Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C - CLOSED - DO NOT RESTART TOPIC

[Robert Comsol]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

This is how it is presented in the show, no matter outside opinion:
The Enterprise-C accidentally went into the future, creating the parallel 'War-timeline' and temporarily erasing/displacing Prime Timeline.
After some time there, it went back to the past with an additional passenger - 'War Tasha'
The Enterprise-C was destroyed by the Romulans.

That's what "Yesterday's Enterprise" suggested and that's the general interpretation of what we saw in the episode.

The Romulans took survivors, one happening to be War Tasha.
War Tasha had a child with a Romulan; this was Sela (a year after the C's destruction).
War Tasha was executed 4 years later.
Sela was corrupted.

That's what we learned in "Redemption II" but apparently that was not the same "War Tasha" for several reasons I repeatedly mentioned.

-There was no other Enterprise-C from any other timeline (again lack of evidence on the nature of the vortex, whether it opened only two ways or spilled into other universes/dimensions/etc, although we do know it's at least symmetrical).

If "War Tasha" died her meaningful death at Narendra III, she can't be the same that got captured by the Romulans, hence the changed premise of a "parallel universe".

-The sculpture on the wall is in no way evidence of any nature. The nature of the sculpture or who even made it would bring into question whether it was suppose to be accurate. Especially with the NX-01 missing as well as the Ringship (if the Ringship wasn't an Enterprise why did it appear on the TMP Enterprise? Where was it on the other Enterprises if it was?). And the NX-01 was missing in the Enterprise-E's display case (STE came out 5 years after FC).

Before critcizing or doubting the accuracy or authenticity of the displays we should ask first, IMHO, "what is the theme?"

In the case of the "D" it's obviously "starships named Enterprise and their equivalents", the deciding factor apparently a minimal amount of volume of the ships.

In the case of the "E" its apparently either "Enterprise starships" and/or design lineage.

In both cases neither XVC-330 or NX-01 seem to qualify as candidates, because they don't meet the criteria.

-Using opinions of writers/directors is unfortunately invalid evidence, whether you like it or not.

What the creators intended is irrelevant, unless it has been approved by the fans? Please!

-Who says War-Tasha's death was meaningless? For all we know she could be attempting to return to the Federation with information on the Romulans and/or to protect her child from being corrupted by the Romulans, neither are which meaningless.

Like I said, I believe the definition of "meaningful death" requires some sort of meaningful outcome and in this Tasha's tragic case I really can't see any of that.

All attempts to say 'you can have your cake and eat it to' are unfortunately ill attempts of compromising and pleasing everyone.

I've presented my case with observations and evidence, but it'll be up to every reader here at the BBS to decide whether it was a "meaningful" or "meaningless" attempt.

The thread title suggests that Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C is "real", too, and what I presented attempts to emphasize that, so I think the discussion we are having is compatible with the OP's intentions.

Suffice to say I'm researching further behind-the-scenes production materials regarding "Redemption II" and would be happy to present it here, should I come across additional information.

Bob

 

[Dukhat]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

No one dragged you back.

Yes, I'm well aware that I dragged myself back, thank you very much.

Yes, it’s the conference lounge sculpture of Andrew Probert’s Enterprise-C, nicely visible in almost all conference lounge scenes of the first four TNG seasons and fleshed out by the artist as a painting (see my avatar) which some members of “my” generation back in 1988 had therefore come to accept as the real thing and part of an unseen story.

But those members of "your" generation aren't the ones who posted that treatise. You did. They're your opinions, not anyone else's, so don't be trying to speak for other people who can't be here to speak for themselves.

And before I have the audacity to declare his design as “fanwank” or “apocrypha” I feel it’s necessary to examine all the facts / give his design the benefit of a doubt to be certain beyond a shred of doubt that Rick Sternbach’s Enterprise-C actually did “erase” or “overwrite” it.

Nobody's asking you to declare Probert's design fanwank. That's where you keep getting confused. You are completely welcome to believe whatever you want. Want to believe that there's three universes in YE instead of just two? Fine. Want to believe that there's actually two Enterprise-C's? Fine. Want to write up five pages of "treatise" to try to convince us of this? Fine too. The problem was that you were essentially stating that your opinions about the above were actual facts, based on IMHO shaky "evidence" that could be taken in several contexts, and then proceeded to get all pissy with the rest of us for not accepting your "facts" as gospel. At least now it seems you've toned down that attitude somewhat.

Contrary to your claims, in both threads I have now abundantly addressed the presentation of the golden ships on the conference lounge wall of the Enterprise-D. But however rough, raw, simple or crude these may be (“starships named Enterprise and their equivalent in previous centuries”), their proportions allow a quick and easy distinction – however, the Enterprise-C on display is obviously not the one featured in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”.

