Talk:He That Believeth In Me

Citing issue

There is a problem with "Go Between, Inc.". Understandably they don't keep the data forever. Searching for "battlestar" now only yields results for "Six of One". The data for "Razor" and this episode is gone. So the cite is kinda pointless. --Serenity 15:01, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Ran into something like this with New Caprican loco weed ... the Sci-Fi thread where some of the "Also known as" names came from disappeared. Maybe we should note in the cite "info no longer available"? JubalHarshaw 15:04, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

Better to remove the cite if we can't back it up (and delete the article, if necessary). --Peter Farago 00:44, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Deleting the article because the cite isn't available anymore, would be an overreaction though. All other BSG sites still list this (even if we have more stringent citation standards). I'd prefer somehow indicating that the site isn't available anymore. --Serenity 01:25, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Serenity, but of course I'm an inclusionist. The data did exist. Perhaps there is a Google cache (or other website cache) of it still available. I notice the date it was retrieved is part of the cite, I think that is a good thing. JubalHarshaw 07:21, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

If it's still in the Google cache, we could copy it to Sources:Go Between or something like that. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 09:52, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

I would recommend checking the Internet Archive. --Fjenkins 02:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Keeping in mind we're not a news source, perhaps it would be better to make a screen capture of such information to make a permanent source copy on BS Media that cannot expire. The capture as well as the tenuous article sourcing can be removed later once we get more firm sourcing. --Spencerian 11:15, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

That would be feasible. Unless someone has a better idea, that might be the best. --Serenity 11:24, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Excellent idea. --Peter Farago 22:26, 14 June 2007 (CDT)

Update

Mark Verheiden reports on his blog that David Weddle and Bradley Thompson are writing this episode. I've updated the article accordingly. Also, he reports that officially the production numbers for Razor are 401 and 402, and Season 4, Episode 1 is going to be 403. --Freevo 10:51, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't think writers need to be cited, though we can add a footnote if anyone feels the need. I'll add the production number, though seeing this as episode 1 of Season 4 still makes sense. Production numbers can be very confusing. --Serenity 10:52, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Currently, 400 and 4.00 redirect to Razor, and 401 and 4.01 redirect to He That Believeth In Me, a system that I think is more logical than the production numbers. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 12:33, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. We just need to keep production and episode numbers apart. --Serenity 12:40, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Space Park Damaged etc

Er, sorry but wheres the citation to support this spoiler? The only thing i've seen that would represent this, is a fan made trailer circulated around youtube, which featured the Battlestars Titan and Hades...whilst well done, everything barring some leaked footage of starbuck, is done entirely on a home computer by the looks of it...so i say again, where did this spoiler appear from? --Fordsierra4x4 23:17, 31 January 2008 (CST)

Here. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 05:47, 1 February 2008 (CST)

I dont like the way this season is going...i wasn't particularly enamoured with the whole 'final 5' story either...oh well, i guess they just ran out of steam :( --Fordsierra4x4 16:01, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Any one notice that Scylla was in the fleet towards the end of the battle.--Corey Danian 15 May 2008 11.23 pm (CST)

SciFi ep?

I am currently on the West Coast and it's 12:02pm, yet I cannot find anywhere on the SciFi website where the episode is streaming. It says it is there, but I don't see a link. Any ideas?Bstone 19:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It was 12pm EDT and 9am PST :( Shane (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Callsigns

Diana Seelix and Sam Anders' callsigns are mentioned as "Longshot" and "Hardball", I just can't figure out which is which. Anyone know what's what? -- Noneofyourbusiness 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing those callsigns, but Seelix has been confirmed as Hardball since as far back as October. --Mars 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Longshot" isn't Anders' callsign... He mixed up the callsigns when he was trying to cover Tally... The video for the entire episode is here if you want to check it out. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Now I've got that. The first two times I must have thought that "Tally" was jargon. He must have one, of course. Where does "Hotshot" come from? -- Noneofyourbusiness 03:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Now someone entered that Athena called Anders "C-Buck" on his article. That can only happen during their scene on the hangar deck, but I don't hear anything like that. She says. "Hey rook. Stay cool out there, alright. You'll lock on/in and do what you've been trained to do. Come on." -- Serenity 12:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was listening out for callsigns and the like. I have never heard "C-Buck" once in the episode... The only time that "C-Bucks" ever come up is way back in "Exodus". -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 14:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, "tally" *is* pilot jargon. What makes us so sure that it's a callsign? -- Noneofyourbusiness 02:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am still listen to the episode sound. I recorded that section so I can play it back over and over and I am trying to take out the ambient noise. I will let you know what I come up with. (This is what having a powerfull computer can do!) Shane (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he clearly corrects himself after saying the first callsign... -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 02:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I have listened to it. After further review I hear "Longshot, Tally. I got your back". Directly afterwards I can hear crystal clear that Anders says "Selix, you got a raider on your back." So going back to how sub sections communicate, "Conn. Weapons. Estimated time to 1SQ is 15 mintues." (From Crimson Tide) Shane (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I heard of the wireless exchange between Seelix and Anders:

Seelix: Longshot, Hardball ... turkey right four low at three ... committing.

