Kane Starkiller wrote:Mr. Oragahn wrote:Oh, there are examples. Like the LLAT shields. Basically, an assault troop transport. Let's see... weren't there any megaton shielding claims around?
Let's see what destroys a LAAT... geonosian fighters.
Let's look at their firepower... ah, yes.
Kicks sand puffs off dunes, and create small sparkles and sub-grenade explosions when hitting rock walls.
POint is, for all the yields claimed in the ICS, every single time they can be verified in the films, they are shown wrong. That also applies to the Slave-I weapons.
Megaton shielding for LAAT in ICS? I am not aware of any such claims.
Between claims about megaton shielding for the Millenium Falcon, and often touted fighter kiloton firepower (laser cannons), any troop transport with less of a shield able to withstand several shots of that calibre would be stupidly pointless.
Of course, the film has shown that the yields and shields need not to be so high. A troop transport shot down by very low yields bolts is enough to dispute all those absurd claims, simply because if such a standard top notch army transport have such limited shields, and still hold on for a couple of minutes against peashooters, it just means that all other weapons of similar crafts can't be orders of magnitudes higher than the firepower demonstrated by geonosian fighters.
And since we know that one of the classical methods to guess firepowers is to scale yields according to artillery size and so forth, it would severely put a cap on the yields of bigger ships, especially mass produced ships, military or not.
Mr. Oraghan wrote:No. The right question is any evidence that all the hull was damaged?
Wrong. We have just seen the ship in heavy exchange of fire. If you wish to use it as benchmark for how capital ships handle atmospheric entry then you better provide evidence that the fire exchange we all witnessed didn't damage it sufficiently to throw the results off.
Nope. Your mission is to prove that all of the bits that were either crushed during the landing, or which were stripped off the ship during the reentry, were previously hit.
We've seen that not all of the ship was hit by the previous fire exchange.
By default, the hull should be considered structurally intact, until it's been proven it's been damaged. It wouldn't be correct to assume the contrary.
Mr. Oraghan wrote:Controlled reentry, ffs. Even the NASA can manage a controlled reentry.
Not with ships the size and shape of a TIE.
What do you mean, exactly? Are you saying that TIEs can withstand uncontrolled reentry?
At the speed which they're flying at, hitting the atmosphere of a planet could very well be like hitting a brick wall.
Oh I'm sure many state that numbers are incorrect but they don't actually explain or prove where and how they are incorrect. Other than the usual "I didn't see it in the films!" but then if you need to see everything in the films then it's not exactly EXPANDED universe but RESTATED universe or something and I don't see why anyone would give money for that.
Actually, I concur that it's a problem that there's no real index available that points to all the webpages and forum threads were the figures are disputed, documented and debunked.
We keep saying it's been done, and I know it's been done, but to do so, we always have to point to links, and find them. Not all of these discussions or rebuttals can be found on webpages.
I've seen them here and there, they're sound, but one of their main tactic to dispute/ignore them is simply to point to their lack of existence, or organisation, along other methods like simple denial of the results.
For example, I could ask anyone where the Slave-I's seismic charge yield was adressed. We know it's been done *somewhere*.
Only a few remember where.
Same for the ship's missiles for example.
A good way to present a solid front against the ICS wankery would simply be to assemble a page that lists all sources which adress these numbers and the elements which pertain to these questions, notably those which help to judge the validity and methods used to obtain such numbers.
There's like a massive archiving job to do there, going back to 2002-2003 I think. The stuff's spread over Spacebattles.com, st-v-sw.net, SFJ.net, on forums and many other places.
- Directly analyse the presented figures and theories (the way how TLs or shields work, the babble about neutrinos to excuse the absurd yields), deal with them one by one, by confronting them with canon evidence, and show how they're wrong. This requires looking at the ICS themselves, and pulling the info out of it, quote by quote.
- Adress each, single, behind-the-scene pillar which supposedly supports these numbers. This can go from examples which, though undirectly related to the ICS, point to the Saxton-Wong club's habits to exagerate figures. Looking at SD.net's pages, threads, and Saxton's site would already be a lot. Spacebattles is probably a very good source to find, at least, examples of bad argumentation to support those numbers as well.
This can go as far as literally adressing the whole Base Delta Zero, or the Superlaser and adress the idea that it's a just a turbolaser on steroids.
There's also all the Solo/Dodonna quotes. We know it would be stupid to exclude the surface defenses from the briefing, but it may not be that clear to everyone.
- List all the EU elements which support more reasonnable yields. I think it's very simple. One of the main reasons certain EU-philes only use the ICS figures, is apparently because they are more detailed and more numerous than anything else that could be found in the whole EU lore. But I'm firmly convinced of the contrary.
This would mainly serve to point out the immense cherry picking these guys go through.
- Adress the completely made up myth that the material the ICS introduces is of superior value to any material from the EU, and not forget to mention that the EU is not necessarily canon to everyone, especially since an LFL official recognized the existence of two canons, one that completely ignores the EU.
- Check out the debating profiles and argumentation methods used by those who are behind those numbers, and their past records with the people who disagreed with them.
The Talifan controversy would be one of the major examples, just to point out how far these people can go.
Ultimately, this would not serve to convince those who crafted those ideas, theories and numbers, but that would be particularily useful to those who are new to this special kind of mixed fandom.