Star Trek range and distance issues

[Alyeska]

One thing I have noted in Star Trek is there are multiple occasions where range or distance figures are given yet they conflict with the visuals. In TWOK Checkov states the Enterprise is 4,000 KM from the Reliant yet seconds before detonation a visual shows them in range. In the TNG episode where the virus is spread and Paulaski is infected, Riker orders the Enterprise to close to 30 KM of a Miranda class ship and stop. Visuals show them in the same shot. In TNG Yesterdays Enterprise Picard orders the Enterprise to cover the Enterprise C and stay within 200 KM yet the visual shows them in range yet again.

I am inclinded to believe the dialogue in these scenes over the visuals. These are stated orders or very clear information statements.

[Howedar]

I would tend to agree. Range is the one thing that cannot really be shown in visuals, as the audience wants to see some action instead of some black space. Off-the-cuff remarks I wouldn't take over visuals, but clear informative statements I probably would.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

So you don't trust your own eyes, Alyeska?

Honestly, this visual/dialogue issue has been baked to death, and mere opinion statements like this don't work anymore. At the very least, explain to us why we SHOULDN'T trust our own eyes.

[Alyeska]

So you don't trust your own eyes, Alyeska?

Honestly, this visual/dialogue issue has been baked to death, and mere opinion statements like this don't work anymore. At the very least, explain to us why we SHOULDN'T trust our own eyes.

Simply put, eye candy. I say dialogue is higher then visuals when in conflict.

[Sea Skimmer]

Simply put, eye candy. I say dialogue is higher then visuals when in conflict.

....So we should believe the Cardassian/Romulan fleet really did blow away much of the planets crust in The Die Is cast? I think not.

[Alyeska]

Simply put, eye candy. I say dialogue is higher then visuals when in conflict.

....So we should believe the Cardassian/Romulan fleet really did blow away much of the planets crust in The Die Is cast? I think not.

You ever read my statement on the whole issue? The dialogue technicaly violates itself. Furthermore, there is such a thing as examining the dialogue to fit with the visuals. In TDIC they were referring to 30% of the crust in the first targeted area destroyed. That is all.

Now the range issues I stated can not be seen any other way.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

You ever read my statement on the whole issue? The dialogue technicaly violates itself. Furthermore, there is such a thing as examining the dialogue to fit with the visuals. In TDIC they were referring to 30% of the crust in the first targeted area destroyed. That is all.

Now the range issues I stated can not be seen any other way.

Actually, I hadn't. Would you kindly point out where it is or just rewrite at least a summary of it (more detailed than the three sentences above?)

That being said, the underlying issue is Evidence Analysis Method, which is a fundamental philosophical issue in the whole debate game. Some people try to evade the problem by saying the range issues are in different episodes (visual of 10km in #1, dialogue of 40000km in #2, visual of >200km in #3, dialogue of being out of range even though visual says range <10km in #4.)

Of course, search hard enough, and you would find such irreconcilables.

You can just assume that the question meant: "What if the statement does not technically violate itself and there is no rationalization possible in the TDiC case? Then what?" - in the early days of TDiC, Trekkies IIRC were pretty loath to try to rationalize, because then they'd lose their teraton class missiles

Personally, I choose full suspension of disbelief rules to the greatest extent possible. There is no atmosphere to warp visual perspective in space (like mirages.) So in space, what you see should be what it is. The fact that Federation rangefinders may have wierd definitions of "kilometer" should have little to do with it

[Alyeska]

Actually, I hadn't. Would you kindly point out where it is or just rewrite at least a summary of it (more detailed than the three sentences above?)

Gonna have to look it up. Its on SD.net somewhere.

That being said, the underlying issue is Evidence Analysis Method, which is a fundamental philosophical issue in the whole debate game. Some people try to evade the problem by saying the range issues are in different episodes (visual of 10km in #1, dialogue of 40000km in #2, visual of >200km in #3, dialogue of being out of range even though visual says range <10km in #4.)

That is not entirely wrong because it points out to something that has happened more then once.

Of course, search hard enough, and you would find such irreconcilables.

