fashion) that the debate is over.

But you know and it is confirmed that this work was largely based on unofficial, non-governmental numbers which your opponents consider valid and quote frequently. In the acknowledgements, you even see that the author heaped thanks on the Mexicans Suck Foundation and other right-wing immigration-oriented think tanks.

Of course the author claims to have no interest in or participation regarding border issues, and his economics website even makes that statement. Supporters simply claim that it's strictly an economics position paper, and that anyone who would suggest the contrary is lying.

But you know he's friendly to the right-wing anti-illegal immigration crowd, and you recall and even locate a couple of online posts of his where he refers to "silliest Amnestyist fallacies" and otherwise makes fun of and debates pro-amnesty folks, while making it clear that he's only too familiar with the topic.

And if that weren't enough, you once happened upon copied-and-pasted e-mails wherein he's clearly a member of a group dedicated to running the numbers in an effort to make things look better for the border security crowd, by making their numbers a "better comparison" to the amnesty crowd numbers.

Most damningly, one of the e-mails from a right-winger says something about how "{i}t is possible that we undercalculated this for the" position paper.

Now there's always the possibility that all these facts have a less insidious explanation. Maybe the author did hang out with and argue in defense of the border security crowd, but so compartmentalized his thinking that none of that entered his mind at all when he wrote the position paper. And maybe he just got some help with math from the right-winger, who didn't know at the time that it was for the position paper. All quite innocent, and quite unlikely.

Realistically, I'd bet money that you'd conclude that his "economics" position paper was either based on intentionally making a statement about border security with numbers derived from his pro-border security friends or, in the best case, was largely based on the work of the pro-security folks and thus cannot be trusted as a neutral source.

And you know, dismissing the position paper as mere right-wing propaganda is precisely the response it would get among leftists. That's not a proper method of behavior, mind you . . . maybe his numbers were accurate. The truth value of what is said is not affected by who did the saying, after all, no matter the character suicide he's engaged in.

But one also cannot pretend that they are suddenly the governmental canon position and that the debate was over. It's one position paper, based on a select set of unofficial, non-governmental numbers . . . and there are plenty of other position papers and unofficial numbers to choose from, and even some official governmental numbers to work with.

But alas, your opponents act like it's the word of God written with his fingertip in the sand.

Of course things could get ugly after that . . . your valid questions about the author would be responded to by certain right-wingers with vitriol and disdain, no doubt, and you'd be tempted to respond in kind. Eventually anytime the position paper was brought up, one of your opponents might joke about those nut-jobs like you who think the position paper was a conspiracy against the amnesty crowd, and they'd all have a big laugh at your expense.

But with the tables turned in this fashion surely you can recognize that your "conspiracy nut" comment is unreasonable. And while all the vitriol doesn't help, the fact is that it is *very* reasonable to question the origin of the numbers. It's also reasonable to compare them to official, governmental, canon figures, and even to other unofficial, non-governmental figures.

The fact that they appear way out-of-whack when so compared is not surprising, given their origins.

The onus is thus left on the right-wingers to show that the numbers are not inflations based on their favorite examples, but in fact are valid in the light of governmental figures and the rest of the non-governmental ones. No handwaving will suffice . . . the only way the position paper can hold up now in the light of public scrutiny is if it fits the facts.

But as you know, it doesn't. It doesn't fit the government numbers and only fits a tiny selection of non-governmental numbers, and only then with some assumptions that you don't agree with. Meanwhile, the author's right-wing friends handwave all that away by saying that other examples are undercounts. And of course some of them simply say "the numbers are STILL right and there's not a damned thing you can do about the position paper!".

But in saying that they only convince themselves.