But if you can accept that the other models aren't exactly the same as the real ships they were meant to represent, then it stands to reason that the Probert C, while more different in representation than the others, is still meant to abstractly represent the Sternbach C. Yes, I can plainly see the original Excelsior prototype there, even though it's meant to represent the modified Enterprise-B. So logic would assume that in the case of the Enterprise-C sculpture, that it is actually the Ambassador prototype standing in for the YE ship instead of rationalizing two different Enterprise-C's.

Before critcizing or doubting the accuracy or authenticity of the displays we should ask first, IMHO, "what is the theme?"

In the case of the "D" it's obviously "starships named Enterprise and their equivalents", the deciding factor apparently a minimal amount of volume of the ships.

In the case of the "E" its apparently either "Enterprise starships" and/or design lineage.

In both cases neither XVC-330 or NX-01 seem to qualify as candidates, because they don't meet the criteria.

Sorry, but that's no evidence of any kind. Again, that's just your opinion. "A minimum amount of volume?" How does that affect the NX-01 at all?

The "theme" of the sculptures is ships named Enterprise. Their size seems to have nothing to do with anything.

You can choose to ignore it, but please give me a break making absolute statements like “there is only one correct Enterprise-C” or “there is only one canon Enterprise-C” (which was the reason why I started the original thread / treatise, BTW).

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. And my opinion is that despite what you've written, your evidence is not persuasive for me to believe that there were two different ships. You'll just have to deal with that.

 

[STRenegade]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

That's what we learned in "Redemption II" but apparently that was not the same "War Tasha" for several reasons I repeatedly mentioned.
If "War Tasha" died her meaningful death at Narendra III, she can't be the same that got captured by the Romulans, hence the changed premise of a "parallel universe". What the creators intended is irrelevant, unless it has been approved by the fans?

Although the plan (by the writers and by Tasha) was to go back to die a meaningful death, she didn't. Hence the birth of Sela. Because something is intended doesn't mean it will go as planned, whether real world or fictional. Roddenberry intended to not put an emphasis on religion or war but look at DS9. One constant in the universe is that nothing goes exactly as planned.

Before critcizing or doubting the accuracy or authenticity of the displays we should ask first, IMHO, "what is the theme?"
In the case of the "D" it's obviously "starships named Enterprise and their equivalents", the deciding factor apparently a minimal amount of volume of the ships.
In the case of the "E" its apparently either "Enterprise starships" and/or design lineage.
In both cases neither XVC-330 or NX-01 seem to qualify as candidates, because they don't meet the criteria.

You just contradicted yourself with the NX-01. If there is a theme, the only possible one would be the name Enterprise. But then again, where is the NX-01 or XCV in that case? Can't be Federation. The carrier on the D was pre-warp. There is no 'obvious answer' as you put it; and volume would not be an issue. That is a silly excuse.

Like I said, I believe the definition of "meaningful death" requires some sort of meaningful outcome and in this Tasha's tragic case I really can't see any of that.

I suppose a sacrifice would not qualify to you as a meaningful death? How is not meaningful to hold onto your values? How is not meaningful to want to free yourself or mostly your child from the ways of the Romulans? You can't say someone's death was meaningless if it didn't have any meaning to you.

I've presented my case with observations and evidence, but it'll be up to every reader here at the BBS to decide whether it was a "meaningful" or "meaningless" attempt.
The thread title suggests that Andrew Probert's Enterprise-C is "real", too, and what I presented attempts to emphasize that, so I think the discussion we are having is compatible with the OP's intentions.
Suffice to say I'm researching further behind-the-scenes production materials regarding "Redemption II" and would be happy to present it here, should I come across additional information.

Bob

Suggests, but does not say they believe it is THE ONLY PRIME C or that the one we got was from another dimension. All it suggests it the one Probert intended, not the one we got. Try asking the OP instead of speaking for them. That is just arrogance.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Isn't the very title of the episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" pretty good evidence (at least to follow Robert_Comsol's value for evidence) that what we saw onscreen was indeed the true Ent-C? Other wise wouldn't they have named the episode "Yesterday's Alternate Enterprise" or some such?

 

[Rarewolf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

But however rough, raw, simple or crude these may be (“starships named Enterprise and their equivalent in previous centuries”), their proportions allow a quick and easy distinction – however, the Enterprise-C on display is obviously not the one featured in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”.

But then surely the moment history was changed the Sternbach design would have ended up on the wall in place of the Probert design. But its still the same incorrect model in BOBW, so that rather disproves your theory.

 

[blssdwlf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

^^ I concur. One TOS Enterprise had travelled back in time but was never seen by the other still orbiting Psi 2000.

That would've been funny as that would imply that there are 2 Enterprises, always offset by 3 days. Fortunately the episode avoids this because Spock would've pointed out the existence of a duplicate ship. Since he does not, there isn't a second one ala Back to the Future.

