Star Trek

Report this Jan. 01 2010, 9:32 pm

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 01 2010, 9:45 pm

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 01 2010, 9:55 pm

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 1:14 pm

I voted "just don't give a ___"

I thought honesty would be the best policy.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 1:26 pm

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 2:03 pm

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:23 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 1:04 pm)

Quote (Narada @ Jan. 01 2010, 9:55 pm) Sure you can make a poll. If more people agree one way or another it is fine. If a majority votes for 725 I will not consider myself more correct. And if a majority votes for 300 I will not be offended or feel I am wrong. If the opinion of someone does not match with the production crew I do not consider them wrong. I just believe it is contrary to the value given by the production crew. I think you also weighted the poll options with your descriptions which makes for a biased poll. You won't feel wrong, you'll just say "it doesn't matter anyway"...

See the answer of Vger23 below your post. It does not matter to me but I still have an opinion. Do not harass me.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:23 pm

Quote (captbates @ Jan. 04 2010, 1:26 pm)

Well, most of us agree that the front and rear ends don't match up, so until we get offical proof it could go either way. Personally I'd rather we got a bigger ship, circa 700m. I just don't think 300m is big enough to fit everything inside. And for some reason it kinda annoys me having the ENT so small, we have ships at sea this size today.

¿ ¿

I agree.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:25 pm

Quote (trekbuff @ Jan. 04 2010, 2:11 pm)

Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Jan. 04 2010, 2:03 pm) Quote (trekbuff @ Jan. 04 2010, 11:00 am) I had a simple Yes or No poll asking if Enterprise was folks first exposure to Trek. Yes or no, and that poll turned into a nightmare because, somehow, asking for a yes or no was biased, loaded, I was accused of looking for particular results, etc... I voted "Other" as, as captbates said: That makes perfect sense. ? 725 meters, 322.2 meters, 1200 meters, 305 meters, 295 meters, there are more. Pick one... They were all seen in the movie or claimed as official numbers somewhere along the way and since the movie was released. A technical manual will truly be fascinating if only to see what hoops whomever has to jump through in their attempt to make sense of what I and others saw of the nuENT in STXI.

This is only what you believe. There is a screen shot on the dvd in January 2008 which shows the Enterprise is 760 meters. Then it was rescaled to 725 meters which is the official value given by ILM. You like to over look these facts and claim there are many values given. There is only one.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:27 pm

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:46 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:42 pm)

Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:23 pm) Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 1:04 pm) Quote (Narada @ Jan. 01 2010, 9:55 pm) Sure you can make a poll. If more people agree one way or another it is fine. If a majority votes for 725 I will not consider myself more correct. And if a majority votes for 300 I will not be offended or feel I am wrong. If the opinion of someone does not match with the production crew I do not consider them wrong. I just believe it is contrary to the value given by the production crew. I think you also weighted the poll options with your descriptions which makes for a biased poll. You won't feel wrong, you'll just say "it doesn't matter anyway"... See the answer of Vger23 below your post. It does not matter to me but I still have an opinion. Do not harass me. If it didn't matter, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for so long...

You are assuming you know my own motivations. Do you? Do you really know that much about me?

You all claimed the ship was a size which did not match the value given by sources. With my own open mind I wanted to see if you were correct or just accept these values. I found they were wrong.

Does that effect my view? Not much. It just makes it more specific.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:48 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:43 pm)

Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:27 pm) Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 04 2010, 2:59 pm) it difrent i have clue ?but size of the starships ?issue with me also the crew startrek xi ncc-1701 about ?1,000 but prime ncc-1701 crew is about 400 new time line enterprise crew is about 1000 is about 2.5 times lager than prime time line enterprise 1701 wich is 400 Correct. The new Enterprise is said to have a crew of 1100. This is almost exactly 2.5 times more crew members from the original. Actually, 2.5 would be 1075...and since an actual canon crew compliment has yet to be mentioned, it's also subject to debate.

