How many times did Kirk falsify his log?

[JonnyQuest037]

How many times in TOS do we see (or hear about) Kirk making a log entry that's at odds with what actually occurred?

I can think of two offhand: Kirk states that Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner both died in performance of their duty at the end of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and at the end of "Metamorphosis," he promises Zephram Cochrane that he won't breathe a word to Starfleet that Cochrane was discovered to be alive.

Can anyone think of any others?

 

[Tim Thomason]

How many times in TOS do we see (or hear about) Kirk making a log entry that's at odds with what actually occurred?

I can think of two offhand: Kirk states that Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner both died in performance of their duty at the end of "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and at the end of "Metamorphosis," he promises Zephram Cochrane that he won't breathe a word to Starfleet that Cochrane was discovered to be alive.

Can anyone think of any others?

Flint. And eventually, even the V'Ger incident (Decker and Ilia are MIA).

And about Flint, although Kirk said he wouldn't reveal his secret, someone does, as Janeway knows about Kirk meeting da Vinci. I'm not sure if it was Kirk though, since he apparently had his mind wiped following that adventure.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

How many times in TOS do we see (or hear about) Kirk making a log entry that's at odds with what actually occurred?

I can think of two offhand: Kirk states that Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner both died in performance of their duty at the end of "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

Well, technically, they did. When Gary was taken over by that space entity, he became another creature entirely; the good man that was Gary Mitchell died at that point. Dehner may have retained more of herself, but she sacrificed herself to stop the entity that had "killed" Gary. So in a real sense, both DID die in the line of duty.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

He also kept Spock's 'secret' out of the log in Amok Time, and one can only assume that he was discreet about Khan's disposition on Ceti Alpha V in Space Seed, since no red alert flags were triggered when the Reliant went there 15 years later.

 

[BillJ]

How many times in TOS do we see (or hear about) Kirk making a log entry that's at odds with what actually occurred?

I can think of two offhand: Kirk states that Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner both died in performance of their duty at the end of "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

Well, technically, they did. When Gary was taken over by that space entity, he became another creature entirely; the good man that was Gary Mitchell died at that point. Dehner may have retained more of herself, but she sacrificed herself to stop the entity that had "killed" Gary. So in a real sense, both DID die in the line of duty.

This.

I'd say "Metamorphosis" and "Requiem..." would be the only two instances I can think of, off the top of my head.

 

[Warped9]

In RFM Kirk said they could keep Flint's secret, but that was before everything went to hell. We then later learn that Flint was no longer immortal after leaving Earth and that he would devote the rest of his life to research to benefit humanity (or something to that effect). So Kirk no longer had any reason to keep Flint's existence secret, though he might have fudged Flint's historical significance.

Spock didn't necessarily erase Kirk's memory of the events with Flint and Rayna, but rather Kirk's intense emotions and pain in regard to Rayna. Makes sense because of what is still in the ship's logs.


Regarding "Space Seed" we don't actually know that Kirk falsified his log. He could well have been completely upfront with his log and then Starfleet took it out of his hands--"We'll handle it, Kirk."

TWOK is a conceit that neither Kirk or Starfleet followed up on Khan as well as regarding lousy Starfleet records and Reliant's incompetence. How likely is that really? Given Khan's significance in history I find it hard to believe neither Starfleet nor Kirk followed up on Khan even if Khan preferred to be completely self-sufficient.

 

[Greg Cox]

One has to assume that the log entries on the "Menagerie" incident were heavily redacted by Starfleet, if not Kirk himself.

 

[Timo]

We have to consider what was already entered into the logs as we watched, and what might simply have been omitted. Basically 99% of the log material is clearly dictated well after the fact - in the earliest episodes, it's even in the appropriate tense for such narration. And many of the adventures would be way too hectic to allow Kirk to dictate anything until the credits roll. But some things do get into the logs as the episode unfolds, even though they really shouldn't be there where Starfleet gets to read them.

Regarding "Space Seed" we don't actually know that Kirk falsified his log. He could well have been completely upfront with his log and then Starfleet took it out of his hands--"We'll handle it, Kirk."

If Kirk did falsify his reports in that episode, that would entail all the goodies:

- Erasing already dictated log entries and associated other recordings
- Lying to Khan about making an official record about the proceedings
- Neglecting to dictate anything at all about the eventual outcome of the adventure
- Destroying physical evidence left behind by Khan
- Asking crew (in this case, probably every single one of the 430) to stay quiet and lie if questioned
- Creating a relatively extensive cover story of what the ship was doing in all that time and why she expended the resources Kirk in fact gave to Khan

However, the extensiveness of dishonesty there isn't an argument against Kirk doing it. In for the penny, in for the pound - Kirk would have been capable of all of the above, and his colleagues could well agree to it all as well.

