www.ditl.org

If it's got as many weapons as Worf claimed, then it must have the slowest-charging weapons in Trek. They'd make a Napoleonic gun look like a quick firer.

Captain Seafort wrote:

m52nickerson wrote:...just becasue the Scimitar does not fire at a super high rate of fire does not mean it is not continuous.

Continuous means without a break. Not only were there breaks in the fire, they lasted for significant fractions of a second.

So fractions of a second between individual shots means it was not continuous fire. Boy those factions really gave the Enterprise time to breath.

No, it was not dealt with it was dismissed.

If you're so f***ing stupid that you think the Scimitar would fire all its weapons while we were watching Riker and the Viceroy, and then suddenly ceased fire when we went back to the battle, then I can't help you.

Unless each disruptor could not sustain repeated firing, then they may have been rippled fired not fired all at one time.

No intent needed, it is there in black and white.

Are you f***ing blind? Me, Rochey, and Mikey have all pointed out repeatedly that it's fact that Worf said that the Scimitar had 52 disruptors. It is NOT fact that he was right. Get that through your skull.

....and just becasue they said it does not mean they are right.

You mentioned that the statement should be regarded as possible incorrect. As such you then ignored that statement when drawing your conclusion, and that is why it is flawed.

How the f**k is dismissing a statement by an individual who is by no means infailble, which is directly contradicted by the visual evidence, "flawed"?

It only contradicts the visuals if you assume they are utterly complete, we know they are not.

My point was that hand phasers could be used to fire on another ship.

Alright sea-lawyer, ammend that to read that pistols can be fired on attacking ships from abaord the ship, and without extensive suiting up on the part of the firer.

Ok!

How is that again?

Are you f***ing blind?

No I do it with the lights on.

If you're so f***ing stupid that you think the Scimitar would fire all its weapons while we were watching Riker and the Viceroy, and then suddenly ceased fire when we went back to the battle, then I can't help you.

Is that clear enough for you?

Explained, perhaps you should try to show how my suggestion is not possible instead of just repeating the same tired point.

Many of the 52 disruptors on the Scimitar could be covering specific weapon arcs. For instant the disruptors used to knock out the enterprises warp were probably not forward firing weapons.

Really? They probably weren't forward firing weapons, despite the fact that they were firing on the E-E...why was in front of the Scimitar. Idiot.

The Enterprise was not directly in front of the Scimitar. It was well below and in front. In the picture I had outline weapon arcs that would explain why these weapons did not fire when the Enterprise was directly in front of the Scimitar.

The Scimitar was above and behind the enterprise, clearly seen on the Scimitars main screen, so the ship could not have been directly facing the Enterprise or it would have been getting closer to it.

It could have been flying in a sharp bow down attitude, but yours is the simplest solution. Unless, however, you're suggesting that the Scimitar has only two disruptors on it's belly, and fifty on it's upper surface, it doesn't help your case. Nor does it answer waht all these weapons were doing later in the battle when the Scimitar was aiming head on at the E-E (e.g. when she was firing on the bridge).

My point was to show that at least some, and it could have been more then two, were not facing directly forward. This indicates that other weapons may have arcs facing in other directions then directly forward.

We also can't say for sure how many weapons were fired. We see shots coming from both sides of the screen, so there is at least two. If more disruptors were place on the same horizontal plane it would appear the shots were coming from the same points on the edge of the main view screen.

All the shots were coming from the exact same points. I believe this is true for the majority of the shots fired during the battle, but Rochey's the one who did the detailed analysis so I can't be 100% certain of that.

They did come from exactly the same level on the sides of the view screen. That does not mean they came from the same point.

I don't believe that anyone can say that the shots all come from exactly the points. One the speed of that action and the frame rate of the video would not allow one to see exactly were each shot comes from. Two, the distance between multiply weapons grouped together would be incredibly small when seen on screen.

Captain Seafort wrote:If it's got as many weapons as Worf claimed, then it must have the slowest-charging weapons in Trek. They'd make a Napoleonic gun look like a quick firer.

...only if all of those weapons are in the same arc.

