Proving BaldStar Wrong

[oberon]

Of course args shouldn't be taken "out of hand" which is why, after 12 pages of bickering, you look for credibility (the very FIRST thing to establish for persuasion) and more evidence.

[DarkStar]

LMAO! Who is the burden of proof on? We have to disprove nothing. It is up to the person who made the claim to prove that it would work.

That has been done, and Warsie efforts to claim that what the canon shows is impossible have been thwarted.

Who care's? It has no impact whatsoever on the Empire, so I will ignore this.

Fool. If Kamino is beyond the outer rim, and the outer rim contains Tatooine and Geonosis, has it not occurred to you that the position of Kamino has very important consequences?

Trust me, though DumbShit, you are wrong on this proving that the OR is not a galactic government.

I wouldn't trust you if you said rain was wet.

[DarkStar]

The other side of the situation is No Warp Stars = No Warp.

I tried to pin Wayne down into giving us the basic logical grounds of his position, but he never replied. The way I read it, his argument worked like this:

Warp Stars = Warp
No Warp Stars = No Warp

You'll note that this bears a striking resemblance to the argument style presented here:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/deny.htm

Further, I have demonstrated that you can have warp without warp stars.

[Setesh]

The erkling has a point. We're not going to convince Darkstar of anything. He's immune to logic, canon, and reality. Now he's trying to redefine Star Wars visual canon. In his version Kenobi's fingure takes a 2 in. detour to one of the satalight galaxies when the entire area he refers to is inside the central galaxy.

[DarkStar]

Of course args shouldn't be taken "out of hand" which is why, after 12 pages of bickering, you look for credibility (the very FIRST thing to establish for persuasion) and more evidence.

Your quest for credibility is misguided. The truth value of an argument has nothing to do with the person who speaks it.

Further, credibility is a very subjective thing, especially with groups such as this . . . especially if you're dealing with the perceived credibility of an underdog. History is replete with examples of people who were perfectly correct, but had no credibility as per the beliefs of the establishment.

Indeed, judging by history, the credibility argument is one which holds the greatest sway with those who are established but wrong. That's how you end up with lies and distortions being spread about Darwin, Ingersoll, et cetera.

[DarkStar]

Now he's trying to redefine Star Wars visual canon. In his version Kenobi's fingure takes a 2 in. detour to one of the satalight galaxies when the entire area he refers to is inside the central galaxy.

I do not understand how you could be so mistaken.

[Setesh]

I've agreed with Lord Edam and Boyd when they've made valid points. I even agreed with the Baron on things. Make valid point and I'll agree with you.

[Setesh]

Now he's trying to redefine Star Wars visual canon. In his version Kenobi's fingure takes a 2 in. detour to one of the satalight galaxies when the entire area he refers to is inside the central galaxy.

I do not understand how you could be so mistaken.

I watched the movie.

[TheDarkling]

DarkStar: Could you repost the evidence for warp happening when no warp stars were present because I have tried to find it but got bogged down in the insult throwing and feet stamping that has run rampant in this thread.

If you have evidence for warp happening without warp stars then this entire argument is sown up, if you havent then its a tie because you cant prove the ship was at warp - it then simply depends if a person takes strange theories to fit in the ships not being at warp or the persons simply take the evidence that supports your view and right off the no warp stars.

[Master of Ossus]

Even if there is evidence of warp without warp stars, the debate is not over. Say that there can be warp without warp stars. Why don't we assume that DS9 and planets and Utopia Planetia are at warp? If you believe that ships are at warp without warp stars, then it is difficult to think of a legitimate reason why those installations could not be at warp.

[TheDarkling]

MOO:Thats a big huge strawman.

The entire federation could be flying around at warp and it has no effect on this matter at all and why dont we assume they are at warp? because we have no reason to think they would be however everything points to this turn being at warp apart from the warp star argument - if that falls then it becomes the best theory.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

The other side of the situation is No Warp Stars = No Warp.

I tried to pin Wayne down into giving us the basic logical grounds of his position, but he never replied. The way I read it, his argument worked like this:

Warp Stars = Warp
No Warp Stars = No Warp

You'll note that this bears a striking resemblance to the argument style presented here:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/deny.htm

Further, I have demonstrated that you can have warp without warp stars.

