Laughable "response" videos to this website on YouTube

[Vance]

Idazmi7 debunking star destroyer firepower, asteroid vaporization and mile long ship lengths: "Wookiepedia, Curtis Saxton and stardestroyer,net are all wank. I have scaled the Star Destroyer to ~480 meters. And their heaviest guns are 200 tons per shot with 38Cm barrels. Not 200 gigaton one shot BDZ superweapons. Flak cannons represent heavy firepower in star wars despite only creating room sized explosions after piercing atmospheric shields or <1 foot armour. The Geoffrey Mandel blueprints from 1977 are the most consistent source for technical data. Asteroid clearing in TESB is an upper limit for ISD firepower, despite coming from invisible guns to small to see." etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1fbFi6 ... 6cwEIS8r9g

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1fbFi6 ... 6cwEIS8r9g[/youtube]

[Vance]

Well, that showed us!

[Batman]

So how, exactly, did he scale the HTL's firepower given they don't fire a shot until the end battle in ROTJ, where we only see them fire at a distance against shielded targets?
And also, if an ISD is 480m long, that makes the main hangar bay (you know, the one Tantive IV quite neatly fit in in ANH) about what, 40 metres long?
Those Corellian Corvettes are definitely bigger on the inside

[biostem]

I don't have the time or mathematical ability, but you could determine the size of the ships this way:

1. We can find out how tall Anthony Daniels, (the actor that played C3-P0), is, (I looked it up and it says he is 5'9" / 1.75m).
2. We can determine how much he had to bend down to fit in the escape pod.
3. #2 above gives us the absolute minimum diameter of the escape pod.
4. We can then determine what portion of the Corellian's corvette length the escape pod made up, and get the absolute minimum size of it.
5. We can then compare how long the corvette is to the Star Destroyer that captured it, to get that figure...

You can see in the shot below just how much room was still available, even with the Blockade Runner in the Star Destroyer's hold:

[biostem]

Here's C3PO getting into the escape pod (Note that R2 is already partway in it):


Here's the earliest frame that I could get of the escape pod leaving the corvette (the size seems to be off or it has already flown off for a bit once the shot changes):


Here's a Stormtropper standing right next to the pod:

[Boeing 757]

I don't even pay heed to what this imbecile writes any more.
Yes, he believes steadfastly that turbolasers are 200 ton yield weapons. He has stated more times than I can recall that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan are much more powerful than a star destroyer's guns.

Does that make any sense though? FUCK NO. Let the uneducated tards of this world be tards. He won't change the minds of those who have even an inkling of intelligence any time soon.

He is an idiot of a scale which even the most die-hard Trektards at Starfleet Jedi would send off laughing.

[darth_timon]

At the risk of performing a bit of thread necromancy I've started a rebuttal on my site to Idazmi7. I haven't written very much yet, but have put it out there. I was arguing with him on Youtube but he blocked me- surprise surprise.

One of his latest claims is that Starfleet has 97,000 ships.

http://darthtimon.wix.com/meerkatmusing ... nses/c18vm

[StarSword]

LOL. Oh, and guess what: Even if registry numbers had a 1:1 correlation to fleet size, in canon Trek they only go as high as the 74000 series. NCC-97000 is the USS Odyssey from STO. I'm fairly certain numerical series are in fact linked to class: for example, all the known GCSs sans the Ent-D use five digits beginning with 71.

So, not only is he scientifically ignorant, he's canon-ignorant as well.

[StarSword]

Ghetto edit: He's also failing to consider the fact that, even if they were used sequentially rather than being linked to class, registry numbers don't get reused unless the ship distinguishes itself somehow as with the NCC-1701 Enterprise. So Starfleet may have had a total of 97,000 ships across all time periods if you count STO, but that doesn't mean that they ever had 97,000 ships concurrently.

[Batman]

Nonsense. I mean the USN has CVN-77, that obviously means it has 77 carriers currently operational, right?

[Borgholio]

Nonsense. I mean the USN has CVN-77, that obviously means it has 77 carriers currently operational, right?

Heh yeah, about that...

We assign numbers to warships even before they're built. If it's cancelled, the number moves on to the next one. So in fact, we've never had 77 carriers operational at all!

Same with battleships. BB-64 is the last one commissioned...but we've only ever really built about 40 or so.

[Batman]

Get lost. Next you're going to tell me that Spruance being DD-963 doesn'tnecessarily mean the USN had about a thousand destroyers in service at the time of her commission.

[Borgholio]

Well...it didn't. . Sorry, Batman.

[StarSword]

Hey, timon, mind pointing me at the video where he gives the 97,000 ships number? I seem to be lasting longer against him than you did.

[StarSword]

Hey, timon, mind pointing me at the video where he gives the 97,000 ships number? I seem to be lasting longer against him than you did.

Ghetto edit: NVM, I found it further down the page.

