- 19,731
- 21,191
What? No. Only ONE has to be shown in front. At minimum. Two can be in front just fine. It's only a problem if all three are shown in front because then the back would be dark.
One in front is just the minimum. Two could also be in front of it and one is behind it. We don't know, so we don't assume, we just know for a fact one must be.
So we see a sun at different parts of the planet?
And?
Unless all three are shown simultaneously in the sky, Nothing changes, and more of this interpretative drawing shit.
I'm not ASKING you. You post english scans for people to read, or stop posting.
I have to take you word for it, I'm not going to take your word for it.
Post english, or stop posting on the english forum in a debate with english speaking people. Your lack of actually complying has been relevant at least twice, where the actual stated dialogue contradicts or rebukes the argument you have been making.
Not sufficient. And I'm not taking your word for anything either. You're forcing me to waste my time to look shit up when you should be posting them to begin with.
Your context is heavily opinionated, you've actively proven that time and time again.
You can't include information that doesn't even exist. Freeza planet for example has no such lore, actually it does, it's part of a duel planet system, which is in fact shown in the scans. Which, actually doesn't support your claim at all that the white object, is a moon. In fact it pretty explicitly confirms it isn't a moon because we know how many it has. That being two.
What the hell are you talking about? It's LITERALLY every time.
That isn't true, at no point do they say anything about moons in the majority of the scans.
Why would they ever anyway? That don't say "oh this random no-named planet we just flew by has these specific moons", they don't even say anything about Freeza planet.
Confirmation and your personal opinion, are not the same thing.
Except half the time they aren't even oddly placed around the planets, a chunk of them are just off in the expanse.
Occam's Razor would tell you the blatantly and differently drawn white sphere objects would be stars, not planets and moons, when said panels also show planets and moons drawn completely differently.
Your opinion, because this is all this is, is not fact. I do not want your opinion, I want actual proof. If your entire argument hinges on "i THINK this is", that isn't good enough.
To bad? You don't think? Isn't good enough, and that's all your arguments have been, simply what you think, not what is actually proven.
It's a real, existing, place, shit needs to be drawn remotely to scale. Not literally hundreds of times off.
Jupiter is Jupiter.
Ok then where's Jupiter's other dozens of moons? Jupiter doesn't have just 4 moons, it has almost a hundred. Are you going to say only specifically 4 where drawn off scale just because?
And again, this isn't an argument, you're presuming. This isn't fact, you're legit just saying "They're moons. They're moons because art is bad". Even though it's just as likely they're some stars in the background, given they're drawn like stars, and if it was Jupiter's moons, the scale is hilariously wrong, let alone the positioning, and the only argument you have to warrant that, falls flat when you remember Jupiter has so many moons that you'd legit then be arguing only a FEW of the moons were drawn off to scale while the others weren't making your very own reasoning inconsistent within itself.
Get used to this scan.
They literally are. The only reason you're saying they aren't is because you're saying they're moons, and because they're moons they can't be stars. Based on the fact, they're moons? No, what the hell? You're just saying words, and then concluding it's the case so it can't be the other thing.
This is a bad argument. The simplest assumption would be they're stars because that's what stars even on those very panels look like, and sometimes even the preceding page like the above one.
No, the simplest assumption isn't the most plausible, that's a fallacious argument in and of itself. Something can be simple, and be completely wrong once you actually look over the context and details, notwithstanding your arguments have been mostly interpretation, assumptions, and cherry picking combined.
Especially if they've already been illustrated that way? The same applies to suns and stars, so by your own logic they're stars. Your argument hinges on a double standard that only exists because you're presuming them to be something and then concluding your verdict without any real proof.
And orbiting around planets? Who's to say they're even orbiting them? That's ONLY the case with Namek because we know how it's day-night cycle works so we know one must be in the foreground at minimum. This isn't the case for other stuff. A white sphere being drawn next to a random planet in space, or in some cases not even near it, there's often quite a gap, doesn't mean it's in front of next to it. They could be billions of miles back for all we know. You're making extra assumptions.
Literally EVERY example you've given shows at least some. And if you look over the manga, you'd see a bunch more too. Do I really need to go grab every time?
An assumption? That ain't a solid argument.
Reasonable and actually being the case are not the same thing. It isn't reasonable because for it to be reasonable you have to completely ignore that
1. Suns and stars are also drawn that way, often in the same panel.
2. Moons and planets wouldn't even be visible in 99% of the shots given the relative fly-by distance to planets in said examples.
3. Planets and moons are drawn on the same pages and they're drawn completely differently.
And being more abundant means nothing, you know what's also true? The fact you can actually see countless suns and stars in space but not other planets and moons at a distance. Being more abundant means nothing at all if we're talking about what would be more abundantly visible.
Dude, that specific object is LITERALLY given the same texture gradient as EARTH'S SUN is, in the fight literally a few chapters prior. which you posted.
We're going to say that the object drawn that way is yeah, which is the entire premise of your own argument anyway.
