And that one must always be parallel or in front of it due to said day cycle.
Can you stop postings cans nobody can read? You were asked nicely.
I can't read that shit. I shouldn't have to dig for those scans in english that aren't even given a citation which makes it even more troublesome to check for context, because whether you agree or not, it very much does matter for a few of them. You're on a english wiki, we even have general rules about posting and yapping in other languages unless absolutely required. Use ******** if need be, they got english scans that are readily available.
Anyway.
Scan 1 I am willing to give you, or was until I actually looked at it in depth as below.
Scan 2 in space aren't planets, or moons, or anything? We don't know? They could easily be stars as they're flying through the vacuum of space, why are we assuming they're moons instead of the other options? We even see stars on that same page drawn the same way, yet we
also see a planet on the same page that is drawn demonstrably different. Why assume they're moons or planets, when it wouldn't even be consistent within the
same page. If they were planets or moons, they'd be drawn or textured in the same vain the blatant planet we already see on said page is as opposed to drawn like the stars on said page?
Scan 3 with Jupiter is just wrong, I'm not explaining this in as much detail for the 3rd time but to give a quick gist, again.... It is literally impossible to be Jupiter's moons as they're either imperceptible next to it, and it def isn't planets because there isn't even 4 planets BEHIND Jupiter, and yes behind, she's coming from earth's direction, those planets would need to be Saturn and what not, which it evidently isn't due to lack of rings, plus the fact there's only 3 planets behind Jupiter, not 4. And I'm not going to get into the fact the position is all kinds of ****** up. And if you really wanna argue it's Jupiter's moons.... Which ones, there's 95+? Notwithstanding size issues, position isn't accurate either with their orbits. Which is to say, those dots? They're evidently meant to be stars too, just unlike namek's consistently shown configuration and corroborated lore that places one in the forefront, ACTUALLY are ten fucktrillion miles away.
And the rest the same deal, they're all scans of space travel, why are you assuming they aren't suns and stars? Especially when on the same pages we see planets and moons and stuff drawn in a way that is blatantly different?
Do tell why random white sphere in space is a planet or moon while scattered among the starry space, as opposed to just a star that's closer to them as they fly by, all while non-star celestial objects get drawn in a very different way within the exact same panel? I'm sure you see the issue, you're not giving proof, you're just saying they're moons just because, you're actively inflating the sample size of "planets/moons drawn this specific way", based solely on personal opinion that isn't even consistent within the very scans you're using as evidence, if anything I'd argue you've been proving otherwise, that stars in space are universally drawn a certain way, and 99% of the time moons and planets aren't or there's a caveat that makes it evident.
And I'm not even sure why either? There IS examples of moons drawn the way you're arguing, and instead of showing those, you're using whatever these scans are meant to be? At this point it seems like just throwing scans and seeing what sticks as opposed to arguing because it's correct, now I'm not saying that is the case, but this is starting to come off as grasping as straws.
And Freeza planet is a bad example because the "moons" are drawn the exact same way the sun is drawn in the Vegeta fight scans, same texturing gradient too, so hell, maybe that's a sun too, who knows? I mean that literally, we have no idea that planet's lore or placement from its stars, you're kinda just guessing what they are. One of them is a moon it would seem based on the details, but the others? I'm not sure at all, and the funny part is, it's the SMALLEST one that is given that extra detail to denote it as a rocky planetoid, yet the bigger ones aren't? You'd think the opposite would be true given more page to draw on. And even more odd, why are a few drawn as white spheres and others given a gradient? Kind of implicates they're not the same thing. So hell they very well could, and likely are, just stars and suns because they sure aren't the lil moon we see in the same panels. Interpretative scans about loreless planets that aren't consistent within itself in regards to your all moons claims, isn't good evidence.
As above, you're flat out wrong on Jupiter. This isn't even up for debate, Jupiter
exists, we don't need to assume how stuff looks with it or placements or this or that.
Freeza planet has no lore, in fact based on your other evidence, I would argue it's actually potentially a sun too given that scene is
right after the Vegeta fight, in which the sun is drawn that same way, so there's no real time for Toriyama to even alter his drawing style there, but either way it isn't fact, it's conjecture. And the white spheres that aren't even drawn hyper close to it anyway, being presumed to be moons and not just more stars in the already starry sky is a pretty specific assumption.