You can just assume that the question meant: "What if the statement does not technically violate itself and there is no rationalization possible in the TDiC case? Then what?" - in the early days of TDiC, Trekkies IIRC were pretty loath to try to rationalize, because then they'd lose their teraton class missiles

Indeed. One must look at all angles. That said, TDIC had more room for interpretation then the incidents I listed.

Personally, I choose full suspension of disbelief rules to the greatest extent possible. There is no atmosphere to warp visual perspective in space (like mirages.) So in space, what you see should be what it is. The fact that Federation rangefinders may have wierd definitions of "kilometer" should have little to do with it

This raises a very big problem when you deal with known mistakes such as the infamous phaser from the torpedo launcher on the E-D. The visuals are not infallible. When a dialogue of clear intent from an invididual who should know better then to make a mistake of such magnitude states a range, I would rank that much higher then visuals which are known to have errors.

[Alyeska]

Ok, here goes on the TDIC issue.

We are faced with multiple facts that are all seemingly in contradiction.

The Romulans and Cardassians believe they can strip the crust off the planet in 1 hour and batter it into the mantle in 5 hours. The opening volley is stated to have destroyed 30% of the crust. The people are not in disbelief at such a seemingly massive increase over the first estimate. The planet had life sign additions that were not real.

Ok, lets try and throw all this together with something that makes sense and there is no contradiction.

The Tal Shiar and Obsidian Order wanted to destory the Founder world. The also wanted to be very thurough with that. To faccilitate this they devised a grid scheme in which they would quickly and effectively fire on each grid location of the planet until it is entirely destroyed. When they fired the opening volley they destroyed 30% of the crust in the target grid area. This grid is of unknown size. Furthermore, this would allow for the bio signs to still be active in nearby regions masking the truth and alerting the Romulan/Cardassian forces to the threat.

There you go. No absurdly high firepower figures and the entire situation ties together without a single contradiction.

[Darth Wong]

This raises a very big problem when you deal with known mistakes such as the infamous phaser from the torpedo launcher on the E-D. The visuals are not infallible.

And the dialogue is? Dialogue which is often mind-numbingly stupid?

When a dialogue of clear intent from an invididual who should know better then to make a mistake of such magnitude states a range, I would rank that much higher then visuals which are known to have errors.

Again, I ask: since when is dialogue known to be error-free? Or is that simply an assumption you arbitrarily make?

Or, to put this question another way, why do you feel that all of the people who contribute to the visual effects of the show do not count as creators of that show? Are you saying that Star Trek is actually a bunch of canon scripts, with non-canon visual representations thereof?

[Alyeska]

This raises a very big problem when you deal with known mistakes such as the infamous phaser from the torpedo launcher on the E-D. The visuals are not infallible.

And the dialogue is? Dialogue which is often mind-numbingly stupid?

When a dialogue of clear intent from an invididual who should know better then to make a mistake of such magnitude states a range, I would rank that much higher then visuals which are known to have errors.

Again, I ask: since when is dialogue known to be error-free? Or is that simply an assumption you arbitrarily make?

Or, to put this question another way, why do you feel that all of the people who contribute to the visual effects of the show do not count as creators of that show? Are you saying that Star Trek is actually a bunch of canon scripts, with non-canon visual representations thereof?

I am saying you have to play it by ear. Neither is perfect. However, when I hear Picard order that the Enterprise be kept around 200 KM from a target I would expect that order to be followed and that any scene with the Enterprise in sight of the target is a mistake of sorts. There is no reason to assume that Picards order wasn't ignored or that it was a mistake. He never corrected himself and he didn't scream at Wesley for getting way to fucking close. I'd also expect Checkov to know the difference between 4,000 KM and 10 KM. When Riker ordered the Enterprise to stop at 30 KM I also see no reason why his order was ignored. Yes, there can be mistakes in dialogue, but visuals can also have mistakes.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I am saying you have to play it by ear. Neither is perfect. However, when I hear Picard order that the Enterprise be kept around 200 KM from a target I would expect that order to be followed and that any scene with the Enterprise in sight of the target is a mistake of sorts. There is no reason to assume that Picards order wasn't ignored or that it was a mistake. He never corrected himself and he didn't scream at Wesley for getting way to fucking close. I'd also expect Checkov to know the difference between 4,000 KM and 10 KM. When Riker ordered the Enterprise to stop at 30 KM I also see no reason why his order was ignored. Yes, there can be mistakes in dialogue, but visuals can also have mistakes.