The YE-universe is created at the moment the E-C falls trough time, and that's were the TNG-universe and the YE-timeline interact.

The question, where magic gets involved, is who (Q?)

The time vortex was created from the high energy explosions from the photon torpedoes, as theorized in the episode:

DATA: Possibly the formation of a Kerr loop from superstring material. It would require high-energy interactions occurring in the vicinity for such a structure to be formed.
​

or what created the YE-universe and gave the protagonists a different memory of 20 years past?

This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.

I addressed the issue (and the first dialogue plotholes for blssdwlf) in this part of the original thread / treatise.

"This time line will cease to exist and a new future will have been created. I've considered the alternatives. I'll go with Guinan's recommendation."
(Michael Piller: "Picard sends a hundred people into their deaths upon the word of a bartender. Come On." Another plothole, according to Michael Piller, for blssdwlf)

That's laughable. You were just defending Guinan's authority on the timetravel subject here. How can it be a plothole when they're taking the word of Guinan, an authority on fates of people she hasn't met?

There is after “Redemption II”, but you and some others simply won’t acknowledge that possibility. And from a strictly in-universe point of view, the only thing suggesting it’s just a changed timeline (and not a parallel universe) are the “universe at war” protagonists of the alternate reality. Heck, already the crew of our Enterprise-D (a ship of exploration) was unable to define the properties of the “temporal rift” but the crew of the Battleship Enterprise-D (a ship of war) has all the answers?

Considering the E-D in the regular timeline didn't observe a ship from the past emerging from it then yeah, the War E-D had the benefit of evidence from the past to work with.

The only thing they could verify beyond a doubt was that the Sternbach-C was the “immediate predecessor” to the Battleship “D” within their alternate reality.

Again, that "alternate reality" is the result of the E-C disappearing. In other words, the source of that alternate reality/history is from TNG 22 years prior.

First, I think you’re violating your own Thermian principles. I’m not aware that we have a good onscreen shot of the movie Enterprise with the odd warp pylons.

Seriously Bob? I wouldn't be arguing with you if I didn't have evidence.

Second, I’ve already addressed the issue first thing in the original thread / treatise and think I provided a reasonable explanation. I can’t see what’s possibly wrong or inaccurate about the sculpture display other than a warp pylon being misaligned while the basic proportions of the ships’ components on display are correct. Instead of splitting hairs we are now splitting warp pylons?

How is having the warp pylons twice as far back than they should be consistent with having the "basic proportions of the ships' components on display are correct"? It frankly looks like the Abrams Enterprise proportion-wise.

In that case that would be the Probert-C and the sculpture display on the “E” is just a presentation of an evolution lineage of a Starfleet design with its more popular representatives.

The most you can get out of that wall relief is that they're artwork of someone's favorite ships.

Can you say, "They're all of ships named Enterprise"? No. The E-B isn't a generic looking Excelsior and the E-A proportions are wrong. The aircraft carrier Enterprise is a mashup of the nuclear and WW2 versions. Given all these inaccuracies, then the Probert design could be anything except for the E-C since again, not all the ships on display are Enterprises.

And obviously you can't argue that "They're all starships named Enterprise" since the aircraft carrier doesn't fit the pattern.

But seriously, we don’t have sufficient information of what actually happened at Narendra III in 2344 in the various realities. Did the Enterprise-C save the outpost from destruction (“other” Picard’s speculation) or didn’t she (“other” Riker)?

PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
​

That sums up all we need to know. If there was any ambiguity we'd hear instead, "The Enterprise-C disappeared near Narendra Three at the same time a Klingon outpost was destroyed."

Picard's statement indicated that enough information was available to know that the E-C (not a mystery ship) was destroyed while defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.

Did she just distract the Romulans long enough to enable the escape of one or some Klingon survivors to tell the story that a Federation starship came to their rescue?

More importantly, there had to be proof that it was the E-C that came to their rescue.

Did the Enterprise-C from “Yesterday’s Enterprise” collide head-on with a Romulan warbird (DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain.)? Did the re-appearance of another Enterprise-C make the Romulans believe they were dealing with several “cloaked” Federation starships and therefore decided to break off the attack?

Regardless if they broke off the attack or not, they continued long enough to destroy the E-C.

Did the returning Enterprise-C suffer a warp core breach vaporizing the ship (and leaving no trace?)?

Leaving no trace would be the worse outcome. The Feds wouldn't be able to prove the E-C was there defending the outpost and it would be back to "the Enterprise C disappeared..."

Why did the Romulans take captives? Where they interested to gain strategic information on that starship design? Where they interested to learn about the disappearance effect? Where they interested to learn about a possible new Federation cloaking device?

Why did the Romulans try to take the Enterprise in "The Enterprise Incident"?

