---

Hate Mail

---

Adarx

---

The Debate
My Second Rebuttal

---

I don't have to pretend.  It was 19.5k.  Text file attached.
For website readers, it can be downloaded here.
 

Aslo, do remeber to submit yours to spacebattles.
 

Your idea, your arrangement, your responsibility.  I never agreed to send my posts to Spacebattles.  I agreed to allow you to send them to Spacebattles.
 

This is incorrect.  I am saying we know the fighter was damaged because it was damaged by later attacks.
 

So, you deny that the fighter was even destroyed now?  You are claiming that it survived and was attacked later?
 

WE know it was damaged because its shields were not working right.  If they had been we would have seen them activate.
 

I spent all day Sunday gathering the references that you spoke of but didn't provide, and demonstrated conclusively that they don't support your position, and all you can do is *restate your original position*?
I provided numerous videos that *you referenced*, and none of them had any evidence that we see Vorlon fighter shields "activate."  The one time in the entire series where we see *anything* like this is the Whitestar taking fire from a Shadow fighter.  That was a different ship and different weapons fired at it.  And those effects were never seen again in the entire series, even by the same Whitestar!
The first bolt hit on the opposite side of the fighter, so if there were any shield effects, we would not have seen them.

To make a statement like that, you first have to show that Vorlon fighter shields produce visual effects of any kind.  I have shown, using your examples, that no Vorlon ship ever shows visual shield effects.  So, who do you think you are fooling with this restatement of a refuted position?
 

You said:  Two problems here.
*Red Herring.  We are talking about Vorlon *fighters*.  Please stay on topic.
*I don't recall any shields appearing in that episode.  You must give evidence, not vague references.
Despite your Red Herring, I will address your statement.
As far as I can tell, there were only two incidents in that episode where Shadow beams contacted a Vorlon ship.

http://www.babtech-onthe.net/adarx/shields1.jpg
 

No, we are talking about Vorlon defense systems which appear on those fighters.  They are the same system as shown by b5wars yet you are suggesting completely different reactions to weapons fire when struck.
 

What are you talking about here?  Your reference was to Interludes and Examinations, and the only Vorlon ships we see hit are battleships.  We are talking about fighters, so it was a Red Herring.
I am not suggesting "different reactions to weapons fire," I am suggesting no visible shield reactions at all.  You are the one suggesting "reactions to weapons fire," which we don't see.
Who do you think you are fooling with this doubletalk?
 

As for the first one, we don't know for certain that it was the beam.  In fact given that the flash of light engulfed the entire fornt end of the vorlon ship.  The yellow part you circles could easily be part of the yellow background of the nebula.
 
 

Where the beam hits the beam or shield we see some kind of reaction taking place without much change from the background at all.  It looks like it hit some kind of shield.
 

And now you will show us how this resembles weapons striking Vorlon ships in other scenarios.
You can't, because it never happened in the entire series.
Babylon5 Wars (since you brought it up), says that Vorlon shields deflect incoming weapons.  That is not what happened here.
Rules Compendium, Page 96

Gravitic shields operate by creating a slight gravity well around the vessel, causing weapons to shift slightly on their courses and either miss or glance off the target.

What we did see was two beams colliding, interceptor-style.
In the other video (http://www.babtech-onthe.net/adarx/shields2.mov), there are no similar effects.  Or any other time in the series.
 

You said:  Red Herring.
We are talking about *Vorlon fighters*.
*Whitestars are much larger and presumably more powerful than Vorlon fighters.
*The shield effects seen on the Whitestar were never again seen in the entire series.  Not when Whitestars were hit by Thunderbolts, larger ships, or even other Shadow fighters.  This is the exception rather than the rule.
It is likely that the effect seen was that individual ship's response that that particular type of weapon.  Lennier said that the system learns from previous experiences.

We are talking about Vorlon defense systems.  How is this relevant to whether or not shields activate when struck?
 

You claimed that the Vorlon fighter shields were not operative, because we saw no effects from them.  You referenced the Whitestar's visual effects in War Without End.  I pointed out that these are different vessels from Vorlon fighters, so this is a Red Herring.  I also pointed out that the effects seen were never again seen in the series.
Furthermore, if there were any visual effects or not, we would not have seen them through the fighter.
Thus, your reference is not valid to the debate.  Who are you trying to fool with all of this doubletalk?  Remember that people reading this debate can just hit the "Back" button and see exactly what you said.
In short, I am addressing your points, and you are ignoring mine, preferring to restate your original claim and ignore my points.
 

In other cases the shields vould be down.

And your reasoning, evidence, or statement that shows this completely illogical point is where?
Why would the Vorlons have their shields down (which Babylon5 Wars says are always up) when in battle?  The "other cases" are references *you used*, but didn't provide.  So I provided them and have shown conclusively that they don't support your position.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  You have provided none.
 

Not only this but only the skin learns, not the shields.

Another reason why your Whitestar reference is a fallacy.

Sounds like specualtion.  It is likely that the effect...  Doesn't the simplest explanation (it struck the shiedls and the shields showed) win out as you say?
 

The simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the one that is correct.  Occam's Razor.
My explanation fits the facts.  Your does not.  In fact, you have backed out of *your own references* at least twice so far in this post!
Your explanation is that we didn't see shield effects, so they must not be there.  You take that Leap of Logic, and compound it by assuming that the fighter was damaged previously.  You compound it further by stating that it was "drifting."
This does not fit the facts, and thus is not a valid theory.
Furthermore, you have provided only one quote as evidence in these two posts so far, and then misused it!
In your third preliminary post, you said "I am going to show evidence that the Vorlon Fighter had recieved prior damage to the "single volley" which you claimed destroyed it."
Either send your evidence, or concede that you don't have it.
 

I am indeed refering to the artifact.  You claim that the shield was TSA tech though we don't know this.  Recall that the TSA began coming through the gate very shortly after it regained power.  Thus it is more likely that the gate restored shields with power.  You have made an unsupported assertion that the shields were TSA tech and not the Vorlons who built it.

You said:  And it exhibited none of the shield effects you mentioned.
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/adarx/shields3.avi
In this clip, we see the Whitestar fleet attacking the Vorlon outpost.  When weapons hit the outpost, no shield effects are seen.  Note that several shots come before Delenn tells Captain Sheridan that the "screens are down."
When weapons hit the Whitestars, no shield effects are seen.

Recall, the shields are down.  Even if you want to go this way, it proved they have shields.
 

Strawman.
I didn't say they don't have shields.  I said their shields produce no visual effects anywhere in the series.  You know, after you claimed that the shields must have been down because we see no effects.
Yes, the shields were down, *after* Whitestar 9 attacked.  Delenn reported that the screens were down 16 seconds into this 30 second video.

She reported that they were now down, proving that they were up.  There were no "shield effects."  There were no armor effects either.  Remember your claim that the fighter was damaged because we didn't see the shield effects?  We didn't see any shield effects anytime in the series.  All but a couple of these videos I've put up were *your* references in your first post.
 

Interesting that what you claim to be debris is not onscured by the Drazi warship which crashes into the camera.  In the last few frames you can plainly see that the "debris" is too close to the camera to have come from the fighter.
 

If it didn't come from the exploding fighter, where did it come from?
Please enlighten me with your superior evidence.  Evidence - that stuff you have yet to present.

This animation shows that the debris came from the fighter, as if anyone else in the audience needed this file.

This animation shows a very large chunk of the fighter thrown off the starboard side.

Now please examine the word volley:
Definition taken from dictionary.com:
 

Random House Webster's College Dictionary, which I have in my hand, has 12 definitions.
"1. the simultaneous discharge of a number of missiles or firearms."
"2. the missiles so discharged."
"3. a burst or outpouring of many things at once or in quick succession"
"6. to discharge in or as if in a volley."
"9. to be discharged together, as missiles."
"10. to move or proceed with great rapidity, as in a volley."
"11. to fire a volley; sound together, as firearms."

Looks like the Thunderbolt fired a volley to me.

Are you interested in the Babylon5 Wars definition?
Rules Compendium, 2nd edition: page 38
"The total number of points of damage, referred to as a volley, is then allocated to the target."
 
 

You said:  Not quite.  Going from "capable of blowing nearly any fighter out of space in a single shot" to saying that a Vorlon fighter can withstand a hit just because it is the most durable around is a Leap of Logic fallacy.
You must now provide a direct quote that tells us that a Vorlon fighter can withstand a direct hit from a Thunderbolt.
 

Wrong.  Capable of means what the very best that can happens is.  If I am capable of jumping up to 2 meters, the best I can jump is two meters.
 

It would also be valid to say that you are capable of jumping 1 meter.  Or a half meter.  Or a centimeter.
But that doesn't mean that you can ONLY jump a centimeter.
 

If it is capable of destroying almost any fighter, it is not capable of destroying every fighter because capable refers to under the best circumstances.  Thus, it is correct that the most durable wouls survive a single hit whilst the lesser fighters cannot.
 

Leap of Logic fallacy.  I've already explained this in my previous rebuttal.  Is it the best you can do to restate your previous point?
Here is a more specific quote that relates to this situation:
Rules Compendium, page 75

Also known as the gatling cannon or gatling gun, this is a new development in fighter armament, and appears only on Thunderbolts. It fires a burst of pulses in a narrow field, all of them at a single target.  Though technically a pulse weapon, it makes only a single "to-hit" and damage roll, and does not use individual pulses.  For a fighter weapon, it is particularly powerful - it can easily destroy any fighter it hits, and score significant damage against ships.

