Need help in Weapon's debate.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2007-03-20 07:46am

True. In any case, this weapon is still the primary armament to the Army of the Republic. It is capable of firing blasts which can blow man sized droids in half, it is capable of fast, accurate fire across several kilometers, and even has an automatic fire selection as seen on Kashyyyk! If he can't see how these weapons are superior to modern small arms then their is little we can do for him.

Also, Zam Wessel's sniper rifle fired a VERY fast beam. I'll bring that up again if I have to, and this time, i'll shoot down his "she was controlling it" attempts.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2007-03-20 08:23am

HIM wrote:So are blaster bolts. They are physical particles. Mass and energy is all the same. If bullets can be manipulated ala Neo in the Matrix, then so can blaster bolts.

Right... Isn't it great when they think they know physics, because they've read two sentences about E=mc². I guess he thinks he can deflect laser beams the same way he might deflect tennis balls with his hands. They are physical particles after all (as opposed to... what, incorporeal particles?).

Of course, Vader was seen deflecting blaster bolts in ESB, but this guy is just full of shit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-03-20 09:30am

CaptHawkeye wrote:He's now resorting to Mike's favorite, ignoring the higher end of the spectrum, and concentrating on the low. Now he's claiming that because Leia didn't burst into flames when she was shot in ROTJ, blasers are weak.

Ah, a Trekkie favourite.

EDIT: By the way Mike, he's claiming that the Clone Trooper rifles are sniper rifles because your analysis page says so. Are you sure they are sniper rifles? Don't they demonstrate more of the properties of an assault rifle?

I don't recall ever saying that the clonetrooper rifles were dedicated sniper rifles. I might have said they could be used in that role, but if I ever said they were dedicated sniper rifles, that's a surprise to me.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-03-20 09:31am

Idiot Trekkie wrote:If bullets can be manipulated ala Neo in the Matrix, then so can blaster bolts.

Wow. Now that is a giant non-sequitur.

PS. Who is this "Weapon" person who owns the debate we're talking about? This question is brought to you by the Coalition Against Abuse of Apostrophes in Thread Titles

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-03-20 09:53am

CaptHawkeye wrote:He's now resorting to Mike's favorite, ignoring the higher end of the spectrum, and concentrating on the low. Now he's claiming that because Leia didn't burst into flames when she was shot in ROTJ, blasers are weak.

Did you show the other pics? Luke's hand was shot by a pissy little Saturday Night Special. The E-11 used by Stormtroopers has demonstrated much more firepower against numerous targets.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2007-03-20 01:42pm

Prove they are lower settings,

I know this is stated somewhere but I can't find it.

Still, I could just ring him out for ignoring suspension of disbelief when it pleases him.

DW: Allan_X was the starter of the thread, and it was originally about the plausability of Halo's weapons.

"You can fire an M16 a mile or more away dude. That doesn't make it accurate just because it hits someone in a formation. When you have evidence that a clone trooper took aim at a specific point target and made the shot successfully then you will have established this."

Also having trouble with this one.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2007-03-20 02:55pm

I had a picture of the Hit on Leia. I can't find it right now and may have to remake it.

anyway that hit looks like it hit the wall more than Leia and the sparts from the wall doing the damage for her.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-03-20 03:08pm

The DC-15A Blaster Rifle is stated to have a maximum effective range of 10 km. That's from either AotC: The Visual Dictionary, AotC ICS, or RotS: The Visual Dictionary.

And since I'm tired of the dumbass, Prove they have power settings.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-03-20 03:53pm

I'm bemused at the idea that anyone could think they don't have power settings. Between instances of small external burns, knocking bricks out of walls, and bouncing off grass¹... the wild inconsistancy in SW smallarms effects obviously dictates that they have some kind of power settings.

And then we have just about the first thing a stormtrooper says in the films. "There's one, set for stun!"

¹ Yes, I know there's various explanations for this. I like 'blasters behave funny inside a shield' myself. But regardless, I enjoy bringing it up. It's so silly.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2007-03-20 04:27pm

CaptHawkeye wrote:
Prove they are lower settings,
I know this is stated somewhere but I can't find it.

