Main Site (challenging Mike's commentary)

[texanmarauder]

I'm just curious as to rather or not the main site is ever going to be updated or just plain shut down? most of it no longer applies to anything except the old EU. brian youngs page needs to be updated. too many debate idiots out there who think that this site is still canon.

Moved to the debating forum because you're debating. - Queue

[Lord Revan]

What do you mean by "think that this site is still canon"?

This site and Brian's site have always been 100% non-canon fan works, Stardestroyer.net or any of it's parts have never been officially licenced by Lucasfilm limited. That doesn't however any facts from this site that are derived from currently canon works (like the main saga films) can be declared non-canon.

[Iroscato]

It will probably never be updated again, Mike's largely moved on and only very rarely passes through here these days.

[texanmarauder]

What do you mean by "think that this site is still canon"?

This site and Brian's site have always been 100% non-canon fan works, Stardestroyer.net or any of it's parts have never been officially licenced by Lucasfilm limited. That doesn't however any facts from this site that are derived from currently canon works (like the main saga films) can be declared non-canon.

a lot of idiots, mainly on youtube and even a few here, that think that the ICS stuff that most of the site depends on is still canon because its on the main site. and brian youngs turbolaser page needs to be updated so that its not giving fans the wrong impression. (I'm operating on the impression that he didn't do what he did on purpose).

[Crazedwraith]

1) Random youtubers are not Wong's responsibility
2) ICS has been republished in the new canon along nuCanon material (ie not legends) so arguably is still canon.
3)No one here has any power to tell Wong to do with what to do with his site.
4) Titles traditionally have capitalisation. Petty but true.

[Lord Revan]

It should also be noted that a lot of Mike's calculations actually predate the AOTC:ICS and are based on sources of the first 6 main saga films (aka episodes 1-6) not the simple restating of the stats in the ICS.

as for random Youtube comments, honestly they're not Mike's responsibility at all as he's not an official source of information but a fan among many others.

[texanmarauder]

1) Random youtubers are not Wong's responsibility
2) ICS has been republished in the new canon along nuCanon material (ie not legends) so arguably is still canon.
3)No one here has any power to tell Wong to do with what to do with his site.
4) Titles traditionally have capitalisation. Petty but true.

1. I know that. but his main site is still up and hasn't been updated in over a decade.
2. details please.
3. I wasn't telling anybody to do anything. I was asking.
4. very petty. agreed.

[texanmarauder]

to my knowledge, the book that included all of the ICS book material, sans the crazy superinflated numbers, was the complete vehicles book, published in 2013. it got updated in 2016 but all of the old info is still non canon per disneys policy.

[Broomstick]

1. I know that. but his main site is still up and hasn't been updated in over a decade.

So what?

There's nothing obligating any site owner to stay current, however you may define that.

[Imperial528]

A lot of the main site's material is based entirely on either calculations on observations directly from the original and prequel trilogies or on works themselves based on those same movies.

You can argue that the newer materials contradict those observations, but it doesn't change the fact that those observations are of material that is, and always will be, canon.

And given the comatose state of the "debate" these days there's really no reason to update the main site.

[texanmarauder]

A lot of the main site's material is based entirely on either calculations on observations directly from the original and prequel trilogies or on works themselves based on those same movies.

that's not entirely true. take brian young's turbolaser page. yes, it takes one scene of asteroids being destroyed, creates a couple more out of whole cloth, and then is backed up by EU. most of the Vs stuff is taken from ICS or other EU sources. there are a few pages that use movie calcs, but that's about it.

You can argue that the newer materials contradict those observations, but it doesn't change the fact that those observations are of material that is, and always will be, canon.

the circumstances may be from the movie, but the interpretation is, well, up for interpretation. take this quote from his propulsion page.