You ignored my post DarkStar

[Master of Ossus]

MOO:Thats a big huge strawman.

The entire federation could be flying around at warp and it has no effect on this matter at all and why dont we assume they are at warp? because we have no reason to think they would be however everything points to this turn being at warp apart from the warp star argument - if that falls then it becomes the best theory.

Ah, yes. The old "situation/dialogue over visuals fallacy. I though we would have knocked this one out of you long ago, Darkling.

[DarkStar]

DarkStar: Could you repost the evidence for warp happening when no warp stars were present because I have tried to find it but got bogged down in the insult throwing and feet stamping that has run rampant in this thread.

If you have evidence for warp happening without warp stars then this entire argument is sown up, if you havent then its a tie because you cant prove the ship was at warp - it then simply depends if a person takes strange theories to fit in the ships not being at warp or the persons simply take the evidence that supports your view and right off the no warp stars.

"For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is shown from a stationary observation point as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can see here:
http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm

You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just
isn't so. Knowing how you are, I'll go ahead and "draw it out for you":

The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q (
http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_104.htm )."

In the episode, the ship goes to warp (as per Picard's "maximum acceleration" order) . . . we see the warp stars on the viewscreen. The scene shifts to the dual flyby, and there are none. Then, it's back to the warp stars on the viewscreen. Picard even says "continue accelerating", which is contrary to the Warsie argument that they must have decelerated for the flyby.

You'll see a similar effect used to escape the stellar fragment in "Naked Now", and I'm pretty sure BoBW uses it for a flyby sequence, though I'd have to rewatch that and check.

Also, you mentioned "Brothers" giving a two-minute downwarp time for the saucer. I don't have the ep handy, but that would also cinch the deal.

[DarkStar]

Ah, yes. The old "situation/dialogue over visuals fallacy.

The first time you watched TNG, how did you know what those zooming stars meant? Did you simply guess, or did you listen to the characters and situation and see what was going on?

"Oh, I see, they're at warp, and that represents it!"

The problem is that the Warsies have failed to realize that we were also shown warp without warp stars, and this representation is just as canon as that with warp stars.

[DarkStar]

You ignored my post DarkStar

Your false conclusions have been previously and repeatedly shown false.

You and Ossus should talk, by the way . . . you can again try to start the debate over from square one, and then he can come in and say I repeat myself. It's sure to be a hit.

[Master of Ossus]

Why is it sure to be a hit? It hasn't been very successful any of the other times you've repeated arguments and GAT or I have pointed out the defense that now bears your name (just like the "Picard Maneuver," except crappier). Perhaps you should answer my question and tell me why we do not assume that DS9 or the Utopia Planetia dock is at warp speed, instead of ignoring my question, as you have the last two times I have posted it.

[Cal Wright]

We need some audio dialogue to go with that. All anyone has done is shown a picture. I always remember watching Star Trek and if they were at Warp they showed stars, and when they were not at warp they didn't show stars. Sorta like hyperspace, get the big blue whirly scene going on, smoke some gunj...uh oh, back to the post.

Unfortunately in the links provided, I didn't see scense about them in warp and not showing the stars. Like I said, if there was some audio it would really help matters out.

[LMSx]

Your false conclusions have been previously and repeatedly shown false.

How ironic.

[Lord Poe]

"For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is shown from a stationary observation point as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can see here:
<http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm>

Again, DarkStar's "proof" is a picture of Q's "ball", which isn't the subject in contention: the Enterprise D.

You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just
isn't so.

Yes it is. The canon shows this to be so:

http://h4h.com/louis/baldyi.jpg
http://h4h.com/louis/baldyj.jpg
http://h4h.com/louis/baldyk.jpg
http://h4h.com/louis/baldyl.jpg
http://h4h.com/louis/baldym.jpg
http://h4h.com/louis/baldyn.jpg

The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q (
<http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_104.htm> )."

Here's DarkStar's first deception. We are well into the chase in the scene he references above.
This scene is AFTER the screencap he FIRST posted:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm

An obvious attempt at being dishonest, since the scene where they go to warp begins here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_096.htm

There was NO stated warp speed in this scene, there were no warp EFFECTS present, there were no warp STARS present, NOTHING. To illustrate the scene properly and more importantly, HONESTLY, unlike DarkStar, the warp scene in question starts at the scene I just posted above.