See General Schatten's pic, NecronLord's quote (how people can maintain 'no power settings' in the face of the very first Star Wars movie EVER having that quote practically in the opening sequence is, frankly, beyond me), and not inconsiderable parts of the literal EU (both novels and source books).

"You can fire an M16 a mile or more away dude. That doesn't make it accurate just because it hits someone in a formation. When you have evidence that a clone trooper took aim at a specific point target and made the shot successfully then you will have established this."
Also having trouble with this one.

That was in response to? If memory serves it was your imbecilic aquaintance who claimed clonetrooper rifles were sniper rifles in the first place, not you.
So what if they can't hit anything precisely at that range (assuming they can't in the first place, 'effective' range is a much abused term but DOES usually refer to the range at which you can semi-reliably hit a man-sized target when applied to rifles. Feel free to correct me)? They still CARRY that far (which given the 10km range from the ICS/VDSs is a WEE bit farther than an M-16) and as per the visuals ALSO unlike the M-16 don't seem to suffer from windage and gravity all that much, making aiming at long ranges a LOT easier.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-03-20 04:51pm

Does this idiot believe that if you replaced the clonetrooper rifles at Geonosis with M16s, they would have done better? Exactly how much penetration of solid steel plate does he think M16 rounds have at a range of a mile, anyway? And he's ignoring the rather huge long-range accuracy advantage conferred by having weapons that don't arc in gravity or get blown noticeably off-course by the wind.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2007-03-20 05:13pm

I have high doubts that the M-16 wuld have a prayer to attack and destroy shielded destroyer droids like the clones did at Geonosis. The clone long rifles in that battle acted more like a Star Wars BAR than an assault rifle.

The also seemed to have the punch of the M2 HMG as well.

its is well establish that the stormtrooper blaster can be set down to 'stun' yet how somehow it can't have setting inbetween that and Blow stuff to Hell mode?

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2007-03-20 06:16pm

Furthermore the burden of proof is on him. He claims that arrows were hitting the black portions (non armored). I say that they do not.

Owned.

Actually they are all exactly related to what you said. You just don't like them so you ignored them.

They are unrelated conclusions. I'd link him to an explanation of Red Herring, but I don't think he'd understand it.

Most of my professors seem to disagree with your assessment but let's see what the Star Wars fan arguing about fantasy weapons on the video game message board has to say in order to validate his opinion.

Another one of Mike's favorites!

"I'm holier than you are!"

Also since when does Endor have Earth normal gravity? Very unlikely.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-03-20 06:50pm

I give up and I suggest others do as well, he clearly doesn't wanted to debate rationally, ignoring and using SoD whenever he finds it convenient, I'd suggest that if he really wants to debate, he can come here, and leave him a link, we need a Star Wars chew toy after all.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2007-03-20 07:01pm

Oh, it's not going to do much good I grant you that but as long as CaptHawkeye is willing to relate and the staff is willing to tolerate it I'm happy to comment.
This isn't about seriously debating with someone who hasn't run across SDN yet. It's about watching someone who either doesn't know what he's talking about or is intentionally lying get his ass handed to him. Even if it is only by proxy.

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2007-03-20 07:04pm

He seems to have read portions of the website. (Although he was too stupid to understand them.) I suppose it's possible he may be brushing through the website fully by now. At which point, he will either try to join the forums, or spam Mike's inbox with more 1st class bullshit. To which I hope DW will show us.

If he joins, I think we should title him "Village Idiot" immiedietly. But that's just my opinion.

I'm done with him for the time being, he knows he got his ass kicked, he just doesn't want to admit it. I sure as hell hope he comes here though, now THAT would be fun.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-03-20 09:16pm

CaptHawkeye wrote:He's now resorting to Mike's favorite, ignoring the higher end of the spectrum, and concentrating on the low. Now he's claiming that because Leia didn't burst into flames when she was shot in ROTJ, blasers are weak.

Unless he thinks Leia is doused in oil regularly, she's not going to "combust" in the fashion he thinks (it takes very specific conditions for a human to combust, like large scale dehydration.) And blasters aren't flamethrowers.

In anyy case if you watch ROTJ in frame by frame its evident that Leia does not immediately react when the bolt hits (She's still looking away for a noticable fraction of a second before her face registers it.)