Captain Seafort wrote:If it's got as many weapons as Worf claimed, then it must have the slowest-charging weapons in Trek. They'd make a Napoleonic gun look like a quick firer.

If they had, say, 30 forward-firing, and each one takes forever to recharge, we'd see pretty few shots.

Of course, a smart commander would simply wait until they had all charged, and fire them at once.

...But, as we've discussed, Shinzon wasn't the brightest bulb.

Just a thought.

m52nickerson wrote:So fractions of a second between individual shots means it was not continuous fire. Boy those factions really gave the Enterprise time to breath.

It's not a matter of the effectiveness of the fire, it's a question of whether the number of weapons stated is supported by the evidence. It is not.

Unless each disruptor could not sustain repeated firing, then they may have been rippled fired not fired all at one time.

And these bursts of extrordinary firepower just happened to occur off-screen.

....and just becasue they said it does not mean they are right.

A pity you don't take that attitude to Worf's statement.

It only contradicts the visuals if you assume they are utterly complete, we know they are not.

It directly contradicts the visuals full stop. If you disagree then give me an image showing the Scimitar firing dozens of weapons.

Explained, perhaps you should try to show how my suggestion is not possible instead of just repeating the same tired point.

Ah, I see you don't understand the burden of proof. You are making a positive claim (i.e. that the Scimitar has dozens of weapons). It is up to you to prove that claim, not me be to prove a negative.

The Enterprise was not directly in front of the Scimitar. It was well below and in front. In the picture I had outline weapon arcs that would explain why these weapons did not fire when the Enterprise was directly in front of the Scimitar.

They were firing when the Scimitar made her run against the bridge. The lower hull slopes down steeply enough to allow the belly guns a forward field of fire. I'll ask again.

My point was to show that at least some, and it could have been more then two, were not facing directly forward. This indicates that other weapons may have arcs facing in other directions then directly forward.

They were on the underside of the ship, but they definately part of the forward arc - much like the Defiant's cannon can fire at a fairly steep downward angle as well as directly forwards.

They did come from exactly the same level on the sides of the view screen. That does not mean they came from the same point.

They came from the same level, and they were hitting within metres of each other on the E-E. This is extremely strong evidence that they're the same weapons. Unless you have strong evidence that they're different, the Razor says they're the same weapons.

Captain Seafort wrote:

m52nickerson wrote:So fractions of a second between individual shots means it was not continuous fire. Boy those factions really gave the Enterprise time to breath.

It's not a matter of the effectiveness of the fire, it's a question of whether the number of weapons stated is supported by the evidence. It is not.

Nor is it excluded.

Unless each disruptor could not sustain repeated firing, then they may have been rippled fired not fired all at one time.

And these bursts of extrordinary firepower just happened to occur off-screen.

No, there would be no busts of extrordinary fire power, the shots would still be coming at the same rate, just from other point on the ship.

....and just becasue they said it does not mean they are right.

A pity you don't take that attitude to Worf's statement.

I see no good reason to.

It only contradicts the visuals if you assume they are utterly complete, we know they are not.

It directly contradicts the visuals full stop. If you disagree then give me an image showing the Scimitar firing dozens of weapons.

It only contradicts that parts of the battle we see, and even then grouped weapons could explain this.

Explained, perhaps you should try to show how my suggestion is not possible instead of just repeating the same tired point.

Ah, I see you don't understand the burden of proof. You are making a positive claim (i.e. that the Scimitar has dozens of weapons). It is up to you to prove that claim, not me be to prove a negative.

That would be the case if we were talking about something that existed in the real world. We have a statement by a character in the film that we have no un-disputable reason not to believe.

The Enterprise was not directly in front of the Scimitar. It was well below and in front. In the picture I had outline weapon arcs that would explain why these weapons did not fire when the Enterprise was directly in front of the Scimitar.

They were firing when the Scimitar made her run against the bridge. The lower hull slopes down steeply enough to allow the belly guns a forward field of fire. I'll ask again.

Only if the arc of those weapons follows the slope of the hull, there is no reason they would have to.

