I don't think you're 'wrong,' and I don't think Shaw is saying you're wrong - but he does make a good point about taking into consideration the fact that he's not done yet with his study, and therefore we don't fully know the 'accuracy' of the plans you and most people, including myself, go from. So in that regard, if the goal is 100% accuracy in every way possible, it may fall short.
Well, I find it interesting that anyone would feel they could reach any conclusion about anything when all I've been sharing are Cocktail Napkin Sketches
of my concepts and ideas so far. Sure, my rough sketches may look like final products... but they certainly are NOT
For example, I took the time to outline what that cross-section was an attempt at doing when I first introduced it back a year ago...
Shaw (February 29 2008) wrote:
This is some more extensive examples of fitting the actual set plans into the Enterprise using Jefferies approximate deck heights. The one major change in the layout of the decks is in the dorsal, where I went with the window spacing as a reference.
This isn't anywhere close to the final layout, just sizing comparisons of the sets to the ship.
's stated goal was:
Purpose: To determine the overall plausibility of the Dave Shaw (DS) Reconstructed TOS 1701 Deck Placement design within the confines of the modern fan based plan reconstruction of Alan Sinclair (AS) using Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model window placement and typical human height as metric indicators.
My work has already been getting vetted by some of the most knowledgeable people on the subject, and he starts his analysis with a year old sketch and applies it to plans he isn't truly familiar with... well, that seems sorta off base a little to me.
I'm in the middle of my study... nothing is set in stone yet. I have been sharing my research and in the course of the last year have started with one set of assumptions only to find that they didn't hold up and changed course.
But it is a classic strawman
tactic to attempt to lock a person down to the points they want to define you with. Whorfin
tried this by defining my plans as being based on Jefferies construction plans, when one of the first course alterations I made was to move to the 11 foot model as a foundation. Why did he do it? He said his explanation was lost, but I'm guessing that he wanted me to fit his preconceptions because he could make his case easier that way.
If he viewed my work the way it was intended (for people to pick and choose what they like and make their own work from it), then he wouldn't have attempted to lock down his vision of my positions (from the past no less) and then hold it up against his idea of the Canon 11' TOS 1701 studio model
And that doesn't even address the fact that he is almost phobic about change in anyone's work over time.
If I'm wrong, I'll be very glad to find out about it. I would hope Dave feels the same. My contention has been that everyone has been "in the right", just using different, contradictory information. I'm not entirely content with leaving things simply at "I'm wrong, and my sources are wrong". That may be the case, but I would like to see that clearly demonstrated. Putting the argument on that footing leads me towards a similar, knee-jerk response -- which I will do my best to resist. My main concern is that the discussion be conducted in a reasonable manner, and nobody gets too frustrated. But I expect it will be a very frustrating business.
I think it is important to know if you
know your sources are reliable before relying on them.
I scrutinized many plans of the 11 foot Enterprise, mainly because I really
didn't want to reinvent the wheel
in my work. I did the 33 inch model because it was a mountain no one had attempted to climb, and back then I never thought I was going to attempt the 11 foot model because it was well covered by a number of people.
What I found was that I couldn't count on the work of others for the 11 foot model. And that starting with the work of others led to errors I might not have noticed creep in.
Do you know Sinclair's plans well enough to use them as a reference? I know them very well, which means I know both their strengths and weaknesses. Do you know their weaknesses?
If you need someone else to clearly demonstrate
what would be obvious to someone who has studied those plans, then I have to conclude that you haven't really taken the time to study them yourself. You should be able to list the errors of Sinclair's plans for us before relying on them. I know his plans well enough to be able to pick out a CGI model based on them because some of the errors are pretty big.
Study the plans. Don't assume they are the best (which they are not) or that they are the most accurate (which they also are not), assume that they are a very good attempt and go back and figure out where he missed the mark.
You need to learn to do this on your own... after all, we wouldn't want you assuming my 11 foot plans are definitive just because I sidestepped the errors of Sinclair and Casimiro.
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime.
It is time for you to go fishing for errors where you seem to believe there are none to be found. I've pointed out some errors in Sinclair's plans, lets have you point out a few I haven't listed (so no searching my past posts on this subject... that would be cheating!).