Star Destroyer Net Lies (read the description)
3,288 views · Published 3 January 2012 · 1:40 · Indexed 1 October 2026
Channel: Idazmi7 · 2012 · Nonprofits & Activism
http://www.stardestroyer.net/ is full of various lies, falsehoods, and pointless attacks by Star Wars fans against Star Trek in general, to no purpose. Both are well-accepted Sci-Fi series, but the aforementioned website exists for no reason except to smear all fandom for Star Trek by insinuating that Star Trek is "barely Science Fiction due to technobabble and inconsistencies" and by coining the phrase "Trektard", which is applied to all who say otherwise. Also search "trektard" on the Imperial Wiki, which is linked to Stardestroyer.net, they even have a dedicated article on the term and it's usage! (Also search: "English-to-Trektard Dictionary" at the same site) http://www.stardestroyer.net/mrwong/wiki/index.php/Main_Page - The "Imperial Wiki" Better yet, just look at their "recruitment" page: http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/ The website also grossly understates Star Trek ship capabilities and specs, for no reason except to salt the wound: It seems odd that a website called Star Destroyer (a Star Wars ship) would spend more time insulting Star Trek, than telling you what a Star Destroyer does! Most of the "numerical figures" and "emperical data" used on Stardestroyer.net comes from the book: Star Wars: the Incredible Cross Sections, (ICS) and an unofficial commentary by someone called Brian Young. The ICS is not a "credible resource" at all, nor is it "canon". The ICS is a childeren's book with very out-of-place measurments of firepower, and outright inconsistencies. For example: "Turbolasers are partice-cannons powered by super-heated tibanna gas. Each has an output of 200 Gigatons per *individual* turbolaser round" (Considering that just ONE megaton is a military-class Nuclear Warhead, and a Gigaton is 1000 megatons, they are boldly saying that just one of the greenish laser blasts is worth 200,0000 megatons. That is ridiculous.) The commentaries themselves directly contradict Star Wars's canon material, and attack the validity of the actual Star Destroyer blueprints in favor of the ICS! http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/index.html - Brian Young's "Turbolaser Commentaries" page. Towards the end of the page, you will find data which lists the canonical abilities of the Star Destroyer. Mr. Young states that it is an "early concept": but no reference is given, (as usual) and the data is ignored in favor of 100% fanmade statements. Furthermore, the typeface used, and the edging around the image suggests that it was a complete item, not a "concept", and was actually cut from a commercialized blueprint or "Technical Manual". This kind of "evaluation" is typical of Stardestroyer.net http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Characteristics/blueprnt.jpg - The Canon stats of the Star Destroyer, listed on Brian Young's "Turbolaser Commentaries" page. They also use the long out-of-print, unofficial Star Trek "Technical Manuals", especially the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual" which is incorrect in grossly obvious ways. For example: "The twelve starship mounted 'Phaser Array' weapons have a *collective* output of "3.6 gigawatts per second" (3.6 gigawatts is the power of 3 modern nuclear reactors, or 3 lightning bolts. Furthermore, that is supposedly for all twelve guns at the same time. I think ANY spaceship that can destroy a planet's entire surface would be MUCH more powerful than that, or an average lightning storm would destroy all life on the Earth!) By contrast, they ignore the "Starfleet Technical Manual", by Franz Joseph Schnaubelt, which was signed into canon formally by Gene Rodenberry in 1975. That manual was heavily referenced for Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. They ignore it simply because it contradicts many of their assumptions. I will not allow viewers to rate this, and comments are regulated. This is needed due to Star Wars fan majority: those who falsely think I am attacking Star Wars will vote it down until the familiar "Darth Vader's red lightsaber" replaces the like-dislike bar, which will invite more of the expected insults.
