A debate with a friend that could have huge ramifications

[Howedar]

My position (and I know a lot of people disagree with it) is simply that we have to use our brains and take each situation on a case by case basis. A ground rule saying ONE is inherently more accurate then another is clearly stupid.

So in real life, you figure that the methods of all the world's historians and scientists are "stupid". Gotcha

In all fairness, sometimes the visuals simply are wrong. Unless we're accepting the light-second wide BOP from ST4 now.

A comparison to real-life analytical methods is generally a fair one, but there are some problems. In real life, reality can't be wrong.

[Darth Wong]

In all fairness, sometimes the visuals simply are wrong. Unless we're accepting the light-second wide BOP from ST4 now.

So? How do we treat observational and experimental outliers in real life? That particular example is disproven by other visuals, not by dialogue. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing dialogue which quantified the dimensions of a BOP; have you?

A comparison to real-life analytical methods is generally a fair one, but there are some problems. In real life, reality can't be wrong.

No, but individual measurements of it can. Equipment can be faulty. Someone can digitally enhance a noisy photograph and do it wrong.

[Darth Servo]

I think this goes both ways, an unbiased observer is mostly required, like in real debates.

Which is one of the primary reasons why visuals are superior to dialogue. Objectivity. Dialogue can be interpreted multiple ways. Visuals cannot (although ceRtain idiotS try their hArdest)

[Howedar]

So? How do we treat observational and experimental outliers in real life? That particular example is disproven by other visuals, not by dialogue.

So we weight visuals more than dialog but compare them otherwise the same. I guess that is my preference anyway. I just take offense to the idea that visuals are always right and dialog is always wrong (not to say you or anyone else was suggesting this).

In fact, I don't recall ever hearing dialogue which quantified the dimensions of a BOP; have you?

Oh, probably something in a roundabout way. Nothing explicit though.

No, but individual measurements of it can. Equipment can be faulty. Someone can digitally enhance a noisy photograph and do it wrong.

True.

[Lord Poe]

Then we head back inside and they say they have closed to 8,000 klicks, que another external shot showing them a bit closer....unless the enemy ship is jumping thousands of kilometers forward for a shot to the invisable camera man, jumping back, jumping forward, it simlpy CAN NOT work. It go's against all logic to even CLAIM its a reasnoable answer.

Oh, bull. That's the same kind of reasoning that idiots use to "re-scale" the Death Star 2 by using the Falcon's escape time as a referent by ignoing it took twice as long to GET to the reactor earlier in the film. Because we don't follow every single second of a ship's flight doesn't mean it didn't happen.

People who say that the crew are simply mistaken also fall into similar catogories of idocy.

=snicker= another one to add to the corkboard...

Some examples off the top of my head are Equinox, where multi tens of thousands of kilometers ranges are given and tens of kilometers distances are shown, even after multiple close shots distances are still supposed to be vast.

Chris, I've dealy with this thing over and over again. Voyager didn't hit Equinox with a "30,000km" shot. Paris said "30,000km and CLOSING." Then it was six seconds before Voyager opened fire.

[Alyeska]

So? How do we treat observational and experimental outliers in real life? That particular example is disproven by other visuals, not by dialogue. In fact, I don't recall ever hearing dialogue which quantified the dimensions of a BOP; have you?

And how does that deal with problems such as people stating exact distances being in contradiction with the visual ranges? The frequency of these occurances if rationalized as you would say indicate the ships in question would have been destroyed out of incompetence long ago. Thus we know the visuals must be wrong and it wasn't other visuals that proved it.

[Darth Wong]

And how does that deal with problems such as people stating exact distances being in contradiction with the visual ranges?

Please provide a video clip.

The frequency of these occurances if rationalized as you would say indicate the ships in question would have been destroyed out of incompetence long ago. Thus we know the visuals must be wrong and it wasn't other visuals that proved it.

Please provide a video clip.

[Alyeska]

And how does that deal with problems such as people stating exact distances being in contradiction with the visual ranges?

Please provide a video clip.

The frequency of these occurances if rationalized as you would say indicate the ships in question would have been destroyed out of incompetence long ago. Thus we know the visuals must be wrong and it wasn't other visuals that proved it.

Please provide a video clip.

Clips I can't provide. Cited examples I can.

Watch TWOK again. Watch the Genesis countdown. Chekov states the distance at 4,000km. That statement is entirely contradictory to the visual. He didn't slip up and say KM rather then M because the Enterprise isn't 4000m from the Reliant either. And I find it highly unlikely that Chekov could have misread information orders of magnitude different and not caught it plus no one else on the bridge no notice it. We also know the Enterprise's sensors were working correctly because this is how they tracked the Reliant in the Nebula.

The other example is when Riker orders the Enterprise to stop at 30km from the USS Lantree (it was the episode in which that TNG 2nd season doctor had fast aging). The visual then shows the Lantree less then 5km from the Enterprise. Such gross incompetence to Rikers order would have been noticed imediately on the bridge and commented on. It wasn't.