The Battle of Endor demonstrated the accelerative capabilities of Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyer group was clearly seen on the Endor shield-generator bunker's tactical display, heading toward the Rebel fleet at a velocity of at least 6E4 m/s. It decelerated to near-zero velocity relative to the Rebel fleet, in roughly 2 seconds. This means that their decelerative capability (which is equal to or less than their forward accelerative capability) is at least 30 km/s². This means that a Star Destroyer has at least 30 times the acceleration of the Death Star, and 3 times the acceleration of a Federation Galaxy Class starship.

this is the bunker display that clearly shows only one fleet. and since the rebel fleet hadn't arrived yet at that point, the only fleet there is the imperial fleet. and it sure as hell isn't moving at 60km/s. hell, the death star was only 160/200m depending on the latest sourcebook that decided it needed a new size. so the situation may have been taken from the movie, but the interpretation is wrong. I know you wont believe me, even though I just provided evidence that backs me up. you will defend the site to the death. need more examples? just ask.

[Formless]

Canon arguments regarding Mike's main site remain what they always have been: a distraction. The most important takeaways from the site had little to do with EU materials and everything to do with the films themselves and events that happened in them. Its no different from the many videos online you can find where some physicist or engineer calculates the minimum power of the Death Star. Even if the video predates Disney's acquisition of the IP, the facts still remain. The main difference is that Mike and Brian Young took the same approach but applied it to a wider variety of technologies in both Star Wars and Star Trek, with the main point being to educate people about the methods of analysis rather than merely showing how powerful the Empire's technology is. Obviously The Empire Strikes Back is going to remain a canon source unless Disney decides to start doing what George Lucas did with editing his own material, but even if they did that it seems highly unlikely that they will take out the parts where Star Destroyers are blowing up asteroids and blasters are taking chunks of concrete the size of dinner plates out of walls. Even when Lucas was editing things, he was always adding, not subtracting, new visuals to the film. Now the new films might have scenes where ships aren't displaying quite the same firepower, but that is no contradiction. The events of the previous film remain canon, and we can only speculate on why not all ships use that level of firepower at all times, even if they are capable of it. But a Star Destroyer remains capable of it regardless. And Mike's site shows you how you too can calculate that on your own using real life physics. There are lots of Youtubers who do the same thing to even more volatile canons than Star Wars, like comic book superheroes. I don't see what the problem is, except that people have always had a problem with Mike and want Star Trek to be more powerful than Star Wars because the latter chose a used future aesthetic, and the former went with shiny space age looking shit. Seeing beyond such superficial things is the whole point of Mike's arguments.

Besides that, many people aren't satisfied with the new EU and would like to talk about scenarios related to the Legends Canon regardless. Or are satisfied with both and have an emotional investment in both. Rather than considering the new material as the only valid canon, its better I think to consider them two separate but equally valid canons with some materials shared between them. That is how many other universes work, Star Trek being one of them.

[texanmarauder]

The main difference is that Mike and Brian Young took the same approach but applied it to a wider variety of technologies in both Star Wars and Star Trek, with the main point being to educate people about the methods of analysis rather than merely showing how powerful the Empire's technology is.

have you seen his vs pages? one of them was titled "SW vs ST in five minutes" or something like that. in fact, that was on his technology page. that has nothing to do with methods of analysis, only with "my gun is bigger than yours because this book said so". and last time I checked, creating asteroids where none are, giving them a random huge size, and saying "my guns can do this much damage" isn't analysis. its creating fiction. so don't try to sugar coat that site for what it was really intended to do. it may have started out that way, but it sure as hell didn't finish like that.

[texanmarauder]

as for the separate canons, I agree. I may not agree with using the EU as a debate source, but that's just me.