Playing it by ear is EXTREMELY problematic. It allows too much room for maneuvering for personal advantage and is inherently subjective. For instance, being a Trekker/Trekkie (whatever classifies your level of pro-Trek,) are you SURE that your primary motivation for saying the dialogue wouldn't just HAPPEN to be because the dialogue suggests a longer range.

Would you be equally willing to ignore the visual in the unlikely event that the visual showed about 200km (the enemy ship is a dot in the sky, suggesting an enormous distance away) but Picard swears it is only 3km?

Wong, if he chooses to answer, might just point you to his webpage's Debate Fallacies section, and say that you want to "change the rules in the middle of the game."

In short, "play it by ear" is a very poor setting in that it is virtually impossible to be fully intellectually honest using it.

As for suspension of disbelief. Well, there are bloopers. For instance, nobody seriously thinks that all Imps in ROTJ were the same rank, though that's the conclusion one could make from the rank badges. However, in this case we DON'T know which one is right.

Suspension of disbelief wise, all we can say for sure is that the dialogue speaker is sincere in his belief that the range is 200km. Our eyes are equally faithful in telling us the range is more like 3km. So now, we have a Theory versus an Observation. For science to progress, Observations always wins over Theory (or else all observations that don't fit theory would be discarded.) The fact that a lot of people may believe in the theory does not make it correct or superior to an observation that says different.

Thus, in scientific analysis (the method most commonly used here AFAIK,) the Visual Observation has to beat the Theory as spoken by anybody, of any level of authority.

Different rules apply for literary analysis.

[Ted C]

This whole discussion is just reinforcing my feeling that sometime in the aftermath of WWIII, the bureau of weights and measures was destroyed and whoever reestablished the standards didn't use the old terminology correctly. Most scenes would make sense if they meant "meters" when they said "kilometers".

[Alyeska]

You are operating under the faulty assumption that visuals must have priority. That is clearly false when we know visuals to be in constant conflict with dialogue as well as visuals having clear mistakes. Need I remind you about the phasers from the torpedo launcher incident again? How about the phasers firing from a non array in Encounter at Farpoint? How about the BoPs that were so small in DS9 that you couldn't stand up in them? How about in First Contact when the Enterprise is shown to be more then a KM long compared to the Defiant (or the Defiant being half its normal size)? And lets even toss in Nemesis. We know from DS9 that the Defiant has more then 100 Quantum Torpedoes. We know that the Enterprise D had more then 250 Photon Torpedoes. We know the Enterprise E used up ALL of its torpedoes yet if we try and compare the fire ratios we come out with a patheticaly small number for a ship that is obviously designed for war compared to the likes of even the Enterprise D.

Fine, I will admit that I believe dialogue more. Unless there is very good reason to assume they are mistating the facts, I believe what they say is the truth. We know there can be visual errors. If they are stating plain facts (which range most certainly is) and if it conflicts the visual, I will accept the dialogue. There comes a point where you have to accept a level of competence on part of the crew. They have to be able to accurately state information and react to it or else the ship would have been destroyed already. There is a difference between competency at running the ship to strategic and tactical thinking.

[Alyeska]

This whole discussion is just reinforcing my feeling that sometime in the aftermath of WWIII, the bureau of weights and measures was destroyed and whoever reestablished the standards didn't use the old terminology correctly. Most scenes would make sense if they meant "meters" when they said "kilometers".

If you exchange meters for KM in any of the situations I stated it still makes no sense.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't particularly have a problem with using the dialogue over visuals, but I think we should use a consistent policy. If someone ALWAYS believes dialogue over visuals, sure let them do it. But if the only difference between the two becomes an arbitrary measure (ie. This character seemed confident, at the time he said this), then I think we have a policy that becomes problematically complex, and that won't help anyone in the long-haul.

