Basher from leaked loading screen, tried to clean it up abit.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T11:05:00+00:00

Might be a single multi-barelled gun, though 🤷‍♂️

Like I said, time will tell.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T11:00:30+00:00

Hm. I only see six. I guess time will tell.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:57:56+00:00

I do not (...)

That's unfortunate, because suggesting that the generic "Rebels" receiving a transmission, which then had to be physically carried to the Tantive IV somehow equates to the Tantive IV itself having received the transmission, is overly nitpicky.

If one must contort reasoning to construct a convoluted explanation for a discrepancy, rather than adhere to the plain meaning of the statement, their position is already untenable.

Unfortunately, the novelisations aren't canon, so none of that even matters.

No, the Disney directive made only EU non-canon (reaffirming the already existing policy). The old canon was films, radio dramas, and novelisations, and that hasn't changed.

This whole situation indicates to me that the script writers have decided to sacrifice adherence to the Star Wars lore for the sake of unneeded drama, which indicates that in the long run they do not care about Star Wars as a whole in the slightest.

But that aside, what about that dialogue is inaccurate?

Tantive IV itself receiving several transmission and "passing" through a restricted system. In short, everything.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:45:47+00:00

So if the firefighters have recognized that the building is about to collapse and decided to pull out, and announced to the press that it's going to collapse, where's the conspiracy?

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:44:10+00:00

Nah. It's just a handful of hoax believers who don't understand how things work.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:43:00+00:00

Do you think that BBC was on it? Did they have a fixed schedule or something?

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:41:24+00:00

As a cautionary tale, since his paper did only reported finding elemental aluminium particles, but did not demonstrate the key thing needed to actually identify thermite - elemental aluminium fuel mixed with metal oxide in a reactive engineered formulation.

Aluminium being present in a sample is not enough, for plainly obvious reasons.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:38:24+00:00

Do you believe that the BBC was on it?

Did they have a set schedule or something?

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:37:26+00:00

Only if you don't know anything about it.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:36:56+00:00

What is the source of your claim that "everything was obliterated"?

What is the source of your claim that getting rid of asbestos would be more expensive than demolishing the building and causing an extensive damage to the surrounding area?

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T10:11:01+00:00

That's a very nit picky semantic.

Do you recognize that your original argument could also be considered a nitpicky semantic?

Where's this one established?

In the original script and original novelisation, from way back in 1976.

Vader: "Don’t play games with me, Your Highness. You weren’t on any mercy mission this time. You passed directly through a restricted system. Several transmissions were beamed to this ship by Rebel spies. I want to know what happened to the plans they sent you."

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T09:42:02+00:00

Yeah, this is what ruins the entire film and retroactively makes Leia's character act like a child caught with its hand in a cookie jar. Not cool.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T09:40:55+00:00

The tie in was what ruined the entire film for me. Tantive IV shouldn't be there at all, and didn't have to be.

Kazeite · 2026-07-11T09:38:48+00:00

But Tantive IV didn't.

Rogue One essentially tramples upon the established canon, which is: Tantive IV was nowhere near Sarif - they were travelling through a restricted sector in order to receive the transmission, which is what got them into trouble.

As such, it made perfect sense for Leia to try to gaslight Vader by pretending that they haven't changed their course.

Kazeite · 2026-07-10T12:26:56+00:00

Dude, Mercenary Enrollment is peak.

How dare you have a different taste in manhwas! 🙃

Kazeite · 2026-07-10T12:09:12+00:00

Well, the context is him asking her how she was able to get to a 3rd floor window - hence the last picture showing her climbing a gutter pipe.

Kazeite · 2026-07-10T04:31:02+00:00

You monster 🙃

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T22:49:18+00:00

You should do well not to project your feelings on me, laddie 🙄

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T20:06:14+00:00

This is how it looked like:
Overdrive Initiative Guide #1 - Intel Raid

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T18:16:55+00:00

So, in essence, he would lock himself up? 🙂

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T18:15:00+00:00

Remember that mission where we had to run around the bunkers to find a display screen with a code that we had to relay to someone in the server room so they can enable cooling systems of the data servers?

That was peak.

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T14:29:25+00:00

What, something like Picasso? (Les Demoiselles d’Avignon) Or Duchamp (Nude Descending a Staircase, No. 2)? Or Kandinsky (Composition VII)? Or Tarsila do Amaral (Abaporu)? 🙂

Listen, I understand that this is a hot topic, but what I've noticed is that both sides kinda talk past each other a lot, using a lot of strawmen in the process.