[Formless]

Of course you can find a page summarizing his findings and conclusions. Every scientific article or website has one. Atomic Rockets has his common misconceptions page (bits of which I don't agree with, I should add) but it clearly isn't the meat of the site. There is so much more material to be read, and oftentimes a thorough reading is necessary to really put such a page into context. That one essay by Mike is not intended to be a mission statement, as should be clear from his statement on the main page about it: "if you're the kind of person who buys Cliff Notes in order to save time, this is the link for you! I hope you'll eventually take the time to read more of the website, but if you don't have the patience for it, just go here." (bolding mine). If any essay most closely captures the spirit of the site, I think it would be his How to Analyze Sci-Fi essay which can also be found on the main page. He has an entire section of the essays page dedicated to real science and science fiction in general, and in the past Mike has stated on these forums that education is one of his primary goals (entertainment being the other). You are missing the forest for a single tree, and assuming that because you can find a single spruce in an aspen grove it must be a coniferous forest.

If you want a proper mission statement from the main site, perhaps a better one is found in his science page: "Sci-fi sucks when it ignores the laws of physics. We've got to break some of them for plot purposes now and then (warp drive, anyone?), but that doesn't mean we should throw everything out the window."

[texanmarauder]

Of course you can find a page summarizing his findings and conclusions. Every scientific article or website has one. Atomic Rockets has his common misconceptions page (bits of which I don't agree with, I should add) but it clearly isn't the meat of the site. There is so much more material to be read, and oftentimes a thorough reading is necessary to really put such a page into context. That one essay by Mike is not intended to be a mission statement, as should be clear from his statement on the main page about it: "if you're the kind of person who buys Cliff Notes in order to save time, this is the link for you! I hope you'll eventually take the time to read more of the website, but if you don't have the patience for it, just go here." (bolding mine). If any essay most closely captures the spirit of the site, I think it would be his How to Analyze Sci-Fi essay which can also be found on the main page. He has an entire section of the essays page dedicated to real science and science fiction in general, and in the past Mike has stated on these forums that education is one of his primary goals (entertainment being the other). You are missing the forest for a single tree, and assuming that because you can find a single spruce in an aspen grove it must be a coniferous forest.

If you want a proper mission statement from the main site, perhaps a better one is found in his science page: "Sci-fi sucks when it ignores the laws of physics. We've got to break some of them for plot purposes now and then (warp drive, anyone?), but that doesn't mean we should throw everything out the window."

I wasn't treating that section that I quoted as cliff notes. merely one example of several, at least. the fact that it was proven wrong so easily means it shouldn't have been there in the first place. I cant have been the first one to point these things out. and there are at least one occasion of things like this happening on damn near every page. not to mention, as you said, on screen canon is always going to be canon, yet in his vs pages he ignores on screen ST feats in favor of non canon source books that even state in the cover that the information inside isn't true. so this isn't a case of just one or two occurrences, the main site is rife with them.

[Formless]

What the hell do you mean by "proven wrong"? You haven't proven anything in this thread! People have already pointed out that the ICSs have been reprinted, suggesting that they are considered canon in both Legends and TFA continuity. And you haven't even touched the asteroid destruction calcs, probably because they require actual scientific knowledge to parse. Are you just here to troll us with the same trektard claims that have been debunked for over fifteen years? And by the way, the only reason Mike cites technical manuals for Star Trek is because others he argued with at the time cited them as evidence as well, but there are other places on the site where he does his own calculations and analysis of Trek weaponry. Have you actually read his analysis of photon torpedoes, or are you just hoping the rest of us haven't?

[Formless]

By the way, IMO this thread should really be moved to the SWvST forum, considering the content and the obvious intentions of the person who posted it.

[texanmarauder]

this is gonna be a long one. get popcorn, a beer, whatever. take a piss first.

What the hell do you mean by "proven wrong"? You haven't proven anything in this thread!

that's because you didnt bother to read my post. I proved that he was wrong about what the bunker display showed. try reading my posts.

People have already pointed out that the ICSs have been reprinted, suggesting that they are considered canon in both Legends and TFA continuity.

to my knowledge the ics books weren't reprinted. they were just rolled into one book that was published in 2013. that makes them non canon then and now. all they did was add a section on TFA in 2016. by Disney policy, the old EU ICS books are still non canon. plus they removed the stats I believe.

