Favourite Star Trek fact... that is not true.

Any long-term fandom eventually ends up with lots of facts that... are simply are not true. I'm not talking about in-universe facts that are retconned (Klingons being in the Federation in first couple of seasons of TNG) or things that deliberately left ambiguous but stuff that is plain wrong but held to be true.

One of my favourites is that Spock and Sarek has not seen each other since Spock joined the academy and they became estranged - it's simply not true and Journey To Babel never says this.

What is yours?

 

Utopia, white knight Starfleet and evolved humans.

 

Gee thanks for shitting on the thread in the first response (which you know you have done from the image you have used).

 

There are folks that continue to cling to the idea that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Doing an incredible job of ignoring the Starship Intrepid.

 

That Australia was a holdout to join United Earth when in fact Crusher was just using it as a hypothetical example of if a country didn’t join. That mistake made it all the way to the Star Trek Encyclopedia.

Another favorite of mine is that transwarp drive was a failure just because Scotty sabotaged the Excelsior.

Not to be that guy, but in the first few seasons of TNG it was pretty much implied that the Klingons were part of the Federation, if not outright stated. That was retconned later.

 

Ahem

I'm not talking about in-universe facts that are retconned...

 

I see that...now.

 

"Kirk was the youngest captain in Starfleet history!"

"Kirk and Uhura was the first-ever interracial kiss on television!"

"DISCOVERY is set in the Kelvin timeline!"

 

That’s just silly. Everyone knows that DSC is set in the Secondary timeline after the events of FC.

 

This one.

 

First thing that popped into my head: "79 episodes, 30 good ones". Bullshit. If it was "79 episodes, 30 excellent, top-notch ones", then maybe I might've agreed with Futurama and everyone else who parrots that opinion. But "79 episodes, 30 good ones"? No.

Second thing, non-opinion-based: "Spock was supposed to be the first Vulcan in Starfleet!"

 

Easy bro...how about using that sense of humor? It's an internet message thread, not a life-and-death deal.

Laugh a little, you'll live longer!

 

Spock's the first Vulcan in Starfleet! From a Lincoln Enterprises catalogue in the 70's, IIRC.

 

Even films = great, odd films = suck.

 

Well, there are exactly two possibilities here.

1) The UE was founded in 2150.
2) The UE was founded before 2150.

In the latter case, Australia is a holdout. Although of course 99% of Earth's nations might be holdouts along with her, undermining the concept a little.

Dubious facts are legion, but some of mine aren't demonstrably wrong - they are merely unfounded so far. Say, "Trills are UFP members"; "Bolians are UFP members"; "you can't speak to people who don't know how to build a warp engine"; "beaming down through shields is forbidden (and the cases where this did happen didn't happen, la la la LAAAA!)"; "you have to hold the rank of Captain to get a permanent ship command"...

I'm sorta hoping these things will become eligible for this thread soon, though.

Umm, how so? Sure, the "not seen" bit is baseless conjecture, but surely estrangement is explicit? Amanda says Sarek and Spock have been unable to speak as father and son for 18 years, something she associates with this thrice-cursed Vulcan logic thing. Yet if the logic religion alone were to blame, surely the two would have been inhibited for the entire life of Spock. It must be logic plus something that happened 18 years ago, resulting in a change in mid-run. And that change sure does sound like estrangement.

Timo Saloniemi

 

No one was disputing that they were estranged. Merely disputing that their estrangement included never ever seeing each other for 18 years.

 

Crusher: “Think about Earth -- what if one of the old nation-states, say, Australia, had decided not to join the World Government in twenty-one fifty?”

Crusher’s use of the word ‘say’ is clearly meant to invoke a hypothetical example. She could just as easily have chosen Germany or Brazil for her example, but just pulled Australia out of her butt at random. So Australia itself has nothing to do with the discussion about forming a United Earth government, nor the year in which it was formed.

 

Then Germany or Brazil would be the holdouts. And, for all we know, were.

Again, two possibilities.

1) Crusher is insane.
2) Crusher is not.

In the latter case, Australia did join in 2150 and no sooner, and thus is a holdout in the scenario where the UE existed before 2150.

In the former case, yes, Crusher can say "Say, what if all the people of California didn't commit suicide in 1947?" and use that to argue about Brexit or whatever. But sane people aren't allowed to make "hypothetical examples" that are based on an utterly untrue idea to begin with. Saying "What if Australia didn't join in 2150?" is the logical equivalent of stating "Australia did join in 2150 and no sooner", and the holdoutness then hinges on when the UE was founded.

Timo Saloniemi

 

Alrighty then.

Next example of the OP’s topic?

 

I've always loved the notion that in the mid-23rd century, women weren't allowed to become starship captains.

I never interpreted the sentence "your world of starship captains doesn't admit women" as anything other than Lester resenting that Kirk chose the Enterprise and a five-year mission over their relationship. Granted, I haven't seen Turnabout Intruder in ages, so she might have been actually complaining about a perceived lack of female captains in Starfleet, but even if she was, she was delusional and paranoid, not exactly someone whose statements we should take at face value.