Shifting gears, then, here's something you might not've seen before unless you followed a link given earlier. The bolding is mine:

> I'll get some AOTC images, that can be scaled more precisely.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/download/wayne/
Here are 15 images from the AOTC asteroid chase (temporary link). A few of these are successive frames.
Most of these are near misses, and show the scale next to Obi-Wan's fighter.
One shows decent scale against Slave1.
The fighter is about 8x4 meters, so some of these red-glowing asteroids are 10-15 meters in diameter, others are probably 5 or so (eyeball).
Some asteroids fragmented, others vaporized. But these that are glowing
red, and are still roughly spherical, satisfy the lower limits we calculate.
5 meters- ~4 terajoules (1 kiloton)
10 meters- ~30 terajoules (7 kilotons)
15 meters- ~106 terajoules (25 kilotons)
It is possible that we undercalculated this for the ICS, or some of the
larger ones may have been hit twice. Things happen so fast, it's hard to
tell even frame by frame. But the scaling here is more reliable than most
of the ones in TESB, they all either fragmented or vaporized (most of them), and this is fighter-scale weaponry. These things make it a better
comparison to Trek.

This doesn't come from the author of the position paper, but from a right-winger friend on their little e-mail group. Don't you find it worth considering that the economics position paper was written by someone who was so involved in the border security debate? After all, the right-winger above just suggested that the border security crowd did calculations for the position paper.

Are you really gonna agree that folks who believe in just that idea are merely conspiracy nuts?

[Mike DiCenso]

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Ever consider that perhaps these sources are right and you just so happen to be screeching into the wind? Saxton's work on the Technical Commentaries was so good that he was contracted to do the ICS. IF LFL thought his work was so out to lunch do you think that he would have been offered the job?

Maybe initially that was true, Kendall, and to be fair, there is quite a bit of very good research (or attempted research) into SW technology on the SWTC site by Curtis Saxton. But now we have people like Gary Sarli, among others now attempting to to "correct" the AOTC ICS figures by downplaying ISD firepower in other EU literature, among other things. Also interesting in that the ROTS ICS had firepower and power generation figures edited out from it wherever possible. Only a handful of missed hyperspace speed and other figures slipped by.

Why did that happen, I wonder?

Besides, who cares about what the so called majority thinks? It does certainly not make your position better, nor right.

When the majority has the facts on it's side it certainly does.

Except when they don't really, they're just thumping a book around now the same way that Fundamentalist Christians do when claiming Genesis in the Bible is undisputable fact. The fact is that a large group of militant fans hammered their way into power across an ng and a forum, and made it so that reasonable debate and research was impossible.

Thumping a book as indisputable evidence en-masse is just not the same as having a "majority of facts" on it's side.

We have gone over your facts here and other forums many times, and have found reasonable counter-evidence in both the OT, PT and EU sources that do not support the wildly over-exaggerated numbers of AOTC ICS.
-Mike

[Cpl Kendall]

*snip*

Look I'm going to ask you folks one more time: do you have any evidence, concrete evidence that Saxton violated his NDA and used Wong et all's calculations in the ICS? I am contending that he did not, and I hope your not asking me to prove a negative.

And I see that as usual Darkstar resorts to baffling his opponent with verbage, why don't you just state your case simply?

[2046]

sean:

Lord Poe's correct, though: the asteroid Groumall destroyed with the planetary disruptor is very close to the first asteroid's size--maybe just a hair larger.

I measured the disruptor bolt's size relative to the BoP's keel, right before impact (see McC's "Battle038." Outstanding vidcaps btw, McC!).

As we established, the Bird's engineering hull is about 25m wide. The bolt is easily a fifth that--almost 6m wide by my measurements.

Compare that to McC's "Asteroid09," a frame or two before the bolt actually connects. In that image, I find the

Actually, I don't really think the above is from Saxton. It certainly doesn't seem to continue the rest of his e-mail. Given the cut-and-paste strategy employed for the text files (where it was more about content than logical order or referencing who said what), I'd say it was just another e-mail pasted along behind.

There are variations in grammar, capitalization, punctuation, and even word-wrapping in the original copy-paste. And Saxton, according to what I've picked up from elsewhere, is basically a sweaty greaseball in a three-piece suit. I don't think he'd 'lower' himself to using "btw", "BoP", or even "Lord Poe's" for "Lord Poe is", for example, even among friends. He probably fancies himself to be higher-brow, and above that sort of thing.