[Darth Wong]

Watch TWOK again. Watch the Genesis countdown. Chekov states the distance at 4,000km. That statement is entirely contradictory to the visual.

Actually, unless you happen to know where the camera was located relative to the two ships, those visuals can be reconciled with a distance of 4000km. Do you know how perspective correction works?

The other example is when Riker orders the Enterprise to stop at 30km from the USS Lantree (it was the episode in which that TNG 2nd season doctor had fast aging). The visual then shows the Lantree less then 5km from the Enterprise. Such gross incompetence to Rikers order would have been noticed imediately on the bridge and commented on. It wasn't.

First, this is hardly a discrepancy of orders of magnitude. Second, how did you scale the 5km distance? Third, I could not find this "30km" line in the script for "Unnatural Selection", the episode you're talking about. Not exactly the best way to prove the overriding authority of "writer's intent".

[omegaLancer]

Yes but the planners of the attack were not planning an obrital strike. they wanted to leave the founder home world a lifeless husk. They wanted to insure that there was no way that any founder could have survive.

So you are implying that the joint Romulan and Cardassian battlegroup seen in "TDiC" was capable of a Base Delta Zero operation ? Even if this is proven true the average firepower power of trek ships will remain low since it took them an entire fleet to do what a single Imperial Star Destroyer could do.

Yes I am saying that it was suppose to be a BDZ and yes it required 20 ships. And that would mean at best they possess 1/20 the fire power of an ISD. Good by Star trek standard, but the effort left the ships drain and vulnerable. I doubt that a BDZ operation would leave an ISD in the same situation.

[Darth Wong]

Yes I am saying that it was suppose to be a BDZ and yes it required 20 ships. And that would mean at best they possess 1/20 the fire power of an ISD. Good by Star trek standard, but the effort left the ships drain and vulnerable. I doubt that a BDZ operation would leave an ISD in the same situation.

Even so, it is grossly out of line with countless other incidents in which no such firepower was demonstrated. Why couldn't the Enterprise-D destroy the entire Pegasus asteroid with a single phaser burst?

[Ender]

Yes but the planners of the attack were not planning an obrital strike. they wanted to leave the founder home world a lifeless husk. They wanted to insure that there was no way that any founder could have survive.

So you are implying that the joint Romulan and Cardassian battlegroup seen in "TDiC" was capable of a Base Delta Zero operation ? Even if this is proven true the average firepower power of trek ships will remain low since it took them an entire fleet to do what a single Imperial Star Destroyer could do.

Yes I am saying that it was suppose to be a BDZ and yes it required 20 ships. And that would mean at best they possess 1/20 the fire power of an ISD. Good by Star trek standard, but the effort left the ships drain and vulnerable. I doubt that a BDZ operation would leave an ISD in the same situation.

I posted a series of episodes on the first page that point to far lower energy levels that must be rationalized with. Do so.

[Lord Poe]

Watch TWOK again. Watch the Genesis countdown. Chekov states the distance at 4,000km. That statement is entirely contradictory to the visual. He didn't slip up and say KM rather then M because the Enterprise isn't 4000m from the Reliant either. And I find it highly unlikely that Chekov could have misread information orders of magnitude different and not caught it plus no one else on the bridge no notice it. We also know the Enterprise's sensors were working correctly because this is how they tracked the Reliant in the Nebula.

Sensors and shields were NOT working in the nebula. They didn't "track" the Reliant. Kirk out-thought Khan because of Khan's inexperience and "two dimensional thinking." If they were "tracking" the Reliant, then why did they almost hit it head on?

Clearly, 4,000km was at best, an estimate.

[Alyeska]

Watch TWOK again. Watch the Genesis countdown. Chekov states the distance at 4,000km. That statement is entirely contradictory to the visual. He didn't slip up and say KM rather then M because the Enterprise isn't 4000m from the Reliant either. And I find it highly unlikely that Chekov could have misread information orders of magnitude different and not caught it plus no one else on the bridge no notice it. We also know the Enterprise's sensors were working correctly because this is how they tracked the Reliant in the Nebula.

Sensors and shields were NOT working in the nebula. They didn't "track" the Reliant. Kirk out-thought Khan because of Khan's inexperience and "two dimensional thinking." If they were "tracking" the Reliant, then why did they almost hit it head on?

Clearly, 4,000km was at best, an estimate.

Then what was Spock doing that whole time? "possibly an impulse turn". Spock was using sensors.

[Lord Poe]

Then what was Spock doing that whole time? "possibly an impulse turn". Spock was using sensors.

Sort of changing your initial tune, aren't you? Didn't you say we know the Enterprise's sensors were working correctly because this is how they tracked the Reliant in the Nebula? Not if Spock was just getting best guess "sporadic energy readings". Joachim said "If they go in there, we'll lose them." Reliant was in much better shape than Enterprise Tactical was also inoperative on the Reliant once they penetrated the nebula. And again if they were "tracking" the Reliant, then why did they almost hit it head on?