---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 16:48:37 -0700 Subject: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- As always, enjoy! http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Strowbridge Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 01:33:34 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B5243B5.CA64B67D@home.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > As always, enjoy! > > http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html Makes sense, no one was at the main quad guns at the time. Maybe they can't be operated from the cockpit. Or maybe they can but at reduced accuracy. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jedi Knight Toren Depor Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 13:20:22 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B52E9F0.9080404@home.com> -------- > Makes sense, no one was at the main quad guns at the time. Maybe they > can't be operated from the cockpit. Or maybe they can but at reduced > accuracy. > > C.S.Strowbridge In The Courtship of Princess Leia, Han stated that although the quad-laser turrets could be operated from the cockpit, it would be at reduced accuracy. Luke was managing to kickass doing it due to his strength in the Force. -- Jedi Knight Toren Depor (aka Filmmaker Matt Pfingsten) E-Mail: jeditoren@home.com Phone: 360.281.7618 ICQ: JediToren, 69348681 AIM: JediToren The Matt Pfingsten Home Page: http://www.pfing.cjb.net Toren Depor's Jedi Temple: http://www.jeditoren.cjb.net --Links-- 24FPS.Com, filmmaking resources: http://www.24fps.com TheForce.Net, your daily dose of Star Wars: http://www.theforce.net Animation:Master, high-end 3D app: http://www.hash.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Strowbridge Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 23:01:00 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B537180.BEAF9FE9@home.com> -------- Jedi Knight Toren Depor wrote: > > Makes sense, no one was at the main quad guns at the time. Maybe they > > can't be operated from the cockpit. Or maybe they can but at reduced > > accuracy. > > In The Courtship of Princess Leia, Han stated that although the > quad-laser turrets could be operated from the cockpit, it would be at > reduced accuracy. Luke was managing to kickass doing it due to his > strength in the Force. Just checked it out and WEG agrees. I guess that's case closed. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Durandal Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 20:40:40 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B524617.890108C8@mac.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > As always, enjoy! > > http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html Solo could have also meant range for a sensor focus, to more accurately determine the origin of the ship. -- Damien Sorresso "You've been snipped, fuckwit." Me to Isil'Zha, allegedly, in Bjorn's story. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 19 Jul 2001 20:36:04 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107191936.4e9863fa@posting.google.com> -------- Durandal wrote in message news:<3B524617.890108C8@mac.com>... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > As always, enjoy! > > > > http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html > > Solo could have also meant range for a sensor focus, to more accurately > determine the origin of the ship. No he meant it was out of range. Beside there would be no need for that, Ben already ID the fighter as an Imperial Fighter. BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's very obvious) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:42:29 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 19 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference > between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and > the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an > appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's > very obvious) Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult intended.) -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:22:48 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jba7i$mjbvl$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >On 19 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > >> BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference >> between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and >> the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). > >The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill >is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on >Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage >point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. Actually, the pixel count reads 11, 16, and 16. I just repeated the measurement with another program. I could get 17 out of the middle pic, but no less. > >> If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an >> appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's >> very obvious) > >Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult >intended.) Leave him alone, jizz-breath. Perhaps if you weren't so blind, you wouldn't get so angry. I suggest you take his advice. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 22:56:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > >The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > >is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > >Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > >point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > Actually, the pixel count reads 11, 16, and 16. > > I just repeated the measurement with another program. I could get 17 out > of the middle pic, but no less. I just checked them with Brian Young. Guess who I'm going to believe? I note yet again, you have failed to deal with the vantage point argument. Concession Accepted. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 22 Jul 2001 02:24:22 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107220124.5eef866a@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > >The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > > >is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > > >Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > > >point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > > > Actually, the pixel count reads 11, 16, and 16. > > > > I just repeated the measurement with another program. I could get 17 out > > of the middle pic, but no less. > > I just checked them with Brian Young. Guess who I'm going to believe? > > I note yet again, you have failed to deal with the vantage point > argument. Concession Accepted. > What did Brian Young say? Do you have a copy of the conversation? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:38:15 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 22 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > I just checked them with Brian Young. Guess who I'm going to believe? > What did Brian Young say? Do you have a copy of the conversation? Yeah, I'll send it to you in e-mail. He pointed out that the page needed more fleshing out, and gave more examples of how to do this that I'll use in an update soon, such as Solo's hit on Vader's wingman, and how we don't see the Death Star curvature anywhere when the Falcon swoops around after the hit. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 29 Jul 2001 20:09:37 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107291909.63cd39fe@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On 22 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > > I just checked them with Brian Young. Guess who I'm going to believe? > > > What did Brian Young say? Do you have a copy of the conversation? > > Yeah, I'll send it to you in e-mail. He pointed out that the page > needed more fleshing out, and gave more examples of how to do this > that I'll use in an update soon, such as Solo's hit on Vader's > wingman, and how we don't see the Death Star curvature anywhere when > the Falcon swoops around after the hit. I always thought the Falcon used concussion missiles in that scene. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:39:52 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 29 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > I always thought the Falcon used concussion missiles in that scene. Eh? When Vader's ingman got blown away? No, watch the movie. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 30 Jul 2001 11:35:00 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107301034.34a6a099@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On 29 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > I always thought the Falcon used concussion missiles in that scene. > > Eh? When Vader's ingman got blown away? No, watch the movie. > Well, it has been a long time and I do feel like watching the Trilogy again. To me the bolts that hit the TIE seemed very much like the missiles the MF used when firing on the DSII reactor core. Though it has been a long time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:25:00 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jf8tp$o3jic$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> >The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill >> >is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on >> >Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage >> >point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > >> Actually, the pixel count reads 11, 16, and 16. >> >> I just repeated the measurement with another program. I could get 17 out >> of the middle pic, but no less. > >I just checked them with Brian Young. Guess who I'm going to believe? Wow, there is another person as blind as you? > >I note yet again, you have failed to deal with the vantage point >argument. Concession Accepted. > I have already dealt with it, Wayne. It is you who have failed to produce any reply to my trouncing of your laughable argument. Just how small do you think a TIE fighter is? It must be tiny if moving six feet toward it could make it appear half again as large. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 21 Jul 2001 01:20:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107210020.be25425@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On 19 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference > > between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and > > the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). > > The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. Your still wrong, canon supports it...and use your eyes the difference is obvious. > > If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an > > appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's > > very obvious) > > Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult > intended.) Go fuck yourself with a razor, you piece of shit. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 23:04:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 21 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > > On 19 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > > > BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference > > > between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and > > > the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). > > > > The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > > is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > > Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > > point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > Your still wrong, That should be "You're still wrong," > canon supports it...and use your eyes the difference is obvious. Canon visuals support what I've said above, yes. > > Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult > > intended.) > Go fuck yourself with a razor, you piece of shit. No, no, no. You don't simply repeat an insult that uses the same structure. What are you, Russian? You should have said something like, "I'll leave auto-erotic fantasies to you, and wonder why you'd fantasize about garden implements hanging out of my ass." -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 22 Jul 2001 02:23:15 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107220123.961d7d9@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On 21 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > > > On 19 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > > > > > BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference > > > > between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and > > > > the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). > > > > > > The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > > > is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > > > Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > > > point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > > > Your still wrong, > > That should be "You're still wrong," Opps, thanks for pointing that out...... > > canon supports it...and use your eyes the difference is obvious. > > Canon visuals support what I've said above, yes. I'm not convinced. You even said yourself that the pixel measurements from each picture are different going from small(TIE heading towards DS), larger(the two scenes where the TIE engaged the Falcon). You defend this by saying the some of the shots show the camera being farther away...well why do you include this into your measurements and then present your results. > > > Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult > > > intended.) > > > Go fuck yourself with a razor, you piece of shit. > > No, no, no. You don't simply repeat an insult that uses the same > structure. What are you, Russian? > > You should have said something like, "I'll leave auto-erotic > fantasies to you, and wonder why you'd fantasize about garden > implements hanging out of my ass." LOL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 08:46:37 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:42:29 -0700, Wayne Poe wrote: >> If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an >> appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's >> very obvious) > >Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult >intended.) LOLOL :D :D -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "There is something in the quality of a good translation that can never be captured in the original." - William Gibson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:27:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Kynes wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:42:29 -0700, Wayne Poe wrote: > >> If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an > >> appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's > >> very obvious) > >Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult > >intended.) > LOLOL :D :D Nothin' like a well structured insult! -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 21 Jul 2001 02:02:14 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107210102.5126fa93@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On 19 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > > BTW, I'm sorry wayne but the there is a significant size difference > > between the fighter that was stated to be out of range(smaller), and > > the other fighters that had engaged the Falcon(larger). > > The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > > > If you can't see this difference, you may want to schedule an > > appointment with your nearest eye doctor.(No insult intended, but it's > > very obvious) > > Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult > intended.) Ya know, I take back what I said before that is just hilarious..feeble minded work turd LOL. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:28:47 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 21 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > > Go fuck yourself with a rake, you feeble minded worm turd. (Insult > > intended.) > Ya know, I take back what I said before that is just hilarious..feeble > minded work turd LOL. See? We told you you'd have to hang around ASVS a while before you understand the place! Think of ASVS=real life just as WWF=real life! -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:08:55 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Wayne Poe > The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. Wayne, I think the only way to prove the TIE diving for the death star was closer than the ones in your alter images is to actually estimate the distance to each tie, which I'm sure you did do but others have tried to reproduce your work and failed. Rather than simply asserting your opinion as truth, show that you ahve followed rule 15 "All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math." Based on my own very rouch assumptions I get the first tie about 3 times further away than the second tie. the 2m change in vantage point will not allow for this difference, unless the tie fighter is actually 50cm wide. For your other claims, about targetting the TIE with something else - why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is attacked) Why use the tractor beam when the idea is to stop the TIE reporting in to base - tractor beams won't stop communications, and only wrk whilst the tractor beam is turned on. You still have to destroy the TIE at some point. -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Confucius, he say rape not possible. Woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Jedi Knight Toren Depor Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 16:45:36 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B5B0301.2010101@home.com> -------- > why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted > from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is > attacked) In The Courtship of Princess Leia, while Luke is firing the quad lasers fromt the cockpit, Han comments that the accuracy of firing from the cockpit is drastically reduced. Luke was able to do it so well because of the Force. -- Jedi Knight Toren Depor (aka Filmmaker Matt Pfingsten) E-Mail: jeditoren@home.com Phone: 360.281.7618 ICQ: JediToren, 69348681 AIM: JediToren The Matt Pfingsten Home Page: http://www.pfing.cjb.net Toren Depor's Jedi Temple: http://www.jeditoren.cjb.net --Links-- 24FPS.Com, filmmaking resources: http://www.24fps.com TheForce.Net, your daily dose of Star Wars: http://www.theforce.net Animation:Master, high-end 3D app: http://www.hash.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 18:40:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Jedi Knight Toren Depor > > why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted > > from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is > > attacked) > > In The Courtship of Princess Leia, while Luke is firing the quad lasers > fromt the cockpit, Han comments that the accuracy of firing from the > cockpit is drastically reduced. But when the ship you are trying to hit is flying in a basically straight line you shouldn't ahve too much of a problem hitting them. Infact, it should be no harder than using the other weapons. If your accuracy is reduced tot he point where you might as well not have the system in then there would be no point in having the system in place and Han wouldn't have it there. -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Confucius, he say rape not possible. Woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "The Third Man" Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 19:27:42 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- >Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Jedi >Knight Toren Depor > >> > why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted >> > from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is >> > attacked) >> >> In The Courtship of Princess Leia, while Luke is firing the quad lasers >> fromt the cockpit, Han comments that the accuracy of firing from the >> cockpit is drastically reduced. > >But when the ship you are trying to hit is flying in a basically straight >line you shouldn't ahve too much of a problem hitting them. Infact, it >should be no harder than using the other weapons. If your accuracy is >reduced tot he point where you might as well not have the system in then >there would be no point in having the system in place and Han wouldn't >have it there. > Surely there were enough people present at this point that one of them could have gone and operated the guns from the turret anyway? If they're really trying to stop that TIE then they'd use the most effective and long-range option available, ie send Luke or whoever off to the turret. IF the idea is to kill the TIE by any means possible, then the "it's out of range" quote refers to all available means at that time. All available means at that time includes sending someone to the turret to use the guns in the most accurate/long-range mode. TTM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 14:28:22 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jf942$ni7ir$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Jedi Knight Toren Depor wrote in message <3B5B0301.2010101@home.com>... > >> why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted >> from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is >> attacked) > >In The Courtship of Princess Leia, while Luke is firing the quad lasers >fromt the cockpit, Han comments that the accuracy of firing from the >cockpit is drastically reduced. Luke was able to do it so well because >of the Force. In which case he could have rushed to the weapons himself, or sent someone else to do it. Instead, he simply said they were out of range, and tried to catch up. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 12:19:55 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Wayne > Poe > > The TIE driving toward the Death Star is 13 pixels. Han's first kill > > is 15 pixels. Luke's first kill is 15 pixels. Our vantage point on > > Han's first kill is closer than it is in the cockpit. Our vantage > > point on Luke's first kill is even closer STILL. > > Wayne, I think the only way to prove the TIE diving for the death star > was closer than the ones in your alter images is to actually estimate the > distance to each tie, which I'm sure you did do but others have tried to > reproduce your work and failed. Rather than simply asserting your opinion > as truth, show that you ahve followed rule 15 There is no need, since I'm not making a claim about numbers. That's exactly why I went with canon visuals, since they are indisputable, and aren't subject to how one mathie wants to represent his numbers over another. There is virtually no difference in the TIE's distance, from the first one to Luke's kill. Luke's first kill, again, is especially telling, since we are zoomed in close to the quad guns. Quck and dirty visuals are better than quck and dirty calcs. For instance, were we to shrink http://h4h.com/louis/tie2.jpg down to the size of http://h4h.com/louis/tie1.jpg where Han says the "Not for long" referring to the first TIE out of range (Using Ford's head as a reference) you'll see what I mean. When we shrink http://h4h.com/louis/tie3.jpg down to the size of http://h4h.com/louis/tie2.jpg (using the size of the quad cannon for reference) again, the claims of the first TIE being out of range of the main guns holds no water. http://h4h.com/louis/tie5.jpg > "All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in > most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many > people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to > back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of > disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times > it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math." Again, I'm not violating this rule, sorry. I'm not proposing a theory, I'm SHOWING, with screen captures, the canon truth. > Based on my own very rouch assumptions I get the first tie about 3 times > further away than the second tie. 3 times??? Please. > the 2m change in vantage point will not allow for this difference, > unless the tie fighter is actually 50cm wide. There is a more dramatic change in vantage point with Luke's first kill, which I've pointed outbefore. > > For your other claims, about targetting the TIE with something else - > > why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted > from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is > attacked) You mean that part where Leia remote fired the upper quads and missed, and Han had to run to the gunwell? That part? Or this one: "They're too maneuverable for the targeting linkage down here to handle," > Why use the tractor beam when the idea is to stop the TIE reporting in to > base - tractor beams won't stop communications, No, Chewie already did that when they jammed its transmissions. > and only wrk whilst the tractor beam is turned on. You still have > to destroy the TIE at some point. Right--hold it in a tractor beam in order to get a precise shot from the anti-personnel blaster. And-- here's where theory comes in, but they fit the facts-- he probably wanted to target the ion engines or something similar for a complete destruction. I doubt Solo would have wanted Imps poring through that TIE wreckage to either find an energy signature matching the Falcon, or a "black box" from the TIE. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 20:37:10 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Wayne Poe > > Wayne, I think the only way to prove the TIE diving for the death star > > was closer than the ones in your alter images is to actually estimate the > > distance to each tie, which I'm sure you did do but others have tried to > > reproduce your work and failed. Rather than simply asserting your opinion > > as truth, show that you ahve followed rule 15 > > There is no need, since I'm not making a claim about numbers. Yes you are. you're saying the range of the TIE in the first image is less than the range of the TIEs in the second and third images. That is a purely numbers argument. That's > exactly why I went with canon visuals, since they are indisputable, > and aren't subject to how one mathie wants to represent his numbers > over another. but they are subject to your opinion of how far the TIE in one image is compared to the other. The difference in vantage points between the images is at most 3m. For 3 metres to change the apparent size of the TIE by as much as a third the actual range would have to be not much more than 3m, but we know - can clearly see - the TIE outside is a lot further away than that. > There is virtually no difference in the TIE's distance, > from the first one to Luke's kill. yet the apparent size in the first image is 2/3 the size in Luke's kill. That's quite a change in size, Wayne, and the only way the couple of metres change in viewing position could account for it is if the TIe fighter was far smaller than we know it to be. > > "All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in > > most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many > > people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to > > back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of > > disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times > > it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math." > > Again, I'm not violating this rule, sorry. I'm not proposing a theory, > I'm SHOWING, with screen captures, the canon truth. It is your THEORY that those images show the first TIE was in range. It is only how you, pesonally, interpret the images. Others have disagreed with that interpretation. As such, you have two choices - either follow the above rule and do the math to back the claims you feel or too obvious to need it, or admit you are simply stating your opinion in contradiction to canon. Failure to present the math to support your interpretation can be considered a concession no your part, as per rule 15 quote above. > > the 2m change in vantage point will not allow for this difference, > > unless the tie fighter is actually 50cm wide. > > There is a more dramatic change in vantage point with Luke's first > kill, which I've pointed outbefore. The difference in vantage point is a few metres at most. the only way that can make as large a difference as shown is if the TIE fighter is closer (and thus far smaller) than it appears. > > For your other claims, about targetting the TIE with something else - > > > > why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted > > from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is > > attacked) > > You mean that part where Leia remote fired the upper quads and missed, > and Han had to run to the gunwell? That part? Or this one: "They're > too maneuverable for the targeting linkage down here to handle," Yep. the first TIE in ANH was hardly moving. Shouldn't be a major problem to hit it. > > Why use the tractor beam when the idea is to stop the TIE reporting in to > > base - tractor beams won't stop communications, > > No, Chewie already did that when they jammed its transmissions. > > > and only wrk whilst the tractor beam is turned on. You still have > > to destroy the TIE at some point. > > Right--hold it in a tractor beam in order to get a precise shot from > the anti-personnel blaster. When it is just as easy to send chewie, Ben or Luke up to the quad guns and do the job in one shot? He could even go himself, and let chewie handle the flying. Given the miniscule amount of maneuvering that tie was doing, he should even be able to hit it with the quad guns from the cockpit (unless their targetting ability is so ridiculously poor they might as well not ahve the system in place) -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Confucius, he say rape not possible. Woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 01:10:42 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > > > Wayne, I think the only way to prove the TIE diving for the death star > > > was closer than the ones in your alter images is to actually estimate the > > > distance to each tie, which I'm sure you did do but others have tried to > > > reproduce your work and failed. Rather than simply asserting your opinion > > > as truth, show that you ahve followed rule 15 > > > > There is no need, since I'm not making a claim about numbers. > Yes you are. you're saying the range of the TIE in the first image is > less than the range of the TIEs in the second and third images. That is a > purely numbers argument. Is it? Did Ben Kenobi rattle off a numer? No, he didn't. He said it was too far out of range. We are then presented with a visual image of what that means. For me to pull numbers out of my ass would be pure speculation. No, the way to go is by VISUAL evidence. > > exactly why I went with canon visuals, since they are indisputable, > > and aren't subject to how one mathie wants to represent his numbers > > over another. > but they are subject to your opinion of how far the TIE in one image is > compared to the other. My opinion is backed up by canon visuals. I've fulfilled my commitment. > The difference in vantage points between the images is at most 3m. Which as the visuals show, puts Luke's TIE well within range when sized up with the DS approaching TIE. > For 3 metres to change the apparent size of the TIE by as much as > a third the actual range would have to be not much more than 3m, > but we know - can clearly see - the TIE outside is a lot further > away than that. And as I've shown, when we put Luke's first kill on an even playing field where we are canonically told in the movie that the TIE is "out of range" we see clearly that the TIE was NOT out of range of the main guns. > > There is virtually no difference in the TIE's distance, > > from the first one to Luke's kill. > yet the apparent size in the first image is 2/3 the size in Luke's kill. > That's quite a change in size, Wayne, and the only way the couple of > metres change in viewing position could account for it is if the TIe > fighter was far smaller than we know it to be. No, the only way to account for it is to accept that it was further out, since saying it shrunk is ridiculous. > > > "All Your Base Are Belong To Us: In this NG science rules the day. And in > > > most instances science is backed up with calculations. Unfortunately many > > > people feel that their theories are so obvious that no math is needed to > > > back them up. Quite frankly, we are all quite sick and tired of > > > disproving these claims. While the obvious is sometimes right, many times > > > it is not. In conclusion, do the Damn Math." > > Again, I'm not violating this rule, sorry. I'm not proposing a theory, > > I'm SHOWING, with screen captures, the canon truth. > It is your THEORY that those images show the first TIE was in range. Gee, didn't I say that above? Why, yes I did. > It is only how you, pesonally, interpret the images. Others have > disagreed with that interpretation. And others have agreed with me. > As such, you have two choices - either follow the above rule and > do the math to back the claims you feel or too obvious to need it, That would be hypocritical and wrong, as I'm not debating numbers. > or admit you are simply stating your opinion in contradiction to > canon. My opinion agrees with canon visuals. You're free to disagree. > Failure to present the math to support your interpretation can be > considered a concession no your part, as per rule 15 quote above. No, failure to argue the points I'm making is a concession on my opponent's part, as he attempts to ask for an argument I'm not making. > > > the 2m change in vantage point will not allow for this difference, > > > unless the tie fighter is actually 50cm wide. > > > > There is a more dramatic change in vantage point with Luke's first > > kill, which I've pointed outbefore. > The difference in vantage point is a few metres at most. the only way > that can make as large a difference as shown is if the TIE fighter is > closer (and thus far smaller) than it appears. Not when we put Luke's first kill on an even playing field where we are canonically told in the movie that the TIE is "out of range" we see clearly that the TIE was NOT out of range of the main guns. > > > For your other claims, about targetting the TIE with something else - > > > > > > why use the anti-personnel guns when the quad lasers can be targetted > > > from the cockpit (ref Vision of the future, p105-ish when the Mf is > > > attacked) > > > > You mean that part where Leia remote fired the upper quads and missed, > > and Han had to run to the gunwell? That part? Or this one: "They're > > too maneuverable for the targeting linkage down here to handle," > Yep. the first TIE in ANH was hardly moving. Shouldn't be a major problem > to hit it. Right, so Solo must have had another tactic in mind. > > > Why use the tractor beam when the idea is to stop the TIE reporting in to > > > base - tractor beams won't stop communications, > > > > No, Chewie already did that when they jammed its transmissions. > > > > > and only wrk whilst the tractor beam is turned on. You still have > > > to destroy the TIE at some point. > > > > Right--hold it in a tractor beam in order to get a precise shot from > > the anti-personnel blaster. > When it is just as easy to send chewie, Ben or Luke up to the quad guns > and do the job in one shot? And waste all that time, taking a chance that the TIE could break through the jamming, that a cap ship would decloak, that more TIEs will come out of the ether before they can leave Alderaan system? Not only does someone need to run into the gunwell, but the main guns need to be charged up, the targeting sensors need to be brought online, etc. > He could even go himself, and let chewie handle the flying. Obviously, he had another tactic in mind. > Given the miniscule amount of maneuvering that tie was doing, he > should even be able to hit it with the quad guns from the cockpit > (unless their targetting ability is so ridiculously poor they > might as well not ahve the system in place) Well, as I pointed out (the part you snipped) Solo may have wanted a precise shot that would have left no trace, no black box, etc. The fact is, Solo must have had something else in mind. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lord Edam de Fromage <$mike$@themightygibbon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:52:21 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- Today's news is brought to you by the number 7, and the letter from Wayne Poe > > Yes you are. you're saying the range of the TIE in the first image is > > less than the range of the TIEs in the second and third images. That is a > > purely numbers argument. > > Is it? Did Ben Kenobi rattle off a numer? No, he didn't. He said it > was too far out of range. We are then presented with a visual image > of what that means. For me to pull numbers out of my ass would be pure > speculation. No, the way to go is by VISUAL evidence. Which directly cotnradicts what you are saying, as others have explained. We know t size of the TIE, we know the size of the cockpit and gun turrets. It's easy enough to estimate the range to each of the TIES you ahve shown from that, and it would directly prove your theory that the TIE was in range. Until then you are merely stating your opinion, which is no more biased than that of the peope who believe the exact same visuals you are using show the exact opposite to what you are claiming. > > The difference in vantage points between the images is at most 3m. > > Which as the visuals show, puts Luke's TIE well within range when > sized up with the DS approaching TIE. If that was the case then the TIE would be larger than the one in the other images you show. As it is, the difference is as much as a third of the apparent size. A major change in distance, that, far larger than the few metres change in vantage point could allow for. > > > There is virtually no difference in the TIE's distance, > > > from the first one to Luke's kill. > > > yet the apparent size in the first image is 2/3 the size in Luke's kill. > > That's quite a change in size, Wayne, and the only way the couple of > > metres change in viewing position could account for it is if the TIe > > fighter was far smaller than we know it to be. > > No, the only way to account for it is to accept that it was further > out, since saying it shrunk is ridiculous. So you accept the only way the first TIE could be smaller than the others is if it was further away, yet you also insist that your images show it was a lot closer? > > > Again, I'm not violating this rule, sorry. I'm not proposing a theory, > > > I'm SHOWING, with screen captures, the canon truth. > > > It is your THEORY that those images show the first TIE was in range. > > Gee, didn't I say that above? Why, yes I did. You said you weren't proposing a theory. now you say you are proposing a theory. Make up your mind Wayne. > > It is only how you, pesonally, interpret the images. Others have > > disagreed with that interpretation. > > And others have agreed with me. Others who ahve made no contribution to this thread? If you mean your appeal to authority then get Brian to post here, or send you the work to make your point so you can post it for him. Until then it is worthless. > > Failure to present the math to support your interpretation can be > > considered a concession no your part, as per rule 15 quote above. > > No, failure to argue the points I'm making is a concession on my > opponent's part, as he attempts to ask for an argument I'm not making. you are saying that, despite being further away, the first TIE is actually closer. the only way to prove that is to show the impossible. > > > > the 2m change in vantage point will not allow for this difference, > > > > unless the tie fighter is actually 50cm wide. > > > > > > There is a more dramatic change in vantage point with Luke's first > > > kill, which I've pointed outbefore. > > > The difference in vantage point is a few metres at most. the only way > > that can make as large a difference as shown is if the TIE fighter is > > closer (and thus far smaller) than it appears. > > Not when we put Luke's first kill on an even playing field where we > are canonically told in the movie that the TIE is "out of range" we > see clearly that the TIE was NOT out of range of the main guns. But you say above it was further away. how can it be both further away and closer to us? The only way 4m can make such a large difference in apparent size is if it is a large fraction of the actual distance. > > Yep. the first TIE in ANH was hardly moving. Shouldn't be a major problem > > to hit it. > > Right, so Solo must have had another tactic in mind. Or it was too far away to hit. -- Lord Edam de Fromage aka Sorborus www.trek-wars.co.uk Confucius, he say rape not possible. Woman with skirt up run faster than man with trousers down ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 02:19:23 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: [Complete snip] Unbelievable. You don't need my help. You're confusing the hell out of YOURSELF. Let me make the whole point very simple for you. Let's say you're driving a car down a lonely road. In the back seat, Alves takes a snapshot of the truck a bit ahead of you. Framed in this photo is your back, say up to your triceps. We can see the dashboard, the front of the car, you get the idea. (I hope.) Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear to be much bigger in size. Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. This is as pure as anything we do here. No numbers were given, so no numbers are needed for a refute. We are told and shown that the TIE is out of range. These are the exact same criteria I've used to prove my point. You may want to review the thread. Strowbridge and I believe Kynes commented on my findings here as well. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: usmguy@yahoo.com (Guardian 2000) Date: 25 Jul 2001 13:59:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3fd604ef.0107251259.4590ff80@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > > Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview > mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and > snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. > > He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B > be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the > EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear > to be much bigger in size. > > Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that > would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH > FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. > Oh, so it's a telephoto lens! Well, of course! Kynes, would you like to comment on Wayne's hypothesis? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 02:07:32 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 25 Jul 2001 13:59:33 -0700, usmguy@yahoo.com (Guardian 2000) wrote: >> Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview >> mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and >> snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. >> >> He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B >> be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the >> EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear >> to be much bigger in size. >> >> Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that >> would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH >> FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. >> > > > >Oh, so it's a telephoto lens! Well, of course! > >Kynes, would you like to comment on Wayne's hypothesis? I'd like to comment on the fact that you totally misunderstand what he's saying, sure. Wayne's saying that since our vantage point is further up in the gunnery scene, the object in question will seem larger. That's all. Now get lost. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 00:48:46 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 25 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview > > mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and > > snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. > > > > He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B > > be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the > > EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear > > to be much bigger in size. > > > > Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that > > would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH > > FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. > > > > Oh, so it's a telephoto lens! Well, of course! Nope, comes as no surprise whatsoever that you can't follow a logical argument. > Kynes, would you like to comment on Wayne's hypothesis? Kynes is too busy laughing hysterically at your half-witted thought processes. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 00:43:52 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jqum2$101ms$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >On 25 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> >> > Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview >> > mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and >> > snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. >> > >> > He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B >> > be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the >> > EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear >> > to be much bigger in size. >> > >> > Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that >> > would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH >> > FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. >> > >> > >> Oh, so it's a telephoto lens! Well, of course! > >Nope, comes as no surprise whatsoever that you can't follow a logical >argument. > I follow logical arguments perfectly well. Oh, wait, were you suggesting that I wasn't following *your* argument? Well, Wayne, you might want to make a logical argument before claiming a connection. Your argument about vantage point is absolutely stupid, Wayne. Why don't you have Kynes send you some money so you can buy a clue? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 02:07:24 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > > > >On 25 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > >> > >> > Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview > >> > mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and > >> > snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. > >> > > >> > He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B > >> > be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the > >> > EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear > >> > to be much bigger in size. > >> > > >> > Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that > >> > would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH > >> > FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. > >> > > >> > > > >> Oh, so it's a telephoto lens! Well, of course! > > > >Nope, comes as no surprise whatsoever that you can't follow a logical > >argument. > > > > I follow logical arguments perfectly well. Oh, wait, were you suggesting > that I wasn't following *your* argument? Well, Wayne, you might want to > make a logical argument before claiming a connection. > > Your argument about vantage point is absolutely stupid, Wayne. Why don't > you have Kynes send you some money so you can buy a clue? Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons range. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 22:18:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jtagv$1jjs2$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons >range. Ah, but this is canon and measurable. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 23:28:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... > > >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >range. > > Ah, but this is canon and measurable. And we have two people who claim two different things. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:20:28 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9k21ql$21cqu$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Dalton wrote in message <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net>... >Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons >> >range. >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > >And we have two people who claim two different things. Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not correct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 18:42:02 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B64913A.AFC4105A@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net>... > >Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > >> Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... > >> > >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >> >range. > >> > >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > > > >And we have two people who claim two different things. > > Irrelevant. Why? > Only one (or neither) is correct. Obviously. > Wayne's argument is > based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not > correct. But I could easily say your argument is based on a similar misunderstanding, which is what Wayne appears to be arguing. What I propose is that you both find other evidence that supports your interpretation of the scene. -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 20:21:13 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9k2cdi$2ao2p$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Dalton wrote in message <3B64913A.AFC4105A@daltonator.net>... >Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> Dalton wrote in message <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net>... >> >Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >> >> Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... >> >> >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons >> >> >range. >> >> >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. >> > >> >And we have two people who claim two different things. >> >> Irrelevant. > >Why? Fact can be determined accurately, whether or not people disagree. > >> Only one (or neither) is correct. > >Obviously. > >> Wayne's argument is >> based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not >> correct. > >But I could easily say your argument is based on a similar >misunderstanding, which is what Wayne appears to be arguing. Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple optics. >What I propose is that you both find other evidence that supports your >interpretation of the scene. Easy . . . no other canon evidence shows higher weapons ranges for the Falcon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:23:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message <3B64913A.AFC4105A@daltonator.net>... > >Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > >> Dalton wrote in message <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net>... > >> >Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... > >> >> > >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >> >> >range. > >> >> > >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > >> > > >> >And we have two people who claim two different things. > >> > >> Irrelevant. > > > >Why? > > Fact can be determined accurately, whether or not people disagree. Why are your determinations more accurate than Wayne's? > >> Only one (or neither) is correct. > > > >Obviously. > > > >> Wayne's argument is > >> based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is > not > >> correct. > > > >But I could easily say your argument is based on a similar > >misunderstanding, which is what Wayne appears to be arguing. > > Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple optics. Really? Please explain. > >What I propose is that you both find other evidence that supports your > >interpretation of the scene. > > Easy . . . no other canon evidence shows higher weapons ranges for the > Falcon. How about official evidence? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:27:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9k2uco$26mh7$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... >> >> >> >> >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons >> >> >> >range. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. >> >> > >> >> >And we have two people who claim two different things. >> >> >> >> Irrelevant. >> > >> >Why? >> >> Fact can be determined accurately, whether or not people disagree. > >Why are your determinations more accurate than Wayne's? Simple optics. > >> >> Only one (or neither) is correct. >> > >> >Obviously. >> > >> >> Wayne's argument is >> >> based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is >> not >> >> correct. >> > >> >But I could easily say your argument is based on a similar >> >misunderstanding, which is what Wayne appears to be arguing. >> >> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple optics. > >Really? Please explain. Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, because the point is so simple that I don't have to): Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, and is this big: * Solo's head in pic one is this big: O Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: o Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: O And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional nature of the beast. Does that cover it? > >> >What I propose is that you both find other evidence that supports your >> >interpretation of the scene. >> >> Easy . . . no other canon evidence shows higher weapons ranges for the >> Falcon. > >How about official evidence? Overridden by canon. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 02:24:07 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B64FD87.EDE5E71E@daltonator.net> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >> >> >> >range. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > >> >> > > >> >> >And we have two people who claim two different things. > >> >> > >> >> Irrelevant. > >> > > >> >Why? > >> > >> Fact can be determined accurately, whether or not people disagree. > > > >Why are your determinations more accurate than Wayne's? > > Simple optics. But why is Wayne's application of similar processes less accurate than yours? > >> >> Only one (or neither) is correct. > >> > > >> >Obviously. > >> > > >> >> Wayne's argument is > >> >> based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is > >> not > >> >> correct. > >> > > >> >But I could easily say your argument is based on a similar > >> >misunderstanding, which is what Wayne appears to be arguing. > >> > >> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple > optics. > > > >Really? Please explain. > > Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is > the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. A possibility... > So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, > because the point is so simple that I don't have to): > > Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, > and is this big: > > * > > Solo's head in pic one is this big: > > O > > Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: > > o > > Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: > > O > > And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by > this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will > now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image > is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional > nature of the beast. So what you're saying is that the width and length would be increased, but not, perhaps, the depth? Or something similar? > Does that cover it? I would much like to compare screenshots of this. > >> >What I propose is that you both find other evidence that supports your > >> >interpretation of the scene. > >> > >> Easy . . . no other canon evidence shows higher weapons ranges for the > >> Falcon. > > > >How about official evidence? > > Overridden by canon. But what if the canon evidence is questionable? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 15:11:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B6B055D.2C073A0@yahoo.com> -------- Dalton wrote: > > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... > > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > > >> >> >> >range. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > > >> >> > > > >> >> >And we have two people who claim two different things. > > >> >> > > >> >> Irrelevant. > > >> > > > >> >Why? > > >> > > >> Fact can be determined accurately, whether or not people disagree. > > > > > >Why are your determinations more accurate than Wayne's? > > > > Simple optics. > > But why is Wayne's application of similar processes less accurate than > yours? He's not applying similar processes. He's applying 2-D processes to a 2-D representation of a 3-D world, and expecting valid 3-D results. > > > >> >> Only one (or neither) is correct. > > >> > > > >> >Obviously. > > >> > > > >> >> Wayne's argument is > > >> >> based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is > > >> not > > >> >> correct. > > >> > > > >> >But I could easily say your argument is based on a similar > > >> >misunderstanding, which is what Wayne appears to be arguing. > > >> > > >> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple > > optics. > > > > > >Really? Please explain. > > > > Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is > > the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. > > A possibility... No, it is not. Look around you. Pay attention to your own perception of depth and perspective. > > > So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, > > because the point is so simple that I don't have to): > > > > Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, > > and is this big: > > > > * > > > > Solo's head in pic one is this big: > > > > O > > > > Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: > > > > o > > > > Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: > > > > O > > > > And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by > > this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will > > now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image > > is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional > > nature of the beast. > > So what you're saying is that the width and length would be increased, > but not, perhaps, the depth? Or something similar? I'm simply saying that Wayne's method will produce a change of apparent range, even when the range is staying the same. > > > Does that cover it? > > I would much like to compare screenshots of this. What, was the ASCII art not good enough? :-) > > > >> >What I propose is that you both find other evidence that supports your > > >> >interpretation of the scene. > > >> > > >> Easy . . . no other canon evidence shows higher weapons ranges for the > > >> Falcon. > > > > > >How about official evidence? > > > > Overridden by canon. > > But what if the canon evidence is questionable? That's just it . . . it's not questionable in the slightest. Wayne's questioning of the canon is based on a fundamental flaw of reasoning. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:02:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... >>> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple >>> optics. >> Really? Please explain. > Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is > the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. See, you stupid fuck? I knew your feeble proto-mind could'nt grasp the simple concept. Let's watch you make a fool out of yourself yet again: > So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, > because the point is so simple that I don't have to): Very telling. What an idiot. > Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, > and is this big: > > * > > Solo's head in pic one is this big: > > O > > Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: > > o > > Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: > > O > > And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by > this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will > now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image > is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional > nature of the beast. > > Does that cover it? Yeah, that about covers it. YOU"RE A MORON!!! LOL!! Idiot, you can't even follow my argument. If you shrink Luke's kill down to the size Solo's kill is by comparing the quad guns, will the TIEs be the same size? NO, FUCKWIT! Luke's TIE will look MUCH SMALLER, THUS< IT IS FARTHER AWAY. ASS HOLE. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 14:57:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B6B021A.7F216226@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... > > >>> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple > >>> optics. > > >> Really? Please explain. > > > Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is > > the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. > > See, you stupid fuck? I knew your feeble proto-mind could'nt grasp the > simple concept. Let's watch you make a fool out of yourself yet again: What simple concept? Perspective, maybe? I'm the one who's got perspective conceptualized perfectly. > > > > So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, > > because the point is so simple that I don't have to): > > Very telling. What an idiot. Yes, you are, and you continually prove it in this thread. > > > Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, > > and is this big: > > > > * > > > > Solo's head in pic one is this big: > > > > O > > > > Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: > > > > o > > > > Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: > > > > O > > > > And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by > > this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will > > now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image > > is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional > > nature of the beast. > > > > Does that cover it? > > Yeah, that about covers it. YOU"RE A MORON!!! LOL!! Idiot, you can't > even follow my argument. If you shrink Luke's kill down to the size > Solo's kill is by comparing the quad guns, will the TIEs be the same > size? NO, FUCKWIT! Luke's TIE will look MUCH SMALLER, THUS< IT IS > FARTHER AWAY. ASS HOLE. > You still don't get it, do you? You can't blow up an entire two dimensional picture and expect to achieve the same result as if you were to move three feet closer to an object in the foreground. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:03:29 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996869010.11757.