Starship Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
- Status
G
Gonzo
Guest
Starmike I suggest you look up the term confirmation bias.
Nothing you have given as evidence is new to this thread, we have seen it all before, you can think of the ship as whatever size you want but the designers and creators have told us how big it is.
Do you honestly think that you know better than they do.
Nothing you have given as evidence is new to this thread, we have seen it all before, you can think of the ship as whatever size you want but the designers and creators have told us how big it is.
Do you honestly think that you know better than they do.
Then explain how you get two decks on the outer ring of the TOS Enterprise primary hull, and yet the nuEnt has two decks in the same space but the overall size is twice as large?
Have you seen Beyond? That primary hull is *NOT* proportionately as large as a 700+ meter ship would be.
Have you seen Beyond? That primary hull is *NOT* proportionately as large as a 700+ meter ship would be.
G
Gonzo
Guest
You are quite clearly beyond help.
I don't need to convince you or argue with you, you don't like the size and think you can convince the world it is other than what it actually is, you are not the first to try nor will you be the last I suspect.
Your inability to accept reality is your problem not mine.
You will receive the same from the rest but they will just be more polite about it than me.
"Accept reality"?
First off, it's a fictional ship. So let's get THAT out of the way.
Second, there's a ton of visual evidence to show the ship CANNOT be 725m long.
That means Kirk/Chekov slid down half the length of the primary hull in Beyond. 1/10 of a mile?
One. Tenth. Of. A. Mile.
Think about that for a second. That's half the height of the Empire State Building.
First off, it's a fictional ship. So let's get THAT out of the way.
Second, there's a ton of visual evidence to show the ship CANNOT be 725m long.
That means Kirk/Chekov slid down half the length of the primary hull in Beyond. 1/10 of a mile?
One. Tenth. Of. A. Mile.
Think about that for a second. That's half the height of the Empire State Building.
G
Gonzo
Guest
I am not going to hold your hand through the explanation, read the last week or twos posts that should be enough.
Or better yet read through the last 6 years of posts.
You sound like you think you are some kind of authority, that the world owes you an explanation.
It doesn't.
Perhaps one of the others will go through it with you, they have far more patience than me.
G
Gonzo
Guest
The filmmakers don't say it, the individuals who designed and created the cgi ship for the new films told us they made it that size.
No perhaps, no maybe about it.
Do you really think you know better than they do.
You can be on Team325 if you like but it's a very small team, I prefer to listen to the true authority on the ship in the new timeline which is the designers.
This discussion has been done to death over the last six years, we are way past the discussion and explanation stage now.
Read back through the posts and you will see what I mean, it's all there if you look.
Saying "do you think you know better?" is silly. Filmmakers have made many mistakes over the years. All I can say is that the visual evidence debunks whoever it was that said the ship is 700+ meters long. Watch trailer 2, you can see the proportion of Kirk/Chekov against the hull. They're definitely NOT tiny compared to what the larger size would be.
Again, saying the primary hull is the height of the Empire State Building is preposterous. Why can't YOU accept that maybe it was a mistake to say the ship is larger than 700m long?
You see, I work off visual evidence. Until someone in the movie runs up with a meterstick and measures it on-screen, I'm going with what I see.
Again, saying the primary hull is the height of the Empire State Building is preposterous. Why can't YOU accept that maybe it was a mistake to say the ship is larger than 700m long?
You see, I work off visual evidence. Until someone in the movie runs up with a meterstick and measures it on-screen, I'm going with what I see.
G
Gonzo
Guest
You see only what you want to see that confirms your own beliefs, it makes no difference to me to be honest.
My understanding of the size of the ship is based on the evidence given by many people with differing points of view over the last 6 years it's the only way to be sure of avoiding confirmation bias.
I personally don't mind what size the ship is, I have seen all the evidence from both sides over the years and I am satisfied that the ship is indeed a big one.
You believe what you like.
It skips the denial deck and delusion cells.
"Bridge would take up entire dome". Based on what? You're showing a lateral view, not a top view.
"Deck heights do not match window rows". Irrelevant. Look at the blueprints from the 70s. Not all decks are the same height.
"Main engine too wide". Did you measure it?
"40' shuttles won't fit". I don't see the shuttles being 40' long. In STID they looked more like 18' long.
"Deck heights do not match window rows". Irrelevant. Look at the blueprints from the 70s. Not all decks are the same height.
"Main engine too wide". Did you measure it?
"40' shuttles won't fit". I don't see the shuttles being 40' long. In STID they looked more like 18' long.
Dear Gods. Have you even seen these films? It's a bloody big ship. Massively big. According to all facts provided on the ship from on screen evidence - including a perfect scaling of little men in the windows - to actual documentation to even Star Trek Online, around 725 meters of bloody big.
This is like reading Ex Astra.
- Status
Similar threads