In the episode, the ship goes to warp (as per Picard's "maximum acceleration" order) . . we see the warp stars on the viewscreen.

Note here more of DarkStar's attempts at deception. He is now doubling BACK into the episode from the previous point he started from in an attempt to hoodwink the audience here into believing that the E-D was at his stated " at least warp 9.5" when Picard orders "maximum acceleration".

Matter of fact, ladies and gentlemen, let's do away with the full screencap for a moment and simply look at the thumbnail page of DarkStar's own reference. That way, those without a copy of "Encounter At Farpoint" can see for themselves the order of the scenes in their proper context, proving my stance. This website is maintained by neither DarkStar or myself, so it is an unbiased reference:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/index.htm

Again, note how far into the chase DarkStar wants you to start, and where he wants to mangle the order of the scenes, instead of the PROPER start point, which I pointed out above. QED.

The scene shifts to the dual flyby, and there are none. Then, it's back to the warp stars on the viewscreen. Picard even says "continue accelerating", which is contrary to the Warsie argument that they must have decelerated for the flyby.

Here's DarkStar's next deception. Now he goes from here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_104.htm

To here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm

Now refer to the thumbnails page for the proper order. Tell me ladies and gentlemen: who is being dishonest here? Let's HONESTLY (for a change) go through the scenes and dialogue in their PROPER order, shall we? At the top, (using the screencaps website) the chase begins here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_096.htm

And again, there was NO stated warp speed in this scene, there were no warp EFFECTS present, there were no warp STARS present, NOTHING. Most importantly, the was NO WARP FLASH at the end of this scene

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_098.htm

Which would indicate an entrace into warp. The ship DID elongate, but as I can prove, and I defy DarkStar to DISPROVE, they were NOT yet fully in warp. Unfortunately, the screencaps page doesn't have a complete scene by scene reference, but for those of you with a copy of "EaF", you can follow my description and dispute me if I'm wrong.

After the E-D turns and elongates, Q's ball follows them. Thee's a shot of Picard looking at the viewscreen. The scene changes to Picard's POV, showing the viewscreen and the BEGINNINGS of the "warp star" effect. Then the scene changes to the two "fly-bys" DarkStar keens about. From our "stationary position" no warp stars. However, after this scene, we are back to Picard's mug watching the viewscreen, then we switch to his POV again. Ah, FULL warp star effect. The viewscreen is full of the effect, unlike the previous scene. At THIS POINT, Worf states:

WORF: "Velocity warp 9.2"

There's a few more scene cuts and exchanges, then Worf says,

WORF:"We're now at warp 9.3 sir, which takes us past the red line."

It is AT THIS POINT, that Picard says,

PICARD: "Continue accelerating."

I ask you again, ladies and gentlemen who is being honest here? Now, BEFORE the scene where DarkStar claims they are going "at least warp 9.5", Worf says, they are at warp 9.4. Now, at DarkStar's scene, is warp 9.5 stated? NOPE. It is AFTER the scene he indicates that this is said. What does this mean? Only that I'm pointing our the weak points in the rafters, so that when the house of cards finally collapses, you'll know which contractor to run out of town on a rail.

Now DarkStar has stated that the E-D MUST BE at warp turing the U-turn after the saucer seperation, even though this is contradicted by onscreen canon.

http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/ ... ldyani.gif


Of his many excuses, these are continually bleated:

In short, early TNG-era FX sometimes made the 'error' of trying to show warp-driven ships at warp from a stationary observation point,

Yet he has offered not ONE scene or scenes to back this up. Only the disputed "EaF". Yet even there, his "stationary observation point=no warp stars" is disproven:

http://h4h.com/louis/baldyo.jpg

Even TOS has a "warp effect" visible from 'stationary observation' points:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/films/02_khan/khan_gal7.html
http://www.trek5.com/caps/films/02_khan/khan_gal7.html

Another quote from DarkStar:

The shot of the ship is from a stationary location, and we see the ship turnon a dime and go flying back toward the Q. When it does so, there is no"warp flash" of the ship going back into warp. Why?

