Are the ICS books accurate?

[Jedi Master Spock]

In general, I don't want to hear broad generalizations such as "Oh, Trekkies say X. Warsies say X." It leads to rudeness in a hurry. Can we frame this dialogue in a way that doesn't involve grouping?

I particularly don't like to hear things like this:

ICS on the other hand has NEVER been proven wrong. The trouble with you Trekkies that every time there are contradictions within the EU you always go for the worst possible example that will make SW side the weakest and then you are all dumbfounded when other people don't follow your metodology.

At best, you're offering a blanket generalization attached to an insult with fairly little material argument. The question offered is not whether or not the ICS can be proven wrong within some arbitrary framework; you say it can't, I say it already has.

The question is how does it look next to everything else.

[Kane Starkiller]

Do you have any idea how hypocritical that statement is? Switch all the names around and it still will be true.

I can't swicth the names because I never claimed that SW ships can destroy planets and blow off atmosphere based on a few pieces of character dialouge. You have.

Do you understand what a VFX error is? It's a mistake or accident that implies something they didn't intend.

Do you understand what burden of proof is?

Prove that it isn't. There are numerous examples of the ships not accelerating very fast at all like Dooku's ship's acceleration for the entire on-screen period. Likely, these fast acceleration events are VFX errors.

Burden of proof. Look it up sometimes.

I've both demostrated numerous problems within the ICS and proved the author a liar or an idiot. That is beyond argument at this point. Suspension of disbelief here is an excuse. You cannot accept contradictory evidence and still maintain SoD. Something has to go and it must be the most problematic claims.

There are no contradictions here. Ships can accelerate at thousands of g at a straigth line but in the heat of battle pilots reaction time, computer precision and targeting comes into play . No contradictions.

Prove it otherwise. The explosion came right out of the ship from the movie itself and there is no reason to believe something else.

You really don't understand burden of proof do you? YOU claimed that ICS is wrong about the location of the bomb therefore YOU have to provide evidence.

You do not reject sources you do not like. You must include all viable claims that you have found, no matter what.

But only ONE number can be correct. Death Star cannot be 160km and 900km AT THE SAME TIME.

That is the scientific way unless you can disprove the other claims. And the BDZ came out of Scavenger Hunt, which is a adventure role-playing game AFAIK.

There are several sources for BDZ or BDZ level operation. Scavenger Hunt is one of them. There is also the example of Camaas whose all animal life and vegetation have been destroyed in the space of a day.

The 160km size for DS II came from a technical manual I believe, which is just as valid as ICS from a purely canonicity standpoint.

Yes and no more valid than ITW. So really it all comes down to you wanting to use the smallest possible figure and then hoot and holler when others don't.

Why don't you prove any of your claims first. I have clearly demostrated good evidence for everything I said.

What claims? The only thing I'm saying is that an offcial source is valid until DISPROVEN by the films. Therefore if you wish to demonstrate ICS's invalidity provide evidence.

This is a discussion over the validity of the ICS. You cannot use status of the ICS as proof of it's own validity. That is something that fundementalists tend to say and not scientists. And I have definitely proven him a liar or an idiot in the SPHA-T case. Frankly this has turned into a broken record.

Sure I can. ICS is official and therefore true until disproven by higher canon. This is how official material works in case you didn't know.

You constantly tout the officialness of the ICS as evidence for it's validity and demands others to prove otherwise. You cannot do that. You must judge the ICS purely on its merits.

ICS is official material. As such it's purpose is to expand upon the SW universe and give us more information about it. It is therefore VALID until disproven by higher canon material. Therefore it is up to you to prove that films disprove the ICS.

Seriously, this has become a yelling match. You are not listening to any of the evidence I've provided and instead have just covered your ears and started to scream platitudes about ICS.

"Blah blah blah I don't have any evidence so I'll just make up VFX error every time I don't like something." Yeah real convincing.

Let me say one thing about the ICS. In the last 2-3 years, the argument for it has diluted into one single argument: You must "prove" ICS to be wrong or else it is totally right.

Exactly. This is how canon policy works: official is admissable unless contradicted by the movies. Besides you yourself claimed that ICS is contradicetd by the movies and now you fail to provide a single evidence.

I've already addressed this in the other thread. Not only is it a perversion of the canon hierarchy it is also easily contradicted by nearly canon.

How is this a "perversion" of canon. This is EXACTLY how canon works: lower level material is true unless contradiced by higher level material.

The problem resides in the meaning of the word "proof." Normally, this means proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this regard it has been proven long ago.

This isn't a criminal trial and ICS "invalidity" is not the defendant so that you just need to show reasonable doubt to "set it free". This is a scientific discussion and here we require evidence.

The problem is that for many Saxtonites/SDNers, "prove" means provide a mathematically level of proof that is irrefutable. This second goal will never happen. The ICS can not be neither proven nor disproven under this meaning of proof. Thus this second demand is better off being ignored in all debate in this matter.

Sure it can be. If an Imperial officer for example ordered maximum firepower to the turbolasers on the film and then failed to destroy a 200m asteroid for example then we would know that something is wrong with the ICS. Or if the ISD got destroyed by a solar flare.

Yes, there it is. This hiding of Warsie head in the proverbial sand when it comes to dealing with the effects of the Death Star SE explosion's inconsistancies wit a DET mechanism will continue to haunt you guys for a long, long time. We've already have gone over it on the previous forums. The ring effect and other strange things like the material disappearance, all point away from DET. Naturally you continue to pretend it's of no significance, or try to explain it away with lame planetary shield bunko.

I'm right here Mike. HOW do fire rings disprove DET and prove a chain reaction. WHAT KIND of chain reaction can move through the planetary mass so quickly? WHAT KIND of chain reaction can produce that much energy? PROVE that any matrial "disappeared". EXPLAIN HOW material disappearance points to a chain reaction. PROVE that Alderaan didn't have any shields.
You can't can you? But that doesn't stop you from screaming "chain reaction" does it.
And here is a little excerpt from SW databank:

The Death Star's prime weapon unleashed unthinkable levels of raw energy capable of tearing apart entire worlds.

See that? Raw energy Mike. Of course I understand that now you'll scream that it's non canon and that it doesn't matter if it comes from an official page.

1.) Dankayo's size is at best unknown (useless then to describe it as having an Earth-density atmosphere when it could have one as thin as Mars for all we know). So again, Warsies here attempting to once again maximize what ISDs can do, even though there is nothing here to support their claim.

But Earth is the most natural benchmark isn't it? It could be smaller but it could also be bigger. So really how are Warsies trying to maximize what ISD does?

2.) It took at least two (Devastator and Relentless are cited), possibly more star destroyers (in some sources 98-100 ships are required) to do the job in an unspecified amount of time. Some sources cite less than a day (implying hours).

Two Star Destroyers to blow off the atmosphere. That's 5*10^25J at least. Assuming that Death Star recharges in a day and scaling down to ISD we get 7.2*10^25W. See how it works?

3.) Dankayo is described in the source book as "evenly cratered". Not "slagged", not "melted down several meters", ect. Just even cratering of the surface, and there was one survivor found in a deep shelter, further arguing against any melting. That the Imperial forces actually had to go through a mop-up operation afterwords on the off chance of survivors at all is rather telling.

Jesus Christ melting was an idealized scenario to determine a lower limit energy requirement. In reality turbolaser will simply vaporize a portion of the ground leaving a crater whose surface will probably be melted. The fact that those explosions also resulted in atmosphere being blown off only speaks about their strength.

Therefore, to assert that Dankayo is exactly Earth-like, to assume 10e26 joule energies applied to the removal of it's atmosphere, and the melting of the surface requiring 200 gigaton turbolasers is just as equally dishonest, and shows only that Warsies are interested in hyping SW firepower beyond any rational limit. Saxton seems to want to subscribe to that extreme upper limit, rather than take a lower limit, or a happy medium. It's sloppy methodologies like this that he and other Warsies employ that create the issue. At best Saxton is sloppy, at worst he may be dishonest, or both.

Earth as the only planet currently known to support human life is a perfectly reasonable benchmark. There are smaller planets but there are also bigger planets. There is nothing irrational in assuming Earth sized planet unless of course you are obsessed with minimizing SW weapons so I guess you'd pick Moon.

Oh come on. They don't have to be an exact percentage here. It illustrates that ILM has no freakin' clue about things like "continuity" in these matters. They either didn't know, got screwed up on, or deliberately ignored the designers' intent on the sizes in both cases. In the Return of the Jedi Sketchbook, it is clearly given that the second Death Star is supposed to be 100 miles (160km) in diameter. So again, I ask you, what are we supposed to take as gospel here? The visuals, as even Saxton has acknowledged, place the upper limits for the DS2 around 500 km (his methodologies are often not made clear for how he derived some of his values). When the canon visuals don't match the backstage nonsense, Saxton goes as fars as to make up a super-trench which is clearly not visible anywhere in RoTJ, or even vaugely implied.

I never asked you to accept anything as gospel. There are several sources and several film scenes that point to different sizes. Dr. Saxton concluded that about 900km is most reasonable. He put up all of the figures there but then chose 900km. There is nothing wrong with that.

You overexaggerate the recognition aspect of this. It's no ad hominem to call someone out on wrong-doing. He got a shot at codifying the Warsie exaggerated firepower figures and he went for it. The acknowledgements in the AoTC and RoTS ICS are there for anyone to read. When you honestly draw the varying lines of evidence together, it stinks of him doing so for purposes of winning the versus debate.

Then why would he consult with Micheal Wong and the rest? Why didn't he simply make up the numbers? It's not really hard.
And I honestly can't believe that someone would try to endanger a paying job and his own reputation as a scientist to win some silly hobby debate. You need to be pretty obessesed with STvsSW to even suggest something like that.

It doesn't matter how you try and twist it, Kane. He still jumped in, and got himself publicly involved. The moment he attacked Graham Kennedy over the laser power issue, is the moment he truely became imbroiled in the debate.