There, you just confirmed it again. An ASSUMPTION. I don't want an assumption, I want proof. Your arguments are merely you assuming things, often while contradicting yourself.
And this is essentially conceding to cherry picking.
You admit moons have been drawn differently.
But because they've been rarely drawn like that, which fyi, it isn't "generally", it's pretty damn rare, made even worse as the majority of your examples you're even using aren't even moons anyway, in some they are in fact suns, or there's literally no info to go on so calling them anything is simply headcanon and assuming, ie, not an actual argument because me saying nuh uh they arent moons has just as much backing.
Lad, this entire chunk of text had you admit to you just assuming, and cherry picking examples, You don't get to "therefore". Especially because unlike your presumptuous arguments, there's actual stated lore here.
Except when they aren't. In multiple of your shots given, they're drawn like half the panel away, or even further.
In fact, in some of the shots, the tiny specks that I will trust you aren't going to say are also moons, are drawn in-between the alleged "moon" and planets. Are those actually just smaller moons too?
If everything argument hinges on "I think" and not "is", there's nothing to argue. I'm not here for conjecture.
But speaking of coincidences, ain't it odd how every time after the 3 sun lore gets dropped, Namek is drawn with 3 sun-like objects consistently?
You have no clue what the word objective means holy hell.
That's the thing, your entire argument is solely relying on illustrations. that's literally all you have, you just conceded that's not a good approach, you straight up stated this is a bad way of arguing.
You don't HAVE supporting evidence. You just assume that's what they are, end of, you don't have anything saying "this random thing is a moon/planet", you just go "oh yep that's a moon, and because it's drawn like a star, moons can be drawn like that".
I already said the anime wasn't gonna fly, because we're talking about the manga. That's, also not good?
I also said I'd be against using this for the anime, so yep. The anime lacks any of the sun shots too making it worse for them.
And yeah, the anime, which was aired while the manga was being drawn and didn't have the foresight or knowledge of how things would have been.
The anime actively cut every shot with the orbiting suns in it, isn't it odd? How every shot after the manga drops the sun lore, where we see what is evidently suns, the anime, which had already locked in, simply opts not to show those scenes?
It's almost like
this wouldn't be the last time either the anime incorrectly surmised what a celestial object is meant to be (those are very explicitly suns in the manga canon, flatout stated in multiple guides even).
Except EVERYTIME after the sun lore gets dropped, Namek is shown with 3 detailess objects near it. You're effectively agreeing they're drawn how they "should" be.
That isn't even true.
Here's a space shot. From that saga.
See this? Nothing but white objects, a starry sky. But there's a few white objects drawn at different scales too, some decently big.
Are these moons too? Your argument just above was "they're drawn "close" to planets so they're moons", but there's no planets in this panel? Are they just moons off in the middle of space for the hell of it then? Pretty huge stretch in logic don't you think? That a panel that is literally just stars, at varying sizes, just so happens to have the funny white dots too, yet no real planet in sight for them to even be orbiting to be reasonably called moons?
Majin Buu Saga actually goes wild because Kai's World has suns out the ass drawn exactly like that.
Which is my point, if you LITERALLY see planets and moons on the same pages, and they're drawn not like that, why the hell are you assuming they're moons or planets? If they were moons or planets they'd be drawn like the moons and planets we already see.
You actually do to an extent, and you most certainly would in deep space travel across a galaxy, at some point you're going to nearing or passing by other solar systems so some stars would look much closer.
Given this ENTIRE topic is about a solar system with three suns anyway at worst, this argument doesn't even make sense.
Except that again, isn't even true, the "white distant points" in and of themselves are variable sizes to denote scale and depth.
Here, that panel from that same saga. Notice how the very blatantly stars, only stars btw we don't see anything resembling a planet or moon, so you can't pull the "well they're drawn "close" to a planet so they must be moons", are drawn in varying sizes, from tiny, to medium, to decently big too? Same scale as the Namekian shots even, or even some of your own examples?
You can't say these are just moons, you also can't even cop out an argument saying they're just detailess planets because at that point you're just throwing shit and seeing what sticks as me and you both know damn well if they were meant to be planets they'd be drawn as such, like here.
So no, don't follow the same pattern, you've just been cherry picking panels, and concluding they're moons, even though in the very same panels, it isn't even consistent with how the non-star like celestial objects get drawn.
You're cherry picking what is already inconsistent evidence.
And there's that word again "the assumption", I don't want an assumption. I want proof. Especially not proof that has been you foregoing panels that prove this line of thought bunk like the multiple other space shots you haven't included from that same saga where we see those exact same type of white dots, among stars, and only stars, with no planet to orbit in sight.
And proximity?
Take the Jupiter example. Why is one of the farther away larger dots the EXACT same size, as one of the objects you've been calling a moon? Or that triple set between them?