There was no "warp flash" when the chase began. Why? DarkStar's answer to his above question

Because it neverdropped out of warp to begin with.

Then, using DarkStar's logic, we must assume that the ship WAS NOT FULLY AT WARP when the chase began, either. We saw NO WARP FLASH signifying its entry. Thak you for reinforcing my opinion, DarkStar.

It is also DarkStar's contention that the E-D couldn't have dropped out of warp in less than six seconds:

Bullshit. Moments later with reversed engines, it took the stardrive section six seconds to drop out of warp. Even when Kirk's Enterprise lost warp speed in "Arena"[TOS], Sulu was able to read off their speed reduction, and did not involve reversed engines.

Yet in "The Schizoid Man", the E-D performed a "near-warp" transport by dropping out of warp in less than two seconds, then jumping back INTO warp in less than two seconds. Also in VGR's "Equinox" we see both Voyager and the Equinox come out of warp in less than two seconds, le alone six, and the Equinox was DAMAGED.

Your claim is that because you haven't watched enough TNG to know how warp drive is shown, the saucer and stardrive both must have magically dropped out of warp in 1/15th of a second, even though we know it takes the stardrive section 90 times longer to do that with reverse power.

Ladies and gentlemen, note the breadcrumb our dishonest little Trekkie leaves for himself: "we know it takes the stardrive section 90 times longer to do that with reverse power" That's so he can argue for the end of time that "reverse power" was the limiting factor here, and he knew all along they could drop out of warp some FASTER way....

Also, note in the above quote the snide comment about 1/15th of a second drop from warp. Something I never claimed. There WAS a scene change between the saucer seperation and our "stationary observation point", which could have EASILY been within the realm of two seconds to drop out of warp in extreme measures, as this was, and as the "near warp" transport was.

Yet DarkStar will have none of that. The simple fact of the matter is, even during the final stages of the seperation, they could have been slowing. In fact, this IS the case:

PICARD: "The moment of seperation we will reverse power just enough to get your saucer section out ahead and clear of us."

Which is what we see. Even DarkStar, unknowongly of course, agrees with this:

Further, your argument that the saucer section can't maintain warp by itself ignores the fact that it also can't reverse warp power by itself. It takes time for a warp-driven object to fall out of warp, as evidenced by the fact that Picard had to reverse power just enough for the stardrive section to back off a bit, as we saw. If the saucer would drop out of warp the moment it separated, the ship would have been destroyed, dumbass.

Right from Fuckface's mouth. The saucer HAS no warp engines to reverse, so it falls out of warp; even DarkStar agrees with this. Yet he isn't smart enough to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion: First that I'm right in saying the saucer section can't maintain warp, and, that the Stardrive section MUST HAVE BEEN AT IMPULSE, MUST HAVE SLOWED to even SLOWER than the velocity of the saucer section falling out of warp. Read that again, FALLING OUT OF WARP. Which means what, class? Why, the Stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made its turn. Once again,


[/img]

[TheDarkling]

MOO:Thats a big huge strawman.

The entire federation could be flying around at warp and it has no effect on this matter at all and why dont we assume they are at warp? because we have no reason to think they would be however everything points to this turn being at warp apart from the warp star argument - if that falls then it becomes the best theory.

Ah, yes. The old "situation/dialogue over visuals fallacy. I though we would have knocked this one out of you long ago, Darkling.

You ignored everything I said, I understand your problem - Im trying to work to a conclusion and not just sniping at Darkstar.

I will go through this again for you s..l..o..w..l..y

1.If the warp star effect isnt constant (which is what I asked Darkstar to prove) then the it (Ent-D) may have been at Warp.

2.What relevance does the fact that planets do/dont have warp stars either way its of no relevance - you are stating that lack of warp stars = lack of warp which Darkstar claims is wrong, so I asked him for proof.

3.Know why dont we assume everything is at warp, well we (at least some of uis have) something called a brain and we use this (at least some of us do) to reason things out.
Has their ever been mention of a planet going to warp? No
Do we have any evidence that a planet could be moved by warp drive? No
Do we have ANYTHING to point to planets being at warp at all? No

Conclusion - Planets arent at Warp, Im surprised you couldnt figure that out for yourself.