I already said examples exist, but they're in the minority and become far less common as the manga actually progresses. Meanwhile, in your own arguments even, suns are drawn pretty damn consistently, as we can see, in some of these very scans, let alone the countless others that exist that you just aren't posting. This isn't a solid argument, you're legit arguing art details, that aren't even consistent within your own evidence.
Yeah, if they're orbiting the planet, in all your examples you're posting shots of space, filled with countless stars, and even blatantly drawn planets and actual moons, while going "these white spheres that don't look like the moons/planets literally drawn on the same page, are actually moons", as opposed to just stars in the background? Like our galaxy has billions of stars, yeah planets are more common, and so are moons, but here's a little detail you're forgetting, you wouldn't be able to see
other planets and moon systems if you're close enough to do a planetary fly by like those shots, as they're to tiny to see at such distances. But you could see stars billions of miles away for example, some bigger than others.
It isn't reasonable, it actively doesn't make sense, in fact it's outright impossible for that to be visible in such a way. So no, by assuming the white spheres drawn in space like stars, while actively different from the actual detailed planet/moons in the same page (which would mean Toriyama would have to be actively be inconsistent with his art in the same panel), doesn't make sense, nor is it even a solid argument because it circles back again to being based not on fact, but just how you feel or think it is.
Occam's Razor would actually imply if a hundred white spheres get drawn on panel, they're all stars and not a mix match of various things when said alternative things also get drawn but in such a way you can clearly tell they aren't the same thing. Couple that with just basic logic in how stuff wouldn't be visible, or this and that, and you've pretty much damned your argument.
To go even further, Occam's razor actually suggests that if we know Namek has specifically 3 suns, and we see 3 sun like objects near it every time after the sun lore is dropped, that the things in question are suns, not 3 moons that are never mentioned. You'd need to make extra assumptions to arrive at your conclusion, which is very much not how Occam's Razor functions.
This is also cherry picking. Do you know how many times moons
aren't drawn like that either? It isn't "often" enough to be called consistent, I can think of about 8 times total in the manga, most leaning toward early on, where it's objectively the case. But I couldn't tell you how many times it gets some semblance of detail, nor how many times stars/suns get drawn like the Namekian objects do.
Plus when half the thread has been arguing "suns can only be drawn this specific way", only for it to be revealed "hey post sun lore, they're always drawn like this", for the argument to backpedal to "well moons also sometimes get drawn like that so they're moons"....
Yeah they're also depicted as stars in every single panel after the sun lore is stated. This is, again, cherry picking.
But even worse is that it's cherry picking
within cherry picking. You're using scans to say "moons are depicted this way", ignoring the vast majority where they aren't depicted that way, ignoring stars also depicted that specific way, and with scans that 90% of the time aren't even moons to begin with....
As for the last bit "Every single instance after the sun lore gets dropped, Namek is drawn with 3-star like objects". Ignoring the former is still in contention and up for debate and is the only reason why I'm willing to compromise on a "likely" instead of a flatout, as just said, every time after the sun lore my dude.
You mean almost exactly like the majority of your examples (in which most we don't even know are even moons or planets, you're arguing off a preconceived notion first, and because of said notion, concluding that is what they must be).
Every time post sun lore, Namek is shown with 3 celestial objects orbiting it drawn exactly the way you
just described stars to be.
I legitimately don't get this, you're effectively agreeing that's how stars get drawn?
Actually... I'm noticing that scene doesn't even support your claims so I retract that.
Do we see a planet or moon from the grounds perspective? Yes.
Is this moon/planet detailed, darker in color and whatnot? Yep.
Do we see a simplified version of orbiting objects around the planet as they leave? Yep?
The problem though? The moon isn't drawn like the Namekian suns and other stars.
We see a celestial object that is darker in color, this lines up with one of the objects that was drawn the other object though is pretty detailed and visualized. But the blatant planetary looking one? We don't see it as they leave the planet.
Now I'm sure you're arguing that the blank white one is meant to be that planet-looking one, in fact I thought so too, ignoring that's a lil weird because it's drawn large enough to be given detail, but it can't be.