[Alyeska]

I don't particularly have a problem with using the dialogue over visuals, but I think we should use a consistent policy. If someone ALWAYS believes dialogue over visuals, sure let them do it. But if the only difference between the two becomes an arbitrary measure (ie. This character seemed confident, at the time he said this), then I think we have a policy that becomes problematically complex, and that won't help anyone in the long-haul.

That is reasonable. It does prevent people from cherry picking and only using what they like. That means if you use visuals as highest or if you use dialogue as highest, you have to take the good with the bad.

[Chris OFarrell]

Attempting to claim that visuals are a far more accurate medium in Sci Fi, especially Star Trek then dialogue is an absurd position. Not that I am trying to claim the dialogue is anything like perfect, but anyone who is trying to claim the visuals are any LESS flawed is just off this planet.

BOTH parts of the show yes SHOW, NOT real life cameraman in space recording it, are utterly inherent to producer and director interference. I have lost count of the number of times visuals and dialogue have been grossly in conflict with each other. Either you get to a point where you assume the crews on the ship do not have the slightest ability to read rangefinders or navigate Starships (which is just beyond any logical stance) or the visuals are in error (which is clearly the truth if your willing to step outside the box and recognise the fact that Star Trek is a TV SHOW the graphics are models and CGI made by people to look good on TV, scientific accuracy is somewhat down the ladder on Star Trek in visuals).

That said, Scientific accuracy is somewhat down the ladder in dialogue as well. We ALL know and the majority of us agree that 'the only thing consistent in Star Trek is its inconsistency'. Take that phrase and step back from it for a second and really think about it. The SAME problems that make the dialogue inconsistent apply to the visuals. Mostly of course artistic impression. Its all nice for Picard to shot 'Range 500 kilometres, lock phasers and fire!' but in realistic graphics, you would see two tiny spots in the blackness of space blasting at each other, not two ships in a knife fight.

Which one looks better on the big screen in terms of eye candy? I think we can all work that out. The one time Trek really TRIED to show ranged combat well was in The Wounded with the computer sensor readouts of the combat. And that worked because it WAS at the distance. But appart from the dramatic tensions of the Cardasians and UFP going at it, the battle itself was hardly anything to write home about.

In short, suspension of disbelief and trying to apply it to a TV show such as Star Trek is an almost useless and logically flawed idea. You can't suspend disbelief when you see scenes which are utterly contradictory with themselves over and over and over. The only logical way is to accept it IS a TV show and these things happen. Of course most people in this thread already HAVE opened that bottle and are willing to accept things such as admitted bloopers. Some are even saying they are gladly accepting errors in dialogue and throwing it out, even sometimes going to far as to say the Characters are flat out wrong about certain statements and throwing it out.

If you have opened THAT door to that extent, sorry, but your bloody going to have to open it all the way. You can't apply half standards to this kind of analysis. Either you admit ALL of it may be suspect and THEN try to come to a consensus about it all that everyone can work with or you can stay back in the endless loop of "Dialogue inconsistent with visuals = Dialogue Wrong = Crew idiots and can't read rangefinders, obey orders, target weapons, navigate ships....but then can do all of the above...and back to square one"

[Darth Wong]

You are operating under the faulty assumption that visuals must have priority.

Visuals are objective. Dialogue is not. In real life, we prefer the objective over the subjective. That is the scientific method.

That is clearly false when we know visuals to be in constant conflict with dialogue as well as visuals having clear mistakes. Need I remind you about the phasers from the torpedo launcher incident again?

Do we really need a countervailing list of stupid dialogue? You're missing the point, which is that visuals are objective, and dialogue isn't. "Playing it by ear" is an excuse NOT to be held to objective, verifiable data.

For example, take your "200km" quote from "Yesterday's Enterprise". Picard doesn't order them to stay at 200km; he orders them to stay WITHIN 200km. You choose to interpret it in such a manner as to generate a contradiction where none is necessary.

How about the phasers firing from a non array in Encounter at Farpoint? How about the BoPs that were so small in DS9 that you couldn't stand up in them? How about in First Contact when the Enterprise is shown to be more then a KM long compared to the Defiant (or the Defiant being half its normal size)?