Is that a moon too? It's the same scale as that close one? But why would it be a moon, Jupiter doesn't have any moons triple its distance that are even perceptible? So why the inconsistency? Why the contradiction? If we can be sure that far away one is just a star in the background, why is the object the same size as it up close to it, also not just a star but actually an impossibly big moon that Jupiter doesn't even actually have? As opposed to just being a star in the background that's drawn at a different scale as literally every panel with stars in the manga in space shots do, because let's not forget, the stars in a backdrop are never drawn identically in size between all of them, they're always drawn at different sizes to convey varying distances.
There's more like that, some are even worse where the alleged would-be moon is on the other side of the panel even.
"the assumption", and there it is again.
Why am I even arguing with you ffs you've literally just confirmed like 5 times you're assuming stuff.
As above, the simplest is "usually" the correct one, only works when there isn't extra info to go on, which we have in this case, as Namek's lore is explicit with its 3 suns, and thus when after every point we get a space shot we see 3 sun-like objects near it, every time, that conflicts with Occam's Razor as there's other info that no longer makes things just throwing shit at the wall.
That is not withstanding your assumption here, is based on two more layers of assumptions, which you in this very post conceded to being assumptions, as opposed to based on solid fact.
That logic is actively why this argument is bad. If you consider how all the other objects in the panel are illustrated, then they're blatantly not planets or moons because we see other physical celestial objects on said panels, and they're drawn completely differently. But the stars? About the same, just at varying scales. And do we know Toriyama draws stars like that, even among starry skies?
Yep we do (I would grab more but I'm not reading the whole ass manga to grab more scans of the obvious).
If your entire argument is solely based on assumptions and GUESSING stuff and presuming what shit is, that isn't an argument.
What the hell, you just disagreed with yourself. "If moons and planets get drawn with details, then white dots are moons".
What am I even arguing at this point, it doesn't even make sense. And hey look, there it is again, "assumption".
????
You're literally arguing against yourself. You just gave perfect reasoning as to why NOT to assume they're moons, only to go "but they're moons tho".
You're arguing that if an object is close to be drawn with detail on the same panel, they would NOT be treated with little to no detail like stars.
You say because in the SAME PANEL they show it's not the case with other moons and stars.
Ergo, we assume they're moons and not stars?
What? If they're close enough to be seen, drawn large enough, and are meant to be moons, and the same panel shows planets and moons elsewhere with detail, they'd also be given detail to coincide with the others to make it clear they're also moons or whatever. If they aren't, then they aren't and are just stars like the rest of the dozens drawn on the same panel?
This argument legitimately makes no sense wtf.
"Hey btw, Namek has specifically 3 suns, just 3 btw, oh btw every time after this we're gonna draw 3 objects around Namek in this exact configuration but exactly like stars".
Is pretty straightforward, I wouldn't even call it an assumption. It's simply going off the very explicit hard stated info we have, as opposed to Namek also having 3 celestial objects around it that aren't suns too which is never stated.
Based on how they're illustrated, yet you ignore how they're illustrated every time after the fact? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too, you very own arguments can be used against it.
The most consistent interpretation? Namek is actually shown with the 3-sun like objects more if we're talking consistency. As said, it is every time after the lore gets dropped. Contrary to 3. Yes 3 I counted, in the early chapters before the sun revelation was revealed. From that point on, never again.
And given your logic here is based on literally 4-5 layers of assumptions, which also have major flaws in them, I'm not so sure I'd call this reasonable let alone CRT worthy. I don't even want to get into the "moons at other parts of the manga", as that is still your assuming stuff and often aren't even correct in said assumption regardless, and is a minority.
How are we foregoing the like 8 times Namek is drawn with 3 sun-like objects without any merit of detail because that matters apparently.
I'm convinced you don't even know what the argument is at this point.
What the ****? Literally everything you've said this post has been STRICTLY THAT, it isn't me arguing that, it's you. If you think that's a bad argument, then that saves me the time of saying it because you've just called your entire premise bad.
No lad, we have explicit stated info, namek has 3 suns, thus, an eternal day.
Every time after, Namek is shown with 3 sun-like objects orbiting it.
You yourself had conceded on the fact that some panels almost certainly show 3 suns around it just "a bit further out", which, still proves the CRT's proposal correct.
But because moons, rarely, can be drawn like suns/stars get drawn, they're moons. This is ignoring the relevant lore, even potential retcons as DBZ ain't no stranger to that, especially mid-writing, based solely on, what you, yourself, have confirmed to be assumptions on top of assumptions, based on panels that aren't even consistent with your own arguments? Nah man that shit is on you.
What? Literally never once was any object by Namek drawn like a moon after the sun lore is mentioned. This isn't up for debate, it never happens.
Unless you mean "no detail, sun-like white spheres" to be "moons", but you already admitted to just making numerous assumptions to come to that line of thought based on panels that contradict you even. All while ignoring that suns are also drawn the way you claim moons to be for some reason, making your entire argument, hinged on assumptions, headcanon and cherry picking, to be at best just a "maybe".
You mean most. And least of all, none in your examples, which is the worst part. You aren't even giving the scans that do exist that corroborate your point, but are instead giving panels that contradict your point, and saying these specific shots are what support you. It legit makes no sense and makes it evident this argument is less an argument, and more just grasping at straws.