I think the problem here is that you take vs debate waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously. "He became imbroiled". What is this Vietnam war? He made two posts that mostly touched upon energy requirements and dissipation limits. So what?

They went about trying to justify high-end numbers that had little or no basis in SW fact, while at the same time went to great length to belittle high-end examples from Trek. The pushing to find or create examples to attack Robert Anderson's work has also figured into the efforts of this group. A group, that I might add, included (may still include), Curtis Saxton, who has claimed and proclaimed by other Warsies to not be involved at all in the debate. That's a lie, and that's hypocrisy.

No they didn't. Read that page. Curtis (if that is Curtis Saxton) only responded to the discussion about the asteroids from AOTC. If they really wanted to inflate the numbers why all the discussions? Why not simply invent a number that's higher than anything ST has an use it?

He did more than merely "communicate with Michael Wong", he was completely involved with that group and their designs. Wong's own dishonesty is well-known, and at least out in the open for the public to see. But a big "shame on you" goes to Curtis Saxton for claiming one thing, then doing another. Exposing of the group is merely icing on the cake, and all you can do is rant and rave about us mean old trekkies calling him out on it. The evidence is there, even if you don't like it, and don't want to see it for what it is. Saxton is clearly not the neutral third-party saint that you guys want to make him out to be.

The trouble here is that you view the debate as a war. So any exchange of ideas with the "other side" is considered consorting with the enemy. If you could only see how silly this makes you look.

A superlaser is not a turbolaser. They don't look or act remotely the same. The Death Star and its superlaser are unique, regardless of DET or Superlaser effect.

This is from BTM: "The superlaser was created by several turbolaser pulses, produced by amplifications crystals around the cannon's circular well. These pulses were fused over the central focus lens, resulting in a devastating energy beam with more firepower than half the Imperial starfleet"
Ups.

That being said, "The Die is Cast" (DS9) and "A Taste of Armageddon" (TOS) are top level canon, while ICS is either low level canon or non-canon depending upon you interpretation of SW canon.

And both have demonstrated nothing and we should rely on character vauge statements to determine the firepower.

[Nonamer]

Do you have any idea how hypocritical that statement is? Switch all the names around and it still will be true.

I can't swicth the names because I never claimed that SW ships can destroy planets and blow off atmosphere based on a few pieces of character dialouge. You have.

But you have based it off of two books that is not supported by nearly all of the rest of SW canon.

Do you understand what a VFX error is? It's a mistake or accident that implies something they didn't intend.

Do you understand what burden of proof is?

And yet once again you've ignored my evidence in favor of platitudes.

Prove that it isn't. There are numerous examples of the ships not accelerating very fast at all like Dooku's ship's acceleration for the entire on-screen period. Likely, these fast acceleration events are VFX errors.

Burden of proof. Look it up sometimes.

Read above.

I've both demostrated numerous problems within the ICS and proved the author a liar or an idiot. That is beyond argument at this point. Suspension of disbelief here is an excuse. You cannot accept contradictory evidence and still maintain SoD. Something has to go and it must be the most problematic claims.

There are no contradictions here. Ships can accelerate at thousands of g at a straigth line but in the heat of battle pilots reaction time, computer precision and targeting comes into play . No contradictions.

Other than the one of logic and plausibility. The idea that his ship can't aim at the general direction of "up" after several seconds implies highly idiot design. Or a VFX error. The more likely solution is obvious.

Prove it otherwise. The explosion came right out of the ship from the movie itself and there is no reason to believe something else.

You really don't understand burden of proof do you? YOU claimed that ICS is wrong about the location of the bomb therefore YOU have to provide evidence.

Are you seriously that slow? I have just told you several times that the explosion came right from the inside of the ship given actually video proof of the event. There is nothing more to be said about "proof". You are also using the exact same argument I have pointed out in my last post. "Proof" has been ignored in favor of the super-"proof" that can never be reached while you yourself has no need of proof of any kind.

You do not reject sources you do not like. You must include all viable claims that you have found, no matter what.

But only ONE number can be correct. Death Star cannot be 160km and 900km AT THE SAME TIME.

And why reject the 160km number in favor of the 900km one? That's selective choosing of evidence and it is wrong. You must include all possibilities.

That is the scientific way unless you can disprove the other claims. And the BDZ came out of Scavenger Hunt, which is a adventure role-playing game AFAIK.

There are several sources for BDZ or BDZ level operation. Scavenger Hunt is one of them. There is also the example of Camaas whose all animal life and vegetation have been destroyed in the space of a day.

Those other BDZ methods are vastly less powerful. Another is the BDZ of Taris in KOTOR which was far less powerful than described in Savenger Hunt. His decision to choose the most impressive display of BDZ is wrong and selective evidence.

The 160km size for DS II came from a technical manual I believe, which is just as valid as ICS from a purely canonicity standpoint.

Yes and no more valid than ITW. So really it all comes down to you wanting to use the smallest possible figure and then hoot and holler when others don't.

And no less valid either. You must consider all sources that are credible. Saxton didn't, making him either stupid or a deciever.

Why don't you prove any of your claims first. I have clearly demostrated good evidence for everything I said.

What claims? The only thing I'm saying is that an offcial source is valid until DISPROVEN by the films. Therefore if you wish to demonstrate ICS's invalidity provide evidence.

Like I just said, I have provide evidence that shows the ICS is wrong. The ball is in your court. Prove what I have provided to be false and then there is a discussion instead of a yelling contest on your part.

This is a discussion over the validity of the ICS. You cannot use status of the ICS as proof of it's own validity. That is something that fundementalists tend to say and not scientists. And I have definitely proven him a liar or an idiot in the SPHA-T case. Frankly this has turned into a broken record.

Sure I can. ICS is official and therefore true until disproven by higher canon. This is how official material works in case you didn't know.

No please listen to Jedi Master Spock. He said that you must provide why it looks valid compared to the rest of canon and whether it is accurate in comparison. Therefore the burden of proof is on your side why it should be considered valid. You cannot resort to the old claim of "it's canon, deal with it" nonsense. This is not the bible and you are not a fundementalist. You should give and accept evidence in which you have down little.

You constantly tout the officialness of the ICS as evidence for it's validity and demands others to prove otherwise. You cannot do that. You must judge the ICS purely on its merits.

ICS is official material. As such it's purpose is to expand upon the SW universe and give us more information about it. It is therefore VALID until disproven by higher canon material. Therefore it is up to you to prove that films disprove the ICS.

Again that is completely in opposition to the purpose of this thread which demands that you give something in defense of the ICS other than its "officialness."

Seriously, this has become a yelling match. You are not listening to any of the evidence I've provided and instead have just covered your ears and started to scream platitudes about ICS.

"Blah blah blah I don't have any evidence so I'll just make up VFX error every time I don't like something." Yeah real convincing.

You're not proving me wrong in the slightest.

Let me say one thing about the ICS. In the last 2-3 years, the argument for it has diluted into one single argument: You must "prove" ICS to be wrong or else it is totally right.

Exactly. This is how canon policy works: official is admissable unless contradicted by the movies. Besides you yourself claimed that ICS is contradicetd by the movies and now you fail to provide a single evidence.

First it is not the canon policy in this thread. Second I've already provide evidence that the ICS is wrong and it is up to you to listen to it.

I've already addressed this in the other thread. Not only is it a perversion of the canon hierarchy it is also easily contradicted by nearly canon.

How is this a "perversion" of canon. This is EXACTLY how canon works: lower level material is true unless contradiced by higher level material.

Which in fact has already been reached numerous times by numerous people. It has also been contradicted by canon of the same level, like when BDZ are shown to be much lesser than claimed.

The problem resides in the meaning of the word "proof." Normally, this means proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In this regard it has been proven long ago.

This isn't a criminal trial and ICS "invalidity" is not the defendant so that you just need to show reasonable doubt to "set it free". This is a scientific discussion and here we require evidence.

You got it backwards. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict somebody. Science is no different. Once it has shown beyond a reasonable doubt a theory is usually dropped.

The problem is that for many Saxtonites/SDNers, "prove" means provide a mathematically level of proof that is irrefutable. This second goal will never happen. The ICS can not be neither proven nor disproven under this meaning of proof. Thus this second demand is better off being ignored in all debate in this matter.

Sure it can be. If an Imperial officer for example ordered maximum firepower to the turbolasers on the film and then failed to destroy a 200m asteroid for example then we would know that something is wrong with the ICS. Or if the ISD got destroyed by a solar flare.

Or how about when the SPHA-T fires at a ship and the ship wasn't sent in orbit instantly? That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the guns don't have the firepower claimed in the ICS.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

Kane, your argument thus far has been: ICS is official so prove it wrong. That isn't a valid argument. If I'm not mistaken, the purpose of this thread is to put forward and examine evidence both for and against the accuracy of the ICS books. While you have given a few examples, you have in no way disproved all of the claims against the ICS. Rather you have repeated your ICS is official statement over and over, and it is getting tiresome. If you want to create a thread on the nature of canon then please do so, because that would be the place for that kind of argument, not here.

Oh yeah, another major problem with DS2 being 900 km is that it means the Empire had to work 1940 times faster than on DS1 as opposed to 11 times faster with a 160 km DS2.

[Jedi Master Spock]

I would like to re-frame the question:

Consider first all the material not including the ICS. Analyze, reach conclusions, note these down.

Then consider the ICS. Factoring the ICS in and taking it to be correct, do your conclusions change? I.e., does the ICS lead you to conclusions different from those you would reach ordinarily?

That said, for discussion of the Death Star, pop on over here. The novelization, IMO, makes it perfectly clear what we're talking about.

[Kane Starkiller]

But you have based it off of two books that is not supported by nearly all of the rest of SW canon.

What SW canon? Where? How? Enough of these vauge generalizations. Provide specific examples.