The Defiant was shrunk once, so it's canon that this is possible , but at the same time, if you're going to appeal to FX mistakes, you must be honest about it. When they placed two ships in the same shot in "Yesterday's Enterprise", that was not a mistake; they did that quite deliberately. If their scaling is inconsistent or they composite their shots incorrectly, you can legitimately call that a mistake.

And lets even toss in Nemesis. We know from DS9 that the Defiant has more then 100 Quantum Torpedoes. We know that the Enterprise D had more then 250 Photon Torpedoes. We know the Enterprise E used up ALL of its torpedoes yet if we try and compare the fire ratios we come out with a patheticaly small number for a ship that is obviously designed for war compared to the likes of even the Enterprise D.

So? How does that mean the FX are bad? Maybe the E carries really big torpedoes, and a smaller number thereof. Maybe they did some scene-switches so it's not obvious how many torps they launched. It really sounds to me like you're just reaching for excuses to dismiss visuals. Again, I ask: do you really want a listing of stupid dialogue?

Fine, I will admit that I believe dialogue more. Unless there is very good reason to assume they are mistating the facts, I believe what they say is the truth.

So not only do you prefer subjective over objective, but you also add in appeal to authority of characters, and you see no problem with this, in terms of an objective method?

We know there can be visual errors.

We also know there can be deliberate visual DECISIONS which you mischaracterize as "errors". This is one of the oldest dishonest-Trekkie tricks in the book. See the ST2 special edition DVD extra materials; they argued over visual decisions like that because they know it's NOT meaningless. Like it or not, it's canon, and OBJECTIVE, unlike any form of dialogue.

Your interpretation of dialogue can be much different from mine. However, arguments over visuals are usually settled with a screenshot (except in the case of people who are truly deranged, but I will disregard them for now).

If they are stating plain facts (which range most certainly is) and if it conflicts the visual, I will accept the dialogue. There comes a point where you have to accept a level of competence on part of the crew. They have to be able to accurately state information and react to it or else the ship would have been destroyed already. There is a difference between competency at running the ship to strategic and tactical thinking.

And how do you address events and tactics which only make sense in the presence of short ranges, such as manual targeting in "Redemption" and ST2, or the battle in Nemesis, where they ended up at such short range that Data could space-jump across?

[Darth Servo]

Its all nice for Picard to shot 'Range 500 kilometres, lock phasers and fire!' but in realistic graphics, you would see two tiny spots in the blackness of space blasting at each other, not two ships in a knife fight.

Why would showing two ships at range NOT be eye candy? The camera could pan between the two really fast, perhaps showing blurred stars in the background, FX simiilar to what they use for warp drive. You don't NEED to show both ships at the same time. It would be even MORE so for big fleet actions.

If you have opened THAT door to that extent, sorry, but your bloody going to have to open it all the way.

Nice slippery slope fallacy. It IS possible to use your brian in analyzing dialogue and see which quotes make sense and which do not.

[Alyeska]

Visuals are objective. Dialogue is not. In real life, we prefer the objective over the subjective. That is the scientific method.

Thats a method that ignores the known flaws in the visuals.

For example, take your "200km" quote from "Yesterday's Enterprise". Picard doesn't order them to stay at 200km; he orders them to stay WITHIN 200km. You choose to interpret it in such a manner as to generate a contradiction where none is necessary.

Actually you have to look at the whole scene to see the situation. One of the K'Vorts was trying to flank the Enterprise and Picard ordered his ship to close within 200 KM of the Enterprise C to protect it. The scene cuts to a visual showing the Enterprise turning and approaching the Enterprise C in the same shot. The dialogue indicates the Enterprise was being outflanked and beyond 200 KM.

The Defiant was shrunk once, so it's canon that this is possible , but at the same time, if you're going to appeal to FX mistakes, you must be honest about it. When they placed two ships in the same shot in "Yesterday's Enterprise", that was not a mistake; they did that quite deliberately. If their scaling is inconsistent or they composite their shots incorrectly, you can legitimately call that a mistake.