Like I said, being probably deprived of their long-range scanning equipment the Klingons might just have had audio and no visual confirmation what the re-appearing Enterprise-C might have looked like (it only stands to reason that the Romulans knew). The only thing we can know from “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is that the Enterprise-C was “last seen near Narendra III” (and apparently before the Romulan attack on the outpost).

That is what the war timeline knew because that's what happened. They disappeared.

DATA: Presumed destroyed. The Enterprise C was last seen near the Klingon outpost Narendra Three exactly twenty two years, three months and four days ago.
​

This is what they know of in the TNG timeline, after returning to the battle:

PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
​

Yes, it’s the conference lounge sculpture of Andrew Probert’s Enterprise-C, nicely visible in almost all conference lounge scenes of the first four TNG seasons and fleshed out by the artist as a painting (see my avatar)

Shouldn't this be a red flag that they left those sculptures up a season after YE without correcting the Probert design? Wouldn't that tell you that perhaps the lounge sculptures are not exclusively the ships named Enterprise?

If “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was really just a changed timeline of “our” universe, I would have to agree, but with the apparent relocation of these events into a “parallel universe” (and by the same screenplay writer and director of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” for several good reasons I’ve already presented), we are looking at quite a different outcome, i.e. multiple configurations of multiple Enterprises-C in multiple universes.

Sorry Bob but there isn't any evidence of anything relocated to a "parallel universe."

If "War Tasha" died her meaningful death at Narendra III, she can't be the same that got captured by the Romulans, hence the changed premise of a "parallel universe".

Sure she can. Guinan only confirms that TNG-Tasha died an empty death. However, after looking through it again I can't find anyplace where Guinan or another super being spelled out War Tasha's fate. All we know is that War Tasha wanted her death to count for something. Was her death ultimately meaningful? Yes. It's the same argument of any person who enlists to fight for their country only to die as a prisoner of war. I'd be hard pressed to call it a meaningless death.

Before critcizing or doubting the accuracy or authenticity of the displays we should ask first, IMHO, "what is the theme?"

In the case of the "D" it's obviously "starships named Enterprise and their equivalents", the deciding factor apparently a minimal amount of volume of the ships.

In the case of the "E" its apparently either "Enterprise starships" and/or design lineage.

In both cases neither XVC-330 or NX-01 seem to qualify as candidates, because they don't meet the criteria.

The aircraft carrier isn't a starship. That isn't consistent with any theme of starships.

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

^^ I concur. One TOS Enterprise had travelled back in time but was never seen by the other still orbiting Psi 2000.

That would've been funny as that would imply that there are 2 Enterprises, always offset by 3 days. Fortunately the episode avoids this because Spock would've pointed out the existence of a duplicate ship. Since he does not, there isn't a second one ala Back to the Future.

There would indeed be 2 Enterprises, but only up until the point where the 1st one creates the time warp. Then there is just the one again. True that Spock doesn't mention the other Enterprise, but the dialogue at the end of the episode is rather brief:

KIRK: The time warp. What did it do to us?
SPOCK: We've regressed in time seventy one hours. It is now three days ago, Captain. We have three days to live over again.
KIRK: Not those last three days.
SPOCK: This does open some intriguing prospects, Captain. Since the formula worked, we can go back in time, to any planet, any era.
KIRK: We may risk it someday, Mister Spock. Resume course to our next destination, Mister Sulu.

If all the time warp did was rewind their own timeline (replacing their own earlier version when they arrived) then they would be limited to travelling back in time only within their own lifetime and personal history (ala Butterfly Effect). But Spock clearly says "back in time, to any planet, any era", suggesting a different form of time travel (Back to the Future).

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Is there any canon evidence that these are even meant to be Enterprises? It could just be man's journey to the stars. Some sea vessels, the USS Constitution NCC-1700, the USS Excelsior NX-2000, a random ship we've not seen before, the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D... just a thought.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

Alright, I think I've provided rationalizations regarding the sculpture displays within reason, some of you won't consider these as possible and therefore won't accept these. I'll just leave it at that (rather than to remain stuck in a discussion time loop regarding this issue ) and leave it up to everyone what to think or not to think of it.

This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.

What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical. The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.
It was a plot device, created in a rush, to have a Tasha available that could travel back in time, but fortunately Moore and Carson relocated events with/after "Redemption II" into a "parallel time line" or "parallel universe" (Carson)

That's laughable. You were just defending Guinan's authority on the timetravel subject here. How can it be a plothole when they're taking the word of Guinan, an authority on fates of people she hasn't met?

As the audience we do understand that Guinan is right, but the protagonists in-universe lack that information and understanding, therefore the "universe at war" Picard takes a leap of faith which even Michael Piller found rather hard to believe from the point of view of our protagonists.

PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
​

That sums up all we need to know. If there was any ambiguity we'd hear instead, "The Enterprise-C disappeared near Narendra Three at the same time a Klingon outpost was destroyed."