And yet once again you've ignored my evidence in favor of platitudes.

This may come as a shock to you but you simply stating that certain parts of SW films were "VFX errors" does not constitute proof.

Other than the one of logic and plausibility. The idea that his ship can't aim at the general direction of "up" after several seconds implies highly idiot design. Or a VFX error. The more likely solution is obvious.

What are you talking about? I sadi that thouasnds of g acceleration may become impossible in the heat of battle and you retort with something about accelerating "up"?
Besides it happened. It is canon.

Are you seriously that slow? I have just told you several times that the explosion came right from the inside of the ship given actually video proof of the event. There is nothing more to be said about "proof". You are also using the exact same argument I have pointed out in my last post. "Proof" has been ignored in favor of the super-"proof" that can never be reached while you yourself has no need of proof of any kind.

Don't lie. The floor of the landing pad below the ship is obscured by the boarding ramp. A shaped charge in the floor would destroy the belly of the shop causing an explosion. You are just so desperate to find any contradiction that you don't even try to reconcile the sources.

And why reject the 160km number in favor of the 900km one? That's selective choosing of evidence and it is wrong. You must include all possibilities.

As I have already explained to you both ITW and CINEFEX support 900km.

Those other BDZ methods are vastly less powerful. Another is the BDZ of Taris in KOTOR which was far less powerful than described in Savenger Hunt. His decision to choose the most impressive display of BDZ is wrong and selective evidence.

Those are only two actual performed BDZ operations from which we have enough information to formulate a rough energy requirement. And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't KOTOR set 5000 years before the events in the films? Plenty of time for firepower to increase a few orders of magnitude.

And no less valid either. You must consider all sources that are credible. Saxton didn't, making him either stupid or a deciever.

The only deciever here is you. Saxton posted ALL of numbers in DS2 scaling table. But since two other sources pointed to 900km Death Star he went with that.

Like I just said, I have provide evidence that shows the ICS is wrong. The ball is in your court. Prove what I have provided to be false and then there is a discussion instead of a yelling contest on your part.

You have provided jack shit. You "provided" the "VFX errors" claim without any evidence and vaugely claimed that "other" SW canon disproves ICS firepower again of course without providing any evidence.

No please listen to Jedi Master Spock. He said that you must provide why it looks valid compared to the rest of canon and whether it is accurate in comparison. Therefore the burden of proof is on your side why it should be considered valid. You cannot resort to the old claim of "it's canon, deal with it" nonsense. This is not the bible and you are not a fundementalist. You should give and accept evidence in which you have down little.

It should be considered valid beacuse it is official. Do we have to "prove" every new film as valid before we can use it? Do we have to "prove" every new book as valid? Every new ST episode as valid? We deal with official material as in-world sources which are considered true until proven otherwise.

Which in fact has already been reached numerous times by numerous people. It has also been contradicted by canon of the same level, like when BDZ are shown to be much lesser than claimed.

So you say but have provided zero evidence.

You got it backwards. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict somebody. Science is no different. Once it has shown beyond a reasonable doubt a theory is usually dropped.

No you misunderstood me. You are treating ICS invalidity as defendant or ICS validity as prosecutor. So you claim that ICS must show it's validity beyond any reasonable doubt in order to be accepted. This is not true. ICS as an official source is "innocent until proven guilty".

Or how about when the SPHA-T fires at a ship and the ship wasn't sent in orbit instantly? That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the guns don't have the firepower claimed in the ICS.

ICS claims that SPHA-T guns had the firepower of 10^23W? I don't recall that.

I would like to re-frame the question:

Consider first all the material not including the ICS. Analyze, reach conclusions, note these down.

Then consider the ICS. Factoring the ICS in and taking it to be correct, do your conclusions change? I.e., does the ICS lead you to conclusions different from those you would reach ordinarily?

No they don't. At least not significantly. Official sources (Behind the magic) say that Death Star beam itself is more powerful than half of starfleet. Therefore the entire starfleet will have a firepower on the order of 10^38W. Even assuming billion ships for the Empire we reach 10^29W. This seems too high however it is reasonable to assume that Imperial fleet posseses other superweapons smaller than Death Star which would then decrease the actual firepower for an average (1-10km) ship.
Then there are BDZ operations.
So the only thing the ICS does is "peg" the numbers.

[Nonamer]

But you have based it off of two books that is not supported by nearly all of the rest of SW canon.

What SW canon? Where? How? Enough of these vauge generalizations. Provide specific examples.

SPHA-T shots from AOTC. Count Dooku's escape into orbit. Destruction of the Naboo cruiser. Other examples include the Seismic charge and opening battle scene of ROTS just to name a few. I think you are well aware of these and do not need any further explanation.

And yet once again you've ignored my evidence in favor of platitudes.

This may come as a shock to you but you simply stating that certain parts of SW films were "VFX errors" does not constitute proof.

They contradict everything else we saw, thus it is safe to say they're wrong.

Other than the one of logic and plausibility. The idea that his ship can't aim at the general direction of "up" after several seconds implies highly idiot design. Or a VFX error. The more likely solution is obvious.

What are you talking about? I sadi that thouasnds of g acceleration may become impossible in the heat of battle and you retort with something about accelerating "up"?
Besides it happened. It is canon.

Explain to me why a guy would sudden act infinitely dumber and not accelerate at even 1% of max acceleration when a few shots are shot at him? And no, it isn't canon (unless you're involking the ICS, something you have been explicitedly warned not to do). The camera pulled away before we actually saw thousands of Gs of acceleration. Thus, the time from surface to orbit was likely a VFX error, more specifically a chronological error.

Are you seriously that slow? I have just told you several times that the explosion came right from the inside of the ship given actually video proof of the event. There is nothing more to be said about "proof". You are also using the exact same argument I have pointed out in my last post. "Proof" has been ignored in favor of the super-"proof" that can never be reached while you yourself has no need of proof of any kind.

Don't lie. The floor of the landing pad below the ship is obscured by the boarding ramp. A shaped charge in the floor would destroy the belly of the shop causing an explosion. You are just so desperate to find any contradiction that you don't even try to reconcile the sources.

Oh BS. If you actually have the movie right in front of you, you can check frame by frame and see the explosion came from the right side of the inside of the ship. We also saw the explosion from a later shot at a different angle, and there was no sign the underside directly underneath the explosion was damaged. I think you must reconsider the desperation of your own position.

And why reject the 160km number in favor of the 900km one? That's selective choosing of evidence and it is wrong. You must include all possibilities.

As I have already explained to you both ITW and CINEFEX support 900km.

And the sketchbook (an actual canon source BTW) said 160km. Since when were canon sources regularly ignored in your "it's canon so it's true" world?

Those other BDZ methods are vastly less powerful. Another is the BDZ of Taris in KOTOR which was far less powerful than described in Savenger Hunt. His decision to choose the most impressive display of BDZ is wrong and selective evidence.

Those are only two actual performed BDZ operations from which we have enough information to formulate a rough energy requirement. And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't KOTOR set 5000 years before the events in the films? Plenty of time for firepower to increase a few orders of magnitude.

More like a 10 or 15 orders of magnitude increase. Actually why don't we read about the various implementations of the BDZ: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html and http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#weaponry-bd0 . It started out from a gamebook and varied greatly from book to book from then on out. Some are slagging the crust whereas others sound like carpet bombing a planet into the ground. No doubt Saxton used only the biggest, most impressive claims. Nor can we use your calculability requirement either (to make up a word); the describes are too varied to accurately describe the BDZ in the first place.

And no less valid either. You must consider all sources that are credible. Saxton didn't, making him either stupid or a deciever.

The only deciever here is you. Saxton posted ALL of numbers in DS2 scaling table. But since two other sources pointed to 900km Death Star he went with that.

And something like 5 sources suggested everything from 160km to 400km, not to mention you can't ignore numbers you don't like. Admit it, he ignored every smaller number than 900km when he shouldn't.

Like I just said, I have provide evidence that shows the ICS is wrong. The ball is in your court. Prove what I have provided to be false and then there is a discussion instead of a yelling contest on your part.

You have provided jack shit. You "provided" the "VFX errors" claim without any evidence and vaugely claimed that "other" SW canon disproves ICS firepower again of course without providing any evidence.

That has more to do with your refusing to see any evidence provided to you.

No please listen to Jedi Master Spock. He said that you must provide why it looks valid compared to the rest of canon and whether it is accurate in comparison. Therefore the burden of proof is on your side why it should be considered valid. You cannot resort to the old claim of "it's canon, deal with it" nonsense. This is not the bible and you are not a fundementalist. You should give and accept evidence in which you have down little.

It should be considered valid beacuse it is official. Do we have to "prove" every new film as valid before we can use it? Do we have to "prove" every new book as valid? Every new ST episode as valid? We deal with official material as in-world sources which are considered true until proven otherwise.

Take that up with JMS. Everyone on this board but you agrees with him.

Which in fact has already been reached numerous times by numerous people. It has also been contradicted by canon of the same level, like when BDZ are shown to be much lesser than claimed.

So you say but have provided zero evidence.

Again, open your eyes and maybe you'll see it.

You got it backwards. You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict somebody. Science is no different. Once it has shown beyond a reasonable doubt a theory is usually dropped.

No you misunderstood me. You are treating ICS invalidity as defendant or ICS validity as prosecutor. So you claim that ICS must show it's validity beyond any reasonable doubt in order to be accepted. This is not true. ICS as an official source is "innocent until proven guilty".

Again, if you don't like it, take it up with JMS. We've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Saxton was not accurate regarding his creation of the ICS in many areas as well as his intentions regarding SW in general, so you have it backwards on innocence and guilt.

Or how about when the SPHA-T fires at a ship and the ship wasn't sent in orbit instantly? That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the guns don't have the firepower claimed in the ICS.

ICS claims that SPHA-T guns had the firepower of 10^23W? I don't recall that.