Indeed it was not a mistake. It was eye candy. Your entire line of reasoning hinges on the crew of the Enterprise being complete idiots who should have killed themselves in the first 15 minutes of having control of the ship.

So? How does that mean the FX are bad? Maybe the E carries really big torpedoes, and a smaller number thereof. Maybe they did some scene-switches so it's not obvious how many torps they launched. It really sounds to me like you're just reaching for excuses to dismiss visuals. Again, I ask: do you really want a listing of stupid dialogue?

Having a list of bad dialogue does not change things at all. And no, I am not trying to dismiss visuals. Far from it. I am pointing out the conflict between visuals and dialogue and stating that the dialogue has higher presidence.

So not only do you prefer subjective over objective, but you also add in appeal to authority of characters, and you see no problem with this, in terms of an objective method?

This is bullshit. You know that the visuals are made for eye candy. That is one of the prime reasons there is a conflict between them and dialogue. So either you claim visuals are highest canon and also claim the crew is so inept that they should be dead already, or you accept they have a level of competence in running the ship and can read a fucking range finder.

We also know there can be deliberate visual DECISIONS which you mischaracterize as "errors". This is one of the oldest dishonest-Trekkie tricks in the book. See the ST2 special edition DVD extra materials; they argued over visual decisions like that because they know it's NOT meaningless. Like it or not, it's canon, and OBJECTIVE, unlike any form of dialogue.

If Kirk asks for range and Checkov states they are 4,000 KM from the Reliant, that is objective fact.

Your interpretation of dialogue can be much different from mine. However, arguments over visuals are usually settled with a screenshot (except in the case of people who are truly deranged, but I will disregard them for now).

There is only one way to interpret a range statement of 4,000km. There is only one way to interpret an order to stop at 30km.

And how do you address events and tactics which only make sense in the presence of short ranges, such as manual targeting in "Redemption" and ST2, or the battle in Nemesis, where they ended up at such short range that Data could space-jump across?

Note, I am stating when dialogue and visuals conflict. If all we have is the visuals, then there is no conflict and thus what we see stands. In other words Redemption, Nemesis, and TWOK all stand on their own in those particular visuals.

[Alyeska]

Its all nice for Picard to shot 'Range 500 kilometres, lock phasers and fire!' but in realistic graphics, you would see two tiny spots in the blackness of space blasting at each other, not two ships in a knife fight.

Why would showing two ships at range NOT be eye candy? The camera could pan between the two really fast, perhaps showing blurred stars in the background, FX simiilar to what they use for warp drive. You don't NEED to show both ships at the same time. It would be even MORE so for big fleet actions.

If you have opened THAT door to that extent, sorry, but your bloody going to have to open it all the way.

Nice slippery slope fallacy. It IS possible to use your brian in analyzing dialogue and see which quotes make sense and which do not.

Because people like to see the ships attacking each other in the same scene. Babylon 5 tried that ONCE and it failed. Andromeda simply got around the issue by stating that dialogue and offical capabilities for the ships trump the visuals which are just eye candy.

[Warspite]

Why would showing two ships at range NOT be eye candy? The camera could pan between the two really fast, perhaps showing blurred stars in the background, FX simiilar to what they use for warp drive. You don't NEED to show both ships at the same time. It would be even MORE so for big fleet actions.

Because people like to see the ships attacking each other in the same scene. Babylon 5 tried that ONCE and it failed. Andromeda simply got around the issue by stating that dialogue and offical capabilities for the ships trump the visuals which are just eye candy.

I disagree, check every war movie involving ships, they never show both antagonoists at the same time, with the ocasional shot of smoke on the horizon to indicate where the enemy is. With good a good director and FX people it is possible to create an action scene between spaceships without creating the blatant disagreements between Image-Dialogue...
In fact, this discussion would never happen, if they hadn't these inconsistencies.

[Alyeska]

Why would showing two ships at range NOT be eye candy? The camera could pan between the two really fast, perhaps showing blurred stars in the background, FX simiilar to what they use for warp drive. You don't NEED to show both ships at the same time. It would be even MORE so for big fleet actions.