Well, technically, they did.

Regarding this, log entries supposedly are accompanied by visual records - at least of events taking place during alerts at key locations such as bridge or main engineering. So "technically" wouldn't help - in order to keep the secrets, Kirk would have to erase and/or falsify all sorts of records, not just mince words.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Can anyone think of any others?

Flint. And eventually, even the V'Ger incident (Decker and Ilia are MIA).

I'd forgotten about Flint as I rarely rewatch third season episodes.

I considered adding Decker and Ilia when I was writing my initial post, but decided against it since this is the TOS Forum.

Kirk states that Gary Mitchell and Elizabeth Dehner both died in performance of their duty at the end of "Where No Man Has Gone Before"

Well, technically, they did. When Gary was taken over by that space entity, he became another creature entirely; the good man that was Gary Mitchell died at that point. Dehner may have retained more of herself, but she sacrificed herself to stop the entity that had "killed" Gary. So in a real sense, both DID die in the line of duty.

Mitchell wasn't taken over by an entity or a sentient being. He was mutated and swiftly corrupted by the power he gained. Not the same thing.

Dehner, yeah, you could make a case that she was still performing her duty when she was killed. Not so for Gary, unless "Crushing Your C.O. Under Rocks" was a class at the Academy.

He also kept Spock's 'secret' out of the log in Amok Time, and one can only assume that he was discreet about Khan's disposition on Ceti Alpha V in Space Seed, since no red alert flags were triggered when the Reliant went there 15 years later.

These are both good suggestions, but the "Space Seed" instance is a bit fuzzy in my mind, as we definitely know that Kirk made log entries about discovering Khan and him taking over the ship. And the proceeding that we see at the end of the episode definitely has the feel of some sort of official proceeding.

I think it might be more likely that Starfleet either forgot or neglected to inform the Reliant on Ceti Alpha V than Kirk deliberately not telling them that he'd just stranded dozens of Napoleons on a nearby planet. Never attribute something to malice when incompetence will do.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Mitchell wasn't taken over by an entity or a sentient being. He was mutated and swiftly corrupted by the power he gained. Not the same thing.

Correct. Gary was the same person from start to finish, not possessed by an external source, the victim of an experiment gone wrong or susceptible to the influence of another (e.g. boneheaded Anakin Skywalker).

So, Kirk entered an emotionally shaped log entry to protect the memory of an otherwise good man/Starfleet officer--but it was not true.

Dehner, yeah, you could make a case that she was still performing her duty when she was killed.

A pretty solid case; she had to see Mitchell's corruption before she understood Kirk's plea / warning, so in the end, she gave her life performing her duty. Officially, the landing party she joined tried to strand Gary on the planet, but in the broad sense, they were trying to protect the universe from him--or stop him, so in that case, Elizabeth carried out that job.

Not so for Gary, unless "Crushing Your C.O. Under Rocks" was a class at the Academy.

How about "Getting revenge on your backstabbing C.O., who thought he left you for dead--but...no!" Sounds like a popular course in the making.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

Not so for Gary, unless "Crushing Your C.O. Under Rocks" was a class at the Academy.

I got an A in that class but I apparently didn't retain what I learned.

 

[Greg Cox]

Not so for Gary, unless "Crushing Your C.O. Under Rocks" was a class at the Academy.

I got an A in that class but I apparently didn't retain what I learned.

And you got marked down for sloppy spelling.

"James R. Kirk" . . . really?

Godhood is no excuse for not proofreading your work.

 

[Gary Mitchell]

^ I'll never live that down.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

BTW, if any of you folks haven't read John Byrne's photonovel-style sequel to WNMHGB, I highly recommend it. He builds on the episode well, and tells a quintessentially Star Trek-style story.

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Annual-2013-Strange/dp/B00H3T319S

 

[T'Girl]

"James R. Kirk" . . . really?

James Regalianus Kirk.

Mitchell could never keep all those Roman Emperors straight.

Plus, Regalianus is made up of "regal" and "anus."

.

 

[T'Bonz]

And you got marked down for sloppy spelling.

"James R. Kirk" . . . really?

Godhood is no excuse for not proofreading your work.