My point was to show that at least some, and it could have been more then two, were not facing directly forward. This indicates that other weapons may have arcs facing in other directions then directly forward.

They were on the underside of the ship, but they definately part of the forward arc - much like the Defiant's cannon can fire at a fairly steep downward angle as well as directly forwards.

Which may not be the case for the Scimitars weapons.

They did come from exactly the same level on the sides of the view screen. That does not mean they came from the same point.

They came from the same level, and they were hitting within metres of each other on the E-E. This is extremely strong evidence that they're the same weapons. Unless you have strong evidence that they're different, the Razor says they're the same weapons.

....and the weapons could be a few meters apart on a horizontal plane, which means they would mean that the shots woulds becoming from the same spot on the view screen.

It's simple. Claiming that there are not 52 distruptors contradicts the evidence. Climing that the Scimitar can't power all of its weapons its completly supported by all the evidence. So bottom line is that Seafort and Rochey are wrong.

Captain Seafort wrote: It's not a matter of the effectiveness of the fire, it's a question of whether the number of weapons stated is supported by the evidence. It is not.

Nor is it excluded.

Actualy, it is. On at least two occasions, Shinzon explicitly orders "fire all disruptor banks". As I've already stated, we see the same handful of weapons continue to fire. By simple logic, we can therefore conclude that what we saw was the Scimitar's full armament firing.

And these bursts of extrordinary firepower just happened to occur off-screen.

No, there would be no busts of extrordinary fire power, the shots would still be coming at the same rate, just from other point on the ship.

And do you have any actual evidence that this happened?

A pity you don't take that attitude to Worf's statement.

I see no good reason to.

So you're willing to disregard one statement from a character when it damages your position, but are just fine with holding onto a statement that is contradicted by everything we see when it helps your position?

It directly contradicts the visuals full stop. If you disagree then give me an image showing the Scimitar firing dozens of weapons.

It only contradicts that parts of the battle we see, and even then grouped weapons could explain this.

It's already been pointed out numerous times that the likelyhood of 52 weapons being grouped around 6 hardpoints is about nill, not to mention the stupidity of designing a ship with all your guns clustered so close together.

And also, the idea that something can only be contradictory if we see everything that happened is incredibly foolish. By this logic, I can claim that the Borg engaged the ships at Wolf 359 with spring-launched exploding purple unicorns, and have just as much basis for that claim as you do for yours.

Ah, I see you don't understand the burden of proof. You are making a positive claim (i.e. that the Scimitar has dozens of weapons). It is up to you to prove that claim, not me be to prove a negative.

That would be the case if we were talking about something that existed in the real world. We have a statement by a character in the film that we have no un-disputable reason not to believe.

I don't think you understand how suspension of disbelief works.
To help us analyze what we see, we treat the shows as if they are real. Ie, we assume the visuals to be documentary footage, shot by someone who was there. Similarly, we treat any canon novels/manuals as though they are history books based on the subject.

Let me give you an example:
Let's say you're watching a documentary on some WW2 naval battle, which has lots of footage from the battle shown on it. One USN ship finds an IJN ship, and the US ship's tacitcal officer inspects the Japanese ship through his binoculars. After a thorough inspection, he turns to the captain and reports "the ship is armed with 52 cannons".
Later, you see lots of footage of the two ships actualy engaging each other in combat. While watching, you note that only six guns can be seen, and only that amount fire.

Now, after watching this footage, would you conclude that the ship did have 52 guns, but were probably grouped too close together to tell them apart, or would you conclude that the tactical officer messed up for whatever reason?

Burden of Proof most certainly does apply in this instance, and you must prove the existance of those 52 guns.

They were firing when the Scimitar made her run against the bridge. The lower hull slopes down steeply enough to allow the belly guns a forward field of fire. I'll ask again.

Only if the arc of those weapons follows the slope of the hull, there is no reason they would have to.

Yes, there is a reason: it's called "maximizing the field of fire of your guns".

They were on the underside of the ship, but they definately part of the forward arc - much like the Defiant's cannon can fire at a fairly steep downward angle as well as directly forwards.

Which may not be the case for the Scimitars weapons.

