StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ho many Battlegroups do you think were out there on the border, definetly more than one, but how many do ya'll think there are?

Why were there "definitely more than one?" That is a biasing statement that damages our objectivity. We only have evidence of one battle group, and all circumstantial evidence suggests that it was the only one there.

because otherwise it would have been called a fleet or task force or armada.

FaxModem1 wrote:because otherwise it would have been called a fleet or task force or armada.

LMAO! A "battle group" does not have a definition. It can be used interchangeably with the words "fleet," "armada," or "task force." Moreover, Picard calls it "The fleet" twice, after talking with SF command. If there had been several groups of similar size, he would have called the group "a fleet," or "a portion of the fleet."

WOW, this arguement again, I thought Darkling showed that it wasn't their whole fleet, look in the previous forum where ya'll argued about it

NOW, I ask the Question because the Neutral Zone is big, so, how many ships wouldthey send to cover it.

FaxModem1 wrote:WOW, this arguement again, I thought Darkling showed that it wasn't their whole fleet, look in the previous forum where ya'll argued about it

NOW, I ask the Question because the Neutral Zone is big, so, how many ships wouldthey send to cover it.

Demonstrate that the Neutral Zone is so large that multiple groups of ships would be necessary to protect it. Demonstrate that they would send more ships. Where were these ships in the movie?

Master of Ossus wrote:

FaxModem1 wrote:WOW, this arguement again, I thought Darkling showed that it wasn't their whole fleet, look in the previous forum where ya'll argued about it

NOW, I ask the Question because the Neutral Zone is big, so, how many ships wouldthey send to cover it.

Demonstrate that the Neutral Zone is so large that multiple groups of ships would be necessary to protect it. Demonstrate that they would send more ships. Where were these ships in the movie?

It wasn't about showing the entire neutral zone being protected. It was about showing where the E-E reinforcements were.

Darkling already covered this. All we know is that Battle Group Omega was sent to a particular region of the Neutral Zone. We know nothing beyond that. Claiming that the Federation sent few ships is an absurd claim because there is NO fact to base that on.

Alyeska wrote:Darkling already covered this. All we know is that Battle Group Omega was sent to a particular region of the Neutral Zone. We know nothing beyond that. Claiming that the Federation sent few ships is an absurd claim because there is NO fact to base that on.

Bullshit. Let's look at this way. There are two theories that are competing, right now. One is that the UFP had a fairly large number of ships in the area (is it fair to say between 50 and 200 is a representation of your argument?), and one theory holds that Battle Group Omega was the only group there, along with the E-E, of course.

Let's look at what the evidence says: the only line that either side is presenting as evidence is that Picard referred to Battle Group Omega as being the singular fleet in the area, and explaining that it had been moved to rendezvous with the E-E. This indicates that it was the only group in the area, and leads to the theory that SF had very few ships in the region.

The other theory presents NO evidence, WHATSOEVER, that additional ships existed. They do not have dialogue. They do not have a visual. They do not have ANYTHING, other than their belief that there were additional ships. If we operate in a logical manner, we assume that these ships do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. This is why God is assumed not to exist, why it is assumed that the US cannot blot out the sun using a satellite, and why aliens are assumed to only come from other countries on this Earth. The burden of proof is on this side to show that there are other UFP ships operating in the vicinity, and despite numerous requests they have not presented anything. Logically, then, we MUST accept that Battle Group Omega was the only group of ships in the region. The fact that Picard refers to it in a singular sense only reinforces this notion, but would not theoretically be necessary. The lack of proof that such ships DO exist means that we should assume that they do not, until such a time as evidence is presented that other groups do indeed operate in the region.


A theory is designed to do one thing: to take evidence that we have, and then draw conclusions based on that such that we may accurately predict other things that can also be observed. Theories are then tested by determining if they actually predict accurately what is going on.