For 3 reasons.
It's positioning doesn't line up. In scan 1 on the ground, the dark is on the right below, while the white is on the left above the dark one.
Yet when they leave, the white object is to the left, while the dark one is to the right.
You might say "That could be the angle, they might have left the planet at an angle where it'd be mirrored", that isn't possible given they're flying AWAY from those objects, so the same direction the PoV was facing in that panel so the position should be the same.
But the white object in the space shot is LARGER than the dark object, this is an issue because in the ground shot the "planet" was SMALLER than the dark object. So why is the white sphere suddenly bigger than the dark one, yet the moon/planet was smaller than it?
It can't be depth, we just confirmed the direction they left at is the same way the pov panel was, but that makes no sense, it's further back, it would NEVER be able to look bigger han the dark object, it just isn't possible?
So not only is the positions messed up, both which side, horizontally, and vertically in relation to each other, but even the size is blatantly wrong.
So what do I think? I think that white object actually is a sun. It's just that planet's sun way in the background, the dark object is the same between both shots because that's consistent, and the moon/planet, is just that but not visible like most moons are, especially given we know it was closer to the planet than the dark object and also smaller, in much the same way most planets have small moons.
So no, I retract my agreement with that being a usable panel as contrasting evidence, that big white sphere can't be the same thing as panel 1, everything from the size and placement in regards to the dark object is wrong on every facet. Which, btw still weird, it's drawn pretty big so why does it have less detail than the planet next to it and even the smaller dark object next to it? Unless you want to say Toriyama frugot within the same page spread what he was drawing.... But for one arguing all this art stuff, I wouldn't do that if I were you.
Ok first off, you realize if you're arguing 3 objects that are the suns can be seen, simultaneously, you''ve actively agreed with the CRT right?
If the 3 suns can be seen all at the
same time, it means
one of them must be be next to Namek or in front of it.
You're trying to use this to argue "No, see, THESE are the suns, and they're way further away so Namek can't be scaled off it!", yet, no, if all 3 are visible at once, then Namek can still be scaled off it because one of them
MUST be next to or in front of it, which is the ENTIRE basis of the CRT.
Namek can be scaled off the suns shown by it in the first place, because if all 3 are explicitly shown at the same time, they all can't be in the background, one must be parallel or in front, and thus scaling becomes feasible to it.
You not only failed to account for that, you even gave extra evidence that SUPPORTS the CRT. You've actively sabotaged your own argument
But given that wasn't your intent, and your intent was to prove Namek isn't that big.
Why is every argument of yours based on interpretation, assumptions? Why can't you just post a statement, whether from a character, a guide, I don't care which, corroborating your claims? If every argument is based on personal opinion, that isn't an actual argument, it's just you stating an opinion based on personal beliefs, which sure, that's fine, but it isn't good enough for a CRT if you're trying to argue that, objectively, one thing is the case over the other, unless you aren't trying to argue that? In which case arguing just to argue ain't it chief.
As an aside, that is
literally drawn the same way as most stars/suns in space shots, and as the specifically 3 objects around Namek come post sun lore.
If half your argument is solely based on "things can only be drawn this way", showing the exact same thing for the opposite of your argument, is literally just shooting yourself in the foot. You've proven that stars are indeed drawn that way, in turn turning your moon argument into solely personal opinion and interpretation as opposed to solid objectivity.
Anyway you just gave even more proof that Namek is a super massive planet, if we can see three stars, three objects you just ADMITTED to like being the three suns, around Namek, nothing changes, Namek can be scaled off them. I should note, I don't actually give a shit what panel we use to scale Namek off them, I'd even prefer we pick the smallest example to be conservative, so the 2 cases you just shown? I'd be fine with using either for the size calc.
In fact, you literally just posted some of the shots I've been talking about, when I say
everytime afterward, I do in fact mean every time.
This is actively contradicting the argument you're going to present in the immediate next line. All of these would make Namek a scorched wasteland, for reference, mercury is 50,000,000km away from the sun, over 2x the largest distance you gave there.
Also that doesn't work. You can't draw a line between Namek and them like that. For the exact same reason we know one sun must be in front or next to it, we also know that at least one sun must be
behind it in the background. Treating them all parallel is simply wrong.