Picard's statement indicated that enough information was available to know that the E-C (not a mystery ship) was destroyed while defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.

More importantly, there had to be proof that it was the E-C that came to their rescue.

Regardless if they broke off the attack or not, they continued long enough to destroy the E-C.

Leaving no trace would be the worse outcome. The Feds wouldn't be able to prove the E-C was there defending the outpost and it would be back to "the Enterprise C disappeared..."

I concur with your observations except for the last paragraph, because I'm afraid you are overlooking one decisive detail:

• “We were responding to a distress call from the Klingon outpost on Narendra Three”. Since the Enterprise-C received and responded to the distress call there was apparently no Romulan jamming, but the Klingon High Command (apparently) and Starfleet (obviously) never learned what was going on (“universe at war” Riker: “There's no record of the Romulans ever assaulting the Enterprise-C” - "universe at war" Data: "Presumed destroyed. The Enterprise C was last seen near the Klingon outpost Narendra Three exactly twenty two years, three months and four days ago.")

Obviously at least the Klingons at the outpost knew that a Federation starship was rushing to their defense, and the eye- or earwitness accounts of one or some Klingon survivors could confirm that it was a

• Romulan stealth attack (probably with the intent to frame the Federation for it, compare to "the Mind's Eye")
• a Federation starship that had come to their rescue

None of the aforementioned could have ever justified the Klingons to wage war on the Federation (instead of the Romulans) but apparently in the "universe at war" no Klingons had survived to tell the real story (and with the help of the Duras family that Romulan ploy possibly worked in the "universe at war").

PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
​

Shouldn't this be a red flag that they left those sculptures up a season after YE without correcting the Probert design? Wouldn't that tell you that perhaps the lounge sculptures are not exclusively the ships named Enterprise?

No. All it tells me is that the last Enterprise-C "seen" in our universe at Narendra III was the Probert design, before the Klingons' visual capabilities were taken out by the Romulans. Except for the Romulans (no information exchange prior to "Redemption II" but before ST VIII-FC) apparently neither the outpost Klingons or the Federation ever saw the returning ship from the future.

It stands to reason that everyone in Starfleet assumed the Enterprise-C to have been destroyed at Narendra III to be the Probert design. I think it's rather simple.

Sorry Bob but there isn't any evidence of anything relocated to a "parallel universe."

Even as a Thermian you can't dismiss Guinan's and Sela's statements in "Redemption II", that do exactly suggest that, as erroneous.

To quote Maurice: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (i.e. that they didn't mean what they said).

I have accepted these as facts and concluded an alternate theory from these, however - as this thread his shown - some are eager to twist and discredit these facts in order to prevent this theory from being taken seriously.

All we know is that War Tasha wanted her death to count for something. Was her death ultimately meaningful? Yes. It's the same argument of any person who enlists to fight for their country only to die as a prisoner of war. I'd be hard pressed to call it a meaningless death.

IMHO, we then have "meaningful and noble intentions and/or actions" but to label something as "meaningful death" requires a bit more.

Bob

 

[blssdwlf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

^^ I concur. One TOS Enterprise had travelled back in time but was never seen by the other still orbiting Psi 2000.

That would've been funny as that would imply that there are 2 Enterprises, always offset by 3 days. Fortunately the episode avoids this because Spock would've pointed out the existence of a duplicate ship. Since he does not, there isn't a second one ala Back to the Future.

There would indeed be 2 Enterprises, but only up until the point where the 1st one creates the time warp. Then there is just the one again. True that Spock doesn't mention the other Enterprise, but the dialogue at the end of the episode is rather brief:

KIRK: The time warp. What did it do to us?
SPOCK: We've regressed in time seventy one hours. It is now three days ago, Captain. We have three days to live over again.
KIRK: Not those last three days.
SPOCK: This does open some intriguing prospects, Captain. Since the formula worked, we can go back in time, to any planet, any era.
KIRK: We may risk it someday, Mister Spock. Resume course to our next destination, Mister Sulu.

If all the time warp did was rewind their own timeline (replacing their own earlier version when they arrived) then they would be limited to travelling back in time only within their own lifetime and personal history (ala Butterfly Effect). But Spock clearly says "back in time, to any planet, any era", suggesting a different form of time travel (Back to the Future).

Well if we follow the timeline...

1. Enterprise(original) goes to Psi2000
2. Enterprise(original) 3 days later time travels back 3 days
3. Enterprise(original) goes to her next destination instead of Psi2000

Since the Enterprise(original) was free to go to another destination and not be doomed repeat the events of Psi2000 over and over again (looping back to step 1) then their time traveling is insulating them from the effects of going back in time and also giving them the ability to overwrite their timeline once they are back in normal time, IMHO.

Also notice, "Captain. We have three days to live over again." If there was a duplicate ship/timeline Spock would've likely said instead, "we need to time travel forward 3 days to prevent contaminating our timeline."