It was already mentioned in an official but non canon source. And notice I said "almost exactly" and this is shown to be true. 1075 and 1100 are very close.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:51 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:45 pm)

Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:25 pm) Quote (trekbuff @ Jan. 04 2010, 2:11 pm) Quote (VAD_BAXTER @ Jan. 04 2010, 2:03 pm) Quote (trekbuff @ Jan. 04 2010, 11:00 am) I had a simple Yes or No poll asking if Enterprise was folks first exposure to Trek. Yes or no, and that poll turned into a nightmare because, somehow, asking for a yes or no was biased, loaded, I was accused of looking for particular results, etc... I voted "Other" as, as captbates said: That makes perfect sense. ? 725 meters, 322.2 meters, 1200 meters, 305 meters, 295 meters, there are more. Pick one... They were all seen in the movie or claimed as official numbers somewhere along the way and since the movie was released. A technical manual will truly be fascinating if only to see what hoops whomever has to jump through in their attempt to make sense of what I and others saw of the nuENT in STXI. This is only what you believe. There is a screen shot on the dvd in January 2008 which shows the Enterprise is 760 meters. Then it was rescaled to 725 meters which is the official value given by ILM. You like to over look these facts and claim there are many values given. There is only one. Is there an actual measurement shown on this screen shot? And where was it shown in the movie? You yourself gave at least three different measurements in previous posts and threads. And claimed they were "official" even though they didn't agree.

Have you been participating in the discussion in the other thread or are you just waiting for your friends to come up with the answer for you?

For the nth time there is a screen shot on the Star Trek bluray dvd which is shown to be dated January 2008. It shows a chart which includes the Enterprise and a size which is 760 meters. As Alex Jaeger states they later scaled that size down to 725 meters. That was the value given to ILM.

I have always stated the official sources give a value between 718 and 760 meters. This is why. There is official proof on the Star Trek bluray and then there is proof when ILM gave the official values to the replica makers. That value is 725 meters.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:54 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:52 pm)

Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:48 pm) Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:43 pm) Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:27 pm) Quote (GHOSTREK @ Jan. 04 2010, 2:59 pm) it difrent i have clue ?but size of the starships ?issue with me also the crew startrek xi ncc-1701 about ?1,000 but prime ncc-1701 crew is about 400 new time line enterprise crew is about 1000 is about 2.5 times lager than prime time line enterprise 1701 wich is 400 Correct. The new Enterprise is said to have a crew of 1100. This is almost exactly 2.5 times more crew members from the original. Actually, 2.5 would be 1075...and since an actual canon crew compliment has yet to be mentioned, it's also subject to debate. It was already mentioned in an official but non canon source. And notice I said "almost exactly" and this is shown to be true. 1075 and 1100 are very close. So if it's a non-canon source...it's non-canon! In other words, it's only worth the paper it's printed on or the pixels that display it.

We already established that. You are like others who keep going back to points which are discussed before. When VAD Baxter verified the official sources for the view screen measure this also verifies the measurements for the whole ship. It is already given by official sources and proven to be correct according to the replica model.

• Back to Top

Report this Jan. 04 2010, 3:56 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:51 pm)

Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:46 pm) Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:42 pm) Quote (Narada @ Jan. 04 2010, 3:23 pm) Quote (starbase63 @ Jan. 04 2010, 1:04 pm) Quote (Narada @ Jan. 01 2010, 9:55 pm) Sure you can make a poll. If more people agree one way or another it is fine. If a majority votes for 725 I will not consider myself more correct. And if a majority votes for 300 I will not be offended or feel I am wrong. If the opinion of someone does not match with the production crew I do not consider them wrong. I just believe it is contrary to the value given by the production crew. I think you also weighted the poll options with your descriptions which makes for a biased poll. You won't feel wrong, you'll just say "it doesn't matter anyway"... See the answer of Vger23 below your post. It does not matter to me but I still have an opinion. Do not harass me. If it didn't matter, this discussion wouldn't have gone on for so long... You are assuming you know my own motivations. Do you? Do you really know that much about me? You all claimed the ship was a size which did not match the value given by sources. With my own open mind I wanted to see if you were correct or just accept these values. I found they were wrong. Does that effect my view? Not much. It just makes it more specific. What I do know is I've seen this all before on the Enterprise board not too long ago... So here we go saying the same things all over again... When are you going to add the words "non-canon" before you use the word "sources"? Make what more specific?

Keep waiting for me to reveal evidence I am the dual you suspect. Makes what more specific? My view point and opinion.

• Back to Top