Forget about the last line. I meant what was claimed by Saxton, not by ICS.

I would like to re-frame the question:

Consider first all the material not including the ICS. Analyze, reach conclusions, note these down.

Then consider the ICS. Factoring the ICS in and taking it to be correct, do your conclusions change? I.e., does the ICS lead you to conclusions different from those you would reach ordinarily?

No they don't. At least not significantly. Official sources (Behind the magic) say that Death Star beam itself is more powerful than half of starfleet. Therefore the entire starfleet will have a firepower on the order of 10^38W. Even assuming billion ships for the Empire we reach 10^29W. This seems too high however it is reasonable to assume that Imperial fleet posseses other superweapons smaller than Death Star which would then decrease the actual firepower for an average (1-10km) ship.
Then there are BDZ operations.
So the only thing the ICS does is "peg" the numbers.

Not if the DS was assumed not to be DET.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

Since when is KotOR, or any other video game for that matter considered canon (BTW I'm not bashing KotOR, actually I think it's the best thing to happen to Star Wars since 1980. Bioware rules, here's looking forward to Mass Effect). Also, it was 4000 yrs before the films. And the whole BDZ operation is described in such a variety of ways involving massive differences in firepower that its actual nature and objective is inconclusive.

I'm not against reconciliation as long as it is reasonable and logical. A shaped charge that shoots up into the ship and sends a fireball rolling down the boarding ramp seems a little far fetched and desperate, especially given what we see.

As for the size of DS2, doesn't the novel say it's twice as big as the first one. A 160 km DS2 would have about twice the volume of a 120 km DS1. Also as a matter of construction speed an increase of one order of magnitude is more reasonable than three orders of magnitude.

[Kane Starkiller]

SPHA-T shots from AOTC. Count Dooku's escape into orbit. Destruction of the Naboo cruiser. Other examples include the Seismic charge and opening battle scene of ROTS just to name a few. I think you are well aware of these and do not need any further explanation.

IS SPHA-T quantified in ICS? Dooku escaped from Geonosis at thosands of g acceleration rate your "VFX error" claims notwithstandind. What about seismic charges? They pulverized 100m asteroid effortlesly thus generating a lower limit of a megaton or so for the entire circumference of the shockwave. Nothing about upper limits.

They contradict everything else we saw, thus it is safe to say they're wrong.

It happened. It is canon. Deal with it.

Explain to me why a guy would sudden act infinitely dumber and not accelerate at even 1% of max acceleration when a few shots are shot at him? And no, it isn't canon (unless you're involking the ICS, something you have been explicitedly warned not to do). The camera pulled away before we actually saw thousands of Gs of acceleration. Thus, the time from surface to orbit was likely a VFX error, more specifically a chronological error.

The Geonosis wasn't only example. There is also Endor approach. There are two scenes showed from Falcon's and Home One's cockpit as they approach Endor and the planet visibly grows on screen. Since they stopped before reaching the Death Star they had to decelerate at a rate of thousands of g. Making stationary matte paintings is far easier than making them appear as if they are coming closer which means it was definetly not a VFX error but an itentional move.
But of course you still havent even proved that Geonosis is a VFX error.
Let me repeat again: It happened. It is canon. Live with it.

Oh BS. If you actually have the movie right in front of you, you can check frame by frame and see the explosion came from the right side of the inside of the ship. We also saw the explosion from a later shot at a different angle, and there was no sign the underside directly underneath the explosion was damaged. I think you must reconsider the desperation of your own position.

"Desperation of my position" Ah man you crack me up. You desperatly nitpick every single detail in the book pretending that if that one detail is wrong then all other data must also be wrong.
Once again since it is you who are claiming that ICS is wrong about the location of the bomb then it is you who must prove it. So far the only thing I heard from you is "there was no sign the underside was damaged".

And the sketchbook (an actual canon source BTW) said 160km. Since when were canon sources regularly ignored in your "it's canon so it's true" world?

So a pre-production scetchbook is canon data now? You do realize that things change by the time final movie product is out don't you? By the way from where did you get the ROTJ sketchbook information?

More like a 10 or 15 orders of magnitude increase. Actually why don't we read about the various implementations of the BDZ: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html and http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#weaponry-bd0 . It started out from a gamebook and varied greatly from book to book from then on out. Some are slagging the crust whereas others sound like carpet bombing a planet into the ground. No doubt Saxton used only the biggest, most impressive claims. Nor can we use your calculability requirement either (to make up a word); the describes are too varied to accurately describe the BDZ in the first place.

It didn't vary. It was alwoys basically destroying the surface of a world. Some descriptions were more vauge than others though describing only "reducing the planet to slag". Various fanatic of course used the more vauge quotes, interpreted them in a most unfavorable light possible and then contrasted them against other more descriptive quotes like Dankyo or Camaas incident. But in reality no BDZ sources are in conflict.

And something like 5 sources suggested everything from 160km to 400km, not to mention you can't ignore numbers you don't like. Admit it, he ignored every smaller number than 900km when he shouldn't.

The numbers from various source ALL OF WHICH he put up on his page are as follows: 900+-60km, >800km, >270km, 900km, >450km, >345+-100km, 160km, 160km. All numbers except for last two point to 900km or GREATER than some smaller value. But neither of other values disprove the 900km one. Hence > sign near the number.

That has more to do with your refusing to see any evidence provided to you.

"It's VFX error because I say so and it feels wrong" are not evidence I'm sorry to say.

Take that up with JMS. Everyone on this board but you agrees with him.

Unfortunatley George Lucas and Lucas Licencing don't. They think that any EU material that doesn't contradict the movies is valid. And I think that their word carries more wheight than JediMasterSpock's.

Again, if you don't like it, take it up with JMS. We've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Saxton was not accurate regarding his creation of the ICS in many areas as well as his intentions regarding SW in general, so you have it backwards on innocence and guilt.

No you havent't and that won't change no matter how many times you claim otherwise. You claimed that Geonosis trip is VFX error without bothering to provide any evidence and you claimed that BDZ sources are conflicted which they are not.

Not if the DS was assumed not to be DET.

There is no known energy source within the planet capable of producing 10^38J of energy without Death Star inputing a similar amount of enrgy.
That an SW official webpage states that superlaser is "raw energy".

[Nonamer]

SPHA-T shots from AOTC. Count Dooku's escape into orbit. Destruction of the Naboo cruiser. Other examples include the Seismic charge and opening battle scene of ROTS just to name a few. I think you are well aware of these and do not need any further explanation.

IS SPHA-T quantified in ICS? Dooku escaped from Geonosis at thosands of g acceleration rate your "VFX error" claims notwithstandind. What about seismic charges? They pulverized 100m asteroid effortlesly thus generating a lower limit of a megaton or so for the entire circumference of the shockwave. Nothing about upper limits.

SPHA-T firepower were derived from the ICS claims about shield strength. We never saw Dooku escape at thousands of Gs. And seismic charges are something that were discussioned to death in SB.com and the well established conclusion is that we saw about 100KT of actually firepower, and for a 13GT number to be supported we need the energy rings to go on for thousands of miles and persist for days, something we never saw.

They contradict everything else we saw, thus it is safe to say they're wrong.

It happened. It is canon. Deal with it.

Not on this board, and not in this thread.

Explain to me why a guy would sudden act infinitely dumber and not accelerate at even 1% of max acceleration when a few shots are shot at him? And no, it isn't canon (unless you're involking the ICS, something you have been explicitedly warned not to do). The camera pulled away before we actually saw thousands of Gs of acceleration. Thus, the time from surface to orbit was likely a VFX error, more specifically a chronological error.

The Geonosis wasn't only example. There is also Endor approach. There are two scenes showed from Falcon's and Home One's cockpit as they approach Endor and the planet visibly grows on screen. Since they stopped before reaching the Death Star they had to decelerate at a rate of thousands of g. Making stationary matte paintings is far easier than making them appear as if they are coming closer which means it was definetly not a VFX error but an itentional move.
But of course you still havent even proved that Geonosis is a VFX error.

We know the DSII scaling in the ROTJ was insanely screwed up: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstarsizes-2.html DS II is not consistent in size with Endor itself, and varies between 11-35 times smaller. Given how we have good evidence of very limited acceleration abilities for SW ships, such as the Falcon in a different setting, we can only believe that it is another VFX error.

Let me repeat again: It happened. It is canon. Live with it.

Argumentum ad naseum is not a valid debate tactic.

Oh BS. If you actually have the movie right in front of you, you can check frame by frame and see the explosion came from the right side of the inside of the ship. We also saw the explosion from a later shot at a different angle, and there was no sign the underside directly underneath the explosion was damaged. I think you must reconsider the desperation of your own position.

"Desperation of my position" Ah man you crack me up. You desperatly nitpick every single detail in the book pretending that if that one detail is wrong then all other data must also be wrong.
Once again since it is you who are claiming that ICS is wrong about the location of the bomb then it is you who must prove it. So far the only thing I heard from you is "there was no sign the underside was damaged".

Unless it was a magically teleportation bomb the ICS is soundly contradicted here. There's little need to discuss this further.

And the sketchbook (an actual canon source BTW) said 160km. Since when were canon sources regularly ignored in your "it's canon so it's true" world?

So a pre-production scetchbook is canon data now? You do realize that things change by the time final movie product is out don't you? By the way from where did you get the ROTJ sketchbook information?

Since when was the ROTJ sketchbook preproduction? It's published so it's as canon as anything similar out there. Also the Interview is

More like a 10 or 15 orders of magnitude increase. Actually why don't we read about the various implementations of the BDZ: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWbd0.html and http://www.theforce.net/swtc/isd.html#weaponry-bd0 . It started out from a gamebook and varied greatly from book to book from then on out. Some are slagging the crust whereas others sound like carpet bombing a planet into the ground. No doubt Saxton used only the biggest, most impressive claims. Nor can we use your calculability requirement either (to make up a word); the describes are too varied to accurately describe the BDZ in the first place.