But, yep, this supports the CRT though so I legitimately don't understand the argument unless you're just play devil's advocate at this point, in which case please don't. Do not inflate the CRT for arguments both for and against just for the sake of arguing, you got something you think is crucial or relevant? Go ahead but don't just argue for the sake of it.
Literally every example of your scaling, is closer than Mercury. Even in Kakarot, the sun is twice as close as Mercury.
If you are implicating they can't be that close your own scan contradicts it, but inversely, if we're going back to the climate arguments for the umpteenth time, Namek being small has even
more issues, which are being conveniently ignored, making these types of arguments double standards, and even hypocritical to an extent. If you're going to argue this,
you need to account for the opposite too, the problems that exist scientifically if Namek was earth-sized. You can't just ignore it without at least established evidence, which, ironically, only exist for the opposition's side due to the existence of multiple super planets with DBZ larger than suns, in which suns just straight up orbit them like Kai's.
This means nothing, we went through this too.
What is a big planet in the context of dragon ball? We already know that something that isn't even considered the average, is multiple times bigger than earth.
Dodoria says it isn't
particularly big, not that it isn't big relative to the average at all either. Dragon Ball does, in fact, have super massive planets that eclipses suns explicitly anyway so there's a precedence,. What is a "big" planet in the context of DBZ? Unless we know for fact, this statement doesn't mean anything, and in fact could be taken to mean Namek is on the upper end, just falling short of the highest ends depending on the exact wording used, which when we have stupid planets like Kai's existing, a "big planet" in DBZ could make even a star sized Namek look pathetic.
Oh and not how that works, we don't need to prove "Dodoria has seen huge planets", you're who's claiming his statement entails a specific intent and assuming what he means based on his personal experience, burden of proof is on you to prove what his knowledge entails because without it it's a useless statement that neither proves, or disproves anything, especially because we don't even know the baseline "big" is to begin with, and the worst part is, he very well could've. He works for an intergalactic planet conquering emperor, he's seen countless planets.
Namek by default is already several times as large as earth at a minimum regardless, given Namek isn't described as miniscule like earth, nor is it treated as below average which we have a stated value for. Which still leads to numerous complications just as much as it being earth sized, or massive, or anything in-between.
This is, again, taking a vague statement, a vague line, interpretating it to mean something it inherently doesn't, and using it to ascertain a specific intent. It isn't saying what you need it to say.
Also why are you avoiding tackling the actual arguments? Every argument of your stems from interpretation and assuming drawing intent. Which all boils down to "maybe it's this", not "it IS this".
Which, fine, best I can give that though is a possibly/likely compromise because it isn't based on objective fact, but rather solely interpretation, though you've been slowly convincing me it isn't contrary to your intent.
Also as said before because you didn't tackle this argument either and just went with cherry picking drawings again, why does Namek have 3 moons? Why is Namek
never stated in anything to have 3 moons/planets? Why are the moons NEVER mentioned even outside of the number? Why
specifically 3? If it was 1 moon, 2 moons, 100 moons, sure we'd then know they can't be suns because the numbers do not corroborate the manga, but
three? And as said, why is it everytime after the sun lore gets dropped, whenever Namek is shown it has the three sun-like objects instead and what could be considered moons are entirely absent? It isn't shown with moon like or planet like textures, shading, whatever you people want to argue it as, but just the same way he also draws sun in space, which was a previous argument even but has now been altered into "well moons can sometimes be drawn like that too", in which you yourself even gave 2 EXTRA scans showing as much.
And thinking on it, lacks any evidence of the planet-like alleged objects from prior? Could Toriyama have simply changed Namek's characteristics? Maybe, or maybe not, who knows, we don't assume stuff like this, which is a problem because that's essentially what most of your arguments boil down to, but worse in that you're cherry picking examples while for Namek it is
always the case after a certain point and in the end we still see 3 suns by it regardless so all this arguing is less debating it isn't the case and more arguing when it's the case.
I want an actual concrete statement, assuming this is even worth continue arguing over based on your admittance of multiple shots with suns by Namek, which can also be used for the CRT's purpose and scans that are either not even true or evidence for your claims if you squint.
