Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
01-26-2011, 05:50 PM
Understand, I do not refer to the size of the models or CGI models. Those can be scaled using, ironically enough, optical illusions and resizing software. I am referring to the in-universe sizes of the Cubes. Assuming that the Borg cubes depicted are the exact sizes they appear to be in the shows and movies.

Yes, I have made the claim, I have also put forth my evidence. Just because it's not a quote from a show, film, or member of the production staff does not mean it is irrelevant. There is no quote from a show, film, or member of the production staff establishing all the Cubes we've ever seen have been the same size, either.

The Cubes I believe were smaller (from Voyager) never had any sizes mentioned. So to assume they must be the same size as the Cubes from TNG & FC in spite of the visual evidence is just an unfounded assumption on your part.

You now have the job of disputing my proof, of explaining why my evidence is insufficient or flawed. All you have done is proclaim them optical illusions. That is insufficient and dismissive.

Explain how the Borg Cube in the foreground of the Endgame video with an Intrepid Class Starship in the frame for size reference can be said to be as large as the Cube from J-25/Wolf 359 and/or the Battle of Sector 001.

You have to explain how that "optical illusion" works, because as I've stated before, if that Cube moves closer to Voyager, farther away from our vantage point, it would appear smaller, not larger. And as we can see ascertain from the canon lengths of the Galaxy Class and the Intrepid, combined with the tractor scene from Q Who, the Endgame Cubes should be much larger if they are the same size as the Cubes from TNG & FC.

Since there is no canon reference, dialogue, or production quote establishing that the Cubes are all the same size, nor that there are two sizes of Cube, we must seek out other evidence. I have presented mine, where's yours?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
01-26-2011, 10:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
If you can show evidence or a canon piece of dialogue proving me wrong, I'm all ears, but being dismissive towards the evidence, insisting that it's all optical illusion, ignoring the content or context of that evidence is not substantive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Yes, I have made the claim, I have also put forth my evidence. Just because it's not a quote from a show, film, or member of the production staff does not mean it is irrelevant. There is no quote from a show, film, or member of the production staff establishing all the Cubes we've ever seen have been the same size, either.

The Cubes I believe were smaller (from Voyager) never had any sizes mentioned. So to assume they must be the same size as the Cubes from TNG & FC in spite of the visual evidence is just an unfounded assumption on your part.

You now have the job of disputing my proof, of explaining why my evidence is insufficient or flawed. All you have done is proclaim them optical illusions. That is insufficient and dismissive.


Since there is no canon reference, dialogue, or production quote establishing that the Cubes are all the same size, nor that there are two sizes of Cube, we must seek out other evidence. I have presented mine, where's yours?
So I have to show cannon proof or dialogue proof but you don't? You have a double standard and you only quote what you believe. I have linked you post stating the foundation of the cube size that I have stated. You have only used your speculation and opinion.

I donít have to disprove your opinion since I have backed up my statements from other sources and it is only your opinion. No it is not on me it is still on you to do more than just say what you believe to be true.

What you have stated is your opinion.

I have illustrated examples of optical illusions where you can't believe what you see and that is just one example. You can't trust what you see. You need to find some other means besides what you think you see.

Read the link I gave. This only list one size for a Borg cube

"The Borg cube was extremely large in size, measuring 28 cubic kilometers in volume, with each side measuring more than three kilometers."That is a specific size not a range of sizes.

Besides your opinion where is your evidence because I have been linking you to mine.
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Borg_cube


To quote you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
If you can show evidence or a canon piece of dialogue proving me wrong, I'm all ears, but being dismissive towards the evidence, insisting that it's all optical illusion, ignoring the content or context of that evidence is not substantive.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
01-27-2011, 06:05 AM
Evidence or a canon piece of dialogue. or Doogie. You can show either.

The dialogue in the show was a measurement of the Borg Cube from J-25, and later, the Cube from Wolf 359 was stated to be the exact same size, that does not hold for all the Cubes from Voyager, as you seem to think.

So let me state it clearly: Size references made about the Cubes seen in TNG do not automatically hold water for the Cubes from Voyager.

I do not require that you provide canon (seen or said in the shows or movies) proof, after all, as I've stated, there is no such canon reference either way. If you were to find anything, a production note saying something along the lines of "make the Cubes in Endgame the same size as those from First Contact" or an interview with the art department from Voyager saying "We used the same size for all Voyager cubes as we used in TNG & First Contact".

Or, if you can't find anything like that, and understand clearly: I don't expect you too. It would be the ultimate trump, I would cede the point and debate hands down, no further argument.

But since that's very unlikely, just explain how the "optical illusions" work in making all those Cubes from Voyager look so small compared to what we would expect considering the scenes from TNG & FC. Something about the angular relations? Color contrasts? Distance illusions that somehow still retain the firing angles we've seen? Anything?