And you haven't even touched the asteroid destruction calcs, probably because they require actual scientific knowledge to parse.

since you brought it up, i wasn't contesting his calcs. the math is sound. the assumption that the asteroids are 20+ meters in diameter is wrong. that is, comparing the size of the bolt to the asteroid suggests that its wrong very strongly. the bolts almost completely envelope the asteroids. we see the falcon take a hit to the starboard aft section. that bolt was only a fraction of the size of the falcon, which was 34.75m wide per canon. if they were the medium turbolasers, and I believe it was, then that means that the asteroids were only 1-2, in diameter. if they were the light PD turbolasers, then they would be even smaller. in that same page, brian young also flat out tells us that this is an asteroid. its not. there is no asteroid there. same with this one and this one and this one . those are just the flak burst from the turbolasers. we see those before, inside, and after the asteroid field. at best, it means that brian young made a mistake based on the version of video he had and just didn't notice the same effects outside the asteroid field. at worst, it means he lied through his teeth. a GIF of one of the scenes where he claims asteroids were vaporized... sorry. only flak bursts. here is a youtube vid that shows that same flak burst. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJDItC6tE0 :40 :41 :42 are at least 2 examples. 1:13 is another example. point proven. again.

And by the way, the only reason Mike cites technical manuals for Star Trek is because others he argued with at the time cited them as evidence as well, but there are other places on the site where he does his own calculations and analysis of Trek weaponry. Have you actually read his analysis of photon torpedoes, or are you just hoping the rest of us haven't?

yes, I read it. and the first thing he does is quote (surprise surprise) FROM THE FUCKING TECH MANUAL. that automatically limits whatever he comes up with. he does this throughout that whole page, which just proves my point even more. he does his own calcs yes, but he does em loaded down with preconceptions and limits implied from a non canon source that states in the flap that it contains false info.

[texanmarauder]

By the way, IMO this thread should really be moved to the SWvST forum, considering the content and the obvious intentions of the person who posted it.

actually, it would be moved to pure sw since vs debate wasn't my intention, calling out major errors in the site is.

[Formless]

that's because you didnt bother to read my post. I proved that he was wrong about what the bunker display showed. try reading my posts.

None of your posts have any substance. The one post attempting to discredit Mike's analysis is a classic example of how not to make a logical argument: a computer display isn't a 1:1 representation of reality, especially in Star Wars where computer displays routinely show abstracted information in simplified color scheme and the text is even in a fictional language. Your evidence only shows you to be an idiot who doesn't understand what he is looking at when he watches a Star Wars movie.

to my knowledge the ics books weren't reprinted.

That's a lie, you responded to Crazedwraith when he said that they have been.

since you brought it up, i wasn't contesting his calcs. the math is sound. the assumption that the asteroids are 20+ meters in diameter is wrong. that is, comparing the size of the bolt to the asteroid suggests that its wrong very strongly. the bolts almost completely envelope the asteroids. we see the falcon take a hit to the starboard aft section. that bolt was only a fraction of the size of the falcon, which was 34.75m wide per canon. if they were the medium turbolasers, and I believe it was, then that means that the asteroids were only 1-2, in diameter. if they were the light PD turbolasers, then they would be even smaller.

