StarDestroyer.Net BBS

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:On the matter of the image Obi-Wan sees in the Archives, why do you assume that the other objects are merely "in the background?"

  • As you may have noticed if you had paid any attention to what I have written, I have not assumed that they are in the background.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:From a purely practical standpoint, such an image has to be artificial (you try sending a probe that far out from a galaxy just to take a picture. Hint: you wouldn't or couldn't). Since it is an artificial image/map, objects would not be included unless they were relevant or connected in some fashion to the primary object. Ergo, those two objects are either similar sized galaxies in a trinery system, or they are dwarf companion galaxies. Since the very first part of every film says "in a galaxy far far away..." (emphasis on the singular form) we can conclude that it is not a triple galactic system. Thus, they are dwarf companions, QED.

  • As we are seeing a map from a galaxy, we would need objective markers that shows us from which direction we are looking at the galaxy. The galaxies that appear to be in the background could be such markers.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Frankly, WAtch-Man, you're getting really irritating.

  • Frankly eTARNAL-fREEDOM - you're getting really irritating.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:You keep asking for evidence of every little thing.

  • Not really.
    
    I have only asked if there is canonical evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars Galaxy.
    
    But all you have done is coming with claims after claims without providing any evidence at all.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Let's be honest here. There is no "objective evidence" that you will accept.

  • I'll accept any evidence you provide. The problem is that you did not provided any evidence yet.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:We can only provide suppositions, logical inferences and extrapolations.

  • The problem with your suppositions, logical inferences and extrapolations is that you are making them to prove your point.
    You are not looking open-minded at the evidence and try to come to a conclusion.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:All of which are consistent with the Legends-era statements and maps of the SW galaxy being a) roughly Milky Way sized (I think the number tossed around was ~120 kly diameter) and b) a spiral galaxy.

  • That's exactly the problem. Your impression is tainted by the EU. You see what you want to see.
    But I want to know what really is there - as I have never read anything from the EU.
    I watch the movies without thinking that the Star Wars galaxy has to be a spiral galaxy bigger than the Milky Way.
    My impression was that it has to be a very small and dense galaxy.
    But I find that there is no evidence for either alternative at all.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Now, granted, the Legends material is no longer canon. However, in the old days it was only canon if it did not contradict the films. Since the galactic maps etc (and the presence of at least two dwarf companions) was considered canon, that means it did not contradict the films. Thus, there is nothing in the films to rule it out or expressly say the galaxy is smaller.

  • The movies has many gaps. The EU tried to fill that gaps.
    But that does not mean that - only because it is not contradicted by the movies - that what the EU invented is right.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:On a more important note, why do you really care about this? It's a rather odd thing to get so focused on unless you have some ulterior motive in wanting this "objective evidence."

  • I already replied this to Boeing 757:
    

    • • • • WATCH-MAN wrote:There is a saying: What I'm willing to do myself, I wouldn't put past others.
            
            You have shown your bias above.
            
            Maybe your goal is to keep the Star Wars galaxy as large as the EU says it is so that the speed of hyper drive is not lowered.
            
            That's why you are arguing that the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way - whereas I'm arguing nothing but am only looking for objective evidence.
            
            If the objective evidence supports the claim that the Star Wars galaxy is at least as big as the Milky Way, I can live with it.
            
            If the objective evidence proves that the Star Wars galaxy is far smaller, I can live with it too.
            
            It there is no objective evidence, I can live with the uncertainty too.

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:He's not asking for a summary you blithering idiot, he wants to know what the point of the thread is

  • And if he had read the posts of that thread, he would know what the purpose of that thread is.
    
    Am I supposed to state for each and everyone who wants to participate in that thread again what the purpose of that thread is?

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:[...] and why you seem to care about it so much!

  • "Blithering idiot"is good coming from you.
    
    His sentence, to which I replied, was:
    

    • • • • Simon_Jester wrote:WATCH-MAN, exactly what IS the purpose of this thread that I have allegedly missed? I feel that I have a right to an explanation.

    He did not ask why I seem to care about it so much.
    
    That's what you asked me.
    
    But it seems that you are even incapable to hold apart your own thoughts from what others have written.
    
    It shows how you are reading confirmations for your own thoughts and preconceptions into what others have written.
    