How about the game stats?  I've already shown that the first bolt hit the opposite flank or the rear.  Thus, forward armor stats don't apply.
A Thunderbolt's maximum firepower potential in one turn is 18 points.
The Vorlon fighter's shields provide 1 point of protection, the rear armor 2 points.  As the "adaptive armor" can't be pre-set, and only works after it is fired upon by this type of weapon, it is not irrational to expect that it is not adapted to Thunderbolt weaponry with at least "two dozen" other races out there fighting the Vorlons.
18 points - 1 (shield) - 2 (rear armor) = 15 points.  Interesting, that is the exact structural points of the Vorlon fighter!
So, it is very possible by game rules for a Thunderbolt to destroy a Vorlon fighter in one turn with one volley.
Note that the Thunderbolt does not necessarily have to be behind the Vorlon fighter to hit the rear.  The first bolt did hit either the rear or rear flank, so the Thunderbolt must have been at a bit of an angle from the Vorlon fighter.  This may be another reason the Vorlons hadn't fired yet in the 1/2 second.
 

Here, lets do this your way.  Capable of destroying almost any fighter means capable of destroying any fighter except the most
robust/durable.
 

That is your way, not mine.
I prefer direct quotes and evidence.
 

So the book effectively says The Thunderbolt can destroy any but the most durable in a single shot.
 

No, the book effectively says exactly what it says.  The Thunderbolt is "capable of blowing nearly any fighter out of space in a single shot."
Combine this with "For a fighter weapon, it is particularly powerful - it can easily destroy any fighter it hits."
That does not translate to "A Thunderbolt can't destroy a Vorlon fighter in one shot."
The most durable fighters in the series are the Thirdspace aliens' fighters anyway.
 

Now, the Vorlon fighter is the most durable so we replace most durable with vorlon fighter.  Now we are left with the Thunderbolt can destroy any fighter except the Vorlon fighter in one shot, correct?
 

No.  I've already explained that this is a Leap of Logic fallacy.
This in no way represents evidence.
 

They were trying to shoot them but never shot?  The targets were directly in front of them yet they never shot.
 

False Dilemma fallacy.
They were in pursuit.  So, they didn't shoot in a fraction of a second, so what?  What if they just started the pursuit right before coming into view?

Anyway, you killed your own arguement simply by applying your statement of 6 shots and the definition of volley, you just sank your own arguement.
 

When in doubt, just declare victory, huh?  :)
See the definition above.

You left out important parts of the definition, the only parts relevant to this debate.
 

Either it was six volleys in which case your statement is wrong or it was one volley and only one shot hit which makes it impossible from babylon 5 wars.
 

It was one volley consisting of several bolts over about 2/3 second.
See above that a Thunderbolt can destroy a Vorlon fighter in one volley by game rules/stats.

So far, you have provided only
*vague references to episodes, which I had to dig up for you to show that they don't support your position
*two quotes, one of which you turned into a Leap of Logic fallacy, and the other you left out the relevant definitions
*Strawman attacks, Red Herrings, Tautologies, and attempts to change your argument from post to post.

You first argued that the fighter's shields didn't activate.  You mentioned a few episodes.  I've shown that there is no way to know this, because there aren't any visible shield effects to be seen anywhere in the series.  I provided the videos that show you are wrong.
You made some vague references to Babylon5 Wars material, with only one quote (you agreed in the preliminaries to provide quotes - where are they?).  You twisted that quote around to play silly semantics games and make a Leap of Logic that it excludes Vorlon fighters.  I provided images, quotes, and projected possible scenarios using the same source.  You haven't addressed those points.
You claimed that the fighter left no debris at all.  I have shown multiple images that clearly show a lot of debris.
You stated that the Vorlons didn't fire or maneuver, and insisted that the fighter is a derelict.  I have shown that there was only fractions of a second for this to happen, and there are other possible reasons for them not to fire or turn in fractions of a second.  I also pointed out that this "derelict" fighter was maintaining perfect formation in a high-speed chase.  You have not addressed these points.
In this post, the only evidence you bring to a fraction of a definition of "volley."  I have provided a more relevant definition from an actual dictionary on my desk.  Otherwise, you have just restated your original arguments, which I ripped to shreds in my first rebuttal, using actual, real evidence.

When observing an event, you document what happened.  If someone disagrees with your documentation, and feels that something different happened instead, it is up to him to prove it.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I documented what happened.  We clearly see a Vorlon fighter blown out of the sky by a Thunderbolt.
You claim that this isn't what happened, and that the fighter sustained previous damage.
Since I documented what I saw, and provided evidence for everyone else to review, and you claim that this statement and evidence is wrong; the burden of proof is on you.
You are the one who is supposed to provide ground-breaking evidence, not me.  So far, you have only provided two quotes.  You misused one of them and didn't provide a relevant definition in the other.  So far, I've had to dig up your references for you, to show that what you said isn't what happened.
This is like someone telling a scientist to prove there isn't a God.
We can't observe God.  We can't measure God.  We can't describe the properties of God.  The default condition is to only believe what you can observe.
Does this mean there is no God?  No.  But the claim that there is is the one that requires evidence.
The Burden of Proof is not on the scientist.  It is on the Creationist.

Here, I claim that what I saw is what happened.  You claim that something we didn't observe is actually what happened.  It is up to you to provide evidence that it did.
It is not in your best interest to nitpick, create fallacies, etc.  It is in your best interest to back up your claim with actual, real, tangible, reproducible evidence.
You haven't done this yet in two posts.  You only have three left.