It didn't vary. It was alwoys basically destroying the surface of a world. Some descriptions were more vauge than others though describing only "reducing the planet to slag". Various fanatic of course used the more vauge quotes, interpreted them in a most unfavorable light possible and then contrasted them against other more descriptive quotes like Dankyo or Camaas incident. But in reality no BDZ sources are in conflict.

As it was discussioned in other posts, Dankayo description itself is very inconclusive. The actually description of the destruction of Dankayo is "evenly cratered surface" which is nothing like planetary slagging. The closest we get to slagging a planet is the Imperial Sourcebook which said "the Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag." Exactly what constitutes a BDZ is entirely speculative, but the decision to exclusive use the more fanciful descriptions is an exact description of the fanaticism you've described.

And something like 5 sources suggested everything from 160km to 400km, not to mention you can't ignore numbers you don't like. Admit it, he ignored every smaller number than 900km when he shouldn't.

The numbers from various source ALL OF WHICH he put up on his page are as follows: 900+-60km, >800km, >270km, 900km, >450km, >345+-100km, 160km, 160km. All numbers except for last two point to 900km or GREATER than some smaller value. But neither of other values disprove the 900km one. Hence > sign near the number.

Those ">" signs are just Saxton's speculation. He can't actually support those claims with visual evidence. Some of them are in fact very question even to begin with like his use of concept art.

That has more to do with your refusing to see any evidence provided to you.

"It's VFX error because I say so and it feels wrong" are not evidence I'm sorry to say.

You clearly didn't listen to the original justification for a VFX, which is contradiction with other scenes or requires massive stupidity on the part of the characters involved.

Take that up with JMS. Everyone on this board but you agrees with him.

Unfortunatley George Lucas and Lucas Licencing don't. They think that any EU material that doesn't contradict the movies is valid. And I think that their word carries more wheight than JediMasterSpock's.

That's not the policy of this board.

Again, if you don't like it, take it up with JMS. We've already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Saxton was not accurate regarding his creation of the ICS in many areas as well as his intentions regarding SW in general, so you have it backwards on innocence and guilt.

No you havent't and that won't change no matter how many times you claim otherwise. You claimed that Geonosis trip is VFX error without bothering to provide any evidence and you claimed that BDZ sources are conflicted which they are not.

And you are blatantly ignoring proof that Saxton was involved in the STvSW debate during his writing of the ICS as well as incidents where he blatantly ignores established scenes in the movies like Naboo cruiser bomb or the SPHA-Ts.

Not if the DS was assumed not to be DET.

There is no known energy source within the planet capable of producing 10^38J of energy without Death Star inputing a similar amount of enrgy.
That an SW official webpage states that superlaser is "raw energy".

And how do you explain "hypermatter" which is just as unexplanable? And the ANH novelization stated that it was "mass-energy conversion" which really can produce 10e38 J of energy without breaking the laws of physics, whereas hypermatter arguments really do violate physics.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Argumentum ad naseum is not a valid debate tactic.

Most certainly not. Neither I nor anyone else here likes to read the same thing repeated over and over again.

Take that up with JMS. Everyone on this board but you agrees with him.

Unfortunatley George Lucas and Lucas Licencing don't. They think that any EU material that doesn't contradict the movies is valid. And I think that their word carries more wheight than JediMasterSpock's.

Since when has George Lucas issued a statement saying the ICS is accurate? The question at hand is not the official status of the ICS - that it is an official book is quite clear. The question is the accuracy. There's a very big difference between accuracy and validity.

On these boards, you are well advised to listen to anything I state to be board policy - such as everything being open to question here in the Rules of Evidence. In this particular thread, I would like to see the discussion stick to either showing how the ICS does or does not match up with the movies and/or the rest of the EU. That - not whether or not the ICS is "canon," and whatever that means - is the topic at hand.

[Kane Starkiller]

SPHA-T firepower were derived from the ICS claims about shield strength. We never saw Dooku escape at thousands of Gs. And seismic charges are something that were discussioned to death in SB.com and the well established conclusion is that we saw about 100KT of actually firepower, and for a 13GT number to be supported we need the energy rings to go on for thousands of miles and persist for days, something we never saw.

I have explained this many times. SPHA-T power is not mentioned on ICS and therefore has NO BEARING ON THE ACCURACY OF THE ICS itself. No we never actually saw Dooku escape at thousands of g but how long do you think Yoda stood there before picking up his cane? How long do you think took Amidala to run to Anakin? And the number for seismic charge is a lower limit and therefore does not contradict the ICS.

It happened. It is canon. Deal with it.

Not on this board, and not in this thread.

I was refering to events from the films: Dooku escape and Endor approach. Are you saying they are not canon?

We know the DSII scaling in the ROTJ was insanely screwed up: http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWdeathstarsizes-2.html DS II is not consistent in size with Endor itself, and varies between 11-35 times smaller. Given how we have good evidence of very limited acceleration abilities for SW ships, such as the Falcon in a different setting, we can only believe that it is another VFX error.

You can believe whatever you want proving it is a different matter. How do you know that other scaling of Death Star is not a VFX error? And for Falcon acceleration you do realize that Han intended to perch the Falcon on the ISD and thus he had to limit the acceleration rate to his own reaction time.

Let me repeat again: It happened. It is canon. Live with it.

Argumentum ad naseum is not a valid debate tactic.

I agree. Therefore stop making them. You claimed "VFX erros", I'm merely pointing out that films are canon and that you must prove those VFX errors .

Unless it was a magically teleportation bomb the ICS is soundly contradicted here. There's little need to discuss this further.

Prove that there wasn't a bomb somewhere beneath the ship.

Since when was the ROTJ sketchbook preproduction? It's published so it's as canon as anything similar out there. Also the Interview is

Beacuse it showed the concept art scetches for DS2. Meaning BEFORE the DS2 was finalized. And the Interview is?

As it was discussioned in other posts, Dankayo description itself is very inconclusive. The actually description of the destruction of Dankayo is "evenly cratered surface" which is nothing like planetary slagging. The closest we get to slagging a planet is the Imperial Sourcebook which said "the Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag." Exactly what constitutes a BDZ is entirely speculative, but the decision to exclusive use the more fanciful descriptions is an exact description of the fanaticism you've described.

Dankyo's atmosphere was blown off. For a standard Earth like planet that is 10^26J. How many times do I have to repeat that? And how does "reducing the civilized world to slag" contradict that? This supports the numbers from ICS. What is the problem?

Those ">" signs are just Saxton's speculation. He can't actually support those claims with visual evidence. Some of them are in fact very question even to begin with like his use of concept art.

And you used ROTJ scketchbook that shows concept art aas evidence a few paragraphs before? Make up your mind.

You clearly didn't listen to the original justification for a VFX, which is contradiction with other scenes or requires massive stupidity on the part of the characters involved.

What contradiction? Are you able to comprehend that acceleration in free space will not always be available in a battle? With spaceraft surrounding you and heavy jamming present?

That's not the policy of this board.

Too bad SW is not a product of StarfleetJedi.net.

And you are blatantly ignoring proof that Saxton was involved in the STvSW debate during his writing of the ICS as well as incidents where he blatantly ignores established scenes in the movies like Naboo cruiser bomb or the SPHA-Ts.

You have proved ZERO evidence about the location of the bomb and your claim that Trade Federation core ship will be "thrown into orbit" is based on your assumptions about it's mass which you don't know.

And how do you explain "hypermatter" which is just as unexplanable? And the ANH novelization stated that it was "mass-energy conversion" which really can produce 10e38 J of energy without breaking the laws of physics, whereas hypermatter arguments really do violate physics.

How does hypermatter break the laws of physics? How can you initiate mass-energy conversion in planetary mass that will result in 10^38J without imputing a smiliar amount of energy?

Most certainly not. Neither I nor anyone else here likes to read the same thing repeated over and over again.

Then would you please be so kind as to explain to Nonamer that he must provide evidence if he wishes to claim that certain scenes are VFX errors?

Since when has George Lucas issued a statement saying the ICS is accurate? The question at hand is not the official status of the ICS - that it is an official book is quite clear. The question is the accuracy. There's a very big difference between accuracy and validity.

And none of you have shown any evidence that ICS is inaccurate. So what are we talking about?

On these boards, you are well advised to listen to anything I state to be board policy - such as everything being open to question here in the Rules of Evidence. In this particular thread, I would like to see the discussion stick to either showing how the ICS does or does not match up with the movies and/or the rest of the EU. That - not whether or not the ICS is "canon," and whatever that means - is the topic at hand.

You do realize that function of fictional material in general is to expand upon our information of the universe? We accept official material if it's not contradicted. And so far no one has shown ICS to be contradicted by the movies.
What you are asking is basically: If we remove the ICS and then make all the worst assumptions on other EU material and films would it be the same as with ICS? Well of course it won't. The point is that making reasonable assumpotions with EU and films can easily lead to ICS and that is all that matters.

[Mike DiCenso]

Yes, there it is. This hiding of Warsie head in the proverbial sand when it comes to dealing with the effects of the Death Star SE explosion's inconsistancies wit a DET mechanism will continue to haunt you guys for a long, long time. We've already have gone over it on the previous forums. The ring effect and other strange things like the material disappearance, all point away from DET. Naturally you continue to pretend it's of no significance, or try to explain it away with lame planetary shield bunko.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
I'm right here Mike. HOW do fire rings disprove DET and prove a chain reaction. WHAT KIND of chain reaction can move through the planetary mass so quickly? WHAT KIND of chain reaction can produce that much energy? PROVE that any matrial "disappeared". EXPLAIN HOW material disappearance points to a chain reaction. PROVE that Alderaan didn't have any shields.
You can't can you? But that doesn't stop you from screaming "chain reaction" does it.