And fifth time now, everytime after the fact we're told Namek has 3 suns, that we see 3 sun-like objects by it, is not "Namek's suns are pretty consistently drawn like moons", but the exact opposite, they're consistently not drawn like that, never drawn like that even after a certain point, are consistently drawn the way stars get drawn, and to make matters worse? Given you want to keep arguing Namek has 3 moons specifically, it can still have 3 moons alongside the 3 suns we get shown, ESPECIALLY because you yourself has argued that Namek does have 3 suns, they're just a bit further out and even drew lines to the things.
Holy hell there it is again, "assumption".
And no that's all you've been doing, in almost every example you've given, it's been calling objects without detail moons. Even WHEN they're drawn large enough to be given ample detail.
No they aren't, it literally never happens.
Every single time, they're drawn as blank spheres.
To say "they're still depicted as moons", is objectively false, and I know you know that, because you've even sent panels you've conceeded on being stars. It never happens, why you're saying it happens, I'd call even straight up lying, unless I'm just forgetting a scan, but I've skimmed that shit like 4 times now, not once can I recall does it happen.
The full context of the illustrations? The ONLY context we have is Namek has 3 suns and thus an eternal day.
Meanwhile every piece of evidence you've given has been prefaced with "assumption", as opposed to "based on what we actually know". And the other scans, is just you asserting they must be moons, despite the blatant contradictions in those very same scans.
The anime? What? The anime literally never draws them like that, ever. And in the case of Namek, they outright removed any of the post sun lore sun scenes, probably to avoid contradictions if anything with what they already went with or to avoid confusion.
And manga? You're cherry picking, end of. You're ignoring the majority of how they're illustrated, using scans you don't even know for a fact what they are, and then just claiming they're moons.
The preconceived notion is the very fact you're assuming things to be moons to begin with despite the contrary evidence in those very same scans. And your reasoning doesn't even work for why either. Bigger white spheres? We see stars get drawn in different sizes all the time in starry sky backdrops in the manga. Near planets? That isn't even true half the time and can just as easily be stars in the background just closer. They drawn like planets/moons? Wrong again, half the time we see moons/planets on that same panel drawn and they're drawn demonstrably different, even when the moon/planet is SMALLER than the white object, making the size to draw excuse not applicable. I could go on, I don't have to though because you've said yourself at every point you're just making an assumption.
The anime actually implicates they're whole-ass planets.
But, again, umpteenth time, they aren't in the manga.
In much the same way the Planet of the Kai's has moons in the anime, in the manga they're explicitly stars.
The anime locking in because it was being done as the manga was and often overtook the manga and thus filler, is not a good indication if the sun shit came in half way through the saga.
I said before, long before you showed up, I'd be against the anime Namek being treated like this. This isn't new info, it's conflating canons.
Why even say things you know aren't true. Hell this is ONE page before one of your own examples, I KNOW you know of this shot, and there's a bunch more like it too.
Stop cherry picking, and stop trying to say things as if we haven't read the manga.
Like in this shot, where's the planets? Why's that one drawn next to stars anyway? Are you going to still call them moons? Or maybe you're going to call them planets now? Just planets drawn without any semblance of detail despite them being drawn large enough to easily be given some?
And yet, never again after the sun information is dropped.
The anime is not the manga.
Hell whatever happened to not using the anime anyway? So much for that, I'll keep that in mind. Fortunately the existence of the Land of the Kai's makes using the anime for this type of argument very, very, dubious. In fact the anime removing all the panels in which the 3 star-like objects are blatantly shown, is suspicious in and of itself. Why, do you think they removed them? If they were meant to be planets at that point, why not keep them in and just draw them as planets now? They didn't.
And you keep saying they resemble stars in shape (no shit), but left out how they're drawn like them too, consistently after a certain point, based on evidence from the anime or before that info is revealed? And the only context we have is literally the sun lore, your assumptions aren't context.
Dude, when I could legitimately just say "lmao retcon" and it wouldn't even be wrong, there's an issue with your evidence's placement. You need evidence post sun lore.
But the worst part is? This doesn't disprove the sun thing, Namek can have moons yet still have stars, which, funnily enough, just your prior post you argued "those 3 objects weren't suns, THESE the suns" in a panel where they're drawn a tad further away.... While still showing Namek eclipsing them in size? So what's even the argument? You've proven that no matter the case, even if Namek just so happens to have 3 planets up its ass, it still has 3 suns it can be scaled off?
That has absolutely nothing to do with my argument.
My argument was that the thing you're calling a moon CAN'T be the planetary looking body seen from the ground shot based on a slew of reasons.
"it looks like-", except that doesn't rebuke or even comment on the fact that object isn't the big white object shown the next page you're claiming to be the same thing.
No it doesn't?
Did you really just ignore all the issues I just outlined to go "well uh, no"?
Positioning is impossible and contradicts the former panel.
The size is impossible and contradicts the former panel.
It's very position and size, relative to the OTHER object we see, is impossible and contradicts the prior panel.