On top of that, there's a distinct possibility she was wearing body armor. Unless you're a moron who thinks Leia has metal body parts (*snicker*), humans do NOT throw sparks when hit by bolts. either it was a glancing hit or ricochet, it missed, or she was wearing something that created sparks (and thus protected her.)

The big thing is obvious - they want to take Leia ALIVE (otherwise why walk up and tell them to "freeze" and "don't move?" rather htan shooting them from cover.) We know variable settings exist from the ANH novelization, the Star Wars Technical Journal, the Complete visual dictionary, and the Death Star and AT-ATs (right. related weapons that CAN'T vary their output. I believe it. not.)

No matter how you look at it, the idea that "blasters are weak because Leia got hit in the arm" is a stupid example to use for blaster firepower.

EDIT: By the way Mike, he's claiming that the Clone Trooper rifles are sniper rifles because your analysis page says so. Are you sure they are sniper rifles? Don't they demonstrate more of the properties of an assault rifle?

He comparesd them to HEAVY sniper rifles. something like a .50 Cal antimaterial rifle or suitably large and armor-piercing. The analogy (specifically) is that like heavy sniper rifles, clone rifles pack high firepower and massive range (which they do, demonstrated in aOTC and ROTS.)

But of course, as Mike knows, blaster rifles also demonstate much higher ammo capacity and rate of fire. And Clones don't always use them like "snipers" either. So unless the moron thinks that the GAR has an army of elite marksman even as mere grunts, he's engaging (predictably) in a gross distortion.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-03-20 09:38pm

As for the rest of it.. its worrth a laugh. Blaster bolts are "particles?" Well yes they are called that, but such slow moving particles would ARC in gravity. So clearly they are slwo moving "anti grav" particles!. That's just ONE interpretation of blasters, I might add.

As for the velocity thing, alot of people have demonstrated it, but typically blasters demonstrate they reach their target in a fraction of a second. Blaster firepower is demonstrably independent of its mass/velocity (unlike a bullet) and they don't drop in gravity. And we knwo they are variable speed (hypersonic, like in TESB, ROTJ, and AOTC). But given that they genrally take a fraction of a second to reach the target no matter the range, the velocity at the time is largely irrelevant, even disregarding the fact that it is a tracer we are seeing. They could very well use variable speeds to reduce recoil (a faster bolt could generate more recoil).

Speaking of the whole "bullet vs bolt" idea, you can tell this guy is a moron because he's comparing a phyiscal impactor (IE a bullet) to what is essentially an energy weapon. We KNOW blasters are weapons that rely on thermal damage for it's effects. Bullets, by contrast, are much more complicated (force/pressure and KE) and nowhere even close to being comprable in terms of damage mechanisms (A point, I should add, Mike has made GOD KNOWS HOW MANY times on his website.. ask the moron if he bothered reading the shields page or the IXJac debate.) Assuming that a blaster bolt with the KE of a bullet would do the exact same damage as a bullet (much less be dangerous or killing, or even matching what we see onscreen) is idiotic.

While we're on the subject, it should be noted that some numbers CAN be tied to various scenes:

Regarding the GReedo scene Vympel posts, its rather self evident that a substantial portion of Greedo's upper torso (at least) got cooked. The steam rising from the body makes it clear that much of the water in his body has been boiled (and the steam indicates some measure of vaporization has occured.) Considering a few bolts were used, this takes at least the injection of megajoule-range damage from Han's blaster (easily)

Then there's the grate scene. Watching THAT frame by frame its quite evident that due to the color and tmep (much less the state after the shot) that much of the grate is raised to molten or near-molten state. Its not COMPLETELY melted, of course, but a sizable portion of it is. AGain, multi-MJ event quite easily.

And although not mentioned, there IS Grievous' death scene. Cremating the LIVING organs of an individual is a complex event, and even assuming only a few organs (Brain, lungs, heart, much less any others that comprise "guts" or the synthskin that covers them) in the fashion Mike describes on his ROTS revelations page (and we see) again is indicative of firepower FAR in excess of a simple rifle. (I'd like to see a modern handgun cremate/vaporize human organs.)