It fits what we see, and thus it is the most likely conclusion.

They came from the same level, and they were hitting within metres of each other on the E-E. This is extremely strong evidence that they're the same weapons. Unless you have strong evidence that they're different, the Razor says they're the same weapons.

....and the weapons could be a few meters apart on a horizontal plane, which means they would mean that the shots woulds becoming from the same spot on the view screen.[/quote]

Which is an extremely stupid way of designing a warship. You do not cluster all your weapons together. So either the designers of the Scimitar were chronicaly retarded, or those were the same weapons.

Rochey wrote: Actualy, it is. On at least two occasions, Shinzon explicitly orders "fire all disruptor banks". As I've already stated, we see the same handful of weapons continue to fire. By simple logic, we can therefore conclude that what we saw was the Scimitar's full armament firing.

Did we see the aft weapons fire, no the Enterprise was not in that arc. Did we see the disruptors fire from all point simultaneously, no it was staggered.

And do you have any actual evidence that this happened?

No, but it makes sense out of the visuals and Worf's statements.

So you're willing to disregard one statement from a character when it damages your position, but are just fine with holding onto a statement that is contradicted by everything we see when it helps your position?

I have yet to see and reason to to believe Worf's statements.

It's already been pointed out numerous times that the likelyhood of 52 weapons being grouped around 6 hardpoints is about nill, not to mention the stupidity of designing a ship with all your guns clustered so close together.

Only a few have said they are limited to 6 points, just because those are the points we see firing does not mean there could have been more. Did we see the Enterprise fire weapons from every Phaser Bank or Torpedo tube? No, it would not be stupid if those weapons cycled through a fire pattern. That would allow each weapon to charge, fire, then cool down so each group of weapons could fire for long periods and not overheat and exhaust themselves. You know like what happened to the Enterprises Phasers.

And also, the idea that something can only be contradictory if we see everything that happened is incredibly foolish. By this logic, I can claim that the Borg engaged the ships at Wolf 359 with spring-launched exploding purple unicorns, and have just as much basis for that claim as you do for yours.

.....or the Enterprise only had 20 torpedoes. Of course I never heard a tactical analysis that stated that the Borg had spring-launched exploding purple unicorns.

I don't think you understand how suspension of disbelief works.
To help us analyze what we see, we treat the shows as if they are real. Ie, we assume the visuals to be documentary footage, shot by someone who was there. Similarly, we treat any canon novels/manuals as though they are history books based on the subject.

Let me give you an example:
Let's say you're watching a documentary on some WW2 naval battle, which has lots of footage from the battle shown on it. One USN ship finds an IJN ship, and the US ship's tacitcal officer inspects the Japanese ship through his binoculars. After a thorough inspection, he turns to the captain and reports "the ship is armed with 52 cannons".
Later, you see lots of footage of the two ships actualy engaging each other in combat. While watching, you note that only six guns can be seen, and only that amount fire.

Now, after watching this footage, would you conclude that the ship did have 52 guns, but were probably grouped too close together to tell them apart, or would you conclude that the tactical officer messed up for whatever reason?

Burden of Proof most certainly does apply in this instance, and you must prove the existance of those 52 guns.

The problem is, in the real world we can find blueprints of the ships, study other ships of that class. Not to mention that sensors would be just a more accurate then binoculars.

Even with the suspension of disbelief, we would still be having this argument. Our information on the Scimitar and the battle is incomplete and thous open to interpretation.

Yes, there is a reason: it's called "maximizing the field of fire of your guns".

I guess you would have to do that if you had only 6 weapons. With 52 it give you more options.

It fits what we see, and thus it is the most likely conclusion.

Ignoring that fact that the Defiant was a very small ship build be the federation and the Scimitar was of Reman design and larger than anything the Federation has built.

Which is an extremely stupid way of designing a warship. You do not cluster all your weapons together. So either the designers of the Scimitar were chronicaly retarded, or those were the same weapons.

You do if you want those individual weapons to act as a single weapon. Again, it would allow each disruptor to fire, then cool down and recharge, before having to fire again. It give you the ability to fire those point over and over without fear of over heating them.

mlsnoopy wrote:It's simple. Claiming that there are not 52 distruptors contradicts the evidence.