Etc.
It isn't the same object, it can't be. Nothing lines up, and it is the SAME spread, do you really think Toriyama messed up that badly when he would have just finished drawing it and even looking at it still?
Moons don't change position that quickly. And no, they didn't "change position", that panel prior was them as they were about to leave,
Except that isn't even true, the objects literally get mirrored, why? If they're orbiting it, in what situation would one be orbiting it so much quicker to completely overtake the other for that to occur? If what you're saying is true, and what we see is them directly parallel, then the masses wouldn't be that different, and neither the distances, so the orbital speed shouldn't be that drastically different?
It can't be due to the angle they left at, if it was, it wouldn't be mirrored, but upside down too. It just doesn't work.
But you've been arguing LoD is relative to distance though right? That implicates the planetary one is much closer despite being within pixels of the same size as the dark one, no?
Not how this works, if there's blatant contradictions, you don't get to go "uhm just ignore it lmao".
Especially given 90% of your examples is, in your own words, you simply assuming it to begin with.
No, I'm actually sick of this. Stop saying that's how they're consistently drawn, it's the minority, and all your examples are you presuming it at that, most of which shouldn't even be presumed to begin with because it's evident they aren't moons but just stars drawn in space.
All while ignoring what little scans do actually exist for this which makes it even more baffling.
Dude, spatial positioning is NOT the same as omitting details because things are far back and thus to small to properly draw on a sheet of paper.
If you drew a hyper detail skyscraper next to a house, and then in a different shot, even right after, you draw the skyscraper as just a rectangle and the house as a lil square. That's one thing, but you don't **** up the placements of them and have them be completely different from a second prior.
Dog they do not change positions in the time it takes Vegeta to stand up, say they're leaving, and then leave. Which everyone would know if you posted the english scans, that scene starts off midconvo, there's no time skip, jump, whatever, the moons did not change orbit and positions, sizes and placements within a 30 second back and forth.
Backpedaling, but let it be known you are agreeing those are the suns (which is ****** up because they're literally drawn the same way....).
The flash of light that is planet shaped? Coming from the planet? Are you legitimately arguing now that that said flash is millions of times bigger than Namek itself? Yet somehow STILL confirming to the planet's shape and gravity? There is no way
And this again goes back to your cherry picking. You used the anime right? Yet why are you ignoring that flash of light in the anime was only that?
Like yep, that's definitely millions of times bigger than the planet itself. Mind you even at max expansion, it's width doesn't extend beyond this. Why are you cherry picking?
This is backpedaling. You conceded those were suns, agree they're suns, but making up new excuses as to why it don't count (which is odd even given if we were to calc it, the end result wouldn't even change as the point of reference for the calcs would be the suns, not Namek itself).
Literally EVERY thing you've said this post, you've prefaced with "assume" or "assumption". I don't even have to say it, you've said it yourself.
90% of your own scans contradict you.
The anime is you cherry picking too, as established above.
All while ignoring every instance that doesn't align with your assumptions.
This isn't solid proof, it's just going off assumptions, that probably aren't true in most cases, and using that as hard evidence.
We love World of the Kai's.
We also love ignoring the various things the anime did in regards to Namek contradictory to the Namek in the manga, like removing the shots of the blatant suns post lore, which in itself is suspicious.
Or even just ignoring stuff like the above where the flash of light is literally just as big as Namek. Why is it ok to use the anime that blatantly veers off at times, but ignore it when it it shots you in the foot because you already admitted that they were stars so now you need to make an excuse for why Namek can't be scaled off it?
So no solid proof, and visual evidence based solely on your interpretation and assumptions.
You realize I could just go "nuh uh those stars" and it would have the exact same weight to it as your claims right? An Assumption isn't proof. Your opinion isn't proof. And when it isn't even consistent within itself and your own evidence, it most certainly isn't a rebuttal.
You say this, yet ignore the fact suns are also drawn like that. Other scenes? Lad in the same panels they're drawn the same way as stars, yet different from the planets and moons shown on said panel too.
If your whole argument hinges on visual illustrations, you've failed in that because you've proven stars and suns are almost universally drawn that way too, and ignoring how planets and moons are more often than not, not drawn like that.
For someone who argued "Toriyma just frugot" or "he just messed up positioning a bit", to argue that suddenly here it's different is pretty damn suspicious.
All while foregoing that your own scans, scans you admit to be stars so argument is over everyone, go home, were part of the "every time after" list of scans, and not some new meaningful info, STILL show Namek at an astronomical size and hell, would even still enable those blasts to be calced relative to the suns, just don't count because "oh nah the curvature we blatantly see? not namek, actually a million times bigger than namek tbh". And then conveniently ignore the anime, something you're now using as a crux despite it's blatant contradictions, shows that VERY scene, that flash of light, among other things, as not as large as you're assuming (again, assumption) to be?
