How so? The red circles overlap the yellow line for something like 60% of the image and the resolution in the image is of course limited. How do you figure that even 2 times bigger Death Star wouldn't explain it? Can you provide any evidence?Mr. Oragahn wrote:Even being "slightly bigger than 900 km" would not suffice to make the horizon so flat. The station would need to be absurdingly large, much larger than our Moon as a matter of fact.
Fortunately, the jpeg I produced still has the markers I used years ago. It was, therefore, relatively quick and easy to draw circles being twice, thrice or four times bigger than the 900 km one, and see that even the largest one (4 x 900 km) wouldn't provide a sufficiently flat looking horizon.
Simply put, your battle station would need to be as big as a planet to have such a flat horizon. Endor would be orbiting the Death Star II.
It'd be faster to claim that the Executor crashed into a giant Borg cube.
What "real life" structures? How do you know that those yellow lines are actually that shaft opening we saw above the dome? With the display of the Death Star we see a spherical shape with chunks missing just like the real thing, the trench and the superlaser dish so we can be certain it does in fact represent Death Star. You, on the other hand, choose some yellow lines and declare that they correspond to specific parts of the reactor. How do you know? There is no detailing on those yellow lines.Mr. Oragahn wrote:They represent shapes which fit with the "real life" structures seen in the film. Need I say more?
Are you going to ask me on what basis I dare to assume that the red sphere is supposed to represent the Death Star or what?
Isn't the drawing not enough?
Don't be ridiculous. The errors are a result of the evidence we have to work with. The Executor crash or Endor approach don't allow a precise scaling but THEY DO prove that Death Star is much bigger than 160km. Besides ten kilometers error for 160km Death Star is 6.25%. For ~1000km Death Star 6.25% is 62.5 km is it not?Mr. Oragahn wrote:That is absurd. We're trying to obtain figures within an error margin of a few tens of kilometers, and you tell me that difference of hundreds of kilometers is fine?
You don't have the right to declare various footage invalid. The evidence is there and it shows that 160km Death Star is impossible.Mr. Oragahn wrote:The Executor crash does certainly not support your view. That's already a so called source off the table.
By you declaring some yellow lines to correspond to what exact parts of the reactor? Right.Mr. Oragahn wrote:The holy saint hologram is also discarded.
So what? The hyperspace exit shots are not the only evidence pointing to a larger DS2.Mr. Oragahn wrote:The ensemble of hyperspace-exit shots are outnumbered by the much more time separated and closer shots of the DSII.
You have proven no such thing. You arbitrarily declare evidence you don't like invalid. Executor crash doesn't "fit" as opposed to simply pointing to a larger DS2, display is wrong because the yellow lines you choose don't correspond to dimensions of the real reactor, long range Endor/DS2 shots are invalid because of the "hyperspace exit effect" whatever that is. Never mind that hyperspace exit is long done and there are actually two independent shots: from Falcon and Home One.Mr. Oragahn wrote:The question, now, is not if the 900 km figure is supported by the canon or not, but if it has actually more support than the 160 km figure.
As proven, it does not. The 160 km figure has more sources to back it up, ranging from all sides of the spectrum, from the absolute canon, to completely out of universe sources.
By all means explain the context then. How can you use 270km number to declare the multiple trench Death Star too big when you previously stated 270km Death Star is wrong.2046 wrote:Given what you just said, you're hardly one to complain about picking and choosing. Please refrain from taking my quotes out of context in the future.
Really you can make that out with a few pixels width of the trench?Mike DiCenso wrote:The only commentary I have at this time concerning the second pic of the trench silhouetted by Endor is that it just shows us once again that there is no "Trench-within-a-trench" nonsense.
But more importantly who ever said that the "trench within a trench" must extend throughout the entire circumference of the outer trench?