**

Gary Mitchell:

^ I'll never live that down.

* *

Funny exchanges like this make up for some of the shit I have to deal with running the place. Thanks, guys.

 

[Drone]

He also kept Spock's 'secret' out of the log in Amok Time, and one can only assume that he was discreet about Khan's disposition on Ceti Alpha V in Space Seed, since no red alert flags were triggered when the Reliant went there 15 years later.

On the latter, I don't see why he would have in the first place. He didn't make any kind of promise to do so, wasn't guilty of any malfeasance in his command (unless one considers the decision to revive Khan in the first place to be one) and I don't think he would have naively assumed that Khan wouldn't have been up to the challenge that he threw down to him. So, what purpose would it have served Kirk to not totally document the incident?

As to the fact that the Reliant didn't seem to be on its guard, that could plausibly be due a number of causes, some of which are detailed by an earlier post.

One has to assume that the log entries on the "Menagerie" incident were heavily redacted by Starfleet, if not Kirk himself.

I'm not sure I understand the rationale there. Mendez saw the same images, presumably at the same time as was happening aboard Enterprise, and as a flag officer made, what was presumably an officially sanctioned decision, perhaps done in consultation with a higher-up. Due to the special circumstances that were implied by Mendez, I would think that in the future, the incident would merely be considered as an appropriate exception to the General Order and not have to be concealed or thought of as a questionable negation of it. Perhaps over the course of time, it was rescinded anyway.

We have to consider what was already entered into the logs as we watched, and what might simply have been omitted. Basically 99% of the log material is clearly dictated well after the fact - in the earliest episodes, it's even in the appropriate tense for such narration. And many of the adventures would be way too hectic to allow Kirk to dictate anything until the credits roll. But some things do get into the logs as the episode unfolds, even though they really shouldn't be there where Starfleet gets to read them.

Regarding "Space Seed" we don't actually know that Kirk falsified his log. He could well have been completely upfront with his log and then Starfleet took it out of his hands--"We'll handle it, Kirk."

If Kirk did falsify his reports in that episode, that would entail all the goodies:

- Erasing already dictated log entries and associated other recordings
- Lying to Khan about making an official record about the proceedings
- Neglecting to dictate anything at all about the eventual outcome of the adventure
- Destroying physical evidence left behind by Khan
- Asking crew (in this case, probably every single one of the 430) to stay quiet and lie if questioned
- Creating a relatively extensive cover story of what the ship was doing in all that time and why she expended the resources Kirk in fact gave to Khan

However, the extensiveness of dishonesty there isn't an argument against Kirk doing it. In for the penny, in for the pound - Kirk would have been capable of all of the above, and his colleagues could well agree to it all as well.

Well, technically, they did.

Regarding this, log entries supposedly are accompanied by visual records - at least of events taking place during alerts at key locations such as bridge or main engineering. So "technically" wouldn't help - in order to keep the secrets, Kirk would have to erase and/or falsify all sorts of records, not just mince words.

Timo Saloniemi

Minor point here, but when you are addressing the "Well, technically, they did" point, are you referring to Kirk's comments as regards Mitchell and Dehner, which is what the line is actually pointing to, or is it a continuation of your thoughts on Space Seed? If the former, I don't really gather your meaning.

 

[Greg Cox]

One has to assume that the log entries on the "Menagerie" incident were heavily redacted by Starfleet, if not by Kirk himself.

I don't know. A Starfleet officer (who just happens to be the son of a highly-influential Vulcan ambassador) effectively stages a one-man mutiny, steals the Enterprise to go to the most forbidden planet in the galaxy, and turns over a disabled Starfleet hero to the largely unknown alien inhabitants of that same forbidden world, all in defiance of the death penalty.

I can see Starfleet wanting to keep that whole affair under wraps. Sounds like "Need to know" type material to me, not something you'd want in the public record. Better to stick it in the same top-secret file that covered the events of "The Cage."

 

[Shawnster]

Well, if Decker and Ilia are not MIA, where are they? Did they die? There is no body or physical evidence to corroborate their death.

Did they transcend thought, time and space? Did they go to another dimension? Did that transform into a form of intelligent thought? Did they go where no man has gone before?

 

[FormerLurker]

There is some speculation they became entities similar to the Organians, with V'Ger their first 'child'. Me, I think they're on a planet somewhere, figuring out what they want to be, and not bothering with the rest of us, as we are no longer a type of being they have any interest in.