You must be trolling. Laser blasts of all kinds in Star Wars vary in length, width and speed between various scenes, even when the weapon remains the same. Even the Mythbusters found this out when they did one of their Star Wars specials and wanted to see if you could really dodge a blaster bolt (they had to calculate an average because of this problem). The special effects animators didn't work from a set of pre-defined calculations when they rotoscoped this shit onto the real footage. The Millenium Falcon is also notorious for having inconsistent measurements, making it doubly dubious that you would scale turbolasors to it. Yes, I know, there are canonical numbers for the Falcon, but canon can be changed and the films would still be just as inconsistent about the Falcon's dimensions. The mistakes were made during production, and can't be fixed in post. Moreover a Star Destroyer has several kinds of turbolaser batteries, per canon, and can presumably dial their intensity and power, making it further idiotic to try and scale anything to the length or width of a turbolaser blast. They are not a reliable measuring stick to scale asteroids by. But you know what is a reliable measuring stick? The Star Destroyer itself! They are, and always have been, exactly one mile in length. That measurement has never changed in the entire history of Star Wars. That is how Mike and Brian Young have always scaled asteroids in these scenes. That's how they know whether an asteroid is 20 feet long or 30 feet long. And I'm pretty sure Mike explains this on his website. You should really read it sometime if you are going to whine about it like you have been doing.

in that same page, brian young also flat out tells us that this Image is an asteroid. its not. there is no asteroid there. same with this one and this one and this one. those are just the flak burst from the turbolasers. we see those before, inside, and after the asteroid field. at best, it means that brian young made a mistake based on the version of video he had and just didn't notice the same effects outside the asteroid field. at worst, it means he lied through his teeth. a GIF of one of the scenes where he claims asteroids were vaporized... Image sorry. only flak bursts. here is a youtube vid that shows that same flak burst. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvJDItC6tE0 :40 :41 :42 are at least 2 examples. 1:13 is another example. point proven. again.

Throwing up lots of images does not impress me. While I accept that a mistake may exist in that particular analysis due to the shoddy nature of VHS compared to modern formats, it was not the only scene that was analyzed. Look at the page. They also analyze the first four seconds of this clip where we can clearly see three asteroids in a row get vaporized. Later, Mike also analyzed the dogfight over Geonosis because it also featured asteroids getting blasted, only with the smaller guns on Slave 1. And guess what he found? Yes, that the ICS numbers for Slave 1 are accurate, and this fits perfectly with what we expect based on the firepower demonstrated by the bigger ships. In other words, the one mistake you found does not take down the entire analysis of Star Wars blasters, laser canons, and turbolasers. But you seem to think what you have found justifies throwing all that hard work away. Pitiful.

yes, I read it. and the first thing he does is quote (surprise surprise) FROM THE FUCKING TECH MANUAL. that automatically limits whatever he comes up with. he does this throughout that whole page, which just proves my point even more. he does his own calcs yes, but he does em loaded down with preconceptions and limits implied from a non canon source that states in the flap that it contains false info.

I already told you why he did. Other people use the Technical manuals as references, so you can't blame him for doing the same. Not without being a flaming hypocrite, anyway. And besides, even Memory Alpha claims they are antimatter warheads and cites the episodes that confirm this, so take your moronic claims of preconceived notions and stuff it. I obviously know the canon of Star Trek better than you do.

actually, it would be moved to pure sw since vs debate wasn't my intention, calling out major errors in the site is.

I don't think we should pretend that you didn't call out his analysis of Star Trek as flawed as well.

[texanmarauder]

None of your posts have any substance. The one post attempting to discredit Mike's analysis is a classic example of how not to make a logical argument: a computer display isn't a 1:1 representation of reality, especially in Star Wars where computer displays routinely show abstracted information in simplified color scheme and the text is even in a fictional language. Your evidence only shows you to be an idiot who doesn't understand what he is looking at when he watches a Star Wars movie.

I'm sorry. how was that analysis wrong? he clearly said there were two fleets on the tactical display. visual confirms this wrong. at the point that we even see the tactical display, the rebel fleet hadn't even arrived yet. therefore there couldn't have been two fleets. this is a pathetic ad hominem with a side of red herring.

That's a lie, you responded to Crazedwraith when he said that they have been.

I didn't lie. I told him the same thing I told you with slightly different wording. more ad hominem.