Know let me explain your little outburst and hte reasoning (or lack of same) behind it, You state because Earth doesnt have warp stars and isnt at warp that means warp stars = warp no I hope I dont have to point out why this is wrong I will simply say if Darkstar could prove warp without warps tars it would be a warp turn and your assertion about warp star and warp would be wrong.

You wuill also note that a said everything points to it except the warp stars and IF he could prove warp without warp stars then his hteory becomes sound - thus he must remove the canon visual pointing to no warp so that every other fact about the situation leads to his conclusion at NO point did I say take quotes and reasoning over visual evidence in fact I said quite the opposite yet in your blind hatred for Darkstar it seems you resent any reasonal discussion in favour of mindless ranting.

[Vympel]

I think Poe has clearly shown Darkstar's typical dishonesty.

Why is this thread still going?

[DarkStar]

Perhaps you should answer my question and tell me why we do not assume that DS9 or the Utopia Planetia dock is at warp speed, instead of ignoring my question, as you have the last two times I have posted it.

I ignored it because it is idiotic. Silly me, I thought you were kidding.

1. I am not assuming the starships are at warp. I am, instead, choosing to accept the canon evidence to that effect.
2. We have never seen UP in motion at all, and we have only seen DS9 travelling by use of thrusters. Assuming warp flight out of such objects is stupid.
3. Your idea is based on faulty reasoning.

Poe was of the fallacious opinion that:
Warp Stars = Warp
therefore
No Warp Stars = No Warp

I have pointed out the fallacy, and disproved the argument by pointing out a situation where No Warp Stars = Warp. However, that only means that a lack of warp stars may or may not equal warp. The canon evidence and common sense is the basis upon which the determination is made, and your stupid assumptions of warp flight do not satisfy those requirements.

[Zoink]

This thread is too long to read entirely so I'll add this and hope someone hasn't already said this:


A ship traveling at Star Trek speeds wouldn't actually have stars "whipping" by. The speeds are just too slow.

The warping effect has been described as the space-time distortion caused by the warp bubble... I don't know if that's canon, but I can buy that.

Needless to say: if the camera was outside the warp bubble, and traveling relative to the enterprise, you wouldn't see the warped-star effect.

[DarkStar]

Again, DarkStar's "proof" is a picture of Q's "ball", which isn't the subject in contention: the Enterprise D.

Since you made the screenshots from the episode, it is clear that you have it available. If so, then you know as well as I do that the E-D flew by just before the Q fireball. You have not quite had the balls to just go ahead and lie by attempting to say that it didn't happen, but your effort to imply that it is not correct because I haven't provided a screen shot is still dishonest.

You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just
isn't so.

Yes it is. The canon shows this to be so:

No, it doesn't. It shows warp speed without warp stars, which happens. Your efforts to claim otherwise are based on ignorance of canon and fallacious reasoning.

The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q (
<http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_104.htm> )."

Here's DarkStar's first deception. We are well into the chase in the scene he references above.
This scene is AFTER the screencap he FIRST posted:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm

An obvious attempt at being dishonest, since the scene where they go to warp begins here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_096.htm

There was NO stated warp speed in this scene,

And guess what? I never said there was.

I said: "For example, in this episode, moments before the separation, the Enterprise is running from Q at high warp, but the chase is shown from a stationary observation point as two flybys without "warp stars", as you can see here:
http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm

You claim the stardrive section decelerated to impulse speeds, but this just
isn't so. Knowing how you are, I'll go ahead and "draw it out for you":

The ship was moving at a speed of at least warp 9.5, being chased by Q (
http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_104.htm )."

Your attempt to claim a deception on my part by stating the obvious ("This scene is AFTER the screencap he FIRST posted") doesn't work, nor does your effort to simply claim deception without some sort of proof of it.

By the way, you didn't happen to notice the fact that Trek5's screenshot #96 comes before 101, did you?

there were no warp EFFECTS present, there were no warp STARS present, NOTHING.

In 101, no. However, the canon episode clearly shows warp stars on the E-D viewscreen prior to the screen shot.