This has been gone over many times with you in the past, Kane. There is nothing about a DET caused explosion should result in funky planar rings, not too mention we see that there are other mechanics to the Alderaan explosion, such as the secondary explosion that occurs well after the superlaser beam has ceased firing and has completely expended it's energy into Alderaan itself. If it the DS SL is indeed a true DET explosion, not CR, we shouldn't see any of these things.

In the thread that JMS started, he notes other interesting effects, like the material disappearnces and other oddities that all point away from DET, and to some chain-reaction.

Kane Starkiller wrote:And here is a little excerpt from SW databank:

The Death Star's prime weapon unleashed unthinkable levels of raw energy capable of tearing apart entire worlds.

See that? Raw energy Mike. Of course I understand that now you'll scream that it's non canon and that it doesn't matter if it comes from an official page

.

Unfortunately for that entry, it is contradicted by the movie SE and DVD versions of SW. Anything else?

1.) Dankayo's size is at best unknown (useless then to describe it as having an Earth-density atmosphere when it could have one as thin as Mars for all we know). So again, Warsies here attempting to once again maximize what ISDs can do, even though there is nothing here to support their claim.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
But Earth is the most natural benchmark isn't it? It could be smaller but it could also be bigger. So really how are Warsies trying to maximize what ISD does?

No, because we have no context with which to apply such a "benchmark". It might be more appropriate to use Mars (100 times less dense atmosphere) as a starting benchmark, or it might be more appropriate to use Venus (90 times denser atmosphere than Earth's). We have little information on Dankayo to go on other than it was considered a planet, that it had an atmosphere, and was not a gas giant. That means we can rule out a moon or planetoid size, and we can rule out use of Mercury (Lunar-like atmosphere) because Dankayo's atmosphere was thick enough to sustain the dust clouds from the bombardment. That in turn leaves us with using other terrestrial planets ranging from Mars to Venus to Earth and anything else in-between that. But to truely be conservative, Mars is the logical starting point.

2.) It took at least two (Devastator and Relentless are cited), possibly more star destroyers (in some sources 98-100 ships are required) to do the job in an unspecified amount of time. Some sources cite less than a day (implying hours).

Two Star Destroyers to blow off the atmosphere. That's 5*10^25J at least. Assuming that Death Star recharges in a day and scaling down to ISD we get 7.2*10^25W. See how it works?

Actually, looking back at the source material again, it is actually 3 ISDs, again taking an unknown amount of time to do this. Scaling down the Death Star is a bit disengenious for a number of reasons as we don't know if the Death Star SL really is a 1e38J energy blast, not to mention, there is no way to prove a direct linear scaling.

In other sources, it requires many, many more ships to do the job, as I've pointed out. Which is fine, so long as we understand that the timescales are still vauge, and that there is conflict amongst the sources. For example in "Tyrant's Nest" Luke says the following:

" 'I'm still surprised at how small an energy input it's supposed to take,' Luke said. 'I thought at first we'd have to bring in half a dozen Star Destroyers and keep them here a month.'"

Note that this spoken in context to warming up a frozen planet's atmosphere with up to 100 SDs. If 3 ISDs can liberate an Earth-like planet's atmosphere as quickly as you seem to be claiming they can, then it follows that warming up the frozen atmosphere of the planet in question should not take a month, especially with 6 ISDs.

3.) Dankayo is described in the source book as "evenly cratered". Not "slagged", not "melted down several meters", ect. Just even cratering of the surface, and there was one survivor found in a deep shelter, further arguing against any melting. That the Imperial forces actually had to go through a mop-up operation afterwords on the off chance of survivors at all is rather telling.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Jesus Christ melting was an idealized scenario to determine a lower limit energy requirement. In reality turbolaser will simply vaporize a portion of the ground leaving a crater whose surface will probably be melted. The fact that those explosions also resulted in atmosphere being blown off only speaks about their strength.

Again, that is not an "ideal" scenario by any stretch. We have explosions that are putting up huge clouds of dust into an atmosphere which is supposed to be getting liberated, yet we know nothing of the density of this planet's atmosphere, let alone nothing about the planet's size (smaller size usually means less gravity, therefore less energy to liberate an atmosphere, and in turn a less dense atmosphere requires even less energy to liberate than an Earth or Venusian atmosphere). Do you finally see the flaw in your and the Warsie/Saxtonian arguement? You set at best a medium limits for SW firepower by not starting with the lowest possible planetary size and atmosphere that still meets with what we know. Also note that the entire Dankayoian atmosphere was not instantly liberated during the bombardment, otherwise no dust clouds could be suspended in the air. Thus even with a 1e26J requirement, that energy is not being expended instantly, but rather over a some period of time. Other souces would indicate anywhere from an hour to a day or more.

Therefore, to assert that Dankayo is exactly Earth-like, to assume 10e26 joule energies applied to the removal of it's atmosphere, and the melting of the surface requiring 200 gigaton turbolasers is just as equally dishonest, and shows only that Warsies are interested in hyping SW firepower beyond any rational limit. Saxton seems to want to subscribe to that extreme upper limit, rather than take a lower limit, or a happy medium. It's sloppy methodologies like this that he and other Warsies employ that create the issue. At best Saxton is sloppy, at worst he may be dishonest, or both.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Earth as the only planet currently known to support human life is a perfectly reasonable benchmark. There are smaller planets but there are also bigger planets. There is nothing irrational in assuming Earth sized planet unless of course you are obsessed with minimizing SW weapons so I guess you'd pick Moon.

See my reasoning above. While it is true that the Moon would likely be considered a planet, if it were in it's own independant heliocentric orbit, it's atmosphere is negligable based on what we know of Dankayo. Mars is the logical starting point here since as we know, Mar's atmosphere, while only 1/100th of Earth's in density, can hold dust and ice clouds. That is a reasonable, lower limit starting point for ISD firepower.

Oh come on. They don't have to be an exact percentage here. It illustrates that ILM has no freakin' clue about things like "continuity" in these matters. They either didn't know, got screwed up on, or deliberately ignored the designers' intent on the sizes in both cases. In the Return of the Jedi Sketchbook, it is clearly given that the second Death Star is supposed to be 100 miles (160km) in diameter. So again, I ask you, what are we supposed to take as gospel here? The visuals, as even Saxton has acknowledged, place the upper limits for the DS2 around 500 km (his methodologies are often not made clear for how he derived some of his values). When the canon visuals don't match the backstage nonsense, Saxton goes as fars as to make up a super-trench which is clearly not visible anywhere in RoTJ, or even vaugely implied.

I never asked you to accept anything as gospel. There are several sources and several film scenes that point to different sizes. Dr. Saxton concluded that about 900km is most reasonable. He put up all of the figures there but then chose 900km. There is nothing wrong with that.

Except that he chose the larger number over the smaller, even though there is more to support the lower or mid-range numbers than the upper range 900 km + ones.

You overexaggerate the recognition aspect of this. It's no ad hominem to call someone out on wrong-doing. He got a shot at codifying the Warsie exaggerated firepower figures and he went for it. The acknowledgements in the AoTC and RoTS ICS are there for anyone to read. When you honestly draw the varying lines of evidence together, it stinks of him doing so for purposes of winning the versus debate.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Then why would he consult with Micheal Wong and the rest? Why didn't he simply make up the numbers? It's not really hard.
And I honestly can't believe that someone would try to endanger a paying job and his own reputation as a scientist to win some silly hobby debate. You need to be pretty obessesed with STvsSW to even suggest something like that.

Which is precisely why he would need to make consultations: to have at least some justification for what he's doing. But I don't think he'd have to worry any, it's not like anyone at the Lucas publications has any real idea how to examine these things, nor does he have to worry about his colleagues, who likely don't give two shits about his hobby, and have better things to worry about.

That aside, there is still little justification for TL firepower approaching 200 gigatons. That in and of itself is practically pulled out of seemingly nowhere. Even many of the calculations done using the asteroid destruction in TESB do not yeild much greater than low-megaton firepower for light to medium sized TLs.

It doesn't matter how you try and twist it, Kane. He still jumped in, and got himself publicly involved. The moment he attacked Graham Kennedy over the laser power issue, is the moment he truely became imbroiled in the debate.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
I think the problem here is that you take vs debate waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously. "He became imbroiled". What is this Vietnam war? He made two posts that mostly touched upon energy requirements and dissipation limits. So what?

Nice try, but that won't work either. Saxton involved himself plain and simple when he had no real outstanding reason to. He then a few years later allowed himself to be involved with Wayne Poe and Mike Wong's little secret group. Then strangely enough, a short time after having involved himself with this group, when given the chance, he writes a book that codifies Star Wars firepower and power generation figures that are beyond anything (with the possible exception of the Death Star) seen in all 6 movies! He even goes as far as to override AoTC's visual FX with comic book material to obtain a higher firepower number for Slave I.

They went about trying to justify high-end numbers that had little or no basis in SW fact, while at the same time went to great length to belittle high-end examples from Trek. The pushing to find or create examples to attack Robert Anderson's work has also figured into the efforts of this group. A group, that I might add, included (may still include), Curtis Saxton, who has claimed and proclaimed by other Warsies to not be involved at all in the debate. That's a lie, and that's hypocrisy.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
No they didn't. Read that page. Curtis (if that is Curtis Saxton) only responded to the discussion about the asteroids from AOTC. If they really wanted to inflate the numbers why all the discussions? Why not simply invent a number that's higher than anything ST has an use it?

In effect, that is what was done. There is no justification (except by the flimsiest of arguments) that 200 GT TLs exist. Yet he writes that in there. Why couldn't Saxton have just written in 200 megatons instead. Or even 200 KT? In the Warsie mindset, all of those handily defeat Trek anyway, so why go that far? The only real answer is that 200 GT TLs ensures that even with megaton range phasers and torpedoes, or even low-GT range ones, SW will always win.

