Re: BSG+ Centauri A, B, C and Cally (was Re: Anyone else notice...)

In article <671oj8F2ncvruU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
KalElFan <kalelfan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"Brad Templeton" <btm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>news:KvOdnRel-ppTGpbVnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>Best I can tell, you're drawing conclusions there's no basis for.  It
>happens all the time with nitpicks.  There can be literally 1,000+
>things that could account for something the writers simply haven't
>yet explained, but the nitpick will attempt to rule out this or that, or
>insist that this or that is necessary or that something seen before
>can only be interpreted in one way.
>
>Even assuming some beings were moving her around, they may have
>only wanted to give her the signposts she has, rather than a detailed
>sky survey from Earth's point of view.  Or it may have just happened
>that way -- that she couldn't obtain or remember more information
>than what she had about the ringed gas giant and triple star system.

It's hardly an assumption that somebody was moving her around.  Do
you propose something else?
>
>> However, using Alpha Centauri or Saturn as "signposts" to Earth
>> would be just plain stupid...
>
>Assertion with literally no basis that you've demonstrated.

This is based on realities from astronomy.   Fully justified.
Why do you think there is no basis?  Are you familiar with the
astronomical facts here?  If so, explain what's wrong about what
I have said.

>
>> ... Long, long before you got close enough to detect those things,
>> the map of the zodiac would tell you where Earth was.
>
>That assumes the beings, or her subconscious, or whatever led her
>to Earth, allowed for a zodiac map check to assist Usenet nitpicks
>in gaining validity they don`t have.

The Zodiac map check is in the script, it's not somethign I made
up.   Starbuck says she did it.
>
>http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/proxima/
>
>  ... its surface is in a state of turmoil. Flares, or explosive
outbursts
>  occur almost continually...

She described a "fla****ng triple star" not a "triple star with one
extremely dim component which would not be seen without very careful
telescopic analysis which is prone to flares you can see in the X-ray
band"
>
>alone dismiss it as bad writing.  If it's NOT Alpha Centauri, it's
>arguably bad writing for making it such a perfect fit for the triple
>star Alpha Centauri system.

No, once again because:
    a) Alpha Centauri is not obviously a triple star.  We live 4
       light years from it and we didn't figure that out until
       relatively recently.   People living around A or B wouldn't
       figure it out from the ****d eye, either.

    b) The "fla****ng" is largely in X-rays and not something you
	would see in the few moments of observation you might do
	during a few-hour visit to Earth

    c) Long before you could observe Alpha C, you would know where
       Earth was based on the Zodiac.
-- 
Analysis blog for Battlestar Galactica Fans  --
http://ideas.4brad.com/battlestar