To illustrate the scene properly and more importantly, HONESTLY, unlike DarkStar, the warp scene in question starts at the scene I just posted above.

How is it dishonest to come in at the middle, when the first moments (turning away from the Q wall and going to warp) are not relevant? What kind of red herring bullshit are you trying to pull, Wayne?

In the episode, the ship goes to warp (as per Picard's "maximum acceleration" order) . . we see the warp stars on the viewscreen.

Note here more of DarkStar's attempts at deception. He is now doubling BACK into the episode from the previous point he started from in an attempt to hoodwink the audience here into believing that the E-D was at his stated " at least warp 9.5" when Picard orders "maximum acceleration".

What the hell are you talking about? I never implied that, and sure as hell didn't state it. Now you're just making things up, Wayne.

Matter of fact, ladies and gentlemen, let's do away with the full screencap for a moment and simply look at the thumbnail page of DarkStar's own reference. That way, those without a copy of "Encounter At Farpoint" can see for themselves the order of the scenes in their proper context, proving my stance. This website is maintained by neither DarkStar or myself, so it is an unbiased reference:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/index.htm

Again, note how far into the chase DarkStar wants you to start, and where he wants to mangle the order of the scenes, instead of the PROPER start point, which I pointed out above. QED.

I never tried to mangle the order of scenes. The only way you can get that is to mangle my post when you try to spew your BS about it.

On that index page, take note of the fact that although the Enterprise zipped to warp somewhere between 98 and 99, the Q fireball begins the warp chase between 99 and 101 . . . and oh, look at that. I started with 101. How deceptive of me!

The scene shifts to the dual flyby, and there are none. Then, it's back to the warp stars on the viewscreen. Picard even says "continue accelerating", which is contrary to the Warsie argument that they must have decelerated for the flyby.

Here's DarkStar's next deception. Now he goes from here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_104.htm

To here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_101.htm

Now refer to the thumbnails page for the proper order.

What the hell are you talking about? Were you drunk or high when you wrote this? I never went from 104 to 101.

I do have to give you some credit, though. Usually, stupid Warsie arguments are at least based on something, even if it is a horribly mangled idea of it. You're just pulling shit straight out of your ass without rhyme or reason. These beyond-Ossus levels of poor reading comprehension are a pain to argue against, since you're quoting the very disproof and then telling outright lies about it. I find it hard to type when I'm laughing my ass off.

Tell me ladies and gentlemen: who is being dishonest here? Let's HONESTLY (for a change) go through the scenes and dialogue in their PROPER order, shall we? At the top, (using the screencaps website) the chase begins here:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_096.htm

And again, there was NO stated warp speed in this scene, there were no warp EFFECTS present, there were no warp STARS present, NOTHING. Most importantly, the was NO WARP FLASH at the end of this scene

http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_098.htm

Which would indicate an entrace into warp. The ship DID elongate, but as I can prove, and I defy DarkStar to DISPROVE, they were NOT yet fully in warp. Unfortunately, the screencaps page doesn't have a complete scene by scene reference, but for those of you with a copy of "EaF", you can follow my description and dispute me if I'm wrong.

After the E-D turns and elongates, Q's ball follows them. Thee's a shot of Picard looking at the viewscreen. The scene changes to Picard's POV, showing the viewscreen and the BEGINNINGS of the "warp star" effect.

And here is your first lie. The viewscreen shows about a second's worth of fully-realized warp stars, zipping past just like always. We saw what the warp transition effect looks like from Ten-Forward in "The Dauphin"[TNG], Wayne, and it sure as hell doesn't show us fully realized warp stars before they hit warp speed.

Then the scene changes to the two "fly-bys" DarkStar keens about. From our "stationary position" no warp stars. However, after this scene, we are back to Picard's mug watching the viewscreen, then we switch to his POV again. Ah, FULL warp star effect.

Yeah, no shit . . . the same warp star effect we saw on the viewscreen just a couple of seconds beforehand.

The viewscreen is full of the effect, unlike the previous scene.

Another lie? Wayne, really.

At THIS POINT, Worf states:

WORF: "Velocity warp 9.2"

There's a few more scene cuts and exchanges, then Worf says,

WORF:"We're now at warp 9.3 sir, which takes us past the red line."