He did more than merely "communicate with Michael Wong", he was completely involved with that group and their designs. Wong's own dishonesty is well-known, and at least out in the open for the public to see. But a big "shame on you" goes to Curtis Saxton for claiming one thing, then doing another. Exposing of the group is merely icing on the cake, and all you can do is rant and rave about us mean old trekkies calling him out on it. The evidence is there, even if you don't like it, and don't want to see it for what it is. Saxton is clearly not the neutral third-party saint that you guys want to make him out to be.

Kane Starkiller wrote:

The trouble here is that you view the debate as a war. So any exchange of ideas with the "other side" is considered consorting with the enemy. If you could only see how silly this makes you look.

This isn't that simplistic, Kane. It's following a chain of evidence (some circumstantial admittedly) that goes back to 1997. It's a matter of connecting the dots, so to speak. The problem here is that there was little to no disagreement on anything. I was suprised somewhat to see the bit about the "Rise" asteroid destruction, with one person pointing out that the torpedo deonates on contact with the surface, and not from within, which only produces a lower limit for the firepower of the torpedo. That exchange was interesting, especially in light of the "how can we make Darkstar look bad" mentality that was openly prevalent.
-Mike

[Kane Starkiller]

This has been gone over many times with you in the past, Kane. There is nothing about a DET caused explosion should result in funky planar rings, not too mention we see that there are other mechanics to the Alderaan explosion, such as the secondary explosion that occurs well after the superlaser beam has ceased firing and has completely expended it's energy into Alderaan itself. If it the DS SL is indeed a true DET explosion, not CR, we shouldn't see any of these things.

What is a DET explosion? And how do those funky planar rings point away from DET explosion?
Do you realize that energy requirement to accomplish certain tasks depend upon target not the mechanism? If you fire a rock into a planet you need to impart 10^38J to blow it apart like Death Star did. If you fire a laser, proton beam, ice, neutron beam, electron beam, wooden sticks you still must impart 10^38J.

Unfortunately for that entry, it is contradicted by the movie SE and DVD versions of SW. Anything else?

Just one small thing:PROVE IT. Ups you can't can you? All you can do is say: "look at the pretty rings!"


The next part of your post mostly touches on what you think would be the best assumptions for determining turbolaser yield in Dankyo. You say that it ranges from Mars to Venus and then conclude that, in order to be conservative, we should pick Mars. How does that mean that using Earth is unreasonable especially since there are planets like Venus? Not being conservative does not equal to "wanking out SW".

Actually, looking back at the source material again, it is actually 3 ISDs, again taking an unknown amount of time to do this. Scaling down the Death Star is a bit disengenious for a number of reasons as we don't know if the Death Star SL really is a 1e38J energy blast, not to mention, there is no way to prove a direct linear scaling.

Yes three, whatever. It doesn't change the numbers significantly. ANd you seem to be loosing track on who needs to prove what. No I don't have any evidence that Death Star can be scaled down but it is a possibilty especially since it is described as a compound laser. The point is that there is support for ICS numbers and they weren't invented out of thin air.

In other sources, it requires many, many more ships to do the job, as I've pointed out. Which is fine, so long as we understand that the timescales are still vauge, and that there is conflict amongst the sources. For example in "Tyrant's Nest" Luke says the following:

" 'I'm still surprised at how small an energy input it's supposed to take,' Luke said. 'I thought at first we'd have to bring in half a dozen Star Destroyers and keep them here a month.'"

Note that this spoken in context to warming up a frozen planet's atmosphere with up to 100 SDs. If 3 ISDs can liberate an Earth-like planet's atmosphere as quickly as you seem to be claiming they can, then it follows that warming up the frozen atmosphere of the planet in question should not take a month, especially with 6 ISDs.

So how much power did it really took? It seems to me from the quote that Luke was wrong about the amount of power it took to warm up the atmosphere so really what is the point of the quote?

Again, that is not an "ideal" scenario by any stretch. We have explosions that are putting up huge clouds of dust into an atmosphere which is supposed to be getting liberated, yet we know nothing of the density of this planet's atmosphere, let alone nothing about the planet's size (smaller size usually means less gravity, therefore less energy to liberate an atmosphere, and in turn a less dense atmosphere requires even less energy to liberate than an Earth or Venusian atmosphere). Do you finally see the flaw in your and the Warsie/Saxtonian arguement? You set at best a medium limits for SW firepower by not starting with the lowest possible planetary size and atmosphere that still meets with what we know. Also note that the entire Dankayoian atmosphere was not instantly liberated during the bombardment, otherwise no dust clouds could be suspended in the air. Thus even with a 1e26J requirement, that energy is not being expended instantly, but rather over a some period of time. Other souces would indicate anywhere from an hour to a day or more.

Do you see the part of your post I bolded? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with publishing a book in which medium case is considered?

See my reasoning above. While it is true that the Moon would likely be considered a planet, if it were in it's own independant heliocentric orbit, it's atmosphere is negligable based on what we know of Dankayo. Mars is the logical starting point here since as we know, Mar's atmosphere, while only 1/100th of Earth's in density, can hold dust and ice clouds. That is a reasonable, lower limit starting point for ISD firepower.

As you said a reasonable LOWER limit. Then what is your point? Why should an official source be forced to observe lower limits? Once again there is nothing wrong in using Earth as benchmark besides I believe that figures published in ICS were designated as maximum firepower were they not?

Which is precisely why he would need to make consultations: to have at least some justification for what he's doing. But I don't think he'd have to worry any, it's not like anyone at the Lucas publications has any real idea how to examine these things, nor does he have to worry about his colleagues, who likely don't give two shits about his hobby, and have better things to worry about.

Can you get any more self contradicting? First you accuse him for being untrustworthy beacuse he is consulting with Mike Wong and now you say he is doing it to create justification? Which is it then?

That aside, there is still little justification for TL firepower approaching 200 gigatons. That in and of itself is practically pulled out of seemingly nowhere. Even many of the calculations done using the asteroid destruction in TESB do not yeild much greater than low-megaton firepower for light to medium sized TLs.

Which are lower limits. Which you insist we should treat as benchmarks or even upper limits.

Nice try, but that won't work either. Saxton involved himself plain and simple when he had no real outstanding reason to. He then a few years later allowed himself to be involved with Wayne Poe and Mike Wong's little secret group. Then strangely enough, a short time after having involved himself with this group, when given the chance, he writes a book that codifies Star Wars firepower and power generation figures that are beyond anything (with the possible exception of the Death Star) seen in all 6 movies! He even goes as far as to override AoTC's visual FX with comic book material to obtain a higher firepower number for Slave I.

Yes yes two posts. SHOCKING. He become involved with Michael Wong. Wyne Poe etc. So what? Do you have anyithing that isn't gossip about how they are all liars? And where did he overrie AOTC visual FX?

In effect, that is what was done. There is no justification (except by the flimsiest of arguments) that 200 GT TLs exist. Yet he writes that in there. Why couldn't Saxton have just written in 200 megatons instead. Or even 200 KT? In the Warsie mindset, all of those handily defeat Trek anyway, so why go that far? The only real answer is that 200 GT TLs ensures that even with megaton range phasers and torpedoes, or even low-GT range ones, SW will always win.

That's just it: he didn't go far. Death Star and various EU sources clearly point to such figures. The fact that you angrily insist that Death Star used "some kind" of chain reaction that just so happens to decrease the energy requirement by who nows how many billion times is not Dr. Saxton's fault.

This isn't that simplistic, Kane. It's following a chain of evidence (some circumstantial admittedly) that goes back to 1997. It's a matter of connecting the dots, so to speak. The problem here is that there was little to no disagreement on anything. I was suprised somewhat to see the bit about the "Rise" asteroid destruction, with one person pointing out that the torpedo deonates on contact with the surface, and not from within, which only produces a lower limit for the firepower of the torpedo. That exchange was interesting, especially in light of the "how can we make Darkstar look bad" mentality that was openly prevalent.

I honestly can't understand you. Just now you admitted yoursef that they were not behaving dishonestly in the exchange yet you are still convinced that they are liars.
And yes they wanted EXAMPLES to make him look foolish, so what? By the way Dr. Saxton was not involved in this particular discussion. You do realize that just because someone is on the mailing list doesn't mean he will engage in EVERY SINGLE discussion don't you?

[Mike DiCenso]

This has been gone over many times with you in the past, Kane. There is nothing about a DET caused explosion should result in funky planar rings, not too mention we see that there are other mechanics to the Alderaan explosion, such as the secondary explosion that occurs well after the superlaser beam has ceased firing and has completely expended it's energy into Alderaan itself. If it the DS SL is indeed a true DET explosion, not CR, we shouldn't see any of these things.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
What is a DET explosion? And how do those funky planar rings point away from DET explosion?
Do you realize that energy requirement to accomplish certain tasks depend upon target not the mechanism? If you fire a rock into a planet you need to impart 10^38J to blow it apart like Death Star did. If you fire a laser, proton beam, ice, neutron beam, electron beam, wooden sticks you still must impart 10^38J.

And you don't need necessarily to have a 1e38 or 10e38J anything, if you can accomplish the same amount of work via a chain reaction. This isn't that hard a concept to understand. Exactly how much energy the superlaser needs to actually impart to initiate the chain reaction is another question altogether. But being as it may, there is an alternative to just DET.

Unfortunately for that entry, it is contradicted by the movie SE and DVD versions of SW. Anything else?

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Just one small thing:PROVE IT. Ups you can't can you? All you can do is say: "look at the pretty rings!"

Then I respond in kind by asking you why would a DET explosion have strange material disappearence, secondary explosions long after the beam is expended into Alderaan, and why a DET caused explosion would result in strange, planar rings? Well, can you?

Kane Starkiller wrote:
The next part of your post mostly touches on what you think would be the best assumptions for determining turbolaser yield in Dankyo. You say that it ranges from Mars to Venus and then conclude that, in order to be conservative, we should pick Mars. How does that mean that using Earth is unreasonable especially since there are planets like Venus? Not being conservative does not equal to "wanking out SW".