[Lord Revan]

To be perfectly honest depending on what is the minimum size to be considered a ship the 97,0000 figure could be reasonable (if runabouts and similar sized ships are included), slightly optimistic or wildly optimistic.

the thing that most fanatics from either side don't get is that bulk of any fleet will smaller ships or otherwise unsuited for combat(for example supply ships), I mean the Imperial fleet in SW could easily be in the millions or even billions but most of it would be ships like the Correlian Corvette (seen in rebel hands in ANH), not Start Destroyers or bigger.

Same would be true of UFP Starfleet bulk of the fleet would be frigate or destroyer level ships that patrol for smugglers and pirates, while Galaxy-class ships will fewer in number.

[StarSword]

I demand math, he blocks me. Go figure.

[darth_timon]

I demand math, he blocks me. Go figure.

Yeah, that appears to be his approach to anyone who disagrees with him. I've been posting the link to my site across his videos- even if he doesn't see it himself, hopefully others will and won't be taken in by his crap.

At one stage he claims that the warp speeds shown in Voyager are the contradiction to the rest of Star Trek. I pointed out the strategic importance of the wormhole in DS9 for the very reason that warp isn't fast- he ignored that.

[StarSword]

Yeah, that appears to be his approach to anyone who disagrees with him. I've been posting the link to my site across his videos- even if he doesn't see it himself, hopefully others will and won't be taken in by his crap.

At one stage he claims that the warp speeds shown in Voyager are the contradiction to the rest of Star Trek. I pointed out the strategic importance of the wormhole in DS9 for the very reason that warp isn't fast- he ignored that.

Problem with that one is, TOS speeds really are considerably higher, although also considerably more inconsistent. For example Star Trek VI gives warp 8 as something like 750,000 c.

On the other hand, the dumbass also claimed that phased ion cannons are The Same But More of SW ion cannons, despite A) VOY never bothering to describe how they worked even with technobabble, and B) apparently putting extraneous adjectives in front of things automatically means they're more powerful:

Gun. Minigun. Missile. Nuclear Missile.

See a trend?

My response:

Gun. Potato gun. Missile. Puppy missile.

See a trend?

He also tried to explain away the "Dominion is superior" thing using the example of the JHDC and the USS Valiant, which I pointed out was a case of a heavy battleship in good repair with a full crew going up against a frigate, basically, that was already heavily damaged and crewed by a bunch of jumped-up cadets.

Good news is, YouTube doesn't actually let you block people from commenting on your videos, it just means you'll never see their responses.

[StarSword]

I've also been making use of my stock response to people who claim that SW is science fantasy and ST is science fiction:

Complete. And utter. Bullshit. Star Trek is no more grounded in reality than Star Wars is. Star Trek is the setting where the event horizon of a black hole can acquire a crack (VOY: "Parallax"), where people's imaginations run amok can nearly destroy a star system (DS9: "If Wishes Were Horses..."), where there are subatomic bacteria (TNG: "A Matter of Honor"), and where planets ejected from their solar systems and floating in deep space have Earthlike environments (ENT: "Rogue Planet").

And that's just my personal favorites. Outside of that we've got telepathy, telekinesis, godlike aliens (protip: there's no functional difference between someone who is a god and someone who isn't but has godlike powers), and all sorts of other crap, but because ST gives technobabble explanations which are still scientifically crap, and SW doesn't try to technobabble anything, it's somehow harder sci-fi than SW.

[Batman]

Um-where, exactly, does TUC give us anything to derive Warp speed numbers from?

[StarSword]

Um-where, exactly, does TUC give us anything to derive Warp speed numbers from?

My bad, misremembered the citation Mem Alpha gave. It was TOS: "That Which Survives", not TUC.

[Batman]

The Valendamned Batman. There's likely a picture of me next to the 'nitpicky bastard' entry in the dictionary.
You know perfectly well no dictionary has that entry, Master Bruce.
None we've run into so far have. Not necessarily the same thing.

[bilateralrope]

Good news is, YouTube doesn't actually let you block people from commenting on your videos, it just means you'll never see their responses.

Are you sure your comments are showing up for other users ?

Because I've heard that when Google+ got integrated into Youtube comments they added shadow bans. Where a user still things they have posted a comment, but the truth is that it's only visible to the poster. Since the user still thinks that they are posting, they don't make a new account to bypass the ban.

[StarSword]

Good news is, YouTube doesn't actually let you block people from commenting on your videos, it just means you'll never see their responses.

Are you sure your comments are showing up for other users ?

Because I've heard that when Google+ got integrated into Youtube comments they added shadow bans. Where a user still things they have posted a comment, but the truth is that it's only visible to the poster. Since the user still thinks that they are posting, they don't make a new account to bypass the ban.

Confirmed that by signing out. None of the comments I made afterwards showed up.

Good thing I had a second Google+ channel already.