Anders: Longshot, I got the ... Tally! I've got your back.

IMO, the conversation goes

Seelix: Longshot (Anders), [this is] Hardball (Seelix) ... turkey (Cylon missile) right four low at three ... committing (engaging).

Anders: Longshot, I got the (he is either identifying himself, or winces because he realizes he just called Seelix by his own callsign and/or has trouble assembling proper fighter shorthand) ... Tally (I see your target)! I've got your back.

So I'd put my hat into Longshot being Anders's callsign. If there is indeed a third pilot with the callsign "Tally", you'd figure the pilot would have acknowledged over wireless.-- Fredmdbud 03:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you've convinced me. Yeah, seems that "Longshot" is his callsign. Although, I would personally like more definitive proof before we proceed on that assumption, which shouldn't be a problem in the future episodes that are coming up. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, what's the point in giving someone a callsign ("Tally") that is identical to the popular jargon word used by pilots every now and then? It could cause some serious misunderstanding in the heat of a battle, which is usually fatal. I tend to agree with Joe's explanation. -- Spike 03:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The explanation is Fred's, actually, not mine. Anyway, in regards to the whole "Longshot" thing, we should really play the wait-and-see approach and see if it comes up again in a future episode. Frankly, I don't feel that comfortable in what Anders has to say, particularly since his mind's not in the game, not to mention his lack of experience in general. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 03:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Seelix seemed in the game. Spike's quite right, giving the callsign "Tally" to someone could cause a fatal error. Too bad that we don't know if Anders will be back in the cockpit soon. He seems to go onboard that other ship from rumors/spoilers, the Demetrius. -- Noneofyourbusiness 04:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And "Longshot" just seems to make sense, with him being a professional Pyramid player and all.-- OrionFour 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we get some confirmation. However, interpreting "Tally" as callsign always seemed specious to me. It can be interpreted either way, but as said, it's already a term for an enemy sighting and identification, and makes sense to be seen that way in the scene. -- Serenity 09:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Makes me think of a comedic spin-off possibility: Battlestar! "Roger that, Roger. What's the vector, Victor? Request clearance, Clarence." :) -- Fredmdbud 16:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! What luck! Was just rewatching some episodes for fun, because I'm a loser and episode 2x01 Scattered, shows Apollo using "tally" as pilot jargon. It happens when Apollo first sees the Cylon heavy raider.

Flyboy: What is that thing?

Apollo: I don't know, but whatever it is, it's bearing o­n Galactica. We gotta take it out.

Hotdog: Apollo, Hotdog defensive. Three right, five at two.

Apollo: Tally! Hotdog, Kat, o­n me.

Now that we know that "tally' is part of the acknowledged jargon of Battlestar, I don't think they would give any pilot that callsign. -- Yenguyen 11:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good catch Yen! :D -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 03:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, not to detract from his point, but we knew that all along. It's not just used in "Scattered". Its first appearance is probably "The Hand of God" -- Serenity 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Hand of God, Scattered, and Maelstrom. --Steelviper 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. But the last time I searched for "tally" on the wiki, the page with military jargon didn't come up. So boo on you! :P -- Yenguyen 16:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, it works now though. --Catrope^{(Talk to me or e-mail me)} 20:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Could have to do with our outsourcing searching to Google. -- Serenity 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I really feel that Longshot is confirmed as Anders callsign by this scene. It's not vague, knowing how pilots speak. -- Noneofyourbusiness 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thrace's claims discussion

Alpha Centauri's triple star system contains 1 star, Proxima Centauri, which is a 'flare star', capable of changing its luminosity in seconds (more akin to the flashing behaviour described by Starbuck). Another interesting factor is that the name of the constellation, Centaurus, refers to the half-man, half-horse mythological figure, which is also the figure represented by Saggitarus (the statue on the tomb of Athena on which the Arrow of Apollo was placed to reveal the path to Earth). Although the triple stars of Alpha Centauri cannot be seen from Earth neither it is possible to see the rings of the outer solar system's planets. What seems more likely is that Starbuck saw both the rings and the triple star on her way back to the Ionian Nebula.