No it doesn't. Claiming "Worf never said there were 52" would contradict the evidence; claiming that he made that statement but was inaccurate does not.

m52nickerson wrote:Did we see the aft weapons fire, no the Enterprise was not in that arc. Did we see the disruptors fire from all point simultaneously, no it was staggered.

Not firing weapons that cannot hit your opponent is common sense. Not firing weapons that can hit your opponent because you feel like it, or because you think your commander meant something other than he actually ordered is insubordination.

And do you have any actual evidence that this happened?

No

Concession accepted.

it makes sense out of the visuals and Worf's statements.

You're making crap up just because you can't accept that Worf might have been wrong.

I have yet to see and reason to to believe Worf's statements.

Why don't you open your eyes then? Watch the battle. Then you'll see plenty of evidence.

just because those are the points we see firing does not mean there could have been more.

The possibility certainly exists. Would, however, be stupid, there's no evidence other than Worf's single line, no suggestion that the weapons are grouped in tight batteries, and without such evidence to assume they exist violates parsimony.

Did we see the Enterprise fire weapons from every Phaser Bank or Torpedo tube?

Yes - in sequence, firing as each bank or launcher came to bear, from distinct points on the ship's hull. None of which we saw from the Scimitar.

...or the Enterprise only had 20 torpedoes.

Nobody's ever claimed we saw the entire battle. What we're pointing out is the stupidity of assuming that the Scimitar was only firing all her weapons when we weren't watching her.

Of course I never heard a tactical analysis that stated that the Borg had spring-launched exploding purple unicorns.

Exactly - there's as much evidence for it as your claims that the Scimitar had incredibly tightly-grouped batteries, or a pathetic RoF, or the tactical officer ignored Shinzon's direct order, or that she was only firing full weapons when we weren't watching her.

The problem is, in the real world we can find blueprints of the ships, study other ships of that class.

Depends on the ship. If it's the Yamato, for example, you wouldn't have any previous experience whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that Rochey's entire point sailed clean over your head.

Not to mention that sensors would be just a more accurate then binoculars.

Sensors can be fooled pretty easilly. Fooling the mark 1 eyeball is a damn sight harder.

Even with the suspension of disbelief, we would still be having this argument. Our information on the Scimitar and the battle is incomplete and thous open to interpretation.

Even if we'd seen the entire battle, without breaks, from start to finish, we'd still have to interpret what we saw. Occam's Razor is a vital part of that analysis, and you're completely ignoring it.

I guess you would have to do that if you had only 6 weapons. With 52 it give you more options.

Yes you would. If you had 52 guns. Which there's no evidence of the Scimitar having.

Ignoring that fact that the Defiant was a very small ship build be the federation and the Scimitar was of Reman design and larger than anything the Federation has built.

Irrelevent. The Defiant shows that apparently fixed-axis weapons have quite a wide field of fire. Ignoring that evidence simply because it contradicts your conclusion is both stupid and dishonest.

You do if you want those individual weapons to act as a single weapon. Again, it would allow each disruptor to fire, then cool down and recharge, before having to fire again. It give you the ability to fire those point over and over without fear of over heating them.

And it means that a single hit can disable dozens of weapons, severely reducing your ship's firepower. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons". All. Not "one in each cluster".

Captain Seafort wrote: Not firing weapons that cannot hit your opponent is common sense. Not firing weapons that can hit your opponent because you feel like it, or because you think your commander meant something other than he actually ordered is insubordination.

....or those weapon points are not designed to fire every disruptor in a single burst.

Concession accepted.

...but the possibility remains.

You're making crap up just because you can't accept that Worf might have been wrong.

...and you refuse to accept any other idea that would allow Worf's statements to be correct and the visuals to also be. Smaller disruptors groups together, 6-10 large disruptors designed to fire on large ships, with a number of smaller point defense disrutors for smaller ships, not all disruptors being able to fire while cloaked, these are all theories that allow both aspects to be correct.