 

[blssdwlf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.

What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical.

Oddly enough, the treknobabble is alot less convoluted and more logical than the look and source of the E-C being swapped around alternate universes.

The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.

Only if you chose not to follow the E-C's point of view. As pointed out by another poster, it depends whose POV we're following and when.

If you were at Narendra-3, the E-C disappeared momentarily into a vortex and then re-appeared and continued to fight until she was destroyed.

If you were on the E-C, you appeared 22 years later in a timeline caused by your disappearance (because the E-C hasn't returned yet). When you on the E-C goes back in time, you're wiping out the timeline where you've disappeared for 22 years.

If you were on the TNG E-D, it would've appeared that a vortex appeared in front of you and then closed.

It was a plot device, created in a rush, to have a Tasha available that could travel back in time, but fortunately Moore and Carson relocated events with/after "Redemption II" into a "parallel time line" or "parallel universe" (Carson)

When they talk of parallel timeline or universe they're referring to the one spawned from the E-C temporarily hopping to the future. That doesn't indicate a timeline that goes back enough to warrant a different looking E-C.

That's laughable. You were just defending Guinan's authority on the timetravel subject here. How can it be a plothole when they're taking the word of Guinan, an authority on fates of people she hasn't met?

As the audience we do understand that Guinan is right, but the protagonists in-universe lack that information and understanding, therefore the "universe at war" Picard takes a leap of faith which even Michael Piller found rather hard to believe from the point of view of our protagonists.

The writers disagree as they provide supporting dialogue (specifically Picard's history and trust in Guinan) to push the protagonists to accept Guinan's advice.

GUINAN: We've known each other a long time. You have never known me to impose myself on anyone or take a stance based on trivial or whimsical perceptions. This time line must not be allowed to continue. Now, I've told you what you must do. You have only your trust in me to help you decide to do it.
...
LAFORGE: How could Guinan know that history has been altered if she's been altered along with the rest of us?
DATA: Perhaps her species has a perception that goes beyond linear time.
PICARD: There are many things about her species we can't easily explained. Yet it is very possible she is correct. A ship from the past has traveled through time. How can we know what effect those events will have on the present. Indeed, we shall never know for certain, if Guinan is correct. But I have decided the consequences of that possibility are too grave to ignore. Dismissed.
​

I concur with your observations except for the last paragraph, because I'm afraid you are overlooking one decisive detail:

• “We were responding to a distress call from the Klingon outpost on Narendra Three”. Since the Enterprise-C received and responded to the distress call there was apparently no Romulan jamming, but the Klingon High Command (apparently) and Starfleet (obviously) never learned what was going on (“universe at war” Riker: “There's no record of the Romulans ever assaulting the Enterprise-C” - "universe at war" Data: "Presumed destroyed. The Enterprise C was last seen near the Klingon outpost Narendra Three exactly twenty two years, three months and four days ago.")

That "decisive" detail only tells us that in the War timeline:
1. the Klingon outpost's distress messages were not received by the Klingons or the Federation
2. and there was no evidence that the Klingons received or confirmed that the E-C was responding to their distress call.
3. the Federation had no idea what happened to the E-C or even connected the dots to the battle at Narendra-3.

Contrast that to the TNG timeline where:

PICARD: Enterprise C? She was lost at the battle of Narendra Three, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans.
​

1. the E-C was confirmed to be defending a Klingon outpost at Narendra 3
2. the E-C was fighting Romulans
3. the E-C lost the battle

Obviously at least the Klingons at the outpost knew that a Federation starship was rushing to their defense, and the eye- or earwitness accounts of one or some Klingon survivors could confirm that it was a

• Romulan stealth attack (probably with the intent to frame the Federation for it, compare to "the Mind's Eye")
• a Federation starship that had come to their rescue

How would they know unless they saw the E-C? And if they did then they'd have eyewitness accounts of what it looked like. Plus, Starfleet and the Klingons would be examining the debris and if it belonged to a mystery ship instead of the native E-C that'd raise red flags.

Sorry Bob but there isn't any evidence of anything relocated to a "parallel universe."

Even as a Thermian you can't dismiss Guinan's and Sela's statements in "Redemption II", that do exactly suggest that, as erroneous.

To quote Maurice: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (i.e. that they didn't mean what they said).

As a Thermian, Guinan's statements in "Redemption" are inline with the events of YE. Sela's statements due to her unreliable character could go either way. In anycase, there isn't any evidence to support your relocated universe, IMHO.

I have accepted these as facts and concluded an alternate theory from these, however - as this thread his shown - some are eager to twist and discredit these facts in order to prevent this theory from being taken seriously.

