[THE DC]

Now, before you think that I have completed lost track of this thread’s purpose, (hijacking my own thread) let me suggest, that in this time of instant images and text, we all might be a little cautious before accepting that our “facts” are factual. If a historic benchmark of naval history can be even more misrepresented in popular access than a fifty year old, fictional device to inspire the imagination, then our being suspicious and judicious in our conclusions might be well warranted.


I know that there are countless other inaccuracies in our public consciousness. From the public historic perception of what the fabric of the Hindenburg actually looked like to the inaccurate conceptualization of molecular shape, I wonder how these inaccuracies might be more harmful than of mere Trivial Pursuit detail scores. These misunderstandings can influence perception and even limit the effort to learn more. We think we know, so we stop looking. We think we understand, so we stop searching. We think we have enough information, so we stop listening. In an age of acerbic tribal politics and social-media promoted schema, maybe this little exercise, to share details of a studio model, can illustrate an even deeper understanding of the nature of truth; the seeking of it requires constant diligence and repeated verification.


Well, Mr. Roddenberry liked to promote thinking more than to relate strongly held convictions; something from which more recent incarnations of Star Trek have deviated. I’ll post some more images soon but I had to wax a bit philosophical about just how misinformed we can be, and that it can be due to agenda-driven propaganda or to honest error that becomes more cherished than truth.