Maybe because picking Mars is indeed a good place to start for lower limits, and then work our way up? Mars does meet the vauge critria here as much as any other of the terrestrial planets with an atmosphere capable of holding dust suspended into it.

Actually, looking back at the source material again, it is actually 3 ISDs, again taking an unknown amount of time to do this. Scaling down the Death Star is a bit disengenious for a number of reasons as we don't know if the Death Star SL really is a 1e38J energy blast, not to mention, there is no way to prove a direct linear scaling.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes three, whatever. It doesn't change the numbers significantly. ANd you seem to be loosing track on who needs to prove what. No I don't have any evidence that Death Star can be scaled down but it is a possibilty especially since it is described as a compound laser. The point is that there is support for ICS numbers and they weren't invented out of thin air.

Well, it does change things, particularly if a BDZ takes more than a day to accomplish, and now you have dozens, perhaps hundreds of extra TLs to spread the total energy out over.

In other sources, it requires many, many more ships to do the job, as I've pointed out. Which is fine, so long as we understand that the timescales are still vauge, and that there is conflict amongst the sources. For example in "Tyrant's Nest" Luke says the following:

" 'I'm still surprised at how small an energy input it's supposed to take,' Luke said. 'I thought at first we'd have to bring in half a dozen Star Destroyers and keep them here a month.'"

Note that this spoken in context to warming up a frozen planet's atmosphere with up to 100 SDs. If 3 ISDs can liberate an Earth-like planet's atmosphere as quickly as you seem to be claiming they can, then it follows that warming up the frozen atmosphere of the planet in question should not take a month, especially with 6 ISDs.

So how much power did it really took? It seems to me from the quote that Luke was wrong about the amount of power it took to warm up the atmosphere so really what is the point of the quote?

He actually had overestimated the amount of energy required.

Again, that is not an "ideal" scenario by any stretch. We have explosions that are putting up huge clouds of dust into an atmosphere which is supposed to be getting liberated, yet we know nothing of the density of this planet's atmosphere, let alone nothing about the planet's size (smaller size usually means less gravity, therefore less energy to liberate an atmosphere, and in turn a less dense atmosphere requires even less energy to liberate than an Earth or Venusian atmosphere). Do you finally see the flaw in your and the Warsie/Saxtonian arguement? You set at best a medium limits for SW firepower by not starting with the lowest possible planetary size and atmosphere that still meets with what we know. Also note that the entire Dankayoian atmosphere was not instantly liberated during the bombardment, otherwise no dust clouds could be suspended in the air. Thus even with a 1e26J requirement, that energy is not being expended instantly, but rather over a some period of time. Other souces would indicate anywhere from an hour to a day or more.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Do you see the part of your post I bolded? What is wrong with that? What is wrong with publishing a book in which medium case is considered?

Mostly because we don't know what the medium limits should be! If you want true lower limit, then start there, but don't start at the upper medium or the upper possible limit, and not acknowledge it to be in the upper range for a firepower limit.

See my reasoning above. While it is true that the Moon would likely be considered a planet, if it were in it's own independant heliocentric orbit, it's atmosphere is negligable based on what we know of Dankayo. Mars is the logical starting point here since as we know, Mars' atmosphere, while only 1/100th of Earth's in density, can hold dust and ice clouds. That is a reasonable, lower limit starting point for ISD firepower.

As you said a reasonable LOWER limit. Then what is your point? Why should an official source be forced to observe lower limits? Once again there is nothing wrong in using Earth as benchmark besides I believe that figures published in ICS were designated as maximum firepower were they not?

I don't recall such a statement being the case. But the question still remains as whether or not such a maximum is even possible, hence my pointing out the use of Mars as a proper lower limits benchmark instead of the Earth.

Which is precisely why he would need to make consultations: to have at least some justification for what he's doing. But I don't think he'd have to worry any, it's not like anyone at the Lucas publications has any real idea how to examine these things, nor does he have to worry about his colleagues, who likely don't give two shits about his hobby, and have better things to worry about.

Can you get any more self contradicting? First you accuse him for being untrustworthy beacuse he is consulting with Mike Wong and now you say he is doing it to create justification? Which is it then?

No contradiction here, except what you are trying to create the illusion of. He did more than merely "consult" with Mike Wong. He was involved actively with a group of known versus debators with a clear agenda to wank out Star Wars firepower above Trek levels. That's all there is to it. That he tries to make some justification for it is only a part of the overall process strawman arguements of yours not withstanding, of course.

That aside, there is still little justification for TL firepower approaching 200 gigatons. That in and of itself is practically pulled out of seemingly nowhere. Even many of the calculations done using the asteroid destruction in TESB do not yeild much greater than low-megaton firepower for light to medium sized TLs.

Kane Starkiller wrote:Which are lower limits. Which you insist we should treat as benchmarks or even upper limits.

Well duh! They are the only true canon instances of SW firepower we have to go on that we can at least try to come to some sort of an understanding with. Everything else is spaceships hitting one another with energy shields and hulls armored with alloys we know nothing about. We can at least get a clearer look with the TESB asteroid destruction than we can with Dankayo, since Dankayo isn't portrayed in a visual medium, and not very well described. Not to mention the Dankayo incident conflicts with other EU examples. So given the choice, I'am going to error on the side of caution and pick the movie examples.

Nice try, but that won't work either. Saxton involved himself plain and simple when he had no real outstanding reason to. He then a few years later allowed himself to be involved with Wayne Poe and Mike Wong's little secret group. Then strangely enough, a short time after having involved himself with this group, when given the chance, he writes a book that codifies Star Wars firepower and power generation figures that are beyond anything (with the possible exception of the Death Star) seen in all 6 movies! He even goes as far as to override AoTC's visual FX with comic book material to obtain a higher firepower number for Slave I.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
Yes yes two posts. SHOCKING. He become involved with Michael Wong. Wyne Poe etc. So what? Do you have anyithing that isn't gossip about how they are all liars? And where did he overrie AOTC visual FX?

http://theforce.net/jedicouncil/interview/saxton.shtml

He didn't have access to the completed movie by his own admission.

Then there is Ender's quote from SDN:

"I emailed him about how he achieved the values for the 900 Gigajoule
Blaster at the tail of Slave 1. He said that he went by the damage it is
shown to do to other vessels in the comics in battles and assumed that Boba
dialed down the power in the movie [...]. He chose official over canon."

Comicbook visual placed before the movie visuals, then tried to justify it by claiming Slave I's weapons were dialed down, even though the secondary canon of the novelization states that the power packs on Slave I were drained just from firing a few megajoule level shots at Obi-Wan.

I find it very interesting that Saxton would choose to do such a thing.

In effect, that is what was done. There is no justification (except by the flimsiest of arguments) that 200 GT TLs exist. Yet he writes that in there. Why couldn't Saxton have just written in 200 megatons instead. Or even 200 KT? In the Warsie mindset, all of those handily defeat Trek anyway, so why go that far? The only real answer is that 200 GT TLs ensures that even with megaton range phasers and torpedoes, or even low-GT range ones, SW will always win.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
That's just it: he didn't go far. Death Star and various EU sources clearly point to such figures. The fact that you angrily insist that Death Star used "some kind" of chain reaction that just so happens to decrease the energy requirement by who nows how many billion times is not Dr. Saxton's fault.

I don't angrily insist. I merely point out that his work is flawed. The fact that the Death Star SL does not operate on DET as Saxtonites and Warsies insist is not my problem. When Lucas had the DS SL explosion of Alderaan changed for the SE, it forever altered the how of what it was doing.

This isn't that simplistic, Kane. It's following a chain of evidence (some circumstantial admittedly) that goes back to 1997. It's a matter of connecting the dots, so to speak. The problem here is that there was little to no disagreement on anything. I was suprised somewhat to see the bit about the "Rise" asteroid destruction, with one person pointing out that the torpedo deonates on contact with the surface, and not from within, which only produces a lower limit for the firepower of the torpedo. That exchange was interesting, especially in light of the "how can we make Darkstar look bad" mentality that was openly prevalent.

Kane Starkiller wrote:
I honestly can't understand you. Just now you admitted yoursef that they were not behaving dishonestly in the exchange yet you are still convinced that they are liars.
And yes they wanted EXAMPLES to make him look foolish, so what? By the way Dr. Saxton was not involved in this particular discussion. You do realize that just because someone is on the mailing list doesn't mean he will engage in EVERY SINGLE discussion don't you?

Ah, while that may be true, he does engage in the Return to Grace thread:

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

That specifically is a Star Wars versus Star Trek discussion, which he did engage in. Saxton also chose to be part of a group or consult with one that was specifically discussing things a versus debate context. There is simply no way to get around this.

Also, while I was a bit suprised at some slight honesty, let's look at Brian Young's comment again:

Not really necessary. Fragments a centimeter in diameter are still
fragments. Thus, the asteroid was expected to be fragmented, as it was,
just more so.We're looking at a lower limit of about 9 1/4 kilotons, assuming the
asteroid was that size. 210 meters seems like a lot, but it is about
Voyager's size - 100 meters shorter than Voyager's length.

It would take a lower limit of about 290,000 terajoules to vaporize an
asteroid that size, if I calculated correctly, which is about 70 megatons.
That isn't particularly impressive compared to turbolasers. Consider that
this is like hits from all of an Acclamator's point defense guns
simultaneously. It would take over 2850 of these to equal one shot from an
Acclamator's heavy guns.

Note where I emphasized. He gives in a bit, but then turns around and points out that the asteroid is smaller than Darkstar's scaling, that the asteroid was expected to be fragmented, not vaporized (false considering Chakotay's statement about vaporization), and that even with a 70 megaton yeild, the torpedo will not compare at all to an Acclamator heavy gun.
-Mike