Most of the replies I've seen are not twisting or discrediting of facts by others going on here. You'd get more traction from your relocated E-C if you argued that there is an alternate Probert-universe caused by the time-travelling Rasmussen or from "First Contact" or from the myriad of time-travelling stories in TNG except for YE. YE just doesn't go back far enough and requires the native E-C for the story to work.

All we know is that War Tasha wanted her death to count for something. Was her death ultimately meaningful? Yes. It's the same argument of any person who enlists to fight for their country only to die as a prisoner of war. I'd be hard pressed to call it a meaningless death.

IMHO, we then have "meaningful and noble intentions and/or actions" but to label something as "meaningful death" requires a bit more.

Lumping Tasha's death on Vargus is inconsistent with your argument here. Of course it was called out as a meaningless death.

Volunteering to die on the E-C and then dying as a prisoner of war while knowing your sacrifice altered history to save the Federation. That's meaningful.

 

[Rarewolf]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical. The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.

No. All it tells me is that the last Enterprise-C "seen" in our universe at Narendra III was the Probert design, before the Klingons' visual capabilities were taken out by the Romulans. Except for the Romulans (no information exchange prior to "Redemption II" but before ST VIII-FC) apparently neither the outpost Klingons or the Federation ever saw the returning ship from the future.

It stands to reason that everyone in Starfleet assumed the Enterprise-C to have been destroyed at Narendra III to be the Probert design. I think it's rather simple.

Bob

You ignore the simplest explanation - that follows reality - that the Probert design never got off the drawing board.

If as you suggest everyone assumed that only the Probert design was destroyed, why do they later revise that opinion? Surely you suggest two different Enterprise Cs were involved in the battle, but since Yar's Enterprise was destroyed they'd have no visual proof, to know two different designs were there.

Instead you suggest the real Enterprise C was a different design to the other Ambassadors seen in Redemption and Emissary. I really fail to see the logic in that.

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.

What you consider simple, I'd call convoluted and illogical. The Enterprise-C did reappear instants after she vanished back in 2344, didn't she?
So according to the universal action-reaction principle there was never any reason for the timeline to change in the first place.
It was a plot device, created in a rush, to have a Tasha available that could travel back in time, but fortunately Moore and Carson relocated events with/after "Redemption II" into a "parallel time line" or "parallel universe" (Carson)

Exactly my (not very well expressed) point. In other instances of time travel given upthread, it has always been people travelling into their PAST. The Enterprise-C situation is different - contemporary events create a vortex which removes the ship for an instant, only for it to reappear a moment later. From the perspective of 2366 this is all decades-old history - nothing was ever in danger, nothing should ever have changed. It's the same with Mark Twain, who's disappearance and reappearance are all part of past events - they should not rewrite the present at all.

If the E-D had created the vortex on the other hand and forcibly removed the E-C from her time, then I would have expected to see substantial interruptions to the timeline! We can see an example of this in "Shockwave", when Captain Archer is displaced into the future by Daniels. A similar situation occurs in TCOTEOF when McCoy goes back in time and saves Edith Keeler (except for Kirk et al who are in a zone of Guardian Protection). Likewise in "First Contact" the Borg travel back and remove Cochrane; the E-E is protected inside the Borg's Time Tunnel which they do not leave until history is "fixed".

Having the War-verse be a separate quantum universe (to use the "Parallels" terminology) rather than an altered version of the present universe (which couldn't exist anyway, see above) makes a lot more sense to me. The only question is where the point of divergence is. The crew posits that it's the battle of Narenda, but if it's a different universe then it really could be anywhen!

However, I don't see how the YE-universe can continue on once the E-C returns to her own time and does the noble sacrifice thing. Wasn't the act supposed to STOP the Klingon war? You may be right that it failed to change anything, but there's a depressing thought for the war-torn crew of the E-D, they all died for nothing!

I'm afraid, from their pov they did die for nothing.
That's a weakness in the narrative of that story.

I have to agree that its the most likely outcome - the war-torn crew were making decisions based on limited information and a bartender's intuition. They guessed that the point of divergence was the Narenda attack and surmised that they may be able to better their lives by sending the E-C back. They were wrong.

DATA: There is a high degree of probability that the temporal rift is symmetrical, Captain

Data suggests this, perhaps as a warning that Romulan ships could come through the rift as well. However, if this is the case, wouldn't time pass equally on both sides? Does that mean that the 24 hours which passed in 2366 also passed in 2343? I have to wonder what the Romulans were doing all this time!

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think Data pointed out that the -C would appear at "almost the exact moment" she disappeared. It's kinda like the temporal vortex in "Future's End" or the black hole in ST'09, where time moved at a different rate at each end (seconds at one end were years at the other)

 

[sojourner]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I have accepted these as facts and concluded an alternate theory from these, however - as this thread his shown - some are eager to twist and discredit these facts in order to prevent this theory from being taken seriously.

