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

"Brad Templeton" <btm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:iPOdnYkU2Jf8WpHVnZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> She did shoot the zodiac.   Her camera seems more than adequate.
> They did study the photos quite carefully.   I'm not making it up.

You are making up that because she shot a picture, it has detail
in it that would allow them to pinpoint Earth's location.  ALL that
it has is the same general picture that they got from the temple.

If your nitpick were working (and it ain't), then it wouldn't even
need the Starbuck trip to Earth and photograph of its sky.  What
you're effectively arguing is that the Earth sky information from the
temple ought to have been good enough for their supercomputers
(or whatever technology you think they have) to figure out where
Earth was.  There's no reason to think that's the case.

> I have done these calculations.   They are
> trivially within the capability of our modern computers, let
> alone those on the fleet.    You don't calculate every star for
> every other star.   Quite the reverse, you prune the tree very
> quickly because you know what the sky you are seeking looks like,
> and as soon as you model the sky from a point and you do not
> see stars where they should be, you can skip on to the next try.

Provide evidence that such a software package exists, let alone
can automatically match up a particular star pattern to a list of
even 10,000 stars and identify or exclude a match.  Then I'll point
out that it doesn't preclude false positives or negatives because
of local planets or other objects.

> Nonsense.  My local planetarium can show the sky from any point
> in our region instantly.  Software that does this is common.

Of course it is because it has a market on Earth and we know where
the planets are and so forth.  We're one system.  Galactica doesn't
know whether the Earth sky map they have has local bodies like
planets.  Nor would your "good from any point in the galaxy!"
software package (that doesn't exist until you prove it does) avoid
false positives/negatives as a result.  Adama would say it's unreliable
and a waste of resources, and banish you to some recycling ****p. :-)

> ... M45 is very distinctive and would show up...

Shoulda coulda woulda when it comes to what you think that
Starbuck has in her photos.  The photo may have no such
detail and also consider this, which you keep avoiding:

> a) If you are trained to pilot raptors, as Starbuck is...

We know in this case that she can't account for but a fraction of what
happened to her.  Some speculate that Tyrol wiped information from
the ****p's log, and your nitpick is helpless against all kinds of factors
like that.  You wish that your nitpick would stick, but it can't.  Too
many possible ways to dismiss it.

> b) A person trained in this would know how to identify [snip
> many things]

Again, all of which she might have done.  The same gaps she has on
the two months and all that happened to her could have wiped what
detail you think or wish should be available.

> c) This would be doubly so for somebody realizing, "I'm at Earth, I
> definitely need to locate it for the fleet."

Same again.  You wish they had written a different story where she
came back knowing the details you think she should.  She didn't.

It's reminding me of the old Dear Doctor defense from the
Enterprise series, though in that case the roles were reversed.
Instead of defending the ep people were attacking it and
a few would keep insisting on these shoulda coulda woulda
things that weren't there on-screen.  You're insisting Starbuck
had to come back with proof, when she didn't and we already
know forces beyond her conscious control were at work (so
you can't even blame her character or the writing of it).