    And it seems to be the same with Star Wars. When you are watching it you are only seeing confirmations for your own thoughts and preconceptions.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Since every one of his points was mad in response to your original post, you should at least respond to them rather than blithely ignoring them like you have so many others!

  • Now I wonder if you have understood the purpose of that thread.
    
    Let me repeat to you what I wrote as it seems you have forgotten it already:
    

    • • • • WATCH-MAN wrote:I do not want to debate if the impression I have been left with after watching the movies is right.
            
            I do not want to debate if it is possible that the Star Wars galaxy could be so small and dense - as science fiction movies do show things that should be impossible according to our astrophysical understanding.
            
            What I want is that you answer the two questions:
            

            • • • • Which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?
                    
                    Which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Republic or the Empire in the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?

            and
            

            WATCH-MAN wrote:I know that the EU has provided us with the explanation that the Millennium Falcon has a backup hyper drive.
            
            But I only know it since I visited that board.
            
            That was never what I thought when watching the movies.
            
            And nobody else I know thought this. Everybody I know had more or less the same impression from the Star Wars movies.
            
            Yes - we all know that this is ludicrous as it should be impossible.
            
            But that was what we thought the movie is showing us.
            
            If there were a backup-hyper drive or if they had somehow bodged their hyper drive into sort of working, we had expected that it would have been mentioned. It wasn't mentioned.
            
            According to the movie, the hyper drive of the Millennium Falcon did not work and yet they have flown from Hoth to Anoat to Bespin.
            
            Why I do not want to discuss this impression is, that I have difficulties believing that someone had another impression when first watching that movie. I have even difficulties believing that most of the audience even noticed that it should be impossible to fly through three star systems without faster than light speeds in an acceptable time frame. I can imagine that many only have started to consider this problem after reading about it in the EU or e.g. on this board. And usually the alternative explanation would have been provided at the same time - as e.g. on this board such a problem isn't addressed without anyone coming at once and providing an alternative explanation.
            
            The problem is that nobody who claims that his impression when watching the movie was at once that the Millennium Falcon had to have a hyper drive, can provide evidence for this claim.
            
            At this board, most peoples impression of the movies now is probably tainted by the influence of the EU.
            
            That's why a honest debate about the impression of the movie alone is nearly impossible to conduct.

It is not enough to show that from the perspective of the camera his finger was in front of what appears to be a galaxy in the background. You have to provide evidence that from his perspective, he was pointing to it, that if you would elongate his finger, the tip would touch the display exactly where the galaxy is.

If you want to claim that at the end of Episode VI the Star Wars galaxy was seen and thus the Rebel fleet had to be outside of the galaxy, I expect you to provide evidence that what was seen was indeed a galaxy. According to Curtis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics, it can't be a galaxy

But if you look at the following image, you will notice that you can see far more stars and that the distance between the stars do not seem to be so far away from each other as in the first image.

WATCH-MAN wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:On the matter of the image Obi-Wan sees in the Archives, why do you assume that the other objects are merely "in the background?"

As you may have noticed if you had paid any attention to what I have written, I have not assumed that they are in the background.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:From a purely practical standpoint, such an image has to be artificial (you try sending a probe that far out from a galaxy just to take a picture. Hint: you wouldn't or couldn't). Since it is an artificial image/map, objects would not be included unless they were relevant or connected in some fashion to the primary object. Ergo, those two objects are either similar sized galaxies in a trinery system, or they are dwarf companion galaxies. Since the very first part of every film says "in a galaxy far far away..." (emphasis on the singular form) we can conclude that it is not a triple galactic system. Thus, they are dwarf companions, QED.

As we are seeing a map from a galaxy, we would need objective markers that shows us from which direction we are looking at the galaxy. The galaxies that appear to be in the background could be such markers.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:You keep asking for evidence of every little thing.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Let's be honest here. There is no "objective evidence" that you will accept.

I'll accept any evidence you provide. The problem is that you did not provided any evidence yet.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:We can only provide suppositions, logical inferences and extrapolations.

The problem with your suppositions, logical inferences and extrapolations is that you are making them to prove your point.
You are not looking open-minded at the evidence and try to come to a conclusion.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:All of which are consistent with the Legends-era statements and maps of the SW galaxy being a) roughly Milky Way sized (I think the number tossed around was ~120 kly diameter) and b) a spiral galaxy.