No. there's no way this is an actual argument, and the worst part is, you're actively sabotaging any hard argument against Namek being that big, because if Namek just so happens to have 3 conveniently placed moons, but also 3 suns just a tad further out, you've just argued that it has a set of both, while arguing the moons that you claim to be there are not the blank white objects we also see at times, and thus both co-exist, and the "moons" don't conflict with the suns as they exist separately yet still at a scale Namek can be scaled off.
I legit don't get this, why even argue, you obviously don't want Namek to be that large, yet by just throwing out shit and seeing what sticks, you've given multiple examples and even explanations, unintentionally, that rebuke the opposing arguments ffs.
Early on, untill it isn't, buy not that that matters at all, I'm not repeating the same argument you've failed to even comment on like 5 times.
And other times but let's ignore those too
Lad, they are literally closer to it than some of your own examples where you say that a random white sphere in the void of space is a moon because it's "by" a planet.
And "suggesting", so not fact, but a presumption...
But even if we go with this presumption, it simultaneously proves the CRT and yet voids any of the moon arguments as above
This is not the flawless argument you think it is.
Oh so NOW that's how suns are depicted, now, ONLY now. Not the other Namek shots, not the numerous space shots, but simply here? No difference, just conveniently now?
I *******, I can't dudes, set me free.
Not going to say again how arguing they're suns is actually a good thing, and was part of the CRT's proposal anyway for those specific scans to be suns, among others, so really this is just agreeing with the CRT but **** me ig, I hate this argument. It's literally just you picking when shit is what to suit your point.
"These white spheres have detai-", no? If they're shown as white spheres they aren't being shown with detail. Kind of blatant paradoxical statement there.
Or do you mean early on? Namek having a moon doesn't contradict the 3 suns we see orbiting it, especially post 3 sun yap.
I mean, they're the same shit, you're just separating them and treating them as different things.
We have no idea how shit even works in Daima. Also, doesn't Daima LITERALLY have a planet so massive it has suns in it?
But sure, you concede your argument isn't at all based on
Scientific accuracy, and common sense, are very closely tied. It's common sense for [thing that is literally just how it works], my dude.
And if you're legitimately using Daima, you're digging yourself an even deeper hole.
What? Pretty sure Mercury being balls hot is common knowledge.
And lad, your very own scaling would constitute as "orbiting right next to you", twice as close as it is to Mercury, is very much right up a planet's ass. 7m km which you also gave, it just a few suns width away.
And ya know what's worse? If Namek WASN'T as big as being argued, the suns at that distance would eclipse most of the sky at all times because there'd be nowhere on the planet that's enough distance away from them for them to look only relatively big, as opposed to just the whole sky is a sun.
And that proves the CRT? They're all super close to Namek in said panels?
That's literally what it means, one of them must be next to or in front of it. If that's the case, Namek can be scaled off at least one of them. We'd pick the smallest to be safe.
The only way it wouldn't be the case, is if we didn't have the lore explaining the 3 suns and why Namek is always day. If we did not have that, we would just go they're random suns a billion miles away or some shit.
That isn't how this works. If Namek and one sun was shown. We can't say Namek is next to it or behind it. If two were shown, same thing. If all 3 were shown? We can because we have to because one must be in front or next to it.
If Namek is shown simultaneously with its suns, scaling becomes possible. Whether Namek is bigger, smaller, or just as big, doesn't matter. This doesn't change the fact Namek can be scaled, and if it just so happens to end up bigger, so be it.
Your entireargument is self admitted assumptions and other slop like inconsistencies in the same panels and yadda yadda, you get it, I get it, everyone gets it. Same shit.
We literally see it, including in the very panels you're now locked in arguing ARE in fact suns, but just to far away to matter.
Ignoring basic science is not common sense.
And what? We have no idea how big the Demon World is? In fact, what are you talking about? That's a normal sized sun in the Demon Realm? They never say it's small, you're making an assumption, again, that is never backed or sourced in literally anything, that doesn't even make sense in the cntext of the demon world anyway.
In fact the third demon world is the biggest one, literally encompassing the second demon world, which is filled with planets, of which some are even normal or larger in size. Yet you're arguing it's a tiny sun that is lighting up the world that eclipses countless planets?
How could a tiny sun that light up and give a functional day-night cycle to a world that is probably, at minimum, already bigger than most average stars simply based on the second demon world? Hell we even got statements how it would take days to cross it in high-tech ships, or how thousands of km, actual planetary distances, are but miniscule fractions of it?
So no, in fact if you want to use Daima, the exact opposite is proven true.
No dude, they're suns, literally drawn with
One of a bunch of blatant art dictating as such.
And from Daizenshuu
"Kaioshin Planet
Area: Afterlife
Special Characteristics: The planet that the kaioshin live on. It’s distinguished as a place with a pink sky and numerous suns. It is a very sturdy planet, and cannot be damaged easily. However, it suffered damage during the battle between Goku and Majin Buu (pure).
Battles: Son Goku vs. Majin Buu (pure)
Events: Kaioshin brought Gohan here in order to draw out the Z Sword. Also, after having his seal broken, the Elder Kaioshin powered up Gohan. Furthermore, it became the site of the final battle with Majin Buu. (Daizenshuu 4, p.73)"
I like how you just made an arbitrary assumption. Why mortal? We already know super huge planets exist?