You must be trolling. Laser blasts of all kinds in Star Wars vary in length, width and speed between various scenes, even when the weapon remains the same. Even the Mythbusters found this out when they did one of their Star Wars specials and wanted to see if you could really dodge a blaster bolt (they had to calculate an average because of this problem). The special effects animators didn't work from a set of pre-defined calculations when they rotoscoped this shit onto the real footage. The Millenium Falcon is also notorious for having inconsistent measurements, making it doubly dubious that you would scale turbolasors to it. Yes, I know, there are canonical numbers for the Falcon, but canon can be changed and the films would still be just as inconsistent about the Falcon's dimensions. The mistakes were made during production, and can't be fixed in post. Moreover a Star Destroyer has several kinds of turbolaser batteries, per canon, and can presumably dial their intensity and power, making it further idiotic to try and scale anything to the length or width of a turbolaser blast. They are not a reliable measuring stick to scale asteroids by. But you know what is a reliable measuring stick? The Star Destroyer itself! They are, and always have been, exactly one mile in length. That measurement has never changed in the entire history of Star Wars. That is how Mike and Brian Young have always scaled asteroids in these scenes. That's how they know whether an asteroid is 20 feet long or 30 feet long. And I'm pretty sure Mike explains this on his website. You should really read it sometime if you are going to whine about it like you have been doing.

most of those "inconsistent measurements" are nothing more than fan calcs. not official numbers. even if it was bigger than the size I gave, that wouldn't help your cause there. yes, an ISD has different size turbolasers. dial a yield is never proven, nor do we hear an order for it on an ISD. that is pure speculation. as for how the got the size of 20m, read this excerpt from that page. "In this picture, an obviously middle-sized bolt is about to strike the asteroid. These asteroids were at least on the order of 20 meters in diameter. The asteroids appear to be slightly shorter than the diameter of the Millennium Falcon." the falcon wasn't even in the scene for reference. plus, the distance to the ISD isn't known, nor is the distance from the camera to the asteroid. which makes scaling useless. another excerpt... "Several asteroids were also vaporised when in close proximity to the Falcon itself in later scenes by long TL bolts. Since the ISD in pursuit would only have vaporised asteroids that were in its path, these asteroids were much closer to the Falcon than they were to the camera.". so that's how they got 20m. they compared the asteroids to the falcon in a scene where the falcon wasn't even present for comparison. which makes that number useless.

throwing up lots of images does not impress me. While I accept that a mistake may exist in that particular analysis due to the shoddy nature of VHS compared to modern formats, it was not the only scene that was analyzed. Look at the page. They also analyze the first four seconds of this clip where we can clearly see three asteroids in a row get vaporized. Later, Mike also analyzed the dogfight over Geonosis because it also featured asteroids getting blasted, only with the smaller guns on Slave 1. And guess what he found? Yes, that the ICS numbers for Slave 1 are accurate, and this fits perfectly with what we expect based on the firepower demonstrated by the bigger ships. In other words, the one mistake you found does not take down the entire analysis of Star Wars blasters, laser canons, and turbolasers. But you seem to think what you have found justifies throwing all that hard work away. Pitiful.

I'm really leaning more towards lie since even with the old VHS tapes, which I own, its glaringly obvious that the flak burst is seen outside the asteroid field. so there is really no excuse for it. not only that, but apparently he has the ability to go frame by frame. even on the VHS, that is more than enough to see there is no asteroids where he said there was. no excuse whatsoever. and I did read his page. it mentions the ICS yield and then says that this would be enough to "pulverize a well-consolidated 100-150 metre wide asteroid, assuming that the force-coupling efficiency of an energy bolt is equal to the force-coupling efficiency of a centrally buried chemical explosive. " we always hear words like "presuming", "assuming", estimation" a lot. he also goes on to say that this isn't the case, and "Realistically, a 2 kiloton energy beam of perhaps 0.01 second duration would probably be limited to fragmenting an asteroid of only a few dozen metres in size rather than 100-150 (with a lot of heating, melting, and vapourization), which is closer to what we see in the film." that's not exactly specific.