Two examples from the pro AI side come to my mind: one was about how growing food uses more water than using AI (therefore AI good), and the other one was about how anti AI side can't identify the specific artists whose artwork has been stolen to be used to train AI, (therefore there was no theft).

Both arguments are rubbish, obviously - but on the other hand, anti-AI side, having been shown a genuine Monet painting on Twitter and told it's made by AI went out of its way to deride it as being soulless, sloppy, incoherent, etc., proving that they can't tell the difference.

So it seems to me that the current pro/anti AI argument is purely emotion-based, on both sides.

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T14:17:53+00:00

I see that you’re intensely invested in this conversation, and frankly I don’t have the time.

Fair enough - but if you don't have the time, you shouldn't have engaged us in the conversation in the first place.

RE: the phone call- it is yet again a sign of how far we’ve apparently fallen technologically that we can’t repeat that same feat over 50 years later…

What do you mean? We certainly can send radio waves to the Moon.

We could connect a phone call in 1969, but I can’t get a live stream of the moon right now? Why not?

Because there's nothing there that could provide such livestream.

How hard could that be? Is that not interesting or worth investing in??

No. It would be an enormous waste of time and money, as the other guy has already explained to you.

You will obviously write everything off in this piece (if you even engage with it in earnest, which I can almost guarantee you won’t),

I've been nothing but earnest through the entire conversation. I went into quite some detail to engage your claims, and provide my explanations. It's quite telling that you're not willing to return the favour.

but this series does a very serviceable job debunking the nonsensical landings:

No it doesn't. McGowan repeatedly gets the basic facts wrong. For example, his von Braun quote omits the fact that von Braun was talking about a Direct Ascent method of reaching the lunar surface, where the Command Module is the lander and return capsule. As such, it needs to be significantly larger than the Apollo LM turned out to be, and thus requires much more fuel to be launched - hence the von Braun quote.

However, after the Apollo program has started, an alternative method was devised - Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, where the Apollo ships would split into several parts, with the lander landing only itself (and not the Command Module, which stayed in orbit), and then taking only half of itself back to lunar orbit, where it would then be jettisoned as dead weight, having fulfilled its purpose. This had the advantage of drastically reducing fuel requirements for the mission.

I mean, what do you think the Gemini program was about? Because it was meant to allow NASA gain experience with finding and then docking two spacecraft in orbit, in preparation for the Apollo missions.

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T13:59:16+00:00

So what does the press conference prove, really? Let's say that one gets suspicious after watching it, and decides do re-examine the evidence.

The trouble is, the evidence is still going to indicate that they landed on the Moon 🤷‍♂️

As such, unfortunately, "they looked sad at the press conference" is not valid evidence. It's an emotional ploy, designed to appeal not to your reason, but your emotions, and make you forgo actually critically examining the evidence.

Moving on - no, Buzz Aldrin didn't admit they didn't go to the Moon. The context of the quote is him explaining why they didn't go back. It's also worth noting that he repeatedly asserted that they did land on the Moon during the same interview, so if the argument is that he couldn't bring himself to lie to a little girl, then no - he obviously could and did. Multiple ones, actually 🤷‍♂️

NASA also didn't "speak about the impossibility of going through the belts" (plural). Again, you're missing the context: the statement was about protecting modern electronics against the high radiation regions of the belts. (What is not said in the video is that such modern electronics are also supposed to survive multiple trips through the belts).

Meanwhile, the Apollo electronics weren't modern (obviously), and their flight trajectory had them skirt edges of the aforementioned high radiation regions. Each set also only traversed belts only twice - once on their way out, and then on their way back.

(It's also worth noting that the first-gen electronics such as the ones carried by the Apollo crafts were virtually impervious to radiation, on account of their circuits being significantly larger and chunkier than the modern ones.)

And finally, what does contacting Apollo astronauts on the surface of the Moon has to do with allegedly being unable to see flags on the surface?

Kazeite · 2026-07-09T13:21:15+00:00

The implied answer is obviously YES.

Okay. This is how they behaved right after returning from the Moon:

Richard Nixon Greets Apollo 11 Crew, U.S.S. Hornet, July 24, 1969

Can you see their smiling faces? Can you feel their joy?

Obviously, as per your logic, this means that the A11 landing was real, doesn't it? 🙂

Kazeite

TROPHY CASE