I'm gonna re-enact the end of MGS4 ong.
"Assumption". Assumption isn't fact.
A big planet could be larger than a solar system, we don't know, there's nothing to go on beyond the fact we know planets can be so astronomically huge that the proposed Namek's size looks pathetic in comparison.
You don't get to go "oh well we have no idea how big a top end large one is, so surely they're smaller", we don't know. It isn't an argument both for and against. It's a literal nothing line.
Yeah with planets like Namek which have 3 suns and an eternal day which is literally not possible irl no matter how big it is
You are really locking in a statement about planets when a not even average planet in DBZ is multiple times earth, earth is considered pathetically small, and super ultra planets exist just fine constantly?
Because you ASSUME the details of a vague statement?
What? He's just talking about in reference to the villages? It's a one off line that's before the sun lore btw, where he's just like "damn this is a pain in the ass, oh well it could be worse".
The intent of the line is to show annoyance but acknowledge it isn't impossible.
Don't even start with the movement speed shit. Namek could be literally be star sized, and at the speed they're at, at said point, wouldn't make it unfeasible, it'd be a pain, but not impossible to travel a super planet, it'd just take some hours, which, is perfectly fine? It was already taking them awhile. When if Namek was earth sized, it shouldn't have taken Krillin two hours to go to a place that isn't even in the other side of the planet tbh.
Dodoria for example is explicitly faster than them at that point in movement, Krillin and Gohan even say as much and have to resort to Solar Flare because they were gonna get caught and killed otherwise, and Dodoria would have vastly exceeded Goku's flight speed at that point which thinking on it, why isn't that even calced? We see what Snake Way looks like, we can account for the curves he skipped just fine by drawing it out? Freeza and Zarbon, would be even quicker.
And no, them covering Earth doesn't really take long at all? At that point in the story, there was never a point where flying around earth to find dragon balls took any semblance of time at all, or flying around earth at all, assuming they weren't holding back or conserving energy.
Dude, your visual consistency is literally just your interpretation in and of itself.
Objective, is not "assumptions", which you have stated to be as such every argument.Ad again, your examples aren't even consistent within themselves. And you've conveniently, deliberately or not, excluded a bunch of space shots in said arc that displays said inconsistencies too.
Except when they aren't. Except when half your examples aren't even moons to begin with and ARE actually stars.
Sometimes they're not orbiting a planet too, sometimes they're super far away from the planet like half way across the panel too. You're cherry picking, and not even doing that good a job at it.
Except they don't. This is legit just wrong.
They don't show details, we see 3 blank white objects around Namek multiple times after the 3 sun yap gets dropped. They aren't given details, the fact they lack details is part of the problem in your incessant statements. And your rebuttal to that is simply "they're actually moons anyway".
There that word is again, "assume". Not fact, not anything, just more assumptions based solely on your, at this point, 8 layers of assumptions.
Because "they're illustrated a specific way", which is ****** up as you have multiple times in this very post, went back and forth saying what does and doesn't count and contradicting yourself. It's absolutely asinine.
The anime also cut every shot with the suns in question, contradicts you explicitly on your reason for why shots you DO agree with being the suns don't count, and has the problem with being aired and made alongside the manga and even overtaking it at points and thus didn't have that foresight.
Their possible existence?
I hate this I really do.
Your previous line was literally just stating it might possibly exist. Not that they do exist.
Namek, in the context of the manga, just so happens to have 3 moons.
They reveal Namek has 3 suns.
Every single shot afterward shows namek with 3, very blatantly drawn sun-like objects, as your very own scans would dictate contrary to your beliefs.
But apparently not, we just have to assume every time, they're secretly moons and not the 3 suns we know it has?
All because you assume, in your words, a bunch of disconnected facets to draw a conclusion that still ultimately boils down to "it might possibly be the case"?
No but it sure as hell would be mentioned in the Daizenshuu or something. It is never said.
This is like the 20th time you've admitted to your argument being an assumption.
This is like the 20th time you've just said words and arrived at a conclusion, based solely on your other inconsistent assumptions.
All while ignoring everything that contradicts or rebukes your argument.
And the fact you literally agreed we see 3 stars next to Namek at multiple points, but are now backpedaling in the very same post you've went on record saying as much multiple times.
Uh, yeah goddamn right? We don't work on assumptions. We don't enforce our own headcanon. We work with the facts we have. We do not do vast amounts of mental gymnastics, using disconnected scans and examples that contradict your very argument and claims anyway, to arrive at a different assumption.
This isn't how this works, calling shit a fallacy doesn't make you right. It's just obnoxious especially when I don't even have to accuse you doing nothing but assuming and going solely off your own personal, subjective, interpretation, because you've already admitted to it.
And ironically, all you've done is dismiss things that don't fit into your self-admitted presumptions. This is beyond hypocritical.