Because people like to see the ships attacking each other in the same scene. Babylon 5 tried that ONCE and it failed. Andromeda simply got around the issue by stating that dialogue and offical capabilities for the ships trump the visuals which are just eye candy.

I disagree, check every war movie involving ships, they never show both antagonoists at the same time, with the ocasional shot of smoke on the horizon to indicate where the enemy is. With good a good director and FX people it is possible to create an action scene between spaceships without creating the blatant disagreements between Image-Dialogue...
In fact, this discussion would never happen, if they hadn't these inconsistencies.

War movies and scifi movies are very much different. Its possible, but its also not nearly as easy to do so. I notice how you didn't really contradict what I stated about B5 and Andromeda. The visuals are mostly for eye candy and while we like to say they are accurate, we know they can have just as many errors as the dialogue because these are virtual creations done by people who are not perfect.

[AdmiralKanos]

Visuals are objective. Dialogue is not. In real life, we prefer the objective over the subjective. That is the scientific method.

Thats a method that ignores the known flaws in the visuals.

I see you are trying to seamlessly mix FX errors ("flaws") and deliberate decisions (which you call "eye candy") together to come up with a composite conclusion which affects both. Very clever, but don't think I didn't notice.

Actually you have to look at the whole scene to see the situation. One of the K'Vorts was trying to flank the Enterprise and Picard ordered his ship to close within 200 KM of the Enterprise C to protect it. The scene cuts to a visual showing the Enterprise turning and approaching the Enterprise C in the same shot. The dialogue indicates the Enterprise was being outflanked and beyond 200 KM.

So? You can outflank a soldier who's much closer than your maximum range, and Picard has no way of knowing their current distance to the ship. All he has is a viewscreen, with no onscreen display of range or tactical data; did you see him check the tactical display consoles before giving that order? They could be sitting 3 km away and it's still possible for him to give that order. As I said, you have demonstrated precisely why I object to your method, by interpreting a scene in only one of many possible ways: something which is far too easy to do with dialogue.

Indeed it was not a mistake. It was eye candy. Your entire line of reasoning hinges on the crew of the Enterprise being complete idiots who should have killed themselves in the first 15 minutes of having control of the ship.

Need I remind you of the staggering mistakes on elementary scientific and technical terms that they routinely make?

Having a list of bad dialogue does not change things at all. And no, I am not trying to dismiss visuals. Far from it. I am pointing out the conflict between visuals and dialogue and stating that the dialogue has higher presidence.

Why? You state this as if it's presumed; if there is a conflict between dialogue and visuals, the dialogue is simple PRESUMED superior even though it is not objective. Why?

This is bullshit. You know that the visuals are made for eye candy. That is one of the prime reasons there is a conflict between them and dialogue. So either you claim visuals are highest canon and also claim the crew is so inept that they should be dead already, or you accept they have a level of competence in running the ship and can read a fucking range finder.

First you must provide irreconcilable problems. Your "Yesterday's Enterprise" contradiction turns out to be bullshit, your ST2 example relies on an assumption of range to the camera (a camera at extreme distance with extreme zoom would make the shot possible), so what else do you have? Instead of looking for solutions, you seem to be looking for problems which you can declare intractable and hence use as an excuse to declare that a subjective form of evidence should simply destroy/override an objective one.

If Kirk asks for range and Checkov states they are 4,000 KM from the Reliant, that is objective fact.

No it isn't. It is testimony. Your understanding of the concept of objectivity is clearly lacking. Besides, you have failed to show a contradiction in this case; rangefinding based on screenshots is more complex than you seem to think.

There is only one way to interpret a range statement of 4,000km. There is only one way to interpret an order to stop at 30km.

I notice you quietly dropped the 200km figure, and of course, it's obvious you don't realize that your scaling contradiction on ST2 is not a contradiction at all. How about that Miranda? Are you going to produce the screenshot which shows that they can't possibly be 30km apart?

As I said, you are relying on a combination of unjustified preference, ignorance of scaling methods, and a predestined conclusion that dialogue must override visuals in order to declare that visuals are intractably flawed.