Why don't you open your eyes then? Watch the battle. Then you'll see plenty of evidence.

I have, and what I see can be explained by any of the theories above better then just, "Worf is wrong!"

The possibility certainly exists. Would, however, be stupid, there's no evidence other than Worf's single line, no suggestion that the weapons are grouped in tight batteries, and without such evidence to assume they exist violates parsimony.

Simplest is not always correct.

Yes - in sequence, firing as each bank or launcher came to bear, from distinct points on the ship's hull. None of which we saw from the Scimitar.

Really, we see the enterprise fire torpedoes from the lower aft torpedo tubes? What about the single tube near the bridge? There are four phaser strips on the nucell pylons did we see all of them fire or just one? There are two small phaser strips on the ventral side of the primary hull just aft of the primary phaser strip, do they fire?

Nobody's ever claimed we saw the entire battle. What we're pointing out is the stupidity of assuming that the Scimitar was only firing all her weapons when we weren't watching her.

....unless those were the only times when those weapons were in a position to hit.

Exactly - there's as much evidence for it as your claims that the Scimitar had incredibly tightly-grouped batteries, or a pathetic RoF, or the tactical officer ignored Shinzon's direct order, or that she was only firing full weapons when we weren't watching her.

Except for the fact that it was stated that the ship had 52 disruptors.

Depends on the ship. If it's the Yamato, for example, you wouldn't have any previous experience whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that Rochey's entire point sailed clean over your head.

Sensors can be fooled pretty easilly. Fooling the mark 1 eyeball is a damn sight harder.

Gun emplacement are pretty easy to spot on a battle ship. Since when are sensors easy to fool?

Even if we'd seen the entire battle, without breaks, from start to finish, we'd still have to interpret what we saw. Occam's Razor is a vital part of that analysis, and you're completely ignoring it.

Occam's Razor only applies when the explanations are equal. This is not the case, there are at least three theories that would explain both the statement made and the visuals. They are superior to your "Worf is wrong" BS.

Yes you would. If you had 52 guns. Which there's no evidence of the Scimitar having.

Accept sensor reading that have yet to be disproven.

Irrelevent. The Defiant shows that apparently fixed-axis weapons have quite a wide field of fire. Ignoring that evidence simply because it contradicts your conclusion is both stupid and dishonest.

No it is comparing apples to oranges.

And it means that a single hit can disable dozens of weapons, severely reducing your ship's firepower. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons". All. Not "one in each cluster".[/quote]Or, as stated that is how those weapon clusters work without some sort of over ride. Plus if you have one weapon in the same position it could be disabled just the same.

We basically have four theories.

1. Worf's statements are incorrect becasue the sensor reading were incorrect or he can't tell the difference between 52 and 6.

2. The disruptors are individually not very large and are grouped together giving the appearance of only a small number of weapons.

3. The Scimitar could not power and fire all of its weapons while cloaked.

4. The Scimitar had 6-10 large disruptors designed to attack large starships like the Enterprise, and a large number of smaller disruptors covering basically every possible arc to defend against smaller ships like the Dominion fighters. I like this on the best seeing that the Scimitar was designed during or after the Dominion war.

m52nickerson wrote:....or those weapon points are not designed to fire every disruptor in a single burst.

If they're incapable of doing so then they're no more separate weapons than the barrels of of a minigun.

...and you refuse to accept any other idea that would allow Worf's statements to be correct and the visuals to also be. Smaller disruptors groups together, 6-10 large disruptors designed to fire on large ships, with a number of smaller point defense disrutors for smaller ships, not all disruptors being able to fire while cloaked, these are all theories that allow both aspects to be correct.

And they all either ignore parsimony, are contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons", or demonstrate an incredibly stupid design.

I have, and what I see can be explained by any of the theories above better then just, "Worf is wrong!"

Of course they can. However, since they theory that Worf's wrong is the simplest solution that fits all the evidence it is preferable to all the others.

Simplest is not always correct.

No. However, if you want to argue that a more complex theory is the correct one then you must provide solid evidence, not ifs, buts and meybes.

