I see what people were talking about when they mentioned hostility shown towards classic trek fans from new trek fans. You guys use set floorplans as technical schematics which is impractical illogical and whenever someone disagrees you get hostile. Contrary to your belief most of the scenes do not back up the 725 meter claim but you may choose to believe whatever you wish. I get it, my opinion differs and you don't like it. You can also downplay my evidence all you want but it doesn't change the fact that my evidence shows a lot more than yours does and I didn't need to post tons of pages or respond to every single comment to show it. All of this grief over a ship that isn't even real, go figure. You guys really should consider lightening up.
No one was being hostile toward you. You however are getting needlessly upset.
This has nothing to do with new Trek versus classic Trek. There are plenty of people who disagree with your stance who are as much fans of classic Trek as you are.
The set plans as a whole do not give an accurate internal arrangement for the entire bridge deck, and no one has ever claimed they do. Obviously there are things located elsewhere on the ship like the medbay and so forth. However, they do give an accurate representation of the size and configuration of the bridge, the plaza, and the corridor between them, which is precisely what King Daniel
was demonstrating with his edited overlay posted above that eliminates most of the extraneous rooms. And lo and behold it fits the bridge location and the transparent bubble over the plaza perfectly.
The visual evidence from the films back up the larger Enterprise. The filmmakers and VFX/concept artists back up the larger Enterprise. The production materials back up the larger Enterprise.
What evidence did you post other than one video of the Vengeance crashing and a couple of blurry photos (after initially saying you don't trust blurry photos as evidence from others) with absolutely no measurements of any kind like King Daniel
has provided in spades? Your evidence was all visual estimates ("it looks smaller than the island there") not any kind of measurement.
Your criticism of them is that they responded to you too much? How is that even a criticism? Would you rather they not respond to your arguments?
Also, falling back on "the ship isn't real, so get a life, you nerds!" gambit after you've been right here engaging in the same debate as everyone else is pretty lame.