Oh so you admit it's just your interpretation, welp now I don't gotta feel bad for calling a duck a duck
But bluhbluh 50th time, your very visual evidence doesn't even work with you, if anything you've been showing planets and stars and moons in space shots get drawn a certain way pretty universally or at the very least drawn differently with enough difference to tell them distinctly apart.
And no you are indeed cherry picking.
Panel 1? We see a blatantly drawn planet. And white objects. Are those moons? No why would they be? The panel already gives ample detail to a planetary object, if they were intended to be moons, why not give them the same? Is it because they're close? Well it can't be that because one of the white spheres is on the other side of the panel not even close to the planet.
Panel 2? Are those white objects moons? No why the hell would they be? There isn't even a planet around for them to be orbiting, they're just in the middle of a starry backdrop, so why assume they're anything but just closer stars?
Panel 3? We literally see two planets/moons drawn, so why would the things you're claiming to be the same things not be drawn in the same way? It makes no sense.
Panel 4? More of the alleged moon-type objects, yet no planet in sight for them to be orbiting.
Panel 5? Just two randomly larger ones in the corner, no planet near by for either on either end of the panel. To make it worse, it's seconds before panel 2, yet no distinct moons/planet in either, only white spheres.
These are just panels directly connected to YOUR examples mind you, I could grab more.
Ok so now you AGREE it's consistent come a certain point, yet previously were saying the opposite?
Also that word again, "assume".
We literally don't do that it's considered its own canon here. And goddamn right it is, otherwise **** it, let's upgrade the manga Namek explosion to be like 4-B or something because the anime clarified the scope of it ig, or let's ignore the very explicit lore and, ironically, visuals, for the world of the kai's because the anime made them moons, went oops we ****** up, and just ran with it too.
And no it isn't vague, it's pretty straightforward you've just established a whole disconnected line of reasoning based on numerous assumptions and interpretations to arrive at a "possibly", and are treating that as a solid rebuttal.
Ok so now you agree they're being shown as suns?
No it very much does invalidate it, if we know Namek has 3 suns, and every time that lore gets dropped, Namek is drawn around 3 sun like objects you just conceded to being exactly that, it means exactly that, your interpretation gets thrown out the window.
But really, show me one instance post 3 sun drop, where they're depicted as anything different. If you can't, even the mere argument of "retcon" is sufficient. I'm not here to humor presumptions. Especially not when you've literally gave an argument yourself that would make moons not effect the 3 sun panels anyway.
Interpretation again, and lad, we have guides. Ignoring the fact the manga actually does explain stuff like that.
Your objective evidence is assumptions, you've said so yourself. Assumptions aren't objective. That isn't what that word entails.
And sick of saying it, but your alleged evidence if anything supports the opposite.
Only if you ignore the numerous times moons aren't depicted as that.
Ignore the actual facts and info we have.
Just assume random white spheres in space shots are moons even when we see other moons and planets on panel showing us that they aren't the same thing.
Assume they're moons when there's not even a planet in sight.
Make actual excuses for all the blatant contradictions in your own scans (yeah moons really moved orbits in a few seconds).
i could go on, it's baffling. Like
Freeza planet, one of your main examples
You're legitimately arguing those white spheres moons? Why? We can SEE the moons it has, they're drawn completely differently, same way as the planet even. If those white spheres were meant to be moons, they'd be given the gradient that rockey celestial objects in that same panel are given. And given your focus on light sources and cascading shadows.... The location and angles of the big white spheres, coincide with the lit up parts of the planets surface, and the dark part lacks any of them at that angle. So ya know what? Based on your own types of arguments, those white objects would be stars, as they're drawn distinct from what we know to be a moon and even the shading is consistent with it. But apparently, they're moons too, actual consistent be damned, surely stars can't be drawn closer, especially if we're talking about that solar system's actual sun.
Do you not see why your alleged evidence doesn't even make sense within itself?
Yeah no this ain't funny. Stop wasting my time.
Your entire argument is self admitted assumptions layered on top of more.
You literally admit it's all just your interpretation and assumptions. It's quite literally "vibes".
Who the hell says we need Occam's Razor? That only applies in lack of concrete info. If we DIDNT know Namek had 3 suns orbiting it making it always day, you'd be right, we wouldn't be saying that, but in that same vain, this would never have been a topic to begin with.
Actual proof. I'm not doing this shit with you again. I don't want your opinion, cherry picking, double standards, or dismissing of blatant contradictions in your own evidence. I want actual, not debatable proof within the manga canon, or at least a manga guide.
I ALSO want to point out that due to how Namek's cycle works, we should ALWAYS see one of its suns behind it too, so it's not like they should be off screen no? The back has to be lit up too. And the arguments presented here would still enable scaling the blasts and shit off the stars, especially if "oh the explosions/light just eclipsed the planet a billion times over and despite still following the planet's curvature, is actually a million times bigger than it".
Also, again, Namek having moons/planets, doesn't change that we see 3 suns by it either, nor does it mean that the existence of any directly correlates to 3 of them even if true, something you yourself have proven in the worst case scenario.
Last edited:
)