Really, we see the enterprise fire torpedoes from the lower aft torpedo tubes? What about the single tube near the bridge? There are four phaser strips on the nucell pylons did we see all of them fire or just one? There are two small phaser strips on the ventral side of the primary hull just aft of the primary phaser strip, do they fire?

All the weapons that bore on the Scimitar were seen firing.

....unless those were the only times when those weapons were in a position to hit.

1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We never saw any others firing, ergo that is evidence that they don't exist.

2) At various points in the battle we saw, every surface of the Scimitar was pointing at the E-E or the Valdores at one point or other.

Except for the fact that it was stated that the ship had 52 disruptors.

Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is directly contradicted by the visual evidence.

Gun emplacement are pretty easy to spot on a battle ship.

The emplacements certainly, the guns, not so much. Especially the secondary and AA batteries - you can tell there's something there, but at range it would be difficult to distinguish the number of barrels.

Since when are sensors easy to fool?

Since Riker (and later Roga Danar) was able to hide from a Tholian ship by cutting power and hanging over a magnetic pole. Since it was suggested that Uxbridge's fake Husnock ship could have been riding a Lagrange point behind a moon.

Occam's Razor only applies when the explanations are equal. This is not the case, there are at least three theories that would explain both the statement made and the visuals. They are superior to your "Worf is wrong" BS.

The Razor applies universally - if several explanations all fit the available evidence, the one with the fewest entities is the most preferable. No ifs, no buts.

Accept sensor reading that have yet to be disproven.

I do. I don't accept sesnor reading that are contradicted by visual evidence.

No it is comparing apples to oranges.

Prove it.

Or, as stated that is how those weapon clusters work without some sort of over ride.

The number of entities is this theory are multiplying exponentially. The Razor bins it.

Plus if you have one weapon in the same position it could be disabled just the same.

Correct. The other dozen or more would, however, be elsewhere, and would not be disabled. If they existed.

1. Worf's statements are incorrect becasue the sensor reading were incorrect or he can't tell the difference between 52 and 6.

It fits the available evidence, and does not require additional entities. Therefore it is preferable to the others.

2. The disruptors are individually not very large and are grouped together giving the appearance of only a small number of weapons.

It assumes multiple disruptors, despite the same visuals being consistent with a single weapon. The additional entities mean the Razor rejects it.

3. The Scimitar could not power and fire all of its weapons while cloaked.

Which would be contrary to one of the ship's primary roles - to be able to fight under cloak. There's no point in having dozens of extra weapons if they're useless under the conditions the ship was designed to operate under.

4. The Scimitar had 6-10 large disruptors designed to attack large starships like the Enterprise, and a large number of smaller disruptors covering basically every possible arc to defend against smaller ships like the Dominion fighters. I like this on the best seeing that the Scimitar was designed during or after the Dominion war.

Again, this requires multiplies entities, so the Razor rejects it. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's order to "fire all weapons".

...And this entire argument boils back to the fact that the ILM crew didn't do their jobs right. I guess they didn't read the script.

Captain Seafort wrote:

m52nickerson wrote:....or those weapon points are not designed to fire every disruptor in a single burst.

If they're incapable of doing so then they're no more separate weapons than the barrels of of a minigun.

Except for the fact that a minigun only has one firing mechanism.

...and you refuse to accept any other idea that would allow Worf's statements to be correct and the visuals to also be. Smaller disruptors groups together, 6-10 large disruptors designed to fire on large ships, with a number of smaller point defense disrutors for smaller ships, not all disruptors being able to fire while cloaked, these are all theories that allow both aspects to be correct.

And they all either ignore parsimony, are contradicted by Shinzon's "fire all weapons", or demonstrate an incredibly stupid design.

That has been explained, you just ignore it.

I have, and what I see can be explained by any of the theories above better then just, "Worf is wrong!"

Of course they can. However, since they theory that Worf's wrong is the simplest solution that fits all the evidence it is preferable to all the others.

No not all the evidence, the sensor scan and Worf's statements are part of the evidence.

Simplest is not always correct.

No. However, if you want to argue that a more complex theory is the correct one then you must provide solid evidence, not ifs, buts and meybes.