It is AT THIS POINT, that Picard says,

PICARD: "Continue accelerating."

I ask you again, ladies and gentlemen who is being honest here?

Me. I never said that Picard ordered a continuation of acceleration after they reached 9.5 speed. I only said it occurred after the flyby. And I quote:

"In the episode, the ship goes to warp (as per Picard's "maximum acceleration" order) . . . we see the warp stars on the viewscreen. The scene shifts to the dual flyby, and there are none. Then, it's back to the warp stars on the viewscreen. Picard even says "continue accelerating", which is contrary to the Warsie argument that they must have decelerated for the flyby."

Perhaps you were simply confused by the fact that I quoted my old message, then added what I have quoted just above. You really need to pay better attention to punctuation, Wayne . . .

Now, BEFORE the scene where DarkStar claims they are going "at least warp 9.5", Worf says, they are at warp 9.4. Now, at DarkStar's scene, is warp 9.5 stated? NOPE. It is AFTER the scene he indicates that this is said. What does this mean?

Upon rewatching the scene, you may have actually bumped into a small error on my part. Of course, it makes no difference, since this:
http://www.trek5.com/caps/tng/101-102/p ... 01_106.htm

... makes my point just as well, and occurs at the stated speed.

I'm almost impressed, Wayne . . . your posts usually have a slightly lower bullshit density, but nothing of value. In this post, you are at maximum bullshit density, but actually bumped into a correct nitpick.

Of course, the problem is that you will take this and run with it, trying to claim evil Trekkie dishonesty.

Only that I'm pointing our the weak points in the rafters, so that when the house of cards finally collapses, you'll know which contractor to run out of town on a rail.

Now DarkStar has stated that the E-D MUST BE at warp turing the U-turn after the saucer seperation, even though this is contradicted by onscreen canon.

http://gallery.passion4art.com/members/ ... ldyani.gif

Of his many excuses, these are continually bleated:

In short, early TNG-era FX sometimes made the 'error' of trying to show warp-driven ships at warp from a stationary observation point,

Yet he has offered not ONE scene or scenes to back this up.

... except the one you had to lie about.

Only the disputed "EaF".

Ah, I see what you're trying to do, now . . . that's why you lied. You had to make up some lies and bullshit about the clear scene of warp flight without warp stars in order to make it appear "disputed", and thus hope to weaken my position.

Tactically entertaining, Wayne, but very dishonest of you.

Yet even there, his "stationary observation point=no warp stars" is disproven:

http://h4h.com/louis/baldyo.jpg

Who said that was a stationary observation point?

Warp Stars = Warp
No Warp Stars = Warp or No Warp

How does showing a flyby with warp stars disprove anything?

Even TOS has a "warp effect" visible from 'stationary observation' points:

http://www.trek5.com/caps/films/02_khan/khan_gal7.html
http://www.trek5.com/caps/films/02_khan/khan_gal7.html

I assume you refer to the streaking. Have we ever seen such streaking from the Enterprise-D at her normal warp speeds? Nope.

Another quote from DarkStar:

The shot of the ship is from a stationary location, and we see the ship turnon a dime and go flying back toward the Q. When it does so, there is no"warp flash" of the ship going back into warp. Why?

There was no "warp flash" when the chase began. Why? DarkStar's answer to his above question

There was also no elongation of the stardrive section as if to go to warp, Wayne. Or did you forget that you mentioned that above?

Because it neverdropped out of warp to begin with.

Then, using DarkStar's logic, we must assume that the ship WAS NOT FULLY AT WARP when the chase began, either. We saw NO WARP FLASH signifying its entry. Thak you for reinforcing my opinion, DarkStar.

The ship was fully at warp after the Q-wall became the Q-fireball and began to give chase. This is confirmed by the clear warp stars present on the viewscreen before the flyby scene.

It is also DarkStar's contention that the E-D couldn't have dropped out of warp in less than six seconds:

Actually, it is my contention that the saucer section could not have dropped out of warp in less than six seconds, because the stardrive section took six to drop out of warp with reversed engines. Nice try at a straw man, though.