Both theories have mechanisms to explain the small number of ships in Sector 3274. The theory that there are many ships does this by explaining that there are other ships busy doing other things, such as patrolling the Neutral Zone. The theory that Battle Group Omega was it suggests that there were no other ships there, and therefore we should not expect to see anymore. Both theories also accurately predict SF's fleet moveemnts. The side that says that there were many ships believes that these other ships were needed elsewhere, and were worried about frightening off Shinzon. The side claiming few ships suggests that those were the only ships there, and the only ships that were available to try to fight Shinzon. Both sides thus accurately predict that SF will send only Battle Group Omega to the Neutral Zone in order to fight Shinzon. Thus, in terns if these two particular observations, both theories accurately predict what is observed, and both are equally likely to be correct.

Let us now consider Occam's Razor. This holds that whichever theory accurately predicts observations using the fewest terms is more likely to be the correct one. Let us assume, for the moment, that both theories did accurately predict what we observed. The theory that there are few ships requires two terms: the ships that are observed in Battle Group Omega, and the E-E, and a decommissioning of numerous other ships following the end of hostilities in the Dominion War, and the Borg War. Thus, two terms are involved. The other theory attempts to claim that additional ships are also present, as well as requiring the other ships already known to be in Battle Group Omega. Thus, both sides are equally likely to be correct under Occam's Razor. The only difference here is that decommissionings following wars have been observed in ST:VI, and TNG (following the end of hostilities in the Cardassian-UFP War, that is talked about several times, including "The Wounded" [TNG]).

This is where the similarities between the observations breaks down. The theory that there are few ships correctly predicts that we will not see any other ships on the map, and that none will be referred to. The theory that there are many ships has no mechanism for explaining their absence. Thus, the theory that there are few ships accurately predicts what is actually observed. The other theory does not predict this, and its proponents only respond to this by attacking the original assertion that there were few ships without brining up any evidence that there were more. Thus, one of the two theories accurately predicts the observations that were made during the movie, while the other does not.

We can now clearly see that one of the theories is far more likely to be correct than the other one. Not only does the theory of many ships disregard evidence, but it also fails to accurately predict what we see on screen. Thus, the theory holding that Battle Group Omega was, indeed, the only group of ships available is more likely to be correct based BOTH on evidence, AND on the basis that it is the only one that accurately predicts what is observed. Since the other theory does NOT predict what is observed, and there is another theory that does, the theory of a larger number of ships MUST be incorrect.

I saw the movie again today and Picard says a line in the briefing room along these lines:

"We are heading for OUR fleet"

The words may be a little different, but he definetly said "OUR FLEET", which means, it was the fleet that the were assigned to, not the only one, not THE FLEET, it was OUR FLEET.

See the movie and during the scene before Battlestations, he says it, the annonated scrpt may be different but that was before it was changed.

the only thing we know about any ship formations is that the enterprise was heading to a cluster of ships...all of which located in the same system. so lets apply some logic. If you are a starfleet admiral trying to loacte a single ship crossing your border would you lump all of your forces together in one system? no, that is illogical and a sign of incompetence. if the starfleet admiralty was that incompetent, the federation would have been conquered long long ago. so how many ships were there? we simply cannot determine that because there is insufficent information available. did you hear that trekkies? there is no information to support the theory of hundreds or thousands of ships patroling the neutral zone, and this applies to warsies as well, there is simply no information to support the theory that the only ships in the area were the 7 ships clustered in the star system the enterprise was headed for.

Col. Crackpot wrote:if the starfleet admiralty was that incompetent, the federation would have been conquered long long ago

Or, their enemies are MORE incompetent- ref. The Borg

Col. Crackpot wrote:the only thing we know about any ship formations is that the enterprise was heading to a cluster of ships...all of which located in the same system. so lets apply some logic. If you are a starfleet admiral trying to loacte a single ship crossing your border would you lump all of your forces together in one system? no, that is illogical and a sign of incompetence. if the starfleet admiralty was that incompetent, the federation would have been conquered long long ago. so how many ships were there? we simply cannot determine that because there is insufficent information available. did you hear that trekkies? there is no information to support the theory of hundreds or thousands of ships patroling the neutral zone, and this applies to warsies as well, there is simply no information to support the theory that the only ships in the area were the 7 ships clustered in the star system the enterprise was headed for.

Thats kinda what I have been trying to say. There is to little information to make a concrete statement.