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:3B6B021A.7F216226@yahoo.com... > > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > > Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... > > > > >>> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple > > >>> optics. > > > > >> Really? Please explain. > > > > > Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is > > > the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. > > > > See, you stupid fuck? I knew your feeble proto-mind could'nt grasp the > > simple concept. Let's watch you make a fool out of yourself yet again: > > What simple concept? Perspective, maybe? I'm the one who's got > perspective conceptualized perfectly. > > > > > > > > So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, > > > because the point is so simple that I don't have to): > > > > Very telling. What an idiot. > > Yes, you are, and you continually prove it in this thread. > > > > > > Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, > > > and is this big: > > > > > > * > > > > > > Solo's head in pic one is this big: > > > > > > O > > > > > > Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: > > > > > > o > > > > > > Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: > > > > > > O > > > > > > And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by > > > this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will > > > now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image > > > is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional > > > nature of the beast. > > > > > > Does that cover it? > > > > Yeah, that about covers it. YOU"RE A MORON!!! LOL!! Idiot, you can't > > even follow my argument. If you shrink Luke's kill down to the size > > Solo's kill is by comparing the quad guns, will the TIEs be the same > > size? NO, FUCKWIT! Luke's TIE will look MUCH SMALLER, THUS< IT IS > > FARTHER AWAY. ASS HOLE. > > > > You still don't get it, do you? You can't blow up an entire two > dimensional picture and expect to achieve the same result as if you were > to move three feet closer to an object in the foreground. However - from the difference of the size of the heads in both shots, you can calculate how far you've moved away from the person. Likewise, you can use this to get an exact result for the distance of the TIEs. It is do-able, although you need to know the perspective used in the shot. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:37:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9l7olj$7hhko$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- DMZ wrote in message <996869010.11757.0.nnrp-02.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > >"Guardian 2000" wrote in message >news:3B6B021A.7F216226@yahoo.com... >> >> >> Wayne Poe wrote: >> > >> > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: >> > >> > > Dalton wrote in message <3B64B72D.3DF9268D@daltonator.net>... >> > >> > >>> Were you to claim that, though, you would be in error. It's simple >> > >>> optics. >> > >> > >> Really? Please explain. >> > >> > > Wayne's claim is that if you blow up the pictures so that Han Solo's head is >> > > the same size, you'll have the correct size of the TIE. >> > >> > See, you stupid fuck? I knew your feeble proto-mind could'nt grasp the >> > simple concept. Let's watch you make a fool out of yourself yet again: >> >> What simple concept? Perspective, maybe? I'm the one who's got >> perspective conceptualized perfectly. >> >> > >> > >> > > So, here's an example (I'm not actually working off the screen shots here, >> > > because the point is so simple that I don't have to): >> > >> > Very telling. What an idiot. >> >> Yes, you are, and you continually prove it in this thread. >> >> > >> > > Let's say for fun that the TIE is at two kilometers distance in both shots, >> > > and is this big: >> > > >> > > * >> > > >> > > Solo's head in pic one is this big: >> > > >> > > O >> > > >> > > Solo's head in pic two, because we are further from him, is this big: >> > > >> > > o >> > > >> > > Poe is arguing that we can blow up pic two so that Solo's head is this big: >> > > >> > > O >> > > >> > > And that this will allow us to see how far the TIE really is. However, by >> > > this argument, two TIEs that are both known to be two kilometers away will >> > > now appear different sizes, * vs X, because the entire two-dimensional image >> > > is being blown up without accounting in any way for the three-dimensional >> > > nature of the beast. >> > > >> > > Does that cover it? >> > >> > Yeah, that about covers it. YOU"RE A MORON!!! LOL!! Idiot, you can't >> > even follow my argument. If you shrink Luke's kill down to the size >> > Solo's kill is by comparing the quad guns, will the TIEs be the same >> > size? NO, FUCKWIT! Luke's TIE will look MUCH SMALLER, THUS< IT IS >> > FARTHER AWAY. ASS HOLE. >> > >> >> You still don't get it, do you? You can't blow up an entire two >> dimensional picture and expect to achieve the same result as if you were >> to move three feet closer to an object in the foreground. > >However - from the difference of the size of the heads in both shots, you can >calculate how far you've moved away from the person. Likewise, you can use this to >get an exact result for the distance of the TIEs. It is do-able, although you need >to know the perspective used in the shot. > >DMZ True, but your idea actually includes basic concepts of perspective, and thus is useful, if the distance calculations were to come down to +/- 2 meters or so (in this case). The peril lies in the fact that Wayne's idea bears no resemblance to this. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 23:51:50 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: [snip] Concession accepted. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 17:10:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Dalton wrote in message <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net>... > >Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > >> Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... > >> > >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >> >range. > >> > >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > > > >And we have two people who claim two different things. > > Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is > based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not > correct. No, my argument is based on POV. Your misunderstanding of that comes from having your head so far up your ass that you can see out of your penis. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:29:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9k2ufu$2a682$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> Dalton wrote in message <3B62316F.59D75BEC@daltonator.net>... >> >Guardian 2000 wrote: >> >> >> >> Dalton wrote in message <3B61051C.C3B5A64D@daltonator.net>... >> >> >> >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons >> >> >range. >> >> >> >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. >> > >> >And we have two people who claim two different things. >> >> Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is >> based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not >> correct. > >No, my argument is based on POV. You don't understand point-of-view, or else you wouldn't be making such asinine claims. >Your misunderstanding of that comes >from having your head so far up your ass that you can see out of your >penis. Why are you and Kynes so interested in my genitalia? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:03:16 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >No, my argument is based on POV. > > You don't understand point-of-view, or else you wouldn't be making such > asinine claims. Coming from the chimp picking his fucking nose. > >Your misunderstanding of that comes > >from having your head so far up your ass that you can see out of your > >penis. > Why are you and Kynes so interested in my genitalia? Because you keep thinking with them. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Kynes Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:02:07 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3aJlOxF6fQ54sIN5+pnmDqz0YF=u@4ax.com> -------- On Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:29:42 -0500, "Guardian 2000" wrote: >>Your misunderstanding of that comes >>from having your head so far up your ass that you can see out of your >>penis. > >Why are you and Kynes so interested in my genitalia? If we weren't interested in fiction, we wouldn't be here. -- LK! [ kynes@choam.org ] [ ICQ: 795238 ] [ AIM: Kynes23 ] "But I've never seen *anything* that's going to even have the clearly designed and hoped-for effect of running me out of these groups or debates." -- TOWNMNBS, Six Days Before The Final Solution ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Strowbridge Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 00:15:32 GMT Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B64A675.62834E84@home.com> -------- Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Dalton wrote: > >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >> >range. > >> > >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > > > >And we have two people who claim two different things. > > Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is > based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not > correct. Proof? His claim is based on simple geometry. C.S.Strowbridge ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:31:33 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996453094.21201.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Strowbridge" wrote in message news:3B64A675.62834E84@home.com... > Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Dalton wrote: > > > >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > > >> >range. > > >> > > >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > > > > > >And we have two people who claim two different things. > > > > Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is > > based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not > > correct. > > Proof? > > His claim is based on simple geometry. Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat of a car driving on a long, straight road. There is a car maintaining a distance of 200 metres ahead of you. Now, you climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that car appear? DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 19:20:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > "Strowbridge" wrote in message > > His claim is based on simple geometry. > Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat of a car > driving on a long, straight road. There is a car maintaining a distance of 200 > metres ahead of you. Now, you climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that > car appear? LOL!! You're only proving my argument! -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 03:28:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996460138.15441.0.nnrp-13.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Wayne Poe" wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0107291920270.5863-100000@filmgate.h4h.com... > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > > > "Strowbridge" wrote in message > > > > His claim is based on simple geometry. > > > Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat of a car > > driving on a long, straight road. There is a car maintaining a distance of 200 > > metres ahead of you. Now, you climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that > > car appear? > > LOL!! You're only proving my argument! So? DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 22:39:03 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message >>> Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat >>> of a car driving on a long, straight road. There is a car >>> maintaining a distance of 200 metres ahead of you. Now, you >>> climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that car >>> appear? >> LOL!! You're only proving my argument! > So? So....I can't laugh? Fucking jack booted.... -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:53:48 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B64F66C.983738F1@daltonator.net> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > >>> Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat > >>> of a car driving on a long, straight road. There is a car > >>> maintaining a distance of 200 metres ahead of you. Now, you > >>> climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that car > >>> appear? > > >> LOL!! You're only proving my argument! > > > So? > > So....I can't laugh? Fucking jack booted.... This should teach you to never assume DMZ's allegiance :) -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 15:00:11 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996501611.12628.0.nnrp-12.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B64F66C.983738F1@daltonator.net... > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > >>> Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat > > >>> of a car driving on a long, straight road. There is a car > > >>> maintaining a distance of 200 metres ahead of you. Now, you > > >>> climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that car > > >>> appear? > > > > >> LOL!! You're only proving my argument! > > > > > So? > > > > So....I can't laugh? Fucking jack booted.... > > This should teach you to never assume DMZ's allegiance :) My allegiance is with scientific accuracy, to the truth, but first and foremost, to myself. Bullshit factor at 0.3 milli-Disneys, holding strong. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:01:49 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B65BD2D.F9EE9675@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B64F66C.983738F1@daltonator.net... > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > >>> Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat > > > >>> of a car driving on a long, straight road. There is a car > > > >>> maintaining a distance of 200 metres ahead of you. Now, you > > > >>> climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that car > > > >>> appear? > > > > > > >> LOL!! You're only proving my argument! > > > > > > > So? > > > > > > So....I can't laugh? Fucking jack booted.... > > > > This should teach you to never assume DMZ's allegiance :) > > My allegiance is with scientific accuracy, to the truth, but first and foremost, > to myself. I can respect that. > Bullshit factor at 0.3 milli-Disneys, holding strong. Are you making fun of me? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:12:46 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996523966.16938.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B65BD2D.F9EE9675@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3B64F66C.983738F1@daltonator.net... > > > Wayne Poe wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Jul 2001, DMZ wrote: > > > > > > > > > "Wayne Poe" wrote in message > > > > > > > > >>> Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat > > > > >>> of a car driving on a long, straight road. There is a car > > > > >>> maintaining a distance of 200 metres ahead of you. Now, you > > > > >>> climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that car > > > > >>> appear? > > > > > > > > >> LOL!! You're only proving my argument! > > > > > > > > > So? > > > > > > > > So....I can't laugh? Fucking jack booted.... > > > > > > This should teach you to never assume DMZ's allegiance :) > > > > My allegiance is with scientific accuracy, to the truth, but first and foremost, > > to myself. > > I can respect that. > > > Bullshit factor at 0.3 milli-Disneys, holding strong. > > Are you making fun of me? Not at all - it all has to do with an old running joke at university I ressurrected for the occassion. You can consider 0.3 milli-Disneys to be quite a substantial amount of uttered bullshit, on a par with say, an American presidential candidate. The scale, quite logically, goes from 0 to 1.0. You've got to hear a 1.0 event to believe it. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:14:14 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B65C016.B4BB907F@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B65BD2D.F9EE9675@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: [snip] > > > Bullshit factor at 0.3 milli-Disneys, holding strong. > > > > Are you making fun of me? > > Not at all Ah, I get it now, allegiance to yourself yada yada :) > - it all has to do with an old running joke at university I > ressurrected for the occassion. You can consider 0.3 milli-Disneys to be quite a > substantial amount of uttered bullshit, on a par with say, an American > presidential candidate. The scale, quite logically, goes from 0 to 1.0. You've got > to hear a 1.0 event to believe it. How about the last election? -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 21:23:58 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996524638.17305.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Dalton" wrote in message news:3B65C016.B4BB907F@daltonator.net... > DMZ wrote: > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > news:3B65BD2D.F9EE9675@daltonator.net... > > > DMZ wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > Bullshit factor at 0.3 milli-Disneys, holding strong. > > > > > > Are you making fun of me? > > > > Not at all > > Ah, I get it now, allegiance to yourself yada yada :) > > > - it all has to do with an old running joke at university I > > ressurrected for the occassion. You can consider 0.3 milli-Disneys to be quite a > > substantial amount of uttered bullshit, on a par with say, an American > > presidential candidate. The scale, quite logically, goes from 0 to 1.0. You've got > > to hear a 1.0 event to believe it. > > How about the last election? I'd say it was significantly higher, yes. In fact, it culminated in a centi-Disney event with the "pregnant Chad" fiasco, didn't it? What I still don't understand is how male pregnancy was used to determine the presidency. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dalton Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 16:48:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B65C800.26E98766@daltonator.net> -------- DMZ wrote: > > "Dalton" wrote in message > news:3B65C016.B4BB907F@daltonator.net... > > DMZ wrote: > > > > > > "Dalton" wrote in message > > > news:3B65BD2D.F9EE9675@daltonator.net... > > > > DMZ wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > Bullshit factor at 0.3 milli-Disneys, holding strong. > > > > > > > > Are you making fun of me? > > > > > > Not at all > > > > Ah, I get it now, allegiance to yourself yada yada :) > > > > > - it all has to do with an old running joke at university I > > > ressurrected for the occassion. You can consider 0.3 milli-Disneys to be quite > a > > > substantial amount of uttered bullshit, on a par with say, an American > > > presidential candidate. The scale, quite logically, goes from 0 to 1.0. You've > got > > > to hear a 1.0 event to believe it. > > > > How about the last election? > > I'd say it was significantly higher, yes. In fact, it culminated in a centi-Disney > event with the "pregnant Chad" fiasco, didn't it? Aye!! Hell, bozon levels were off the charts. 330 milliJacques and rising. > What I still don't understand is how male pregnancy was used to determine the > presidency. LOL -- Rob "Roby" Dalton http://daltonator.net The best defense against fanaticism is indifference. Of course, a flamethrower helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 01:36:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9k2usa$2a7cb$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- DMZ wrote in message <996453094.21201.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > >"Strowbridge" wrote in message >news:3B64A675.62834E84@home.com... >> Guardian 2000 wrote: >> > >> > Dalton wrote: >> >> > >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons >> > >> >range. >> > >> >> > >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. >> > > >> > >And we have two people who claim two different things. >> > >> > Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is >> > based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is not >> > correct. >> >> Proof? >> >> His claim is based on simple geometry. > >Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat of a car >driving on a long, straight road. There is a car maintaining a distance of 200 >metres ahead of you. Now, you climb into the front seat. How much bigger does that >car appear? According to Wayne, by a factor of 1.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "DMZ" Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 14:58:01 +0100 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <996501481.12561.0.nnrp-12.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:9k2usa$2a7cb$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de... > > DMZ wrote in message > <996453094.21201.0.nnrp-10.3e31960d@news.demon.co.uk>... > > > >"Strowbridge" wrote in message > >news:3B64A675.62834E84@home.com... > >> Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> > > >> > Dalton wrote: > >> > >> > >> >Who gives a flying fuck? There are other ways to determine weapons > >> > >> >range. > >> > >> > >> > >> Ah, but this is canon and measurable. > >> > > > >> > >And we have two people who claim two different things. > >> > > >> > Irrelevant. Only one (or neither) is correct. Wayne's argument is > >> > based upon a basic misunderstanding of optics, therefore we know he is > not > >> > correct. > >> > >> Proof? > >> > >> His claim is based on simple geometry. > > > >Let's try a little thought experiment. Say you're in the back seat of a car > >driving on a long, straight road. There is a car maintaining a distance of > 200 > >metres ahead of you. Now, you climb into the front seat. How much bigger > does that > >car appear? > > According to Wayne, by a factor of 1.5. That would put the car bumper to bumper, at least. DMZ --- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:56:21 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >Nope, comes as no surprise whatsoever that you can't follow a logical > >argument. > I follow logical arguments perfectly well. Oh, wait, were you suggesting > that I wasn't following *your* argument? Well, Wayne, you might want to > make a logical argument before claiming a connection. Kynes, I need to borrow your crickets.mp3 here... > Your argument about vantage point is absolutely stupid, Wayne. Why don't > you have Kynes send you some money so you can buy a clue? Oh my god! Another zinger! I'm being ripped to shreds by your razor sharp wit! -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 26 Jul 2001 21:42:13 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107262042.684270e5@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Lord Edam de Fromage wrote: > > [Complete snip] > > Unbelievable. You don't need my help. You're confusing the hell out of > YOURSELF. > > Let me make the whole point very simple for you. Let's say you're > driving a car down a lonely road. In the back seat, Alves takes a > snapshot of the truck a bit ahead of you. Framed in this photo is your > back, say up to your triceps. We can see the dashboard, the front of > the car, you get the idea. (I hope.) > > Now, Alves zooms in with his telephoto lens, so that only the rearview > mirror of your vehicle can be seen impeding the view forward, and > snaps another picture of the truck ahead of you. > > He now shows you both photos. Now I ask you, will the truck in photo B > be the exact same size as the truck in photo A? No, if it were at the > EXACT SAME DISTANCE IN BOTH PHOTOS, the truck in photo B would appear > to be much bigger in size. > > Now if the truck in pictures A and B were the EXACT SAME SIZE, that > would mean that the truck accelerated away from you and was MUCH > FARTHER AWAY from you when Alves took that second picture. > > This is as pure as anything we do here. No numbers were given, so no > numbers are needed for a refute. We are told and shown that the TIE is > out of range. These are the exact same criteria I've used to prove my > point. > > You may want to review the thread. Strowbridge and I believe Kynes > commented on my findings here as well. > I still believe that you need to post some more numbers that include the camera's position in each of your 3 pics. In other words you take the camera position into consideration when posting the pixel count. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:47:27 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 26 Jul 2001, Kamakazie Sith wrote: > I still believe that you need to post some more numbers that include > the camera's position in each of your 3 pics. There's no need. The canon visuals speak for themselves. That's WHY I posted them. > In other words you take the camera position into consideration when > posting the pixel count. It WAS considered. That's the basis of the entire argument. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 17:19:11 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jfj4c$npiab$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... >When >we shrink > >http://h4h.com/louis/tie3.jpg > >down to the size of > >http://h4h.com/louis/tie2.jpg > >(using the size of the quad cannon for reference) again, the claims of >the first TIE being out of range of the main guns holds no water. Holy shit, Wayne. You've gone mad. You're seriously suggesting, after having already argued that the TIE size differential is due to vantage point, that you can shrink or expand pictures based on the size of the cannon or Ford's head for reference??? Do you not realize that the difference produced will have no meaning? The objects in question are within low-single-digit meters of the camera, but even a small range difference will have a profoundly ridiculous effect on scaling things that are far away. If you had the power to move the camera closer to Solo's head in Tie1, you might have something. But simply blowing up the image to scale against a nearby object *cannot* tell you anything relevant about a distant object, unless the TIE fighters were little ERTL models hanging outside the window. