StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Everything hardly matters, because you would have to get through the shields before taking out the dome... right?

Aw fuck not this topic again. How many times are we gonna go over this fecking subject. NO ship designer is gonna be so fucking stupid to put vital system in such a vunerable place. Yet from where they are they are perfect for sensors. The X-Wing books got that stupid shield generators idea from the Tie and X-Wing games and we all know how well Game Techincals are thought off, I.E. bottom of the ladder.

Lord Edam wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote: Obviously the photograph has been labeled afterwards (by some WEG-influenced hack) not by the guy who made that photo during the construction of the model. Thus, the point stands.

It's only obvious if you accept non-sanctioned Mandel fan-art as evidence. If you don't accept this then the labelling was done by someone who knew what was really being worked on.

If you don't want to accept the blueprints we still have this quote from the Bacta War:
pg. 321: They flitted over the massive ship's surface, shooting concussion missiles at gunnery towers and sensor domes.

The point still stands.

Cpt_Frank wrote: If you don't want to accept the blueprints we still have this quote from the Bacta War:
pg. 321: They flitted over the massive ship's surface, shooting concussion missiles at gunnery towers and sensor domes.

The point still stands.

The point would stand if you could prove that quote was refering to the globes on top of the tower and not, say, a sensor dome located near a gun somewhere on the main hull.

As it is, your quote demonstrates that there are sensor domes on an ISD - not what the domes onthe bridge are for.

Lord Edam wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote: If you don't want to accept the blueprints we still have this quote from the Bacta War:
pg. 321: They flitted over the massive ship's surface, shooting concussion missiles at gunnery towers and sensor domes.

The point still stands.

The point would stand if you could prove that quote was refering to the globes on top of the tower and not, say, a sensor dome located near a gun somewhere on the main hull.

As it is, your quote demonstrates that there are sensor domes on an ISD - not what the domes onthe bridge are for.

The only domes visible are the ones on the bridge. Close-ups of ISDs and examinations of the model reveal no other domes whatsoever. The gun turrets we see don't have domes either.

Exonerate wrote:Everything hardly matters, because you would have to get through the shields before taking out the dome... right?

In terms of Vs debates it makes no real difference - the shields have to be down before the domes can be destroyed. The problem is, you have the pro-wars people desperate to claim they aren't shield domes because they see it as a weakness they need to remove (forgetting the shields need to be down before the domes are destroyed), whilst the anti-wars side are desperate to claim they are shield domes, because they see it as a weakness they can exploit (forgetting the shields need to be down before the domes are destroyed)

but this isn't the Vs forum - it could have some relevance for Lord Poe's amp an ISD project or other un-thought-of pure SW topics.

Cpt_Frank wrote:

Lord Edam wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote: If you don't want to accept the blueprints we still have this quote from the Bacta War:
pg. 321: They flitted over the massive ship's surface, shooting concussion missiles at gunnery towers and sensor domes.

As it is, your quote demonstrates that there are sensor domes on an ISD - not what the domes onthe bridge are for.

The only domes visible are the ones on the bridge. Close-ups of ISDs and examinations of the model reveal no other domes whatsoever. The gun turrets we see don't have domes either.

Some snippage, just to leave what we are discussing in.

I think you've simply lifted this quote from somewhere else, haven't you? ?

unfortunately for you, wherever you've taken it from has forgotten to include the sentence immediately before the one you quote

"Fast and nimble, Pash's A-wings slashed in at the Lusankya. they flitted over the massive ship's surface, shooting concussion missiles at gunnery towers and sensor domes" - The Bacta War, P321 (pb)

I'm sure you're already aware of the fact, but just incase I should point out that the Lusankya is infact a Super Star Destroyer, sister ship of the Executor of RotJ fame.

We should point out that Edam (in his typically brilliant manner) decided to ask Mandel himself on the canonicity of the charts, but never consulted LFL.

Hey Einstein, did it slip your mind that LFL (unless overriden by Lucas in a direct manner) decides canon/official policy for SW?

Yes folks, this is "Typical" of Lord Edam's exhaustive analytical method. We may all laugh at him and his pathetic excuse for a site now.

Connor MacLeod wrote:We should point out that Edam (in his typically brilliant manner) decided to ask Mandel himself on the canonicity of the charts, but never consulted LFL.

Hey Einstein, did it slip your mind that LFL (unless overriden by Lucas in a direct manner) decides canon/official policy for SW?