That's exactly the problem. Your impression is tainted by the EU. You see what you want to see.
But I want to know what really is there - as I have never read anything from the EU.
I watch the movies without thinking that the Star Wars galaxy has to be a spiral galaxy bigger than the Milky Way.
My impression was that it has to be a very small and dense galaxy.
But I find that there is no evidence for either alternative at all.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Now, granted, the Legends material is no longer canon. However, in the old days it was only canon if it did not contradict the films. Since the galactic maps etc (and the presence of at least two dwarf companions) was considered canon, that means it did not contradict the films. Thus, there is nothing in the films to rule it out or expressly say the galaxy is smaller.

The movies has many gaps. The EU tried to fill that gaps.
But that does not mean that - only because it is not contradicted by the movies - that what the EU invented is right.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:On a more important note, why do you really care about this? It's a rather odd thing to get so focused on unless you have some ulterior motive in wanting this "objective evidence."

I already replied this to Boeing 757:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

WATCH-MAN wrote:It is not enough to show that from the perspective of the camera his finger was in front of what appears to be a galaxy in the background. You have to provide evidence that from his perspective, he was pointing to it, that if you would elongate his finger, the tip would touch the display exactly where the galaxy is.

The possible deviations are too small to make a difference. Go learn basic geometry. His visual perspective could be anything but perpendicular to our visual perspective (which it is not, given that from our point of view we are right next to his head), and the deviation would be so small it does not matter given his finger's apparent distance from the screen. He is all but touching the screen, unless you want to claim that space time between Obi Wan and the screen somehow distorts between shots.

• Please provide evidence that his finger is all but touching the screen or that there are several shots between which the distance could change.
  
  It is one scene without any breaks or any movements of the camera or the screen to which Obi Wan points.
  
  I'm very interested to see you image analysis.
  
  • • • • Annotation:
          
          • • • • I have my netbook in front of me.
                  
                  It's display is round about 26 cm broad.
                  
                  The distance between the screen and my eyes is round about 60 cm.
                  
                  Stretching out my arm and pointing with my finger, the distance between the tip of my finger and the screen is round about 5 cm.
                  
                  Now shaking my head, it seems as if the finger wanders over the display for at least 5 cm.
                  
                  Bending my arm and thus enlarging the distance between the tip of my finger and the display to 10 cm, the finger seems to wander over the screen for 10 cm.
                  
                  That's more than a third of the display.
                  
                  And by shaking with my head, my eyes wander only about 20 cm. To reach the position of the eyes of Obi Wan, the camera would have to shift far more.
                  
                  My basic geometry knowledge - supported by observations - says that the seemingly shift of the tip of the finger in front of the screen when changing the perspective of the observer depends primarily on the distance of the finger from the scree. The greater this distance the greater the shift will appear.
                  
                  But if one wants to claim that the tip of the finger of Obi Wan is all but touching the display, he has to provide evidence for it.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

WATCH-MAN wrote:If you want to claim that at the end of Episode VI the Star Wars galaxy was seen and thus the Rebel fleet had to be outside of the galaxy, I expect you to provide evidence that what was seen was indeed a galaxy. According to Curtis Saxton, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics, it can't be a galaxy

The DVD commentary, which absolutely is cannon and indicates the actual intent of the production staff, plainly indicates that it is intended to be a Galaxy.

• Several claims without any evidence in one sentence.
  
  Please provide evidence that the DVD commentary is canon.
  
  As I do not have a Star Wars DVD, please provide evidence that "the actual intent of the production staff, plainly indicates that it is intended to be a Galaxy."
  
  Since when is the author's intent deciding? What's with the documentary approach?

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Visual Effects errors and physics failures not withstanding.

• Now you are trying to ignore evidence you do not like.
  
  With that argumentation we can dismiss all we are seeing in space as all is only FX.
  
  Or are we cherry picking? What supports our view is admissible and what contradicts our view has to be an FX error?

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Unless you want to claim that sound travels through some sort of acoustic ether in the vacuum of space in the star wars universe as well.

• Why should I claim this?