Just explain them. Show where my analysis of them is flawed. It's a tit for tat situation here. I've presented my evidence, taken directly from images seen onscreen, can't get anymore canon than that. You now have the opportunity to show why and how I am wrong.

Simply stating I am wrong and linking to a wiki that copies verbatim the statements made about two specific Cubes does not in any way, shape, or form prove that it holds true for all Cubes, certainly not in the face of on-screen evidence.

For all I care, Memory Alpha could say that Borg Cubes operate in multiple transdimensional tangents and are actually dodecahedrons that merely appear as Cubes to our limited three-dimensional senses, unless there's some actual reference, from either the shows, movies, or production staff, I'm not buying it. And if that reference is made to a specific Cube (or Cubes), I'm not buying that it necessarily translated to all Borg Cubes.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
01-27-2011, 09:02 AM
It would be interesting to see a Fleet Action of us vs a single nearly unstoppable borg ship... maybe a twenty sided ship or something huge that well takes a fleet to disable and then like starbase 24 you have to beam on it to blow it up from the inside

Could say the cube was from the future or alternative dimension...

Maybe with an assimilated admiral as the borg leader...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
01-27-2011, 12:52 PM
I see that this is an argument needing some concrete proof, and while I am no expert in the relative sizes of ships, I did find this link that compares the sizes of all ships from the various Sci-Fi universes on one graphical reference.

With this information, I'd have to lean towards the argument that there are more than one size of the cubes.

http://www.merzo.net/ (with graphed backgrounds)

and

http://conservationreport.com/2009/0...parison-chart/ (side by side photo)

I hope this helps as a reference point even though I don't know how accurate the information is or where it was gathered.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
01-27-2011, 06:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
So let me state it clearly: Size references made about the Cubes seen in TNG do not automatically hold water for the Cubes from Voyager.
Your opinion.

You are funny. You ask for proof I link proof. You only want to believe what you want to believve. I am through trying to carry on this conversation with you. You state that I am dismissive towards the evidence when look at you. You are just blind to the evidence since it does not fit into your mold.

Maybe if you would read things and try not to hold on to your opinion you might come to a better understanding of things.

Since you want to believe your misconception go ahead, live in your own little world.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
01-27-2011, 06:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seanhazz1 View Post
I hope this helps as a reference point even though I don't know how accurate the information is or where it was gathered.
It doesn't matter what evidence you link, she will not read it nor believe it. She wants to believe her on little fantasy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
01-28-2011, 02:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyman2480 View Post
It would be interesting to see a Fleet Action of us vs a single nearly unstoppable borg ship... maybe a twenty sided ship or something huge that well takes a fleet to disable and then like starbase 24 you have to beam on it to blow it up from the inside

Could say the cube was from the future or alternative dimension...

Maybe with an assimilated admiral as the borg leader...
I do like that idea. It would be the d20 from HELL!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 39
01-28-2011, 03:24 AM
What everyone is forgetting is that this whole game is based off of a holodeck. It is Fiction of Fiction. Everyone screams CANON CANON, Sorry the holodeck safeties are still on and the story is being written by Moriarty him self. Not sure if I spelled his name right.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 40
01-28-2011, 05:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doogie
It doesn't matter what evidence you link, she will not read it nor believe it. She wants to believe her on little fantasy.
You seem to attribute to me a closed-mindedness I hardly deserve. The links you provide do not state there is only one size, all they do is reference what size measurements were stated, which we can only firmly state apply to the Cubes from TNG. Your opinion and assumption that they also automatically apply to the Cubes from Voyager is not only an unsupported assumption, but also a matter of opinion.

We both have opinions here. Both are falsifiable, all you have to do is explain how the optical illusion you claim is at work in Endgame works to deceive me, if you do so, my proof is invalid, and your assumption stands as the sole answer, which I will then accept. If you fail, then my evidence stands, and your assumption is shown invalid. That's not closed-mindedness, that's how debates within science work. Hypotheses compete based on the merit of their evidence.

Your understanding of the burden of proof also seems flawed, I have the burden of proof with my positive claim that there are multiple sizes of Cube. You also gain a burden of proof through assertion that there is only one size of Borg Cube.

With no canon statement to end the debate one way or the other, we must take our cues from on-screen evidence.

Her links put Borg Tactical Cubes and the Cube from First Contact at different sizes, considering that the relative size of the Tactical Cube matches up with the on-screen evidence from Dark Frontier (the episode with the Tactical Cube), I'm inclined to accept the sites size comparison. That, not that it supports my position, is why I accept the sites sizes, they match up with the canon information we have.

Your position ignores and dismisses the on-screen evidence in favor of a Wiki. And, yes, I'm sorry, Wiki loses out to on-screen evidence when the question is one of canon.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 PM.