-- Hobbes 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The original page formerly included a reference to the moon being "charcoal grey" from space, insinuating that the photos were inconsistent with observed reality. This is not the case, nor is her dialog incorrect.

This mistaken belief stems largely from ignorance of the true color of objects in our solar system. The moon is not, despite what we see in the sky, grey and white. It is a dull mix of browns, rusts, and yellows. It could easily be described as "yellow" when viewed from space and in partial illumination from the Sun. The moon has an albedo of 0.12 (in other words, it is a relatively dark body), and only appears in the highly desaturated shades we see it due to the intensity of sunlight reflecting off it. See this real-color image for a visual: [1].

Kara's comment was spot on. Also, our star is not really yellow--it is very close to 6500K white, but appears exaggeratedly yellow due to the same Rayleigh scattering that makes the sky blue.-- Dharadvani 05:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As you say, the moon is always seen brightly lit by the sun (or not lit at all) and an Astronaut in space would not observe a different colour from what we see on the ground. However, you also in your edit removed the note about the fact that the particular picture used in the show being, quite oddly, a partially eclipsed moon, with the lower half shaded and no sharp terminator. Any reason why you removed that note? It's a rather unusual choice by the graphics team to use a real or simulated partially eclipsed moon, it seems they had some goal in mind with that.--Bradtem 19:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An astronaut in space would indeed see a different color from what we see on the ground. See the image linked in my earlier comment. Also poke around the NASA website for astronaut's reports from the moon landings. I believe it was Alan Shepard (maybe David Scott) who called it "mousy brown". As for the "partially eclipsed" moon, take a closer look at the screen cap. It's not being eclipsed, it appears to be an upside-down waning gibbous moon heading into the last quarter. The perspective appears off because the Moon orbits the ecliptic and the curvature of the earth is off-plumb in the picture. -- Dharadvani 12:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotta say I disagree. I've seen and photographed many regular and eclipsed moons, and in a regular waning gibbous, the terminator is nowhere near that soft. And take a closer look, the curvature is the wrong way for the terminator and the right way for an umbra. I have no idea why they used an eclipsed moon here, but that's what we have. Show me a picture of a non-eclipsed moon, from space, that looks remotely like this.--Bradtem 19:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The curvature is deceptive, given that the screen cap shows a curved piece of paper with an off-plumb perspective. It tracks quite closely with this: [2], again, upside-down. In this cycle, from this orbital perspective, the moon is rising from behind the earth. It is not being eclipsed. -- Dharadvani 09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm pretty skilled in astronomy and those two pictures look nothing alike to me. The normal moon picture has a sharp terminator. It's a quarter moon with linear terminator. In a gibbous moon, the terminator would be curved down in Starbuck's picture. Another thing wrong with the picture is the moon is less than 1/3 as bright as the Earth when viewed together, but I will leave that to photoshop. The lunar terminator is always sharp. Starbuck's photo has a gradual fade to orange, which is only seen in a partial lunar eclipse.--Bradtem 16:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I pasted together 4 moons -- Thrace's picture, your gibbous, a partial lunar and a total lunar. Her moon looks nothing like the gibbous, and most like the total but the brightness would be way off. The curvature of the terminator is the big clue. I have no idea why the graphics artists sourced a moon in eclipse for this photo, but they seem to have. Four Moons--Bradtem 18:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and think you are massively overanalyzing the image from the art department. First, you're locked into ground-based thinking. Desaturate a photo of the moon from space and the terminator softens. A true lunar eclipse has a distinct double-gradient, which the image lacks. Further, even if we accept the possibility that the art department intended the moon to be in eclipse instead of simply artistic license for a photograph with mere seconds of screen time, such eclipses occur 5 to 7 times per year. Without knowing the year, the significance of the moon's position/condition is low. The purpose of the photo is to identify with the audience--which it does, by approximating the configuration of the mare. It is interesting speculation, but is not notable for the main page.--Dharadvani 11:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if, before removing text that is under discussion, you waited to have the discussion first and see if there is consensus. Removal of other people's text is different from adding your own. While we obviously disagree on what a terminator looks like, I am not interpreting what's the use of an eclipsed image means, simply documenting it. If I'm wrong, there is no great harm. If it turns out to be significant you're removing material because your interpretation is different. We haven't seen any other opinions yet, so please be courteous in a two-person disagreement. If you have a photo of a terminator from space that looks anything like Starbuck's photo, you may offer it, but please restore my text until you do and others agree with you. Also note that no matter how much the terminator may "soften" from a particular view it never turns and becomes convex on a 3/4 moon!--Bradtem 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't the discussion. It's the fact that there's no reason to believe it to be significant, whatever the phase or transit status of the Moon. It is no more worth mentioning than the fact that the sky was grey when they landed on Earth. Leaving it in amidst the text doesn't make any sense. It's a throwaway photo used by Starbuck to show that she's been to Earth. The audience is meant to see the surface features of the moon and recognize it as our Moon. If it turns out to be significant, it can be added. There is no corroborating evidence of any kind, no mention in dialogue, and not even a rational theory that hinges on the significance of the shadow on the Moon. When doing any writing of this sort, what not to include is as important as what gets included. It's cruft. If there is any evidence to suggest it means something, please, share it. Also note that I don't agree with your assessment of a convex terminator. There's no consensus that an eclipse is depicted or intended. -- Dharadvani 04:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree. But what you'll find a lot on the forums these days, and to a lesser extends on BS Wiki, is that people over-analyze everything these days and read supposedly hidden clues into just about anything; be it props or the smallest lines of dialogue. Sure, there is some foreshadowing and sometimes props do have significance ("Maelstrom" has several cases of that). But sometimes a thing is just a thing. And with regards to Starbuck's voyage, there was a lot of misdirection and complete misinterpretation. Like the whole gas-giant/Jupiter thing. Though that at least was fully intented by the writers. It's a matter of taste. For me (and probably you), speculation has a place here unless it's completely unfounded, while others want to have everything added. I think this is a case where adding it later, if it does gain significance, is better. As it's now, it just suggests something that isn't necessarily there. Especially since it's presented more as scientific fact than supposition. -- Serenity 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing speculation. It was one line that I believe was documenting something, not speculating on why or what it means. It may simply be a graphic artist's mistake or special touch, and we document those. I have not suggested any meaning for it. We're here to document. The mysteries of Earth and the final Cylon are the two central mysteries of the show; I think it highly appropriate to document all we notice relating to these. If you really think it's a matter of great dispute what the moon looks like, it could be written as "The shadow pattern on the moon is unusual, to some it is more consistent with a partially eclipsed moon than a normal 3/4 moon." If it means nothing it means nothing but an unsual artistic choice. If it means something (and I really have no idea what) it would be an error not to document it. But I'm done. This is not that important, other than to my judgement that the right thing for a wiki like this is to document in detail things that relate to the show's central mysteries. One can do that without fanwanking about what they mean.--Bradtem 06:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To document ephemera without meaning is to miss the point of documenting in the first place. Reporting it at all is an assertion of significance. The ambiguous visual details of a few frames, without evidence or a theory of relevance, are not significant and just waste space. Including a throwaway detail because someone feels that it might be significant to something would seriously degrade the quality of a documentary work. Without any theory or evidence, it's interesting speculation, and nothing more. If it becomes meaningful, it can be documented. I am unsure what the issue was. -- Dharadvani 03:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man special preview?