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

WATCH-MAN wrote:But if you look at the following image, you will notice that you can see far more stars and that the distance between the stars do not seem to be so far away from each other as in the first image.

1. The image of earth is taken in broad daylight, when the sun washes out most stars
2. The image of the death star was taken at dusk, when the sun washes out fewer stars

Your photo choice is deliberately dishonest.

As for the photo of the Milky Way disk from orbit, that takes up a relatively small portion of the sky.

• As you may have noticed, if you had read through all posts of this thread, I have provided other images too - even images in which a sun was to be seen directly.
  
  • • • • 
          
          
          • • • • 1:47 - 1:58
  More daylight isn't possible. And yet we are able to see far more stars with a far greater density as we are seeing from Earth orbit - when not looking into the direction of the Milky Way.
  
  But that was already said in that thread. It seems you are too lazy to read the posts and consider what was already said - all the arguments and objections. Otherwise you would have know that this image and video was already provided as evidence.
  
  But feel free to provide any images and videos yourself.
  
  After all it's not my task to disprove your claims.

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:So are you willing to accept reasons for why those objects are not merely background objects?

  • Of course.
    
    I have no real opinion about the location of this galaxies.
    
    They can be super large galaxies in the background - far far away.
    
    They can be small galaxies in the background but still in the vicinity of the galaxy depicted in the middle of the screen.
    
    They can be even smaller galaxies in the foreground of the galaxy depicted in the middle of the screen.
    
    I can not decide it as all I'm seeing is an artificial depiction of a three dimensional space on a two dimensional screen.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Something that could be far more simply achieved by adding an x/y axis or similar markers. Using one specific image, from one probe sent out far enough to capture that one image is a very convoluted way to go about it. It would be simpler to use something other than background objects.

  • Not really as a an x/y axis isn't really there in the galaxy.
    
    Taking markers that are really there ensures that everyone who looks at the map knows at once where north and where south is.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Curiously though, you are now saying that the galaxies appear to be in the background,

  • Yes - and?

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:and that they are being used as the galactic equivalent of magnetic north.

  • Yes - as otherwise it wouldn't make sense for Obi Wan to say that something is south of something.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:That's a rather odd jump in logic is it not?

  • Why is it supposed to by?

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:And only just above you said you'd never claimed they're background objects!

  • I have never claimed that the are background objects.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Um, every time someone brings up a point that can be reasonably deduced from what we see you jump in with "please provide evidence." Hence why I say you ask for evidence of everything. Now who is being dishonest?

  • The problem is that they are appear reasonable to you because you know the EU.
    
    But try to imagine how it is for someone who has only watched the movies and does not know the EU.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:I shoudl have phrased that better. Nothing we can provide is what you will accept as evidence, short of a main character announcing on-screen "the galaxy is x light-years across and is a spiral/barred spiral galaxy with two/three/seven dwarf companions." As we all know, there is no such line, or anything even close to it.

  • I do not exclude any evidence.
    
    But you have not provided any evidence. You have - as you say it yourself - only provided deductions that seem to make sense to you as you know the EU and your deduction prove that the EU is correct. Your approach is your mistake. You are unable to forget the EU.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Now that I think about it, are the ICS books still accepted as canon? Because the ROTS book has an entry on the Munificent-class frigate that states that the particular example featured was built at a remote (and secret) installation halfway between the galaxy and it's nearest dwarf companion galaxy.

  • As far as I know that aren't considered canon any more.
    
    But this is again evidence for you not looking for evidence -regardless what it proves - but only for evidence that proves your own thoughts and preconceptions.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Are you looking at this in an open-minded fashion? I looked at the films and saw no reason not to assume the SW galaxy was anything other than broadly similar to the Milky Way. If you wish to argue otherwise, be my guest, but I will expect lots of purely objective evidence from you if you do.

  • Okay
    
    I'll take that bait.
    
    You have now claimed that when you looked at the films, you saw no reason not to assume the SW galaxy was anything other than broadly similar to the Milky Way.
    
    Please provide evidence for that claim.
    
    Please provide evidence that you thought about it at all.
    