That's why I mentioned the powerless 1701 dropping out of warp below:

Bullshit. Moments later with reversed engines, it took the stardrive section six seconds to drop out of warp. Even when Kirk's Enterprise lost warp speed in "Arena"[TOS], Sulu was able to read off their speed reduction, and did not involve reversed engines.

Yet in "The Schizoid Man", the E-D performed a "near-warp" transport by dropping out of warp in less than two seconds, then jumping back INTO warp in less than two seconds.

That was the entire ship, not the saucer. I'd also be curious to know what speed they were travelling when you start your clock.

Also in VGR's "Equinox" we see both Voyager and the Equinox come out of warp in less than two seconds, le alone six, and the Equinox was DAMAGED.

So what? That also isn't the saucer section of the E-D.

(Besides, even if I were to allow for your straw man argument that I'm claiming the complete E-D can't drop out of warp in less than six seconds, all I would need to do here is point out that those are newer ships with more advanced warp technologies. They are also smaller, which might make downwarping easier. But, of course, this is beside the point, since my argument is about the saucer.)

Your claim is that because you haven't watched enough TNG to know how warp drive is shown, the saucer and stardrive both must have magically dropped out of warp in 1/15th of a second, even though we know it takes the stardrive section 90 times longer to do that with reverse power.

Ladies and gentlemen, note the breadcrumb our dishonest little Trekkie leaves for himself: "we know it takes the stardrive section 90 times longer to do that with reverse power" That's so he can argue for the end of time that "reverse power" was the limiting factor here, and he knew all along they could drop out of warp some FASTER way....

That was the focus of the argument, which you obviously failed to comprehend. With reverse power, the stardrive dropped out of warp in six seconds. Without reverse power, the saucer would take longer . . . not be 90 times faster.

Also, note in the above quote the snide comment about 1/15th of a second drop from warp. Something I never claimed. There WAS a scene change between the saucer seperation and our "stationary observation point", which could have EASILY been within the realm of two seconds to drop out of warp in extreme measures, as this was, and as the "near warp" transport was.

Ah, yes, the "unseen missing time" argument, started at ASVS. Inserting time in a scene which does not suggest or require it is very dishonest, Wayne. Also, given TheDarkling's quote of two minutes for the saucer to drop out of warp, you must argue that two minutes of unseen missing time elapsed.

Praytell, why would the stardrive section, which intended to go back and confront Q, piddle around behind the saucer for two minutes?

Yet DarkStar will have none of that. The simple fact of the matter is, even during the final stages of the seperation, they could have been slowing. In fact, this IS the case:

PICARD: "The moment of seperation we will reverse power just enough to get your saucer section out ahead and clear of us."

Which is what we see. Even DarkStar, unknowongly of course, agrees with this:

Unknowingly? I'm the one who first pointed it out, dumbass. I knew exactly what I was saying.

Further, your argument that the saucer section can't maintain warp by itself ignores the fact that it also can't reverse warp power by itself. It takes time for a warp-driven object to fall out of warp, as evidenced by the fact that Picard had to reverse power just enough for the stardrive section to back off a bit, as we saw. If the saucer would drop out of warp the moment it separated, the ship would have been destroyed, dumbass.

Right from Fuckface's mouth. The saucer HAS no warp engines to reverse, so it falls out of warp; even DarkStar agrees with this.

No shit . . . but it takes time.

Yet he isn't smart enough to follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion:

Oh, this should be interesting ... Wayne trying to present a logical conclusion.

First that I'm right in saying the saucer section can't maintain warp,

Duh.

and, that the Stardrive section MUST HAVE BEEN AT IMPULSE, MUST HAVE SLOWED to even SLOWER than the velocity of the saucer section falling out of warp.

This still requires that the saucer, which cannot reverse power, be able to drop out of warp in less than six seconds, which cannot be so. Or, if you dishonestly insert unseen missing time, it requires that the stardrive section sit behind the saucer for a full two minutes, instead of (A) dropping out of warp in six seconds and turning to go confront Q or (B) simply turning at warp (which we saw, but you dispute).

Read that again, FALLING OUT OF WARP. Which means what, class? Why, the Stardrive section was NOT AT WARP when it made its turn.

Your lies and abuse of canon do not allow that conclusion to hold, Wayne. The warp turn remains.