I already told you why he did. Other people use the Technical manuals as references, so you can't blame him for doing the same. Not without being a flaming hypocrite, anyway. And besides, even Memory Alpha claims they are antimatter warheads and cites the episodes that confirm this, so take your moronic claims of preconceived notions and stuff it. I obviously know the canon of Star Trek better than you do.

I never said that they weren't antimatter warheads so that statement is totally irrelevant. show me where I said that they weren't antimatter warheads? you cant. I said that he uses non canon materials to limit canon weapons. and I was right. get your head out of your ass.

I don't think we should pretend that you didn't call out his analysis of Star Trek as flawed as well.

which is on his site, which I called out as wrong? again, get your head out of your ass. I haven't said anything that could be called a vs debate on this thread. I called out his site for being wrong as well as woefully outdated. get it right.

[texanmarauder]

Moved to the debating forum because you're debating. - Queue

so how is this debating in a sw vs st forum? most of what I challenged is what he used on his site. the vs debate never entered the equation. so what fucktard decided this? is it against the rules to point out obvious flaws in the main site? doing so is somehow a vs debate? this isn't even a debate. this is me pointing out mistakes/lies in the main site and yall wishing I was wrong and having no real defense for it. THATS NOT A VS DEBATE. more like idiots deflecting the issue.

[Imperial528]

that's not entirely true. take brian young's turbolaser page. yes, it takes one scene of asteroids being destroyed, creates a couple more out of whole cloth, and then is backed up by EU. most of the Vs stuff is taken from ICS or other EU sources. there are a few pages that use movie calcs, but that's about it.

The Turbolaser Commentaries are not part of the main site: they are hosted on it now but were originally a separate website entirely, and as far as I know were a separate site during the debate's prime.

I know you wont believe me, even though I just provided evidence that backs me up. you will defend the site to the death. need more examples? just ask.

Up until this point I was willing to engage in discussion with you. However, it is clear that despite you not knowing a single fact about me (I am not active on this forum, and do not recall any instance of interacting with you until this thread) you have claimed I am dishonest. I can only assume then that from the beginning you had no intention of approaching the subject matter honestly.

[texanmarauder]

The Turbolaser Commentaries are not part of the main site: they are hosted on it now but were originally a separate website entirely, and as far as I know were a separate site during the debate's prime.

I would believe that if the updates weren't listed on the main site by wong himself back in 2001, "March 18, 2001
I am very pleased to announce the return of Brian Young's Turbolaser Commentaries, now hosted right here at www.stardestroyer.net/tlc. " that was before the AOTC ICS was published and the bulk of the debates.

Up until this point I was willing to engage in discussion with you. However, it is clear that despite you not knowing a single fact about me (I am not active on this forum, and do not recall any instance of interacting with you until this thread) you have claimed I am dishonest. I can only assume then that from the beginning you had no intention of approaching the subject matter honestly.

I responded like that because anytime anybody challenges the integrity of mikes site, they immediately have a target on their back. you saw how others responded on this thread, even though I can prove my claims. I was ridiculed, made fun of, called a troll, told I was wrong, then the entire issue was ignored and deflected by calling it a fucking vs debate. given what I have showed you, can you honestly say I'm wrong? this isn't even the first time that I have brought up the subject. hell, I was just called a hypocrite for calling out wong for using the ST tech manuals. here is an excerpt from his beam weapons page.

However, official interpretations are not as important as direct observations, and from direct observation of the canon films, we know the following with absolute certainty:"

yet in almost every mention of federation technology on his website, he quotes from the non canon tech manuals to the point of exclusion of on screen examples. and he either deliberately misinterprets or outright lies on the ones that aren't from a book. and I'm a hypocrite for pointing this out. I am more than capable of civil discussion. what makes me throw civility out the window is when I get bullshit excuses when I clearly prove a point. as I clearly have on this particular thread. as I said before, if you want more examples, just ask.