Alyeska wrote:

Col. Crackpot wrote:the only thing we know about any ship formations is that the enterprise was heading to a cluster of ships...all of which located in the same system. so lets apply some logic. If you are a starfleet admiral trying to loacte a single ship crossing your border would you lump all of your forces together in one system? no, that is illogical and a sign of incompetence. if the starfleet admiralty was that incompetent, the federation would have been conquered long long ago. so how many ships were there? we simply cannot determine that because there is insufficent information available. did you hear that trekkies? there is no information to support the theory of hundreds or thousands of ships patroling the neutral zone, and this applies to warsies as well, there is simply no information to support the theory that the only ships in the area were the 7 ships clustered in the star system the enterprise was headed for.

Thats kinda what I have been trying to say. There is to little information to make a concrete statement.

if anything, we might be able to hypothesize (spell) that there were more ships patrolling the border, but it cannot be proven. but everyone around here make wildly partisain statements and refuse to budge after they are made. it's like friggin' congress

I don't recall people making wild statements about huge amounts of ships, I have only heard silly statements about very low ship counts.

I have been arguing against making assumption based on those seven ships and almost everyone in this (and other threads) have agreed with me, the only claims on actual numbers are coming from the wars side on this subject so theres no rel need to tell trekies there isn't enough info.

However it is nice to see that most people can see the obvious problems with making assumptions based upon that battlegroup.

Actually, a low ship count makes sense. In TNG, the second time Sela tried her shit and Data was in command of the Enterprise (the episode name escapes me), the Federation responded to the Romulans crossing into Federation space with a grand total of 15 ships plus the Enterprise.

Maybe thats because no such episode exists

You have a mish mash of two episodes and the Feds responded with approx 20 to a Romulan supply run into Klingon space.

Col. Crackpot wrote:the only thing we know about any ship formations is that the enterprise was heading to a cluster of ships...all of which located in the same system. so lets apply some logic. If you are a starfleet admiral trying to loacte a single ship crossing your border would you lump all of your forces together in one system? no, that is illogical and a sign of incompetence.

Given that their ONLY chance of finding the Scimitar lay with the E-E and Picard, it would be a sign of incompetence to have forces anywhere else. Remember that the Scimitar can "pass within ten feet of every ship in Star Fleet and" SF would never know.

if the starfleet admiralty was that incompetent, the federation would have been conquered long long ago. so how many ships were there?

Hello unsubstantiated claim. Do you realize that Col. Crackpot is using you unfairly?

we simply cannot determine that because there is insufficent information available. did you hear that trekkies? there is no information to support the theory of hundreds or thousands of ships patroling the neutral zone, and this applies to warsies as well, there is simply no information to support the theory that the only ships in the area were the 7 ships clustered in the star system the enterprise was headed for.

Incorrect. There is dialogue evidence supporting that those were the only ships there. I was not referring to the "We are heading for our fleet," I was referring to when Picard was telling them that THE fleet had been re-routed to rendezvous with them. That is the ONLY evidence either way. The problem here is that the Trekkies are acting illogically. I have shown my theory to provide better predictive qualities than their theory. I have shown that my theory is based on the only evidence that exists. The theory that they had other ships patrolling the Neutral Zone has NO evidence, other than speculation, to support it, and does not accurately predict what we see in the movie.

Given that their ONLY chance of finding the Scimitar lay with the E-E and Picard, it would be a sign of incompetence to have forces anywhere else. Remember that the Scimitar can "pass within ten feet of every ship in Star Fleet and" SF would never know.

i agree, but would/t that be playing into Shinzon's hands? i wouldn't put all of my eggs in on basket if i was in charge