    No, you have not to provide such evidence - as this would be absurd. But that's exactly why I do not want to discuss your impression.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:You admit that there is no evidence either way. Fine. Do you have any evidence to specifically disprove the Legends-era assertions as to galactic size and morphology? That would be no, since you admitted there was no evidence either way. Since the Legends material was canon and nothing so far disproves it there is no reason to dismiss it.

  • Excuse me?
    
    Since when do I have to disprove something that isn't even canon?
    
    As I have said: The movies has many gaps. The EU tried to fill that gaps. But that does not mean that - only because it is not contradicted by the movies - that what the EU invented is right.
    
    I could as well claim that Han Solo was on the toilet before coming into the main hold and boasting again.
    
    Please disprove it.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:If the material was accepted by the Lucasfilm Story Group (or whatever the group headed by Leland Chee was called) prior to the Disney takeover then by definition it was right. They decided what is canon, they accepted the various works including galactic maps showing a large spiral galaxy. Ergo, that was the truth as far as the SW universe is concerned. They accepted it as canon because it did not contradict the movies. Thus nothing in the new, films/tv shows only canon disputes those maps and statements.

  • That it was accepted shows only that it did not contradict the movies.
    
    Now it isn't accepted as canon any more.
    
    It still may not contradict the movies as Han's visit to the toilet isn't contradicted by the movie.
    
    But that doesn't make it right.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:And I will note that you didn't actually answer the question. You claim not to be arguing anything, yet your entire original post was outlining why you thought the SW galaxy was smaller and/or denser than we might expect. You ask for evidence on the size and morphology and yet freely admit there is no such evidence.
  
  Once again, what are you trying to do here?

  • You mean you didn't liked my answer as you can not imagine that I'm only asking you for evidence regarding the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars galaxy.
    
    And I have never admitted that there is no such evidence.
    
    If that is what you think, state it and leave that thread as you have nothing to contribute to it any more.
    
    But do not put your thoughts into my mouth.

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:All right then WATCH-MAN. You say the purpose of the thread is to establish what evidence we have for the size and morphology of the SW galaxy. Both you and I have admitted and agreed no such evidence exists beyond material that is no longer canon (but once was, and high-tier canon as well) and reasonable inferences.
  
  So there is no evidence. So your thread is done. Bye-bye.

  • I have not agreed with you that there is no such evidence.
    
    If that is what you think, state it and leave that thread as you have nothing to contribute to it any more.
    
    But do not put your thoughts into my mouth.

• Alyrium Denryle wrote:He is trolling. We have been through this argument in another thread, using the exact same arguments, and just broken-records over and over again.

  • Broken record is good.
    
    That's exactly the impression one could get if every new participant is too lazy to read what was already written - to take note of all exchanged arguments and objections - and thinks he can begin at the start again by repeating what was already refuted.

WATCH-MAN wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:All right then WATCH-MAN. You say the purpose of the thread is to establish what evidence we have for the size and morphology of the SW galaxy. Both you and I have admitted and agreed no such evidence exists beyond material that is no longer canon (but once was, and high-tier canon as well) and reasonable inferences.

So there is no evidence. So your thread is done. Bye-bye.

I have not agreed with you that there is no such evidence.

If that is what you think, state it and leave that thread as you have nothing to contribute to it any more.

But do not put your thoughts into my mouth.

WATCH-MAN wrote:My impression was that it has to be a very small and dense galaxy.
But I find that there is no evidence for either alternative at all.

WATCH-MAN wrote:

Eternal_Freedom wrote:He's not asking for a summary you blithering idiot, he wants to know what the point of the thread is

And if he had read the posts of that thread, he would know what the purpose of that thread is.

He did not ask why I seem to care about it so much.

Now I wonder if you have understood the purpose of that thread.

Let me repeat to you what I wrote as it seems you have forgotten it already:

WATCH-MAN wrote:I do not want to debate if the impression I have been left with after watching the movies is right.

I do not want to debate if it is possible that the Star Wars galaxy could be so small and dense - as science fiction movies do show things that should be impossible according to our astrophysical understanding.

What I want is that you answer the two questions:

-Which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?
-Which evidence for the morphology and dimension of the Republic or the Empire in the Star Wars Galaxy do we still have?

Alyrium Denryle wrote:He is trolling. We have been through this argument in another thread, using the exact same arguments, and just broken-records over and over again.