Mandel says he did the pictures for fun - they were not sanctioned by LFL.

until LFL say otherwise, they are no more canon than any other fan-based work based on Star Wars, of which there is a lot available.

what should we do, assume they are canon, because LFL haven't said they aren't? Or assume they are, as the artist said, just fan art and treat them as such until LFL say otherwise?

Lord Edam wrote:
Mandel says he did the pictures for fun - they were not sanctioned by LFL.

Why? Because Mandel said so? Wow, there's irrefutable proof.

<For that matter, why should we assume the email is even valid? ITs hardly like you have a record for accuracy or honesty where Star Wars is concerned. You certainly tried pulling enough BS in the BDZ debate, for example.>

until LFL say otherwise, they are no more canon than any other fan-based work based on Star Wars, of which there is a lot available.

So they're fanfic? You have proof that these weren't published materials, and that Saxton just pulled whatever was convenient off the net? Or maybe you're accusing Saxton of some dishonesty? Please be direct here, because I do intend to ask him about those blueprints. And I hope you have more proof than an email.

what should we do, assume they are canon, because LFL haven't said they aren't? Or assume they are, as the artist said, just fan art and treat them as such until LFL say otherwise?

I'm assuming you pull your head out of your ass for once without us having to resort to acts of God. Faint hope there, but one tries.

Another point of interest.. many of the Essential guides, BTM, and evne the SWTJ call them "domes", yet they're clearly globes. Since when is a globe called a dome??

Lord Edam wrote:
I'm sure you're already aware of the fact, but just incase I should point out that the Lusankya is infact a Super Star Destroyer, sister ship of the Executor of RotJ fame.

It's irrelevant on the Executor studio model there aren't any other globes either except for those on the conning tower, but you claim that there are others which we don't see. Back it up.

EDIT:
Oh and btw you can find pics of the model here:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exhibit/executor.html

Cpt_Frank wrote: It's irrelevant on the Executor studio model there aren't any other globes either except for those on the conning tower, but you claim that there are others which we don't see. Back it up.

EDIT:
Oh and btw you can find pics of the model here:
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exhibit/executor.html

I see 6 globes here: http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... ecutor.jpg

IMO, this supports the idea of the globes being sensors. If they were shield generators, losing only 1 out of 8 probably wouldn't matter much. It would also make sense for a command ship like the Executor to have extra sensors.

It even matches that Bacta War quote.

I only see two additional ones behind the conning tower.

Cpt_Frank wrote:I only see two additional ones behind the conning tower.

I can see 4 ... they're there for sure.

Vympel wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote:I only see two additional ones behind the conning tower.

I can see 4 ... they're there for sure.

Of course that can be used as argument against the shield generator people since there's a good reason for the Exies to have more sensors since they function as command ships.

Connor MacLeod wrote: Why? Because Mandel said so? Wow, there's irrefutable proof.

The artist should know whether or not he had permission to do the pictures, so yes, because the artist said so.

For that matter, why should we assume the email is even valid?

Because you can ask him yourself.

http://www.artist816.org/graphics/gfx_m.html

So they're fanfic?

No, fanart.

You have proof that these weren't published materials, and that Saxton just pulled whatever was convenient off the net?

No, I don't. Of course, I could take the alternative track with this - if you want to use the Mandel blueprints, prove they are sanctioned by Lucasfilm (whether you realise it or not you are asking me to prove the blueprints are not canon, ie prove a negative. You should know better than that)

Or maybe you're accusing Saxton of some dishonesty? Please be direct here, because I do intend to ask him about those blueprints.

I am not and have never accused saxton of dishonesty for using the Mandel blueprints, and fail to see how anything I have posted here would make you think that.

I forwarded a copy of Mandel's e-mail to Saxton when I received it so that he could decide himself what to do. Wayne Poe also mentioned it to him, and posted his response on SB.com. Dr Saxton says the plans came in packaging acknowledging LFL intellectual ownership - but then, Conquest and Portal both acknowledge LFL/Paramount intellectual ownership, but are far from canon. Neither are the movies and pictures from SpaceBattles, which similarly acknowledge intellectual ownership.(link)

Cpt_Frank wrote:
It's irrelevant on the Executor studio model there aren't any other globes either except for those on the conning tower, but you claim that there are others which we don't see. Back it up.

you assume the sensor domes would be large enough to show as anything more than pinpricks on the model. Why?

from http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... ecutor.jpg we can see the model you just linked to is maybe 2m long at most. Given the true size of the SSD is 17,000m this is about 0.1mm per metre - there could be globes 10m high that would not be visible in the photgraphs you linked to.