Incorrect. There is dialogue evidence supporting that those were the only ships there. I was not referring to the "We are heading for our fleet," I was referring to when Picard was telling them that THE fleet had been re-routed to rendezvous with them. That is the ONLY evidence either way. The problem here is that the Trekkies are acting illogically. I have shown my theory to provide better predictive qualities than their theory. I have shown that my theory is based on the only evidence that exists. The theory that they had other ships patrolling the Neutral Zone has NO evidence, other than speculation, to support it, and does not accurately predict what we see in the movie.[/quote]

i would be inclined to agree with you if i were to look at that as it stood alone. But i don't think that is a good idea. Take a step back and look at the broader picture. The last two seasons of DS9 are a good indication of fed fleet strength. after the war their numbers of capable total starships from the numerous lowly mirandas on up to a handful of Soverigns and Galaxies add up to the high hundreds to very low thousands. i don't think that was ever in dispute. then Romulan border is considered a 'hot spot' for lack of a better term. Why would the Feddies have only 7 ships defending an entire section of the border? seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Col. Crackpot wrote:Given that their ONLY chance of finding the Scimitar lay with the E-E and Picard, it would be a sign of incompetence to have forces anywhere else. Remember that the Scimitar can "pass within ten feet of every ship in Star Fleet and" SF would never know.

i agree, but would/t that be playing into Shinzon's hands? i wouldn't put all of my eggs in on basket if i was in charge

So what? Shinzon's plan did not require the UFP to mass their forces in one place. If anything, it relied on the hope that they would NOT mass their forces around the E-E, because he attacked the E-E and played right into SF's hands.

i would be inclined to agree with you if i were to look at that as it stood alone. But i don't think that is a good idea. Take a step back and look at the broader picture. The last two seasons of DS9 are a good indication of fed fleet strength. after the war their numbers of capable total starships from the numerous lowly mirandas on up to a handful of Soverigns and Galaxies add up to the high hundreds to very low thousands. i don't think that was ever in dispute. then Romulan border is considered a 'hot spot' for lack of a better term. Why would the Feddies have only 7 ships defending an entire section of the border? seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Again, look at the even broader picture. The war with the Dominion is over. There is no reason to maintain those warships. The Klingon and Cardassian Empires have been completely and utterly destroyed militarily by the war. The Borg were seriously damaged, perhaps even destroyed, by the events in "End Game," which leaves only the Romulan Empire as something that even approaches a threat to the UFP, and tensions with the RSE have been declining due to events in the Dominion War. Again, I see the demilitarization and decommissioning of SF as an event that has occurred. Similar things have also been seen in the UFP, and are an established part of the UFP's MO. Following both the end of hostilities with the Klingons after the Khitomer conference (ST:VI) and the events preceding TNG and the war with the Cardassians, we have seen similarly massive demobilizations.

In short, you are looking at the evidence and asking the right question, but working backwards from the way that you should be working. You are asking, "Why would the UFP only have seven ships protecting" the NZ, and then deciding that because this is difficult to explain, they must have more ships there. Instead, you should be seeing that they only had seven ships (starting with the evidence) and then asking how this is possible, given the fleet deployments we saw in DS9. Your new theory should then reconcile both ideas, using terms that have been observed in the past to support itself, and explaining what we see on screen. In short, you are starting with a theory and then working to explain the evidence. If you start with the evidence and then work to a theory, you will be more successful.

Master Ossus, do you have ANY proof that these ships were the entirety of the Neutral Zone ships? I thought not. You have to little evidence to make any assumptions. Yours have just as much validity as mine because we have the SAME amount of evidence to back them up, which is nothing.

Alyeska wrote:Master Ossus, do you have ANY proof that these ships were the entirety of the Neutral Zone ships? I thought not. You have to little evidence to make any assumptions. Yours have just as much validity as mine because we have the SAME amount of evidence to back them up, which is nothing.

Bullshit. I have no EVIDENCE that those were not the only ships there. I have dialogue reinforcing my belief that they WERE the only ships there. All you do is demand proof, without providing a shred of evidence that supports an alternate theory, even though my theory accurately and correctly explains everything that we see in the movie, and the competing theory (which is based on NOTHING) does not.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Master Ossus, do you have ANY proof that these ships were the entirety of the Neutral Zone ships? I thought not. You have to little evidence to make any assumptions. Yours have just as much validity as mine because we have the SAME amount of evidence to back them up, which is nothing.