WATCH-MAN wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:He is trolling. We have been through this argument in another thread, using the exact same arguments, and just broken-records over and over again.

Broken record is good.

That's exactly the impression one could get if every new participant is too lazy to read what was already written - to take note of all exchanged arguments and objections - and thinks he can begin at the start again by repeating what was already refuted.

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:Bullshit. this post, at the top of this very page, seventh quote down:
  

  WATCH-MAN wrote:My impression was that it has to be a very small and dense galaxy.
  But I find that there is no evidence for either alternative at all.

  Right there, in your own damn words, you say you can find no evidence for either alternative at all. You sir, are a lying trolling fuckwit.

  • Excuse me.
    
    My grammar may not have been correct.
    
    What I wanted to convey was that I am in the process of not finding any evidence - as you haven't provided any yet.
    
    But I still have the hope that maybe someone can provide any evidence.
    
    Otherwise, if I were really convinced that there is no such evidence, that thread would be pointless indeed.
    
    But your response shows that you come far to quickly to a conclusion without considering alternatives at all.
    
    It seems you are incapable of sensible considerations when your emotions are involved.
    
    And they seem to get involved each time something disagrees with your thoughts and preconceptions.
    
    That's a dangerous vicious circle

• Simon_Jester,
  
  I have not really read what you had written as the first thing you stated was that you haven't sorted through the posts of this thread.
  
  I have openly stated that I will not read what you have written.
  
  And now again I will not read what you have written when you do not start to sort through the posts of this thread.
  
  I will not address what you have written in your first post nor will I address what you have written in your last post.
  
  To quote you:
  
  • • • • I literally do not have the time right now to sort through everything
  said in your posts if you can not ensure me that you have considered all that was already said - all exchanged arguments and objections.
  
  It may be that I miss something with relevance.
  
  But then I have to life with it.
  
  I can not look into each and every thing only because I fear I could miss something interesting.

WATCH-MAN wrote:

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:Bullshit. this post, at the top of this very page, seventh quote down:
  

  WATCH-MAN wrote:My impression was that it has to be a very small and dense galaxy.
  But I find that there is no evidence for either alternative at all.

  Right there, in your own damn words, you say you can find no evidence for either alternative at all. You sir, are a lying trolling fuckwit.

  • Excuse me.
    
    My grammar may not have been correct.
    
    What I wanted to convey was that I am in the process of not finding any evidence - as you haven't provided any yet.
    
    But I still have the hope that maybe someone can provide any evidence.
    
    Otherwise, if I were really convinced that there is no such evidence, that thread would be pointless indeed.
    
    But your response shows that you come far to quickly to a conclusion without considering alternatives at all.
    
    It seems you are incapable of sensible considerations when your emotions are involved.
    
    And they seem to get involved each time something disagrees with your thoughts and preconceptions.
    
    That's a dangerous vicious circle

• Eternal_Freedom wrote:I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure that's a strawman/ad hominem fallacy is it not?

  • I agree - you are not an expert - at least not in debating - probably not in anything.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Regardless, you say quite clearly you find no evidence either way.

  • If you ignore what I wanted to say - and if my grammar was indeed wrong - you'd be right.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:Thus you claiming that you never said that was a lie, no?

  • That depends on how you define a lie.
    
    If a mistake is a lie, you'd be right.
    
    If a lie necessitate the intention to say something that is not true, you'd be wrong.
    
    As the Oxford Dictionary says that a lie is an intentionally false statement, it seems as you are wrong - again - quelle surprise.
    
    But again a good example of you coming to conclusions too fast without considering any alternatives and all available evidence.

  Eternal_Freedom wrote:You stated a purpose for the thread. That purpose has been achieved, you admit there was no evidence. Your trolling is done sir.

  • How can you claim that the purpose of the thread has been achieved?
    
    Someone could still come and do what you failed to do: provide evidence.
    
    Or are you so arrogant that you think that when you are unable to provide evidence - nobody could be able to provide it?

WATCH-MAN wrote:snip Alderaan trip

WATCH-MAN wrote:That's again the same as earlier. You make claims without providing any evidence.

But it is conspicuous that such an important event is supposed to have happened at such a peculiar region of the galaxy and that the Rebels decided to hide there

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Because WATCH-MAN is a trolling fuckwit with a bizarre grudge against SW technology being better than ST?