Lord Edam wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote:
It's irrelevant on the Executor studio model there aren't any other globes either except for those on the conning tower, but you claim that there are others which we don't see. Back it up.

you assume the sensor domes would be large enough to show as anything more than pinpricks on the model. Why?

from http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... ecutor.jpg we can see the model you just linked to is maybe 2m long at most. Given the true size of the SSD is 17,000m this is about 0.1mm per metre - there could be globes 10m high that would not be visible in the photgraphs you linked to.

You still need to provide evidence.
1. We see domes on the bridge and similar ones behind it.
2. The quote speaks of 'sensor domes' located on the hull.
3. You claim the domes we actually see aren't the sensors from the quote, but there are others which we don't see which are the sensors. Please back it up.

Cpt_Frank wrote: You still need to provide evidence.

Evidence has already been provided, both in this thread and in the previous threads I linked to.

The domes on top of the bridge towers of ISDs and SSDs are repeatedly described as part of the shield system you provided a quote that talks about sensor domes but doesn't say where they are. You assume this makes the domes on top of the bridge tower sensor domes, in direct contradiction with many official descriptions even though you have provided no evidence to support this assumption

1. We see domes on the bridge and similar ones behind it.
2. The quote speaks of 'sensor domes' located on the hull.
3. You claim the domes we actually see aren't the sensors from the quote, but there are others which we don't see which are the sensors. Please back it up.

No need. After the domes on the bridge tower, the other domes could all be sensors, all be shields, or be a mixture of both. your interpretation of hte quote seems to be that all domes are sensors - this is neither needed nor possible by current evidence.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Another point of interest.. many of the Essential guides, BTM, and evne the SWTJ call them "domes", yet they're clearly globes. Since when is a globe called a dome??

when all else fails appeal to semantics, eh, connor?

dome: rounded roof with a circular base. The domes on SDs have a rounded roof, and the base is circular. Though domes are often hemispherical of semihemispherical they need not be, for example http://www.astrodomes.com/ has many images of domes that are more than hemispheres.

globe: spherical object, eg covers for lights

Clearly, many globes are also domes.

In this case, both descriptions would fit.

oh well, there goes your semantic out.

Lord Edam wrote:
No need. After the domes on the bridge tower, the other domes could all be sensors, all be shields, or be a mixture of both. your interpretation of hte quote seems to be that all domes are sensors - this is neither needed nor possible by current evidence.

Wrong, it's you who makes the unsupported assumption.
My explanation of the quote adds no unknowns to the theory, yours however requires there to be other globes which we don't see.

Cpt_Frank wrote: Wrong, it's you who makes the unsupported assumption.

your quote from The Bacta War does not say the domes on top of the bridge tower are sensor domes. It doesn't say where the domes the A-wings are attacking are located, or how large they are.

We can either take your explanation, that the quote shows the domes on top of the bridge tower are sensor domes and accept the contradictions with other official evidence already given, or we can take my explanation, that the sensor domes being attacked by the A-wings are not the ones on top of the bridge which fits both the quote from The Bacta War and the other official evidence already given.

which do we accept? An explanation that fits all the facts, or an explanation that creates contradictions with some of the facts?

My explanation of the quote adds no unknowns to the theory, yours however requires there to be other globes which we don't see.

There could be domes that are impossible to see due to scale, there could be domes that we do not see because there are no images from that side of the ship, your quote could even be refering to the domes we do see that are not on the bridge tower - none of this changes the fact that your explanation causes direct needless contradiction with official evidence, unlike mine.

Lord Edam wrote:

Cpt_Frank wrote: Wrong, it's you who makes the unsupported assumption.

your quote from The Bacta War does not say the domes on top of the bridge tower are sensor domes. It doesn't say where the domes the A-wings are attacking are located, or how large they are.

We can either take your explanation, that the quote shows the domes on top of the bridge tower are sensor domes and accept the contradictions with other official evidence already given, or we can take my explanation, that the sensor domes being attacked by the A-wings are not the ones on top of the bridge which fits both the quote from The Bacta War and the other official evidence already given.

Your explanation does contradict official evidence, Mandell's blueprints.
Those were official and nobody said that they were not, except for Mandell himself who actually can't decide on that matter.

You need to show proof that there are other globes on the model except for those on the conning tower and those behind it.
Otherwise you theory contains more unknowns than mine and is as such supposed to be less valid.

Ok during the last few posts we just kept on repeating our arguments and this debate isn't going anywere in it's current state, it all depends if the Mandell blueprints are official or not.