CaptHawkeye · Post by **CaptHawkeye** » 2007-03-21 06:58pm

By the way, it may seem of little importance, but would like to get a role call of people on this website who helped me directly in that debate and your names on Gamefaqs? If you don't want it public you can PM me. I just like to make sure credit is given where credit is due.

I know Schatten was one. But i'm not sure if he was Pint0_Xtreme or possibly someone else.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-03-21 09:31pm

Pathetic Trekkie Poser wrote:Most of my professors seem to disagree with your assessment ...

I love it when dumb Trekkies try this one. My E-mail contact form is out there on my website; why don't these professors E-mail me to tell me how wrong I am? Of course, it's pretty hard for them to E-mail me when they don't exist, and the kiddie in question has never taken a university-level science course in his life.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2007-03-21 09:51pm

Can you imagine some dumb kid talking to "most" of his college professors (presumably all science professors) about SW vs. ST? As if most professors aren't too busy to pal around with one of their students and waste time all talking about the same trivial niche subject. Sure, it's possible. But it's not fucking likely. At least he didn't try to tell people that he was some kind of secret super-soldier, like Darkstar's little buddy did.

What's with all these dumbasses who can't even lie convincingly?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2007-03-21 10:05pm

Jim Raynor wrote:Can you imagine some dumb kid talking to "most" of his college professors (presumably all science professors) about SW vs. ST? As if most professors aren't too busy to pal around with one of their students and waste time all talking about the same trivial niche subject. Sure, it's possible. But it's not fucking likely. At least he didn't try to tell people that he was some kind of secret super-soldier, like Darkstar's little buddy did.

What's with all these dumbasses who can't even lie convincingly?

It's like people who pretend to be in the military. They don't realize that someone who's actually been there can see through their childish bullshit. The same is true here; these are kiddies who haven't even graduated high school yet, so they don't realize how laughable their attempts to play "university science student" are. As if a real university science student would say that he talked to his professors and they all back him up (shades of Stewart's $800 road trip), rather than presenting the kind of scientific arguments that indicate actual competence in the field.

I'm actually reminded of the beginning of "40 Year Old Virgin" when the main character is trying to bluff his way through a sex-related conversation. You can't bluff your way through a subject you don't really know. You might be able to fool yourself, and you might be able to fool other virgins, but anyone who's actually been there will just laugh at you.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-03-21 10:11pm

Maybe he should have used "Ph.d-plus" types bribed with subs and adult beverages.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-03-21 10:13pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's like people who pretend to be in the military. They don't realize that someone who's actually been there can see through their childish bullshit. The same is true here; these are kiddies who haven't even graduated high school yet, so they don't realize how laughable their attempts to play "university science student" are. As if a real university science student would say that he talked to his professors and they all back him up (shades of Stewart's $800 road trip), rather than presenting the kind of scientific arguments that indicate actual competence in the field.

I'm actually reminded of the beginning of "40 Year Old Virgin" when the main character is trying to bluff his way through a sex-related conversation. You can't bluff your way through a subject you don't really know. You might be able to fool yourself, and you might be able to fool other virgins, but anyone who's actually been there will just laugh at you.

I think it depends largely on the audience. If you have someone who knows the subject material fairly well, its easy to spot the bullshit. But on some forums (and, guessing from the source, this is a likely canidate) alot of the "members" are either less knowledgable, uncaring, ignorant, or easily swayed, so they can be gulled by such BS. Especially if they cite anonymous "sources" or quote all sorts of neat sounding big words or fringe science concepts.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2007-03-21 10:15pm

Jim Raynor wrote:Can you imagine some dumb kid talking to "most" of his college professors (presumably all science professors) about SW vs. ST? As if most professors aren't too busy to pal around with one of their students and waste time all talking about the same trivial niche subject. Sure, it's possible. But it's not fucking likely. At least he didn't try to tell people that he was some kind of secret super-soldier, like Darkstar's little buddy did.

What's with all these dumbasses who can't even lie convincingly?

Depending on the topic, it can be fairly easy to phrase a question in such a manner that it does nto seem to obviously BEAR on a vs debate.

However, that also means its quite possible he either misrepresented the case to the professor in question, left out data, or lied in some other fashion (assuming the professor is real, that is.)