• Adamskywalker007 wrote:While it is likely they had lost the Empire earlier, Han was presumably being cautious and insuring that they had definitively lost them. The fact that he was double checking this indicate FTL sensors.

  • See, you are doing it again: You are elevating an assumption (Han was double checking) to a fact and than you claim that this proves that there are FTL sensors.
    
    But you have not provided any evidence that he was double checking at all.
    
    The only reason you gave why that could be was because - after Chewbacca, the co-pilot of the Millennium Falcon, Obi Wan, Luke, C3PO and R2D2 left the cockpit, started to relax and started to play a game of chess or started to train - Han entered the main hold and said: "Well, you can forget your troubles with those Imperial slugs. I told you I'd outrun 'em."
    
    If you really think that this is enough to prove unambiguous that he was occupied all the time with checking if the imperial ships are following them before he entered main hold and that this proves that they have to have FTL sensors ... well, we will never agree.

  Adamskywalker007 wrote:

  WATCH-MAN wrote:That's again the same as earlier. You make claims without providing any evidence.

  For fuck's sake, what would you accept as evidence?

  • I would accept evidence as evidence but not any claims.
    
    If you for example really think that this is enough to prove unambiguous that Han was occupied all the time with checking if the imperial ships are following them before he entered main hold and that this proves that they have to have FTL sensors ... we will never agree.

  Adamskywalker007 wrote:If you are not knowledgeable about SW canon, don't debate it. I'm not going to post episodes for you to watch. That is your problem.

  • I admit that your objection does not seem to be totally wrong - although I wouldn't go as far as to say that I am not knowledgeable about Star Wars canon. I have seen all movies and a few of the episodes of "The Clone Wars" and "Rebels" after all. I merely do not know each and every episodes of "The Clone Wars" and "Rebels" by heart - especially as I haven't watched the episodes I have seen nearly as often as I have watched the movies. Insofar I can only ask for your lenience that I can not answer to each and every claim you are making about these episodes -especially if your claims are as vague as they are.
    
    You do not have to post all the episodes you have mentioned. An excerpt of what exactly was said and a few images would be enough. If you can't do this, I'm afraid that you will have to live with me contesting your claims by pleading ignorance.
    
    The alternative would be that I spend hours and hours watching each episode you mentioned - maybe only to find out that not one single episode is showing what you claim. And I am not ready to do that.

  Adamskywalker007 wrote:

  But it is conspicuous that such an important event is supposed to have happened at such a peculiar region of the galaxy and that the Rebels decided to hide there

  True. Though I already indicated it is far more likely that the star destroyer than Han hitched a ride on took them somewhere else before they detached from it.

  • Maybe I have overseen this. But I could not find where you have indicated it. Please be so nice and give me a link to the post.
    
    But more important: I admit that it does not seem totally implausible that the Millennium Falcon hitched a ride from the Hoth system to the Anoat system. But nothing more as Han stated that they are in the Anoat system shortly before detaching from the Star Destroyer. And even than they still had to fly to Bespin.
    
    What speaks against it is that it is standard Imperial procedure to dump their garbage before they go to light-speed. That means that if the Star Destroyer would have flown from the Hoth system to the Anoat system with light-speed, it would have dumped already all their garbage. But then there shouldn't have been so much garbage when the Star Destroyer left the Anoat system.
    
    I mean how much garbage can a Star Destroyer produce in such a short time?
    
    I mean that was not only the usual waste. That war pretty big garbage - some parts even bigger than the Millennium Falcon itself.
    
    Although I do not know how long exactly the Millennium Falcon was attached to the hull of the Star Destroyer, I had not the impression that it was there for days or even longer. But I admit that time is always difficult to estimate in movies.

Adamskywalker007 wrote:Is it just me, or is WATCH-MAN treating this like a criminal trial in which he is the defense lawyer who gets to shove the burden of proof down our throats? His standard of evidence seems to be that unless we can conclusively prove that it must be one thing, then he gets to assume that it is the other.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:I also find it vaguely offensive that he keeps casting aspersions on my use of logic and what I consider reasonable deductions and suppositions.

Well, I would find it more annoying if he wasn't a trolling fuckwit.