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: sith79@aol.com (Kamakazie Sith) Date: 22 Jul 2001 17:47:53 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <89c4bcfd.0107221647.69a2106c@posting.google.com> -------- "Guardian 2000" wrote in message news:<9jfj4c$npiab$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de>... > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >When > >we shrink > > > >http://h4h.com/louis/tie3.jpg > > > >down to the size of > > > >http://h4h.com/louis/tie2.jpg > > > >(using the size of the quad cannon for reference) again, the claims of > >the first TIE being out of range of the main guns holds no water. > > > If you had the power to move the camera closer to Solo's head in Tie1, you > might have something. But simply blowing up the image to scale against a > nearby object *cannot* tell you anything relevant about a distant object, > unless the TIE fighters were little ERTL models hanging outside the window. Hehehe which is probably what they are..... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:34:41 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9iumkb$l88ji$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >As always, enjoy! > >http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html > Uh, dude, did you happen to notice that the TIE seen outside the cockpit is smaller (and thus further away) than the two in your quad-laser screen shots? Pixel measurement . . . unfortunately the comparison shot was tiny, so there's a pixel or two error margin. (The first measurement is of the total number of pixels that will encompass the TIEs, whatever angle. The "turned" measurement was obtained after rotating the picture so that the gun-sight TIEs would be upright. I left the Cockpit TIE unturned, since it was almost upright anyway.) Cockpit : 11 x 10 Han's : 22 x 21 (16-16 turned) Luke's : 16 x 17 (14-16 turned) The few feet further back the camera is in the cockpit shot won't make as much difference as seen. If you would like to prove your case, you'll need to use different screen shots. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 07:35:44 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > > > >As always, enjoy! > > > >http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html > > > > > Uh, dude, did you happen to notice that the TIE seen outside the cockpit is > smaller (and thus further away) than the two in your quad-laser screen > shots? [snip] Dude, you're a fucking idiot that can't read and as delusional as ever. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:05:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B5302B6.B4EB7C19@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > > > > > >As always, enjoy! > > > > > >http://h4h.com/louis/mfrange.html > > > > > > > > > Uh, dude, did you happen to notice that the TIE seen outside the cockpit is > > smaller (and thus further away) than the two in your quad-laser screen > > shots? > > [snip] > > Dude, you're a fucking idiot that can't read and as delusional as > ever. Concession accepted . . . you demonstrated a range for TIE fighter destruction which the Alderaan TIE was outside of, and thus you've shown the maximum range of the MF weapons, canonically. Though you tried to argue on the page that the TIE was within weapons range based on the weapons range in the other screen shots, you cannot do so. Thanks Wayne! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:33:20 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Concession accepted . . . you demonstrated a range for TIE fighter > destruction which the Alderaan TIE was outside of, and thus you've shown > the maximum range of the MF weapons, canonically. > > Though you tried to argue on the page that the TIE was within weapons > range based on the weapons range in the other screen shots, you cannot > do so. > > Thanks Wayne! Oh, look, Guardian got something else wrong, when canon proof is staring him right in the face. I'M shocked...... -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:11:12 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B545590.A8BA54EC@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Concession accepted . . . you demonstrated a range for TIE fighter > > destruction which the Alderaan TIE was outside of, and thus you've shown > > the maximum range of the MF weapons, canonically. > > > > Though you tried to argue on the page that the TIE was within weapons > > range based on the weapons range in the other screen shots, you cannot > > do so. > > > > Thanks Wayne! > > Oh, look, Guardian got something else wrong, when canon proof is > staring him right in the face. I'M shocked...... Canon proof being, what? Larger (and therefore closer) TIE Fighters that were in range versus significantly smaller (and therefore more distant) TIE Fighters that are expressly stated to be out of range? If you want to prove your point, you'll need to do very much better. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 23:54:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > Oh, look, Guardian got something else wrong, when canon proof is > > staring him right in the face. I'M shocked...... > Canon proof being, what? Larger (and therefore closer) TIE Fighters > that were in range versus significantly smaller (and therefore more > distant) TIE Fighters that are expressly stated to be out of range? > If you want to prove your point, you'll need to do very much better. I did do "very much better". I proved that the TIE which was stated to be out of range on approach to the DS was NOT out of range of the Falcon's main guns. QED. You lose once again. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: usmguy@yahoo.com (Guardian 2000) Date: 18 Jul 2001 13:00:39 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3fd604ef.0107181200.3c4d0d89@posting.google.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > > Oh, look, Guardian got something else wrong, when canon proof is > > > staring him right in the face. I'M shocked...... > > > Canon proof being, what? Larger (and therefore closer) TIE Fighters > > that were in range versus significantly smaller (and therefore more > > distant) TIE Fighters that are expressly stated to be out of range? > > > If you want to prove your point, you'll need to do very much better. > > I did do "very much better". I proved that the TIE which was stated to > be out of range on approach to the DS was NOT out of range of the > Falcon's main guns. QED. You lose once again. Quod erat demonstrandum . . . . you forgot the demonstrandum, Wayne. Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Why don't you go re-read what I said, but do so while understanding the following: The TIE that was said to be "out of range" was further away than the two TIEs you show as being in weapons range. Therefore, you cannot say that the TIE that was out of range was actually in range. Got it? You posit a hypothesis wherein Han was talking about some other sort of range, range of sensors, weapons, urination, or whatever. However, that is unproven, and is certainly not a proven hypothesis by virtue of the fact that the TIE was further away than we saw the Falcon shooting before. Therefore, as I said, if you want to prove your argument with that webpage, you'd better get some better screen shots. Guardian 2000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:02:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On 18 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Wayne Poe wrote in message news:... > Quod erat demonstrandum . . . . you forgot the demonstrandum, Wayne. No, I forgot to bring it down to third grade level so even you could understand it, and then dismiss it. > Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Why don't you go re-read what I > said, but do so while understanding the following: > The TIE that was said to be "out of range" was further away than the > two TIEs you show as being in weapons range. No it wasn't taking into account what I said about our vantage point. And I notice you slyly refure to deal with the third picture the web page offers. > Therefore, you cannot say that the TIE that was out of range was > actually in range. > > Got it? Yeah, I got it. This is something ELSE proven with canon visuals you refuse to see. Oh well. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 16:54:03 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9j7kha$mk64d$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... >> Perhaps I'm not making myself clear. Why don't you go re-read what I >> said, but do so while understanding the following: > >> The TIE that was said to be "out of range" was further away than the >> two TIEs you show as being in weapons range. > >No it wasn't taking into account what I said about our vantage >point. The TIE is not going to grow by almost fifty percent if the cameraman had taken two steps forward, Wayne. The vantage point issue is moot. Prove it to yourself . . . go outside and play in a parking lot. Make note of the fact that the only vehicles which, subjectively speaking, grow by anything remotely resembling 50% when you take two steps toward them are going to be the ones that you're right on top of anyway. >And I notice you slyly refure to deal with the third picture >the web page offers. I haven't 'slyly refured' anything. However, if it is your intent to imply that I've refused to acknowledge some facet of some picture on your page (though the TIEs in all three are shown on the fourth), then do please explain the ramifications of this act. > >> Therefore, you cannot say that the TIE that was out of range was >> actually in range. >> >> Got it? > >Yeah, I got it. This is something ELSE proven with canon visuals you >refuse to see. Oh well. Are you changing the subject, Wayne? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 02:29:24 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > Are you changing the subject, Wayne? Nope. The subject has always been you can't see canon visuals through that haze you laughingly call intellect. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:29:05 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B589491.EB21DBE7@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Are you changing the subject, Wayne? > > Nope. > > The subject has always been you can't see canon visuals through that > haze you laughingly call intellect. The visuals show a much greater distance for the TIE, and indicate the maximum weapons range of the Falcon (or at least the effective range against TIE fighters). It's quite simple. I am not surprised you cannot see that. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Wayne Poe Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 23:27:08 -0700 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: -------- On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > The visuals show a much greater distance for the TIE, Wrong. The visuals show that the TIE would have been well within range of the Falcon's quad guns. > and indicate the maximum weapons range of the Falcon (or at least > the effective range against TIE fighters). Of the Falcon's what? Certainly not the main guns. > It's quite simple. No, you just are. -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Guardian 2000" Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 02:23:45 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <9jba9b$nd55d$1@ID-82121.news.dfncis.de> -------- Wayne Poe wrote in message ... > >On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > >> The visuals show a much greater distance for the TIE, > >Wrong. The visuals show that the TIE would have been well within range >of the Falcon's quad guns. Oh, of course, right, I forgot that the Falcon can shoot further than her maximum range. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Guardian 2000 Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001 15:29:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Millennium Falcon's Weapons Range? Message-ID: <3B58949F.9549A5C6@yahoo.com> -------- Wayne Poe wrote: > > On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Guardian 2000 wrote: > > > Are you changing the subject, Wayne? > > Nope. > > The subject has always been you can't see canon visuals through that > haze you laughingly call intellect. The visuals show a much greater distance for the TIE, and indicate the maximum weapons range of the Falcon (or at least the effective range against TIE fighters). It's quite simple. I am not surprised you cannot see that.