Worth noting or no? Since it's not really relevant to the episode itself but the airing thereof..--DrWho42 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really worth noting. -- Joe Beaudoin ^{So say we all - Donate - Battlestar Pegasus} 03:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Galactica Damage

Could anyone sort out some screenshots of the the damage done to Galactica please? :) FredTheDeadHead 08:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No caring to the destruction of Pyxis and 1700 lives lost

You know the exact moment the Act 1 began, no one at all cared for the destruction of Pyxis or the 1700 lives lost in the battle. It wasn't even mentioned in the next few episodes. I've noticed that these sort of things get swept under the rug often. Cloud Nine was in that category, same with Adriatic and Carina. They really should've done something in the episode to include these deaths and not completely focus on Starbuck's return. Snr. Lt. Corey "Shadow" Danian (got promoted despite being 19) 03:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mining ship destroyed?

Did anyone notice in the scene as Seelix destroyed the missile bound on Colonial One that multiple missiles were bound for a mining ship and just as it was about to hit, Colonial One's bulk got in the way and the missiles were almost bound to hit the ship.--Senior Lieutenant Corey N. "Shadow" Danian 02:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to 'Gaffe' section

I deleted the last entry in the "Notes\Gaffe" Section. See the entry and the reasons for deletion here.

Dogger55 18:32, 11 July 2011 (EDT)