posted
I present my opinions so as to avoid the hassle of e-mailing everyone who is thinking or or in the writing stage of such a page. I never said that my opinions are the definitive word. Do I have to preface every comment I make with "IMHO"? Others don't and I won't.
IP: Logged
posted
Trinculo item #21: According to the BoBW Scripts the listing for Admiral Hansen talking to the Enterprise had him on a Galaxy Class Bridge Set. More fuel for the fire.
------------------ -=/\=- Captain Stark http://beam.to/readyroom
"The man on the top walks a lonely path. The chain of command is often a noose." Dr. Leonard McCoy --Obsession, Stardate: 3619.2
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Well, the scripts are wrong. It wasn't a GCS bridge. It looked like the Movie bridge that's been redressed at various times. Plus, remember, the Admiral started out on an Excelsior. . .
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
Then the Admiral went to a starbase to discuss strategy. The scripts said a Galaxy Class bridge-they didn't specifiy which bridge. The bridge in the episode could have been the battle bridge of a Galaxy Class starship.
IP: Logged
posted
The Galaxy style bridge almost certainly dates from a similar period in the story's development as the Melbourne being a Nebula. After all a Nebula would be expected to have a Galaxy style bridge (later proved wrong). Of course, the Odyssey didn't have a Galaxy style bridge and that was a Galaxy class!
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Ultimately it comes down to this: if there was a GCS at Wolf 359, then it was destroyed, unless the Ahwahnee WASN'T the 'surviving' ship. . . and if a GCS was destroyed, then either the long-accepted claim that only 12 hulls were built is wron, or there weren't 9 of them visible in "Sacrifice of Angels" - I know people's estimates of how many they say varied between 8 and 10. . . but if there WERE 9 there, then that means - oh, heck, I'm going round in circles. . . 8)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Trinculo
Ex-Member
posted
The canonical evidence has never stated the number of Galaxy Class starships built. BTW, there were I believe 12 Galaxy Class in the episode "Sacrifice of Angels". My reasoning-Capt Sisko speaks of command divisions divided by Galaxies. There were at least 12. The only inference I can draw-the fleet was divided into smaller units with the flagship of each being a Galaxy Class starship.
IP: Logged
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
Nowhere does he mention 12 wings all headed by Galaxies. And the evidence for the twelve hulls is pretty damn near 'canonical' until proven otherwise - Roddenbery's assertion there were only 6, later qualified in the Tech Manual that there were 6 with a second batch of 6 hulls mothballed.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
But that is only true at the time of the TNG TM's publication. 1991 = 2368 doesn't it? Since then the six spares have almost certainly been brought into service (possibly not entirely outfitted on the inside as per Sternbach's suggestion), but there might have been more built in addition to that.
We think that we can account for five of the six in service at the time of Wolf 359, or all six if you belive that the Trinculo or the Challenger was in service back then. (The Challenger's dodgy registry number suggests that it was laid down before the Yamato, but possibly it was never finished at that time and became the first of the 'spares'. In which case it was either brought fully into service prior to the Dominion war or survived the war in an semi-finished form and was then fully fitted out.)
posted
First One-If you are going to criticize, then present a solution. Capt Sisko spoke of Galaxy Wings (I believe this is the correct term). How do you explain this reference? Further, you need to read my messages more slowly. I present evidence, then reasoning or inference. This is different than saying I know definitively what the evidence is saying. I don't. I am doing this way since so many people have a difficulty in understanding my thoughts and come to the conclusion I am speaking in a definitive way. For me, canonical is what is available to everyone who doesn't have the money or resources to buy all the publications from Paramount. (If you are poor, twenty-five bucks is a tremendous amount of money to be spent. Unless you have no common sense, you will spend the money on food or housing.) Ergo, canonical is the films or episodes. Do you understand?
IP: Logged
The First One
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
Member # 35
posted
How do we explain it? We don't. But to just say arbitrarily what you say it means, that's wrong. My suggestion to you is to maybe sound a LOT less definite when you make your pronouncements.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, I don't know if this is really in dispute but there are also the five ships from TNG "Eye of the Beholder" O-grams. USS Philadelphia, Syracuse, Silversides, Pueblo, and Beaver.
USS Vanguard(formerly USS Hastings, and a newbie for the fourth time)
posted
Before I forget, there's two other things...another phantom Grissom in the original encyclopedia (an Oberth with a 59xxx registry) and the registry of the Fearless (which was supposed to be 14598, but showed up as 4598 in parts of the first encyclopedia, an error which ended up in the second edition).
------------------ http://frankg.dgne.com/ Walter Barnett: "D-Did that thing just shatter an overpass into dust?" Donny Finkleberg: "No, I...I think it was an entrance ramp."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