The sensor scan and Worf's statements are solid evidence.

Really, we see the enterprise fire torpedoes from the lower aft torpedo tubes? What about the single tube near the bridge? There are four phaser strips on the nucell pylons did we see all of them fire or just one? There are two small phaser strips on the ventral side of the primary hull just aft of the primary phaser strip, do they fire?

All the weapons that bore on the Scimitar were seen firing.

I could say prove it, but then I would sound like you.

....unless those were the only times when those weapons were in a position to hit.

1) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We never saw any others firing, ergo that is evidence that they don't exist.

The statement = evidence.

2) At various points in the battle we saw, every surface of the Scimitar was pointing at the E-E or the Valdores at one point or other.

Funny you can tell this since the ship was clocked.

Except for the fact that it was stated that the ship had 52 disruptors.

Which, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is directly contradicted by the visual evidence.

3 Theories explain this quite well.

Gun emplacement are pretty easy to spot on a battle ship.

The emplacements certainly, the guns, not so much. Especially the secondary and AA batteries - you can tell there's something there, but at range it would be difficult to distinguish the number of barrels.

So the numbers may b wrong if the weapons were smaller, interesting!

Since when are sensors easy to fool?

Since Riker (and later Roga Danar) was able to hide from a Tholian ship by cutting power and hanging over a magnetic pole. Since it was suggested that Uxbridge's fake Husnock ship could have been riding a Lagrange point behind a moon.

Yes add a planet or a moon at it all becomes simple!

Occam's Razor only applies when the explanations are equal. This is not the case, there are at least three theories that would explain both the statement made and the visuals. They are superior to your "Worf is wrong" BS.

The Razor applies universally - if several explanations all fit the available evidence, the one with the fewest entities is the most preferable. No ifs, no buts.

Evidence the statement is!

Accept sensor reading that have yet to be disproven.

I do. I don't accept sesnor reading that are contradicted by visual evidence.

Accept it is only contradicted in your explanation.

No it is comparing apples to oranges.

Prove it.

I already did, different type of ship, different types of weapons, different designers, different builder.

Or, as stated that is how those weapon clusters work without some sort of over ride.

The number of entities is this theory are multiplying exponentially. The Razor bins it.

Until you start adding reasons why the sensors misread the number of weapons, what was it some type of dampening field? Or you explain how Worf''s said 52 and then in the next few seconds did not correct himself.

Plus if you have one weapon in the same position it could be disabled just the same.

Correct. The other dozen or more would, however, be elsewhere, and would not be disabled. If they existed.

Same for the other groups of weapons.

1. Worf's statements are incorrect becasue the sensor reading were incorrect or he can't tell the difference between 52 and 6.

It fits the available evidence, and does not require additional entities. Therefore it is preferable to the others.

The statement and the sensor reading are.........well you get it.

2. The disruptors are individually not very large and are grouped together giving the appearance of only a small number of weapons.

It assumes multiple disruptors, despite the same visuals being consistent with a single weapon. The additional entities mean the Razor rejects it.

You missed "giving the apperance of".

3. The Scimitar could not power and fire all of its weapons while cloaked.

Which would be contrary to one of the ship's primary roles - to be able to fight under cloak. There's no point in having dozens of extra weapons if they're useless under the conditions the ship was designed to operate under.

Unless those conditions are changed by the enemy or outside conditions. The BOP that could fire while cloaked did not have any type of backup system and look what happened to it.

4. The Scimitar had 6-10 large disruptors designed to attack large starships like the Enterprise, and a large number of smaller disruptors covering basically every possible arc to defend against smaller ships like the Dominion fighters. I like this on the best seeing that the Scimitar was designed during or after the Dominion war.

Again, this requires multiplies entities, so the Razor rejects it. It's also contradicted by Shinzon's order to "fire all weapons".

No it does not contradict Shinzon's order. If a captain of a modern battle ship orders all guns fire on an other ship the crew will not start firing its anti-aircraft weapons also. The Remen tactical officer is not a simple automaton.

I guess you can figure out my answer to your razor dance.