Bullshit. I have no EVIDENCE that those were not the only ships there. I have dialogue reinforcing my belief that they WERE the only ships there. All you do is demand proof, without providing a shred of evidence that supports an alternate theory, even though my theory accurately and correctly explains everything that we see in the movie, and the competing theory (which is based on NOTHING) does not.

Oh, I could give an alternative theory and I have just as much evidence to support it.

Alternate Theory: Battle Group Omega represents the defensive forces the Federation has near the Enterprise at one section of the Neutral Zone. This is not contradicted because we do not know the size of the area of this part of the neutral zone. We know the Federation is 8,000 light years long at its longest, so this border could be realistically over 2,000 light years long. With such a large border and ships somewhat dispersed, you will see such fleet counts.

See, I just gave an alternative theory that has either supporting evidence, or nothing in direct contradiction.

In other words, there is little to gain from your theory because there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE from the movie to make any concrete speculation. When the evidence supports theories from BOTH SIDES of the equation, you realize the evidence is worthless.

Alyeska wrote:Oh, I could give an alternative theory and I have just as much evidence to support it.

Alternate Theory: Battle Group Omega represents the defensive forces the Federation has near the Enterprise at one section of the Neutral Zone. This is not contradicted because we do not know the size of the area of this part of the neutral zone. We know the Federation is 8,000 light years long at its longest, so this border could be realistically over 2,000 light years long. With such a large border and ships somewhat dispersed, you will see such fleet counts.

See, I just gave an alternative theory that has either supporting evidence, or nothing in direct contradiction.

In other words, there is little to gain from your theory because there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE from the movie to make any concrete speculation. When the evidence supports theories from BOTH SIDES of the equation, you realize the evidence is worthless.

Explain how "The fleet," supports your idea. Moreover, your theory relies on an even fleet distribution. We know that this is not the case, with a higher proportion of ships protecting areas like the Neutral Zone. Moreover, we know from "Balance of Terror," that a non-warp capable vessel was capable of covering a significant portion of the Neutral Zone in just a few hours. This is not indicative of a very long Neutral Zone. You are still grasping at straws. You have no alternative theory that is supported by the evidence, AND that accurately predicts what we see. My theory does. You lose.

Master of Ossus wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Oh, I could give an alternative theory and I have just as much evidence to support it.

Alternate Theory: Battle Group Omega represents the defensive forces the Federation has near the Enterprise at one section of the Neutral Zone. This is not contradicted because we do not know the size of the area of this part of the neutral zone. We know the Federation is 8,000 light years long at its longest, so this border could be realistically over 2,000 light years long. With such a large border and ships somewhat dispersed, you will see such fleet counts.

See, I just gave an alternative theory that has either supporting evidence, or nothing in direct contradiction.

In other words, there is little to gain from your theory because there is NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE from the movie to make any concrete speculation. When the evidence supports theories from BOTH SIDES of the equation, you realize the evidence is worthless.

Explain how "The fleet," supports your idea. Moreover, your theory relies on an even fleet distribution. We know that this is not the case, with a higher proportion of ships protecting areas like the Neutral Zone. Moreover, we know from "Balance of Terror," that a non-warp capable vessel was capable of covering a significant portion of the Neutral Zone in just a few hours. This is not indicative of a very long Neutral Zone. You are still grasping at straws. You have no alternative theory that is supported by the evidence, AND that accurately predicts what we see. My theory does. You lose.

You just gave an example that actually hurts your own side. Because the fleet distribution is not even, there could be MORE ships elsewhere.

Then you get into terminology. Which is higher? The visual information that calls it a battlegroup, or someones dialogue that calls it a fleet? People tend to use other terms when talking. "I am going back to the fleet" is a commong saying for meaning your just going back to the ship.

And the non-warp capable ship. What is this from? TOS? If so, the Neutral Zone has likely expanded. Also, is it possible this Impulse only ship covered a horizontal distance from one side of the border to the other (Romulan to Federation) rather then the length of the border?

My theory is invalid? Lets see, the Federation deemed the Romulans a significant enough threat in the future. You claim they have a pathetic number of ships even though its listed as a battle group. You claim the border itself is small, though your cited example is questionable at best.