Translation:
I have accepted these suppositions as "facts" and concluded a convoluted theory from those, however - as this thread has shown - no matter how many people point out the holes in my "facts" or provide evidence counter to my argument, I will doggedly push this theory like a 9/11 truther.

 

[largo]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

i'm pretty sure tasha yar never dies in any timeline, but is teleported away by an alien entity to a world populated entirely by tasha yar from various timelines. there they play on the beach, write poetry, and get minxy by the light of the twin moons.

its just as likely.

 

[beamMe]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

This is simple. When the E-C left the timeline, what continued was the war timeline. 22 years transpired differently than what we knew of in TNG. When the E-C re-appears during the war that's what we see. When the E-C is sent back to the time it disappeared it then altered the timeline starting from the Battle of Narendra-3, resulting in the TNG timeline.

You put it a lot more clearly than I did upthread.

 

[beamMe]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

The war timline still goes on. We are just not following what happens in that universe.

The AbramsUniverse didn't get winked out of existence just because Nero fell into a black hole. The MirrorUniverse also still goes on as infrequent visits showed.

What are you talking about?
This comment was only for the altenate War Timeline, since it is unknown whether or not it continued. It has nothing to do with the Mirror Universe (already established as a parallel universe despite any interactions with the Prime one) or the JJverse (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me) which exists because Prime Spock and Nero went backwards in time (only way to rectify that timeline is if Spock and Nero were pulled back to their time the second they arrived in the past).

You are trying to make a distinction were none exists.
Why do you separate the alternative timeline we see in YE from the one in "Mirror Mirror", the one we see briefly in "First Contact" or the one from "Star Trek"?

 

[Mytran]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

I think Data pointed out that the -C would appear at "almost the exact moment" she disappeared. It's kinda like the temporal vortex in "Future's End" or the black hole in ST'09, where time moved at a different rate at each end (seconds at one end were years at the other)

I had a search through the transcript and couldn't find that reference (although I may have missed a certain phrase). However it would be an odd definition of a "symmetrical" tunnel if it had different behaviour at each end. Maybe Data simply meant a ship could travel both ways?

1. Enterprise(original) goes to Psi2000
2. Enterprise(original) 3 days later time travels back 3 days
3. Enterprise(original) goes to her next destination instead of Psi2000

Since the Enterprise(original) was free to go to another destination and not be doomed repeat the events of Psi2000 over and over again (looping back to step 1) then their time traveling is insulating them from the effects of going back in time and also giving them the ability to overwrite their timeline once they are back in normal time, IMHO.

I suspect we're just interpreting the episode's clues in two radically different ways (rather than there being any actual misunderstanding of events) but just to clarify what I think is going on, I thought I should get the crayons out

From the Enterprise's POV, there is no "rewinding" involved - they are just 3 days older now than the rest of the universe! And since the data banks and memories of the crew appear intact, there would be no danger of repeating the same events over and over again - they'd know exactly what to avoid! However, as they have (IMHO) overlapped themselves in the timeline, the last thing they would want to do is return to PSI-2000, as there's already an Enterprise there.

Also notice, "Captain. We have three days to live over again." If there was a duplicate ship/timeline Spock would've likely said instead, "we need to time travel forward 3 days to prevent contaminating our timeline."

While it's interesting to speculate on what character might have said, all we know for sure is what was actually said and done. At the end of the episode, Kirk sets off for their "next" mission. Spock does not raise an objection, indeed this is probably the best thing to do to avoid bumping into their past selves.

SPOCK: This does open some intriguing prospects, Captain. Since the formula worked, we can go back in time, to any planet, any era.

If the NT timewarp merely rewinds the Enterprise along its own timeline, it would never be able to go further back than it's own construction. Spock's comment strongly indicates otherwise, unless he was just guessing (and Vulcans do not guess )





​

 

[STRenegade]

Re: Probert's REAL N.C.C.-1701-C

The war timline still goes on. We are just not following what happens in that universe.

The AbramsUniverse didn't get winked out of existence just because Nero fell into a black hole. The MirrorUniverse also still goes on as infrequent visits showed.

What are you talking about?
This comment was only for the altenate War Timeline, since it is unknown whether or not it continued. It has nothing to do with the Mirror Universe (already established as a parallel universe despite any interactions with the Prime one) or the JJverse (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me) which exists because Prime Spock and Nero went backwards in time (only way to rectify that timeline is if Spock and Nero were pulled back to their time the second they arrived in the past).

You are trying to make a distinction were none exists.
Why do you separate the alternative timeline we see in YE from the one in "Mirror Mirror", the one we see briefly in "First Contact" or the one from "Star Trek"?

Because once again did the War Timeline continue or not, or was it part of some temporal event that was rectified when the E-C went back? There is a distinction, and it is that while the Mirror and JJ (unfortunately) universes are permanent, the War Timeline is up for question as to whether or not it is.